Common MANPADS Min Target Altitudes

[PygmalionOfCyprus]

Name	Minimum effective Altitude (m)
HN-5	50
Matra Mistral SATCP	15
RBS 70	ground-level
SA-16 'Gimlet'	10
SA-14 'Gremlin', Strela-3	10
SA-7b (Strela-2M/9K32M)	50 (can be down to 15 m but missile may be seduced by horizon and ground radiative heat effects)
Shorts Javelin	10
Shorts Blowpipe	10
FIM-92 Stinger	effectively ground level
FIM-43 Redeye	effectively ground level

Cullen, T., Foss, C. F., & Jane's Information Group. (1992). Jane's land-based air defence, 1992-93. Coulsdon, Eng: Jane's Information Group

Originally posted by @claudejdev in https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cmo-db-requests/issues/880#issuecomment-1090885445

[KLABDB3K]

It's s an opinion but really, Redeye "near ground level"? .This seems like it needs some caveats and further checks. Janes is giving a system thats a good twenty years older than the Igla/clones of Igla etc better performance which smacks of taking the best possible performance of one system and using the real world "most of the time" performance of another. As an aside Mistral 2 ship launched from Sadral etc have a demonstrated capability against small surface vessels so its seems to be more a case of the contrast between the target and the background not just the altitude. I'll try and find some figures from a wider set of sources.

[claudejdev]

Sure, it has to be taken with a spoon-full of salt. I have more recent sources on their way. They seem to circumnavigate the whole globe by foot, though. I think its merit is to spark a discussion, as it may seem the manpads might generally be more capable than the figures we have may suggest.

[PygmalionOfCyprus]

It's also worth noting that in Command aircraft will only, at an absolute minimum, be flying ~30m ASL (that's with the Terrain Following flag). So the distinction between "15m," "10m," "ground level," and "effectively ground level" is really theoretical.

I'm still in favor of updating the DB to be as accurate as possible in these cases (both for reference and for supporting future features) but something to keep in mind before worrying too much about a couple meters difference in min target altitude between platforms.

[bostonmyk]

Hi All. Just FYI I am a technical writer for a defense contractor in real life. Take or leave what I got to say.

Ok, it's true to say that stats are optimistic and it is probably sales influencing it. However free markets with competition correct this. First, the competition points bs out but more critically, the users find out and quickly push back. You don't want any large buyer questioning your honesty. So the free market itself forces more honesty and stats are usually closer to reality especially after the product has gone into production.

Markets that are not free, are IP theft based, or there is no competition don't face any pressure to do the right thing. Keep in mind that China is known for IP theft but there is now internal competition... Something to consider.

The other thing to consider is that sometimes products are categorized by their stats so they're often limited to fit a particular product niche (sonar may actually operate more kHz but they're aiming for the 450 kHz market etc). There is literally no way to know what the exact stat is beyond talking to the engineer (or being one) but accept there is some wiggle room.

This whole low altitude thing is gonna be a challenge. Both Ukr and Ru aircraft are operating really low. This is very visible. It would also be a ton of work to adjust in CMO. Next loitering munitions and drones exploit engagement and sighting gaps. The sighting model in general is kind of a thing (really think an old manpad with no IR site or queuing has the same Pok% at night as during the day?) never mind that everything is a volume sensor.... This is no knock to CMO. To my knowledge, no game has taken this on before (I worked on both CMANO and 2 versions of Harpoon). These are smart problems to have and probably greater than 8m vs 11m. Best to expend energy where you get the best return. Just sayin. Peace out.

[claudejdev]

Some figures from a more recent source :

Effective Altitude (m)

Name	Min	Max	Rem.
Anza Mk I	50	2500	HN-5 variant
Anza Mk II	30	4000	QW-1 variant
Anza Mk III	10	3500	QW-2 variant
Blowpipe	10	2000	Low Hit Prob.
FN-6	15	3800	Mistral variant
HN-5/5B	50	2500	SA-7 variant
Javelin	10	3000	Blowpipe upgrade
Misagh-1	30	4000	QW-1 variant
Mistral 2	5	3000	0 with degraded Ph
QW-1	30	4000	SA-7b variant
QW-2	10	4000	SA-14/16 variant
QW-3	04	5000
RBS-70	0	4000	Mk2 and RBS-90
Red Eye	50	2700
SA-14	10	6000	0 with degraded Ph
SA-16	10	3500	0 with degraded Ph
SA-18/SA-24	10	3500	0 with degraded Ph
SA-7b	18	4500	0 with degraded Ph
Sakr Eye	50	2400	SA-7 variant
Starbust	0	3000	Javelin upgrade

TRADOC G-2 ACE–Threats Integration. Worldwide Equipment Guide (WEG) update 2016, Volume 2: Air and Air Defense Systems. Fort Leavenworth, KS.

[claudejdev]

Hi All. Just FYI I am a technical writer for a defense contractor in real life. Take or leave what I got to say.

Mike, I remember you quite well from back in the days as a DB guru. I'm so glad you are there now. Fascinating stuffs you are doing.

If I get you right, besides that we are not on a manpad simulator, and are using public sources anyway, there's something to be done around the seeker too to add some granularity ?

[bostonmyk]

Hi Jan. I remember you too and glad to see you too.

The challenges are spotting and seeking.

Spotting is too good at night for systems(launchers) that don't have night capable sights or are not queued by some attached radar system. This is mostly because they're attached to CMO's global network. The CMO team has been aware of this since CMANO 00001. There is a way via LUA to model this in that you drop the connection until the aircraft is in range of stuff that could help (rather than the global network). It's a fudge to reset the OODA clock that sorta works. However, the coding work is a time-value decision. BeirutDave isn't going to spend hours doing this and not fair to ask.

If MANPAD/Shorad system have sights (TV/IR/etc) they have very specific arcs. They're very exploitable- you can see this in a ton of Bayraktar videos. They first get bye the sensors (lot of reasons) and then over the top where because of weapons and sensor arcs they can't be engaged before being killed. You'll notice recent big updates to Shorad systems now include sensors with better arcs (TORs for example). CMO data may not know the exact details but should be able to at least show why the old systems suck.

Seeker stuff is more complicated and I honestly need to sit down and think more. Here's some stuff off the top of my head.

• Many MANPADS do multispectral guidance. So like Verba has ultraviolet, near-infrared, mid-infrared. CMO model (afaik) very general and no ultraviolet.

• The terrain is going to matter for the vlow altitude engagements particularly forest, mountains, and city. It's harder to home in on stuff in the clutter.

I am honestly on hold with investing too much time beyond the initial normalization request as I want to see what happens when loitering munitions show up. Perhaps some issues have already been addressed. Again this is just a hobby so can't waste too much time on stuff that might not even be an issue. My intent is to report weird shit when I see it and suggest fixes. They can do whatever. Game is still cool.