How to use the Khrizantema?

[John Kettler]

Krizantema sensors, as characterized by FAS in its AT-15 Krizantema article. Yes, the Krizantema can find and engage targets using radar only.

 

(Fair Use)

 

"For the first time in the world, an automatic radar target detection and tracking system, with simultaneous missile control during its guidance to the target, was developed for the Khrizantema ATGM. The unique feature of the missile is that it has two modes of guidance: automatic, where it is guided by a roof-mounted radar; and by a semi-automatic laser beam rider, using the sight mounted in the front of the hull on the right side. There is no known comparable missile in the West under development or in service with a similar guidance system."

 

There is more information here, in an article written for Red Thrust Star, an UNCLASSIFIED US publication geared toward OPFOR depiction.

 

Note in this vid taken from a popular Russian military TV show. Krizantema does have a radar which does more than provide missile guidance. You can clearly see the radar  scanning back and forth at several points in the vid. The weapon has two separate target location systems because the Russians fully expect to operate in a countermeasures environment. This is why their air-to-air missiles usually have both a radar and an IR guided version. This is why their SAM launchers have secondary EO gear (used to be TV, but is now FLIR on more recent systems). And the SS-N-9/SIREN/P120/4K85  surface-to-surface missile has combined guidance: active radar and IR. Though the excellent Australian Airpower site says the IR mode is claimed by Russian sources, the combined guidance capability was in my threat docs.

 

 

Shall return to this later when I have more data.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

GSR isn't a magic eyeray that sees through all things.  It's pretty easy to confuse, and on a battlefield there is a lot of terrain between the emitter and the possible targets.  It is not useless by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not like press button and on the screen the location of all enemy tanks within the claimed effective range appears.  

 

It's the same sort of logic that made the US Army buy up a million LRAS3 type systems, and the same unfortunate reality in terms of the tyranny of lines of sight, target fidelity, and the reality that most military forces avoid the wide open spaces that favor sensor-centric warfare.  

 

So to elaborate on my earlier comment, in a world filled with sensor contacts that are both targets, and not targets, ground based radar is good at telling you where things are vs not.  It's marginal at discriminating between targets, and still totally subject to LOS issues.  It can shoot at the maybe targets, but again its not good at bulldozer vs tank, and it is just as bad as every other optic at seeing behind terrain.  

[Amedeo]

How many kryzanthemas did you have ? That sounds like a superb and genius tactic

Here's a link to a savegame, so you can see by yourself what I had and how it ended.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31121739/savegame.bts

 

Of course, it worked well also because I was on the defensive and played against the AI. A human opponent, aware of this tactic, might be able to play a smarter cat-and-mouse game to neutralize this ruse.

On the other hand, the Russian player might fine tune his tactics also. Increasing the AFVs/TDs ratio is a good idea. Also providing dismounts for scouting, close defence and anti-aircraft protection might be a good idea.

 

 

 

GSR isn't a magic eyeray that sees through all things.  It's pretty easy to confuse, and on a battlefield there is a lot of terrain between the emitter and the possible targets.  It is not useless by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not like press button and on the screen the location of all enemy tanks within the claimed effective range appears.  

 

It's the same sort of logic that made the US Army buy up a million LRAS3 type systems, and the same unfortunate reality in terms of the tyranny of lines of sight, target fidelity, and the reality that most military forces avoid the wide open spaces that favor sensor-centric warfare.  

 

So to elaborate on my earlier comment, in a world filled with sensor contacts that are both targets, and not targets, ground based radar is good at telling you where things are vs not.  It's marginal at discriminating between targets, and still totally subject to LOS issues.  It can shoot at the maybe targets, but again its not good at bulldozer vs tank, and it is just as bad as every other optic at seeing behind terrain.  

What I saw in the game was generally compatible with what you said (i.e. radar LOS restrictions and poor classification of contacts) I wasn't able to spot targets behind ridges or to see whether I was shooting an Abrams or a Bradley... or a bulldozer (but this might be just due to the difficulty level). Moreover it is also in line with the data provided by John Kettler, so I presume that the modelling of the Khrizantema in CMBS is more or less OK (this means also that the tactic I suggested is not that gamey... ).

