If the target is an Apache then the first target engaged will be the apache, followed by any weapons it might have launched. The initial velocity of the SA-19 in the Tunguska-M1 is 1,200m/s and it has an effective range of 10km. Velocity loss for the missile is listed as 40m/s/s so it would reach 10km range in about 10 seconds.

A range of 8km for the apache is very unlikely. Smoke and haze on the battlefield badly effect the range at which the apache can designate targets with lasers. There might be another helicopter there to do the designation but if it must remain visible for the entire flight of the missile you don’t need a slide rule to work out its life span.

How will the apache designate for 4 hellfires? Or do you mean a flight of 4 Apaches firing one missile each and self designating the target.

If a single apache fired two hellfires I would be impressed. With a flight of 4 Apaches that would be 8 missiles for four tunguskas. I would expect the standard response would be to fire their first missile at the helo, with the two others engaging 2 of the hellfires. When they are all smoking they would likely use their guns to bring down the remaining 4 weapons, but then when the Apaches are destroyed so is the semi active laser source so all launched hellfires become unguided and will probably self destruct as a safety measure.

I believe the Apache Longbow can fire multiple fire-and-forget Hellfires through battlefield smoke, which allows the use of rapid pop-up tactics against multiple targets that can be pre-designated from behind terrain cover. My calculation assumed that the pilot would not be using such tactics.

But even with the old laser-guided ones, why do you say that the Apache could not fire more than 2? Sure, it can only laser-designate one target at a time, but they do have the ability to ripple-fire Hellfires at the same target. This ability would be essential if the Tunguska battery was to be successfully overwhelmed.

My calculation assumed 1 Apache and 1 Tunguska, but as you say, 4 Apaches vs. 6 Tunguska would be more realistic since a full battery of Tunguskas complete with data post is required to properly protect a valuable battlefield asset.

HARMs are no guarantee that it will shut down a ground network.

True … you might need ALARMs … :diablo: 😉

“Saturate”?

An SDB comes in at what, 100kts?

If a ZSU radar (or heck, slave it to the radar on the S-400) detects the SDBs 5 miles away [don’t forget, the SDB cannot come in below the terrrain, so 5 miles is VERY conservative] that gives it about 160 seconds.

A ZSU-23-4 can pump out around 4000 rounds in 60 seconds (an example of firing rate – don’t assume that is the only system I refer to). So… how many SDBs do you reckon you’d need to saturate a S-400 battery with a couple of ZSUs in attendance? I’ll leave you to do the maths and look as smart as you want.

Depends on how long the ZSU takes to acquire each target, destroy it, verify its destruction, and acquire the next target. Not sure how firing rate is relevant to the calculation.

Thus proving that bombs and shells are obsolete … 😉

Michael Schumacher did a bit better against the Typhoon but then he had a faster ride. 😉

Yep, here’s the vid in case anyone missed that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUruFwWEz4k

Now all we need is Gripen vs. Volvo!! :diablo:

But dammit, when are we going to get the definitive answer? I can’t stand the suspense any more!!!

Sounds like a good idea to me.

A good example of this French habit was their withdrawal from the multi-national Eurofighter project when they were out-voted on the size/weight of the eventual design, which prevented it operating from the planned French carriers. Having withdrawn, France then went off in a huff and funded the Rafale, designed exactly to suit the French requirement, regardless of cost and the unlikely prospect of export orders.

I used to think this, but was corrected by many members of this board. As a result of their well-argued comments (not to mention EVIDENCE), I was able to change my mind.

Why can’t you?