Before the summer is good, I thought I could at the end of March will have.

- The 3DAAR feature will be integrated as complete part in SAM Sim. or we must have Google Earth already installed first, to use it ?

- and this feature can be disabled at beginning if we wont to use it ? (like Digital Elevation)

Dear Hpasp!

you haven't show us your stuff of pics yet, or you don't want ?

Does anybody knwo why they didn't just emulate the launch tubes in the land version and instead go for the rotary launcher scheme?

My bet that the rotary scheme consumes the less volume (important for ship design).
4 missiles at the TEL design is limited by the weight against maneuverability.

Strange, it is a command guided system (if I got it right - no proximity fuse), but it has almost twice the range of "Volkhov"...How about the aquracy? But with a half tone warhead...

What's up with Hanoi (first scenario) I can't ever hit one of the B-52s with the SA-2E ( yes, the E variant ). I know it's a fact that I land the missile on target, bacause I turn on the radar during the missiles' flight time. Please help, magic man hpasp

...and with separate radars (antenna sets) for tracking target and missile - the reason not to use narrow beam for guidance in Volkhov... Wonder how they overcame that alignment problem. It seems that they did not fully - check it out:

Nike page

The same webpage - the accuracy:
"in 1975, after the evaluation of the yearly practice shootings at the NAMFI Range, it was found out that the lethal distance of the fragment pattern could only bring down an enemy Airplane up to the distance of 75 Kilometers. Beyond that point the steering error was to high. From that time on it whas only allowed for German BCO´s to open fire below this distance."

Scroll also down to points describing some features of training and exercises - at some points I think that US did not treat SAMs so seriously as Eastern Bloc did...

I like the Hercules' pre-programmed ascent phase adopted to maximize range - I don't know whether Vega's flight model was inspired by that, but knowing the stories of Sidewinder - R-3, Redeye - Striela-2, or Patriot - S-300PMU, one can be suspicious.



BTW, brilliant page! If Hpasp only desired to contact that webmaster, we would be sure to have Hercules as the next simulated system!

Already contacted...
http://ed-thelen.org/favorite.html#SAM

The question is "Tornado" is flying at an altitude of 100 meters.

The report is showing a height of 2 km!

Hi Max,

Its really pity, that the Soviet Union had not enough Tornado airplane and crew to be able to fly more realistic targets for us in Asuluk.
We have to practice against elderly S-25 Berkut (SA-1) missiles, simulating the enemy.







Asuluk targets were considered easier than real US targets...
... USAF used to be really unfair enemy .

The same goes for missiles "Tomahawk" with a height problem!

Report here ...

Tomahawk and Tornado flying at low altitudes of 100-200 meters, not 1.8 km!

Tornado 100 meters height!

Tomahawk 100-200 meters height!

Same issue here...

During the 80's, the Soviet Union had not enough US Tomahawk missiles, to be able to fly more realistic targets for us in Asuluk.
We had to practice against elderly LA-17K remote controlled planes, simulating the enemy...

Super!

Oh, well that's how I think this glider is a very effective low goal or not.

Tomahawk cruise missile is similar to the glider!

Hmm, but the target height indicator always shows well less than 1 km (closer to 100 meters), not two or so... Is it some kind of "training" program that was built into the SAMs to make them think that targets are actually flying lower than they are?

Hmm again... tried Neva against Tomahawk simulator... it actually flew at less than 100 meters...

But now tried Volkhov against similar target - now it flew much higher, but height indicator showed much less than 1 km... Weird...