Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

Seriously? :(

Its got a radar so it wouldn't surprise me if it does.

Its got a radar so it wouldn't surprise me if it does.

edit: I just realized you meant the Tung. I guess. so nevermind.

Yep, it's a relatively new system and capable of engaging ARMs, which means mavericks too (it's an easier target)

This means you might have to get tricky - eg. 'double-tap' it or have two aircraft launch on it simultaneously.

During the NATO intervention (1999) over Serbia and Montenegro, Serbian AAA's were shooting down tomahawks and other slower moving missles - but I dont know the accuracy ratio.

That doesnt suprise me. Tomahawks move relatively slow, not even breaking the sound barrier. Mavricks are a bit more suprising.

Mavericks are even slower than tomahawks (but they're also quite a bit smaller)

On the other hand, you have to consider the fact that they will be engaged at close range, so detection isn't all that unlikely.

Mavericks are even slower than tomahawks

?

-SK

Mavericks are even slower than tomahawks (but they're also quite a bit smaller)

 

On the other hand, you have to consider the fact that they will be engaged at close range, so detection isn't all that unlikely.

Mavericks are supersonic. I don't recall the exact top speed, but I know that its booster accelerates the missile past Mach 1 before it burns out.

Yup, AGM-65s are supersonic, their top speed of course...is classified. Its such a small target also that I would have to file its successful interception by AAA or SAMs under "possible but not likely." Especially considering sensor limitations and human reaction times. Remember, the Maverick also has a MUCH shorter flight duration than a TLAM. Why would someone build a missile for engaging ARMs and take that capability seriously? Do they not know how to distort their side-lobes? I think there is some rather fanciful public speculation about IADS capabilities out there. ;)

Edit: I just realized the Tunguska also has the 30mm. Slightly more likely if they don't mind burning a whole bunch of ammo, like a vehicle-mounted CIWS.

Yup, AGM-65s are supersonic, their top speed of course...is classified. Its such a small target also that I would have to file its successful interception by AAA or SAMs under "possible but not likely." Especially considering sensor limitations and human reaction times. Remember, the Maverick also has a MUCH shorter flight duration than a TLAM. Why would someone build a missile for engaging ARMs and take that capability seriously? Do they not know how to distort their side-lobes? I think there is some rather fanciful public speculation about IADS capabilities out there. ;)

There's also some very un-fanciful military testimony out there, too.

Edit: I just realized the Tunguska also has the 30mm. Slightly more likely if they don't mind burning a whole bunch of ammo, like a vehicle-mounted CIWS.

Edit: I just realized the Tunguska also has the 30mm. Slightly more likely if they don't mind burning a whole bunch of ammo, like a vehicle-mounted CIWS.

How does that make it more likely? It should give it more destructive force but a lower rate of fire, like Russian fighter 30 mm vs US 23 mm. The opposite of what you'd want, I'd think.

-SK

How does that make it more likely? It should give it more destructive force but a lower rate of fire, like Russian fighter 30 mm vs US 23 mm. The opposite of what you'd want, I'd think.

 

-SK

SK, Russian aircraft usually use 23 and 30, American use 20 and 30. (Just ribbing you...I know it was a typo :D ). I'm just saying that a radar directed, automatic cannon would have a better chance of hitting a small, incoming, supersonic missile than a single radar-guided SAM. So, yes, its more likely, but its all relative. Lets just say its chances are slightly higher than those of a snowball in hell. ;) There's always the golden BB though. ;)

There's also some very un-fanciful military testimony out there, too.

About their Mavericks being intercepted by Tunguskas? :confused:

There's always the golden BB though. ;)

Apperently, all the BBs in the Crimean are made of gold. You need to flood the target to get Mavs through. At least, so far.

And it's not just Tungs. Strelas take them down too.

Yes it can.Stop moaning :)

You too,it doesn't have to have a slower rate of fire.

How does that make it more likely? It should give it more destructive force but a lower rate of fire, like Russian fighter 30 mm vs US 23 mm.

http://rusarm.ru/p_video/v_files/tungm1.wmv

Hmm... Well, apparently the Tung's cannon can fire at combined rate of around 5,000 RPM, which would put them on par w/ a Phalanx. Point!

Nice movie. No Mavs though.

Do you have one of Strelas not shooting down Mavs too?