[John Kettler]

Panzersaurkrautwerfer and BFC,

 

 

The manufacturer's data sheet (KBM) for Krizantema-S is most interesting. ACLOS with MMW beamrider guidance; SACLOS with laser beamrider guidance. Thermobaric missiles available. Thus, the automatic search side of that MMW radar is operating with very high target resolution--way beyond the usual BSRs. At 94 GHz, it's quite easy to tell a tank from a truck. For only around $200, or via interlibrary loan (maybe) you can read the book on MMW & IR sensor and signal processing. I was hoping Amazon had look inside implemented for this, but no such luck. I'd like to point out that the Russians pioneered MMW for military applications, and it took a lot of, well, everything, for the US to catch up. I worked directly on the WASP program at Hughes. WASP was a brilliant swarm missile concept in which the missiles autonomously scanned the ground ahead with onboard MMW radar, classified the target as tanks and not tanks, then killed the tanks. The AH-64D Apache Longbow has a version of the AGM-114 Hellfire, the AGM-114L which has a MMW active seeker. Normal firing mode is LOBL (Lock On Before Launch). That alone should tell you something about the military utility of MMW radar. The exterior dimensions of the Hellfire are 7" or 18 cm, and the seeker antenna, has, of course to be smaller than that in order to fit inside the missile. Now, I ask you, how much more can that many times larger antenna on the Krizantema see, and with how much better image fineness, given it's got much larger ERP and antenna size to provide radar image resolution? The radar is specced for 8-10 km. And I guarantee you the radar on the Krizantema can handily resolve a tank or similar target from a truck or car at max range. If it couldn't, the weapon would never have made it to service under the original requirements. The Chinese are in the process of fielding a Longbow type active MMW system on their helicopters. And what can a Longbow radar do?

 

Lockheed Martin's data sheet says

 

(Fair Use)

"LONGBOW FCR
The LONGBOW FCR has a very low probability of intercept. It rapidly and automatically searches, detects, locates, classifies, and prioritizes multiple moving and stationary targets on land, water and in the air in all weather and battlefield conditions from standoff ranges. Target coordinates are automatically available to other sensors and weapons for target confirmation, rapid engagement, and reduced fratricide. Target data is digitally available through the data modem for real-time transfer to other platforms and command posts. The self-contained Radar Frequency Interferometer provides rapid and accurate identification and azimuth to enemy air defense units. High system reliability and two-level maintenance maximize operational availability and reduce support costs."

 

We can reasonably expect the first two sentences of the quote to be broadly applicable, bearing in mind Longbow is designed to do a great g deal more than Krizantema has to.  Sorry. Can't undo Italics spillover.

 

Finally, this brings up a most interesting issue. Does/will the US/NATO have MMW RWRs fitted to AFVs in the time frame of CMBS? If not, when Krizantema's operating in radar mode, which clearly is preferred based on ACLOS for radar engagement vs SACLOS for EO, then it should get an unalerted shot at whatever it's shooting at , since the target won't know its been found and is about to be fired upon. Hmm.

 

Krizantema should operate in radar mode as its go to method. Additonally, ECM broadly follows two main categories: radar (broad area surveillance/acquisition/target tracking) and communications/data links. I believe the ECM in the game is targeted on the latter. Consequently, absent the deployment of some very specialized jammers, the Krizantema ought to be able to operate in radar mode.  

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The Longbow radar is not strapped to any Russian vehicles I am aware of. Comparing two radars on different platforms like as like is really not much of an assessment or going as far to imply because two cannons are smooth bore then they are equally capable.

Its also worth noting that an airborne platform has larger targets and less LOS restriction by far.

They're simply not the same. Ground based radar guided missiles are interesting but in practice CMBS well replicates this semi useful I guess system rather than anything game changing.

[Nerdwing]

I'm almost certain the Apache isnt using the Longbow.  It just sort of flies around and shoots, while getting shot

 

Agreed on the Krizantema's radar mode though!

Edited February 7, 2015 by Nerdwing

[dan/california]

I'm almost certain the Apache isnt using the Longbow.  It just sort of flies around and shoots, while getting shot

 

Agreed on the Krizantema's radar mode though!

