So its well known that SAM have shorter ceiling reach than horizontal travel because of gravity and aerodynamic factors, the range “bubble” isn’t a perfect sphere with a fixed diameter, but in game it seems like Gaijin has modeled it so.
I did a bit of testing with Roland, VT and using the AI ADATS on the test drive, its clear that missiles in game travel vertically as far as they do horizontally, which is very wrong afaik and i have never seen anyone bring up this very shoddy modeling of missile physics.
1 Like
Its modelled. Missiles are physical simulated objects, gravity, drag, etc
But typically the limits of these kinds of SAMs are guidance ones, not how far the missile can physically reach
Range limit of the launchers ability to track the missile, limits of guidance battery life, etc
So they can reach much further horizontally than vertically, they often just lose guidance before that ever becomes a consideration
For example, the Osa-AKM. Ballistically the missile could reach more around 15km horizontally, but the launcher loses track of the missile at ~10.3km
4 Likes
Yes but not exactly for the reason you may think of
The reason the ceiling is so low for most missiles (20-30km usually) is the lack of air for them to maneuver up there, only specialized ones with side thruster can go to stratosphere or even outter space. This max ceiling is usually given by the manufacturer as a reasonable altitude you can hit a target at (and so where the missile has to behave according to specs). Most long range missiles can go much higher however, it’s just that they will be useless up there, basically forced to fly on a ballistic trajectory because no air for the fins to do their job
as for the max range, long range SAMs will adopt a semi-ballistic trajectory (loft), use thin air to cruise and GPE to dive down on their target with enough terminal velocity to still be a threat
On a short range SACLOS SAMs, this doesn’t really apply :
- they don’t loft, they just follow the LOS
- they don’t have enough reach to go at those altitudes, except for Pantsir SM-SV, but i suspect the missile would get despawned upon reaching the map limit (32km) assuming it can go that high
As for gravity slowing down missiles faster than drag, that depends i would say.
Fire a missile on a near horizontal trajectory and see how fast it decelerates (usually, in game it will be between 2 and 5g depending on the missile)
Deceleration due to gravity for a missile going vertical would basically be 1g, then add to that deceleration due to drag. Unlike the missile with a horizontal trajectory however, the one going vertical will meet less air resistance as it climbs up
2 Likes
I understand the idea of very-long-range SAMs, losing guidance at very high altitude because they do not use thrusters for maneuvering like things like the PAC-3.
My concern is about why most sources for short-range SACLOS systems specify a service ceiling or maximum altitude that is usually only around 50–75% of their listed range.
For example, every source I could find for the Roland 3 lists a 6 km ceiling, while ADATS is usually listed at 7 km. However, in-game, when fired straight upward at 90 degrees, both missiles can reach their maximum stat-card range in altitude.
How are you firing a roland 90° up? None of the roland launchers can do vertical.
max altitude at max range i would assume
Different interpretations possible for those sources tbh
It’s 80 degrees so not much of a difference, still flies up to around 8km altitude, if i remember correctly something like 7.7km
It’s honestly fucked up that other nations get the better roland launchers. France only gets the Roland 1 launcher that goes up to a measly 35°
Why would, for example, a Roland 3 lose guidance at 6 km vertically, or ADATS at 7 km? Sources often cite those figures as their engagement ceilings, while also listing horizontal ranges of 8 km and 10 km respectively.
France should get a “late” variant with tracking radar and full elevation access, afaik the one we have was an early version put in service before guidance radar was ready so elevation was limited to that of the optical tracker.
Engagement ceilings aren’t maximum possible ceilings, they’re more about practical effectiveness
If we are talking about practical effectiveness rather than maximum reach, then both the horizontal and vertical values should be lower, because at maximum range the missile would no longer have enough energy to track a fast or agile target. There is no indication that the quoted ceiling or altitude figures refer to practical engagement range, so I assume the numbers given are maximum reach, limited by guidance, fuel, and onboard battery life.
I am not an aerospace engineer, but as I understand it, horizontal range is greater because the missile can coast farther and loses speed more slowly after motor burnout. By contrast, if it is travelling vertically, it should lose speed much more rapidly after burnout, and therefore reach a shorter distance. It is similar to throwing a paper plane straight up versus throwing it forward. This gravity-induced deceleration difference does not seem to be modelled.
Yeah I am aware. The fact the manufacturer of the system gets the worst one and everyone else gets the better one is insane.
You’re mixing up different metrics here. I’ll use the Osa-AKM for example, 9M33M3 missile, but other SAMs will often have similar scenarios
Its maximum horizontal ballistic range, as far as it can physically reach, is around 15km
The maximum guidance range though is ~10.3km
It has the spare energy, just not the guidance range. Which means even with vertical targets, its maximum possible altitude can get close or even exceed the 10.3km guidance limit, just less than the 15km.
That said, its effective engagement altitude is ~5km. Because at 5km altitude, air pressure is about 50% which is a significant reduction in the effectiveness of the control surfaces. By 10km, its about 25% air pressure.
So the maximum horizontal range of SAMs is not necessarily its maximum possible horizontal glide range, since the guidance tends to cut out early. The missile is slower and much less effective out at those distances anyway, so there’s usually not much point increasing the guidance range.
Which is true, to a degree, but like UNN_Daedalos said, the deceleration from gravity tends to be a smaller factor than drag. And the drag factor decreases with altitude.
So the missiles can still physically reach close to their guidance limits, even vertically.
shot in the dark here but the sources might be accounting for lethal range, not absolute range.
absolute range of any and all weapons is always higher than its lethal range
1 Like