piston are you sure about that?? Without seeing what the text says, (I don't have time to sit and figure out Cyrillic script and then work the dictionary - printed I can 'read' but I've always struggled with hand-writing)... the image shows the 'first target' acquired too late, with three possible missile paths - the "last" fired breaks up due to over-g to track (or is 'lost' from guidance and self-destructs - the other two have insufficient energy to both follow the changing lead as the target passes overhead, and to reach altitude fast enough and miss.

The second flight path seems to be a direct hit and kill ~ while this might be what they'd like to have happened on the 16th I remain less than entirely convinced... more likely is this is a demonstration that the missile would fly directly to the impact point (ie is capable) if fired from further out.

Of course, I'll take it all back if that isn't what is written, or there really was a seriously damaged/killed Habu on the second flight.

But to me it smacks of AAR and lessons learnt, rather than two AAR.

hi guys.... i found a 3DAAAR bug .... looock az this picture... i use sa-4 ganef in first senario in cairo ...~

the 3 missile shot and 2 missiles going to under ground and get up from earth

Have someone already shot down something in a Prairie fire? :-)

Got him (U-2) :-)



3DAAR (click to download)

It is a bug, the fix will be in the next version.


(missile-1/3 hit the ground)

My best hit on the U2 is 2m miss distance.

F-14 only - discussed some pages ago

Hi,
Dear Hpasp,thanks for the tip, I've lost some .djvu files due to PC failure, only .jpg survived (exported eatlier)...
Here some for you!
Check here:

http://narod.ru/disk/25543658000/%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B1%2075-2.djvu.html

and here also:

Бое&#1...amp;#1042;.djvu

- page 95, 250 to 253 also... In fact, the whole document is PRICELESS....


piston are you sure about that?? Without seeing what the text says, (I don't have time to sit and figure out Cyrillic script and then work the dictionary - printed I can 'read' but I've always struggled with hand-writing)... the image shows the 'first target' acquired too late, with three possible missile paths - the "last" fired breaks up due to over-g to track (or is 'lost' from guidance and self-destructs - the other two have insufficient energy to both follow the changing lead as the target passes overhead, and to reach altitude fast enough and miss.

The second flight path seems to be a direct hit and kill ~ while this might be what they'd like to have happened on the 16th I remain less than entirely convinced... more likely is this is a demonstration that the missile would fly directly to the impact point (ie is capable) if fired from further out.

Of course, I'll take it all back if that isn't what is written, or there really was a seriously damaged/killed Habu on the second flight.

But to me it smacks of AAR and lessons learnt, rather than two AAR.

Dear Lieste,

The document said only that they maded 2 firings (no specification how many missiles they used) described like "unefective" due to "unsuficient level of crew training" and "bad timing in firing against the target". I am a bit confused too, but seems it's a lesson learned. The SR-71 symbol which is on 70+ km from the SNR is taged as "Neccesary distance to target in the moment of firing"; the other SR-71 symbol is tagged as "Achieved distance to target in the moment of firing"....
Anyway, I believe they shoot too late....

Yes the missiles were fired according to the first path (the one that looks higher). They failed to come close to intercepting because they needed to manoeuvre too aggressively. The diagram compares the actual shooting conditions with those that *might* have achieved success, at least the missile having sufficient energy to intercept the target. That the apparent altitude differs in not intended - this is a fake-perspective used to separate the two conditions for the training of the crews.

Also the exact parameters where the missile won't guide are probably not specifically those - they look too regular to have any definite relation to any aero characteristics, and are probably 'safe' rules of thumb.

Same graph, from the other side...