I think they did that for a combination of game balance, and to reflect a variety of real world threats to helicopters they didn't want to directly simulate.  The real world complexity of ECM, HARM missiles, and god knows what else in both directions must be staggering.  

 

 If Apaches had a reasonable probability of dumping all sixteen missiles unopposed it would be a clean game winner in almost all scenarios. Doubly so when the Hellfire trajectory gets fixed and it usually comes in above APS. You can test this, don't give the Russians any AA.  Fortunately the Tunguska is so useful against ground targets it almost always worth buying one.

Edited February 8, 2015 by dan/california

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

Longbow isn't, but a MMW radar most definitely is. What we're talking about here is the difference in performance in between a "typical" C band ( see link below) BSR/GSR and a MMW radar doing that, target tracking and providing missile guidance. For a given aperture size, a MMW provides superior-vastly superior resolution to a radar operating at a lower frequency . Note that at Ka band (35 GHz), such a radar can see the outline of the plane being illuminated by it. Typical BSRs operate in C band, but I invite you to look at the performance parameters for Finmeccanica's SOTA SQUIRE I/J band GSR.

 

(Fair Use)

 

"10 km for a man (1 m2), 15 for a jeep (10 m2), 24 for a tank (50 m2)" with a detection probability of 0.9 and a false alert rate of 10 to the minus 6. Figures evidently are vs moving target."

US Army AN/PPS-5B (see below) a J band radar is a greatly improved version of the Vietnam era AN/PPS-5, which itself could do some pretty remarkable things, as described here.

 

AN/PPS-5B Ground Surveillance Radar Set

The AN/PPS-5B Ground Surveillance Radar Set is a lightweight, man-portable, ground-to-ground surveillance radar set for use by units such as infantry and tank battalions. The radar is capable of detecting and locating moving personnel at ranges of 6km and vehicles at ranges of 10km, day or night under virtually all weather conditions. The radar has a maximum display range of 10,000 meters and targets can be displayed both aurally and visually. Built for durability, the AN/PPS-5B Radar is rugged enough to withstand rough field handling.

 

Beginning to understand what I'm trying to get across? What I want you to understand is the core difference between what you think is on the Krizantema and what it can do, from the apparent viewpoint the C band (I've given much kinder=far closer to MMW--J band performance numbers), vs what an MMW of the exact same size can do. Make no mistake. The Krizantema, if correctly modeled, should be a deadly all WX threat, not a somewhat and sometimes dangerous one. Anything designed to go through 1100-1200 mm of armor, after getting through ERA, is a source of real military concern.

 

If we can get some usable data on the Krizantema's radar proper, including the antenna, it should be possible to learn a great deal about what the radar can see.

 

(New info)

 

Per the International Electronic Countermeasures Handbook, p. 126, the Krizantema achieves simultaneous dual target (i.e., two separate targets) engagement by operating the radar and the EO mode simultaneously. According to it, the radar mode is SAH (SemiActive Homing). The radar finds and automatically illuminates the target. The missile then launches and homes on the reflected energy, similar to the much later developmentof lasing a target until the laser guided munition connects. I thought I'd run down the manufacturer of the Krizantema's radar system, but it didn't pan out. I did, though, find this. Inside a Libyan rebel controlled Krizantema operating in what I believe to be EO mode. Unless you speak Arabic, you're screwed on what they're saying.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited February 8, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Again it's apples and apple martinis.  

 

I've sat behind an AN/PPS-5B.  I was not impressed, and speaking as a former scout type the overall GSR experience was that it was pretty low fidelity.

 

In practice we did something called "cuing" which is basically the sequence of sensors you use to acquire something.  Basically it was broader sensors all the way down to eyeballs or if the situation called for it, someone putting their hands on it.

 

Radar was very good at providing strong indications of where there might a something.  It was never very good at finding personnel for sure, and against vehicles it was better, but still did not do much better than "tracked" or "wheeled" contacts, and again it's not like it could tell you if it was a HMMWV or a junked car, or even other large reflective masses giving off tank signatures.