BTW, in 1.11 it's not the cannon killing the mavs, it's the missles. At least in the 6 or 8 that I've seen.

Moan moan... :P

Isn't there a naval version of the Tung ... used as a CIWS?

Hmm... Well, apparently the Tung's cannon can fire at combined rate of around 5,000 RPM, which would put them on par w/ a Phalanx. Point!

Actually, CADS-N-1 system (Kashtan) used on Kuznetsov and some other Russian ships as CIWS is almost the same system as Tunguska, except it has two Gatling guns, instead of 2 twin 30 mm as Tunguska has. So, if the same missiles are good enough for point blank ASM missiles defence, I don't see why it couldn't shoot down a Maverick missile if it comes from the same direction which is being searched..

I'm not an AD expert, but that sounds very strange to me. And if it happens with SAMs it sounds even much stranger!

I'm not saying that a Tunguska (which is a very capable system) in some trials could not shoot down incoming AGMs like Mavericks, yet I think in RL it's not gonna happen that much.

Tomahawks and ARMs are completely different things compared to Mavericks. Tomahawks are more like small aircraft which fly in TF profiles, but they fly for a long time so they can be intercepted by a working IADS and thus an AA site in its path may be alerted.

ARMs are easier to spot because sometimes SEAD aircraft try to catch the AD's attention, to make them emit in their direction and to fire ARMs "down the throat" (in self-defense mode).

Anyway, while Tomahawks are large and relatively slow, ARMs are small and usually very fast. AGMs are not as fast as ARMs but they usually are even smaller. Then you must consider gunners' reaction times and the fact that acquiring, identifying and engaging such a small target with a battle raging out there, would be extremely difficult. If the radar was able to acquire mavericks, it would probably see also bombs and AAMs launched/dropped by any other aircraft, so how would the crew react?

If I were a gunner in a AD system and I see something coming out of the wings of a tracked enemy aircraft pointing at me, I'd shut down my radar and hope that it's and ARM which can lose track of its target.

Shilkas and Tunguska are expensive and important battle assets, so I don't think they would be wasted in engaging AGMs.

And even if you invoke the "self defense" theory, most of the times, even if a Tunguska detected an incoming AGM, it would be impossible to determine who it's directed against!

So if ED didn't implement this feature, I'd have been happier.

Actually, CADS-N-1 system (Kashtan) used on Kuznetsov and some other Russian ships as CIWS is almost the same system as Tunguska, except it has two Gatling guns, instead of 2 twin 30 mm as Tunguska has. So, if the same missiles are good enough for point blank ASM missiles defence, I don't see why it couldn't shoot down a Maverick missile if it comes from the same direction which is being searched..

CIWS work in a different way than AD do. CIWS' job is to intercept missiles aimed against the ship they have to defend, while ADs usually engage aircraft flying over the FLOT. I think that their systems/radars also reflect their job.

I fear this way the game is really loosing consistency. Any sensible person just knows that tunguska's firing down Mavericks is BS. it could be a once-in-a-liftetime luck, but not a persistent capability.

The performance of Mavericks in the known conflicts of reference is crystal clear.

I could imagine very recent tunguska's would sport a Phalanx-like capability (requiring comparable ultra-sophisticated fire control, huge processing power and extremely powerfull servo motors), but then we' re again faced with the total lack of clear historic timeframe for this game:

On the one hand we fly F-15C's with totally nostalgic avionics of the early eighties (I like to fly vintage fighters) without even a proper HSD, we fly Mavericks with even less then AGM-65B specs and on the other we have Su-25T of which how many again are in effective use by the Russian air force?, we hope that the 18 or what Su-33's are still airworthy and face Tunguska's with interstellar performance.

Im just wondering what chance of survival A-10 has right now... Thats right zero. Before, you could destroy Strela or even Tunguska with Maverick now thats not possible?!? Strela shooting down AGM? Thats f..... bullshit. I know modern AD system have anti-AGM capability, but Strela is anything but modern. How on earth would it destroy missile if it doesnt have radar? With EO or IR system? And target is very small and fast? 0% chance. Serbs had plenty Strelas, AAA etc... but i never heard they managed to shoot down Maverick class missiles. If this was the case flying A-10 would be suicidal, it would have no defense against short range sams. To bad that they implemented this feature because otherwise patch is great.