#3180110 - 01/15/11 10:25 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: PLCC]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I mean, several full bookshelf. My latest interest is in the OAF ('99 Serbia) campaign, so the latest additions are... General Spasoje Smiljanits: Agressija NATO (Serbian & Cyril) Bojan B. Dimitrijevic, Jovica Draganic: Vazdusni Rat Nad Srbijom 1999. Godine (Serbian & Latin) Benjamin S. Lamberth (RAND): NATO's AirWar for Kosovo ... these are highly recommended about the '99 events.
|
|
#3180478 - 01/15/11 10:35 PM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: NaiseFail]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
PLCC
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
|
I assume the picture is from Vazdušni rat nad Srbijom 1999 godine? It looks very interesting. Any idea why the 3. rd PVO did not use optics as 8. rd did, even though three point guidance was employed anyway? Too bad that book is not available on the internet. I looked around for that title about Vietnam. Unfortunately, the vko.ru archives are down, so it was impossible to download. The internet archive only has one of the chapters, http://web.archive.org/web/20080622163639/old.vko.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2005.21.26, but with no pictures. Please post a copy if you've got one!
|
|
#3180495 - 01/15/11 10:55 PM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: NaiseFail]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
Any idea why the 3. rd PVO did not use optics as 8. rd did, even though three point guidance was employed anyway?TV is not effective during night. During night combat, even if you find the target, when you launch, the missile exhaust is blinding the camera, so you loose your target.
Last edited by Hpasp; 01/15/11 10:56 PM.
|
|
#3180612 - 01/16/11 02:19 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
PLCC
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
|
Any idea why the 3. rd PVO did not use optics as 8. rd did, even though three point guidance was employed anyway?TV is not effective during night. During night combat, even if you find the target, when you launch, the missile exhaust is blinding the camera, so you loose your target. According to the graphic, both engagements were at night. The 8. rd used a thermal camera, evidently. Does the book offer any other details?
|
|
#3181930 - 01/17/11 11:04 PM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: NaiseFail]
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 108
vintorez
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 108
|
Dvina! Do you see any challenges with Dvina development having the Wolkhov already more or less complete? Does it differ in anything other than stripping Volkhov of some of its options? (I mean the game, not the system...) One about manual tracking (in fact, those guys occupy the most of the room!). Does the real auto-tracking in S-75 and S-125 have the capabilities you modelled in the game? Or you "assume" the presence of ideally trained manual trackers that help the player? Where are the limits?
|
|
#3182195 - 01/18/11 09:28 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: NaiseFail]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
Hmm, I like the looks of the Dvina more than the Volkhov.Dvina is much more cleaner, and easier to use (according to FCO's who used both), than the overcomplicated and ergonomics disaster Volhov. The most stupid difference is that the "Fire" button is exchanged place with the "Cancel Fire" buttons. I always wanted to ask you, but never remembered. I noticed that almost every switch on the Volkhov works, but most of them aren't described in the manual. Do they have a function, or did you just make them click-able for the hell of it? :p 90% has real effect, so be cautious clicking around. Maybe in the far future, I create and "Advanced" Volhov manual about those. (another 50+ pages) I just not wanted to scare potential users with the first modeled system, having a 100+ pages manual.
|
|
#3182198 - 01/18/11 09:51 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: NaiseFail]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
Dvina! bump Do you see any challenges with Dvina development having the Wolkhov already more or less complete? Does it differ in anything other than stripping Volkhov of some of its options? (I mean the game, not the system...)
The graphic, and the manual should be completely redone. The 11D missile is less agile, and the SNR is much weaker. I do not see big challenges, so probably it could also be done this year.
One about manual tracking (in fact, those guys occupy the most of the room!). Does the real auto-tracking in S-75 and S-125 have the capabilities you modelled in the game? Or you "assume" the presence of ideally trained manual trackers that help the player? Where are the limits?
Against non jamming target, the auto-track has good capabilities in the real system. When the target can be seen under the jamming, or it is tracked by the TV, than manual tracking come into play.
|
|
#3182972 - 01/19/11 05:02 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
PLCC
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
|
Another question for you. I have been reading some of the documents from the website you supplied earlier, for the S-125 (thank you again for posting that wonderful site). The technical reports on the 5V27, in particular, are fascinating. Yet, there is clearly not enough information for a full six degrees of freedom simulation of the missile. Although they at least provide centers of gravity under various conditions, no aerodynamics data is given. Nor is there other detailed data such as motor thrust curves or autopilot gains and the like (although I suppose one could try to analyze the circuit schematics ) in any of the books. Of course, I am interested in the details of your simulation from a dynamics perspective. My guess is that such data (i.e. beyond the general level encountered in the documentation mentioned above) was probably not widely disseminated. Thus, for the simulation, some simplifications would have to be made. Previously, references were made to specific quantities like integration time steps and missile acceleration limits. Additionally, the program seems to produce reasonable miss distance figures. While aerospace engineering is not my specialty, the model does not look too simple... The question is, what was your approach to the physical simulation of missile flight? Cheers.
Last edited by PLCC; 01/19/11 05:41 AM.
|
|
#3183032 - 01/19/11 09:22 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: PLCC]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I can gladly state, that this program simulates missile behavior much closely than you think. (atmosphere, g forces on control surfaces, acceleration, overheating, ...) Around 50 dynamic parameters are used to simulate each missile. The manual states the barely minimum only to be able to use the sim. Each system, there are ~1000 pages of Hungarian manuals I used to get it as close as I could. Some info about the V601P by the way, I sent you mail...
Last edited by Hpasp; 01/19/11 10:11 AM.
|
|
#3183183 - 01/19/11 02:48 PM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: NaiseFail]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
PLCC
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
|
That is a beautiful thrust diagram! No wonder the Soviets had to use the "pear" to adjust the nozzle cross-section. It's unusual, though, that both the booster and sustainer motor curves are relatively flat. The former apparently has fourteen exposed rods with single circular channels (easy to see how a roughly constant area of combustion is maintained), while the latter is quite unusual. My interpretation is that the length of the grain containing the "cut-outs" (#2) has a large initial burning area, to compensate for the fact that the central channel has yet to expand much right at the start of operation. During the burn, the area of that part declines, while the area of the channel increases, roughly maintaining flat thrust. If so, that's a fairly clever solution, and one which likely was less expensive to manufacture compared to the typical "star-shaped" channel associated with flat thrust in textbooks. Does that sound about right?
|
|
#3183809 - 01/20/11 04:51 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
PLCC
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
|
I can gladly state, that this program simulates missile behavior much closely than you think. (atmosphere, g forces on control surfaces, acceleration, overheating, ...) Around 50 dynamic parameters are used to simulate each missile.
It sounds like you have a model of pretty decent fidelity, then. Of course, quantities like missile acceleration (G) limits are well-known and documented. But less trivial information such as lift and drag coefficients for the body, wings, and control surfaces, or even the aforementioned autopilot gains may not be so easily available. Did your materials actually provide most of these parameters, or did you make engineering guesses yourself?
Last edited by PLCC; 01/20/11 04:55 AM.
|
|
#3184752 - 01/21/11 08:16 AM
Re: S-75M3 Volhov qualification day
[Re: PLCC]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
autopilot gains may not be so easily available.Nono, I not modeled autopilot gain, as it is not necessary. In the manuals there are several charts that were digitized and the program grabs data from those, and at the end, the missile is behaving pretty close as it is described there. For example: describing missile range against time
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|