 

So again, in working the "is there something out there" piece, GSR was good for letting us know there were some suspiciously bad guy like contacts, which then spooled up another sensor system (UAVs were pretty good in that role given their ability to give several contacts eyes on in short order) which then cued to other sensors and systems, and if the contact either needed to be further interrogated ("That sure as hell look like tank and tire tracks going into those woods....") or was confirmed (GSR never did this, the lowest fidelity we ever got good reads on was from the Raven) troops would be committed.

 

But 6 KM detection in a realistic combat situation was....no.  I'd doubt 10 KM too outside of situations like tanks rolling across salt flats or something.

 

Which leads me to be dubious of most ground based systems to say the least.   

[agusto]

The radar is supposed to work in an abstracted sort of way. But it is also assumed to be not always turned on. But even with a not-always-on radar the Khriz is supposed to be one of the best spotting vehicles in the game. Unfortunately, because of the highly random nature of spotting in CMx2 how good or bad anything is at spotting is difficult to tell from a small number of examples, particularly outside of a test environment where factors other than the vehicle's attributes are at play.

 

In my experience the Khriz spotts better than the M1 Abrams at long ranges. I just played a QB as russians vs. a bunch of M1A2 + some Bradley infantry because i wanted to find out how to battle the M1 succesfully with russian gear, and the Khriz showed to be the most effective M1A2 killer at longer ranges. At 500m to 1km it usually will spot the M1 first and get off a salvo of missiles before the M1 can fire back. It spotts so well that, in my experience, it can even be used offenively against M1 tanks, although it natutrally performs best as defensive long range AT "sniper".

 

 

@Amedeo: nice tactic, i ll try that out soon.

[Nerdwing]

It spotting that fast at that close a range seems a bit funky.  You'd think that'd kinda be a bit too close to go tank-hunting with ATGM's on a vehicle.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Nerdwing

[nsKb]

I think they did that for a combination of game balance, and to reflect a variety of real world threats to helicopters they didn't want to directly simulate.  The real world complexity of ECM, HARM missiles, and god knows what else in both directions must be staggering.  

 

 If Apaches had a reasonable probability of dumping all sixteen missiles unopposed it would be a clean game winner in almost all scenarios. Doubly so when the Hellfire trajectory gets fixed and it usually comes in above APS. You can test this, don't give the Russians any AA.  Fortunately the Tunguska is so useful against ground targets it almost always worth buying one.

 

I don't like the game balance excuses, it has no place in a game like CMSF. Currently the way Apaches operate in CMBS is extremely ineffective if SHORADS are present and the Tunguska is too good at shooting them down. From what I understand the best way for Apaches to operate in this type of environment is to hang around the FLOT (to avoid SHORADS ambush) and do popup attacks using their mast mounted radars and the AGM-114L or a buddy lase from a OH-58 with a MMS. Currently the Apaches do none of this and operate like it is COIN. I'm sure someone here knows more about how to use Apaches in high intesnity warfare and can correct me if I'm wrong.  The way fast jets operate makes even less sense. 

 

Snip

 

How exactly does the GSR discriminate between targets and non-targets, it's easy if the target has a high radial velocity or the GSR is on an airborne platform. How does the radar solve the clutter problem especially for stationary targets, I imagine that image recognition techniques are quite difficult if targets are stationary, in a complex environment, and the radar is not airborne. 

 

For example an IR imager has a much easier time staying "locked" onto a target designated by a human operator than automatically finding targets. A AGM-114L might have LOAL capability but that does not mean it can execute a wide area search.

 

M1A2 SEP should have a much greater then 1200 mm CE protection on much of it's front turret if various sources are to be believed.

 

 

This sounds like a great concept for putting in a scenario. I would love to see a few scenarios where the Americans get their heads handed to them. I get tired of people thinking they are so powerful. I feel there is some real fragile concepts as to how they rely too much on certain aspects of what they are expecting to do in combat.

(Like if they somehow lost control of the sky. It is not pretty. )

 

Gave you a -rep by accident but I +rep one of your other posts to balance it out. Sorry man. 

Edited February 8, 2015 by nsKb

[LUCASWILLEN05]

And don't forget ATGMs have a minimum arming range which means, if launched too close to the target they won't arm and therefore won't damage the target. The real world soldiers using the equipment will, having been trained on the equipment. know this and therefore will fire at a suitable range. Which is why you got that "minimum range" message. As others have said of course the Abrams can be a diffcult tank to destroy. However, as Hezbollah demonstrated in 2006 even the most modern MBTs can be knocked out with cunning tactics. 

[slysniper]

I found that pairing Khrizantema armed TDs with BMP-3s to provide IR blocking smoke screens is a viable tactic against US tanks.

 

I managed to easily destroy, with multiple frontal penetrations, ten M1A2 SEP tanks (some w/APS) losing only three TDs, and a couple IFVs (smoke cover doesn't last forever).

The radar system on the Russian TDs is capable to see through IR blocking smoke effectively while the sensors on an Abrams tank are blinded.

oh, this is a perfect tactic if you can set it up. Plus I managed no losses because I made sure the smoke screen did last. even the tanks were providing smoke instead of getting in the fight.

 

Now a few things to note. man you have to make sure that the Khrizantema stays in a good morale state, if not, they will not sit and fire missiles, they want to bug out.

 

Two, and I am not sure why. many missiles were duds, they would fly a few hundred meters , then crash. (was that something from the American side causing that) because after a few minutes. No more problems, the rest flew on target from that point on.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Two, and I am not sure why. many missiles were duds, they would fly a few hundred meters , then crash. (was that something from the American side causing that) because after a few minutes. No more problems, the rest flew on target from that point on.

They're not duds, that's simply the way CM displays random misses for ATGMs, excepting for targets in cover such as trees. It would be nice if there was more variety.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[slysniper]

They're not duds, that's simply the way CM displays random misses for ATGMs, excepting for targets in cover such as trees. It would be nice if there was more variety.

 

Good to know, It was somewhat surprising how many I was seeing doing it. So I was wondering what was up with that. Do you have any insights as to how it is deciding to fire either one or two missiles at a time???

[Vanir Ausf B]

Two at a time are fired at vehicles with APS.

[akd]

Two at a time are fired at vehicles with APS.

 

No, they will fire two at tanks without APS.  Haven't tested other vehicles.  Not sure what causes them to fire only one missile at times.  Maybe something with reloading or number of rounds remaining?

[cool breeze]

I think the only times I have seen them shoot just one round they got a one hit kill so seems to me they are smart deciders about it.

[animalshadow]

My 5 cents about Khrizantema-S:

 

I've tested it in scenario editor in 3 different conditions:

1) Open Ground, distance 4km. Day. Weather: Clear.

In first 5 seconds Krizantema spotted oppo tank.

2) Open Ground, distance 4km. Night. Weather: Heavy Rain.

Spotted oppo tank on 1.5km distance.

3) Open Ground, distance 4km. Night. Weather: Dense Fog.
Spotted oppo tank on 1km distance.

 

Manual states that Khrizantema:

"The 9P157 is equipped with thermals, advanced optics, and a millimeter wave band radar system that allows

it to detect and track targets through any weather and obscurants such as smoke."

 

Test results show that in-game it's not any weather system.

 

And I have question about Hull Down position:

 

In this position Khrizantema can't shoot and/or spot anything, looking like a LOS bug, cause Radar is clearly above ground and Khrizantema at least should spot enemy tanks):

 

This position is marked by red circle(blue circle is where Khrizantema is partially hull down and have LOS):

Edited February 20, 2015 by animalshadow

[exsonic01]

My test also showed similar results with animalshadow. I think the radar + thermal for Khrizan seems not working. Also my Khrizan couldn't see anything from hull down position. My Khrizans + brm3k were all stopped and just waiting, but I only saw ? icons

Edited February 20, 2015 by exsonic01

[animalshadow]

Additionaly current in-game TO&E misses few vehicles in ATGM Battery(Khrizantema):

1)9P157-3 as Platoon HQ vehicle. - 3 Crew members.

2)9P157-4 as Battery HQ vehicle. - 4 Crew members.

[animalshadow]

Maybe someone have information about Khrizantema in-game LOS in hull down position?

Will it be fixed in 1.02 patch?

Edited March 7, 2015 by animalshadow

[Stagler]

This is all part of the game guys. Murica

[kaburke61]

LOL...Stagler...of course one "bias" is sooo much more justified than another....

Edited March 8, 2015 by kaburke61