|
#3525601 - 02/24/12 09:24 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: piston79]
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,011
piston79
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,011
|
It looks like system "memorized" target speed and path, and adjust missiles to the target, even when not tracked on distance...
Subsonic target UPR point is closer to the target. It can be less than 4 degree, depending on the P.
Supersonic target UPR point is further to the target. It can be more than 4 degree, but the system allows the missile max 4 degree.
When the missile is flying at less than 4 degree, than it is directly goes towards the UPR point.
When the missile is flying at 4 degree, than the UPR point is at probably more than 4 degree, just the system limits its lead angle.
This guidance method is simply UPR, just adding a Constant "K" into elevation, depending the distance of the missile to the range boresight.
If the missile - boresight distance is larger than 10km, it adds 1.2 degree to the elevation boresight.
From 10km, it gradually reduces this Constant to 0 degree. (at 5km it is 0.6 degree)
Seems that in ver. 923.0, in jamming enviroment, K became like T/T with 1.2 degrees, and UPR is just like T/T. Still they react on distance boresight. If UPR is based on real target speed, (sub- or supersonic) of the target and Parameter (this should be important only for the azymuth lead) against SNR,I believe - based ot what I've learned from this topic that UPR/K behavior in 923.3 is WRONG due to denial of speed and parameter information because of active jaming and must be corrected.
I would be glad if anybody shares his own observations. Now, getting together those two i finnaly realized what was the problem with different missile flight paths in 923.0/1 and 923.3...: Obviously, the "Active guidance" bug is the cause of up to 4 degrees lead, which couldn't be possible, because of lack of data for target's speed and distance (due to niose jamming), and in next release, the missile should behave like in 923.0/1!   Anyway, finally managed to connect to a FCO officer, and send him some questions allready, so hope he write back soon... 
Last edited by piston79; 02/25/12 08:01 AM.
|
|
|
#3525633 - 02/24/12 10:22 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 123
wasfa
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 123
|
Hpasp !
piston79 is always talking about previous releases (923.0 / 923.1), but I can't follow his posts, we haven't theses releases !
can we found any of the first (or previous) releases of SAM Simulator any where ?
Last edited by wasfa; 02/24/12 10:25 PM.
|
|
|
#3525894 - 02/25/12 10:53 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: max2012]
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,011
piston79
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,011
|
The RCS of the Habu is lower than the F-105 It seems, that it's not like that, in fact Sr-71 has bigger RCS (at least in russian sources): Also finds that one: "The SR-71 was an aircraft of superlatives - it was the fastest, highest-flying manned reconnaissance vehicle of all time. Only satellites flew operationally at a higher altitude! The SR-71 and its personnel created their own aurora; flight crews wore flying clothing identical to that of astronauts - no wonder, as the pilot and Reconnaissance Systems Officer (RSO) routinely flew on the edge of space. The aircraft itself looked like no other, with its blended surfaces and stealth like appearance. In fact the SR-71 was one of the most un-stealthiest of designs, producing one of the largest radar signatures ever detected on the Federal Aviation Agencies long-range radars! Due to the extreme heat from the exhaust plume, FAA controllers could easily track an SR-71 at ranges of several hundred miles when flown at its operational altitude." (source: http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2006/sr71/sr71.htm) So, maybe it is possible to talk about "burnthru"???
Last edited by piston79; 02/26/12 09:25 PM.
|
|
|
#3525963 - 02/25/12 03:34 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 95
CooLDoG
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 95
|
Piston trying to gain any advantage he can  edit: Also, when shooting at the SR-71 on K guidance, I have noted that my azimuth never really gets right. When I just leave the range where it is, the azimuth is wrong. When I set the range indicator to the estimated impact point (after launch) the azimuth is still incorrect. Even when I set the range to about 5KM above the impact point the azimuth is still wrong! when I say wrong, I mean that the missile is not aligned with my sight for azimuth when it is about to hit. Sometimes the missile is even outside of the jamming "angle"! The same sort of behavior is also shown with setting the range to the impact point before the launch. More later.
Last edited by CooLDoG; 02/25/12 04:25 PM.
|
|
|
#3526043 - 02/25/12 06:22 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: piston79]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
You can switch it after launch, as it only alters when the SNR transmits the K3 compared to the range boresight
Does the bold one is true for S-75M3-OP?No, the Volhov has no Dogon method, as it sends the K4 instead of it, automatically.
A question about S-200. In case we are launching against a noise jamming target, after the launch (track on height, azimuth, distance), could we just swich off high voltage and just leave our "ICBM" to do the job alone (like "fire" and "forget")???... Good question. The Firing Manual say, that you should illuminate the jamming target during engagement. (My bet is that the missile should receive reference CW signal from the RPN, during all the flight.) can we found any of the first (or previous) releases of SAM Simulator any where ? Just the last. So, maybe it is possible to talk about "burnthru"???No. Detecting from big ranges, and performing burnthrough is 10 times of difference. B52 is around 50~60sqm. HPasp, I like your short description of the s-300 engagement procedure, any chance you could give us some more, like, how to lock the target maybe?Manual for the S-300 simulator is pretty far from ready... http://www.mediafire.com/file/03phjn3xf8o2n79/SA-10B_ENG.pdf... basically you have the same options, as the older systems depicted in the SIM. (Target acquisition can arrive from IADS, or local ST-68U Tin Shield, 76N6 Clam Shell, or Autonomous acquisition from the 30N6 Flap Lid-B Fire Control Radar) Good sources on S-300: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.htmlhttp://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/S_trista_01.pdfhttp://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/S_trista_02.pdfhttps://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...uthkey=CK-C0-wE http://pvo.forum24.ru/?1-9-0-00000002-000-10001-0-1328617861
Last edited by Hpasp; 02/26/12 10:22 AM.
|
|
|
#3526103 - 02/25/12 09:12 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
|
HPasp, I like your short description of the s-300 engagement procedure, any chance you could give us some more, like, how to lock the target maybe?Manual for the S-300 simulator is pretty far from ready... http://www.mediafire.com/file/03phjn3xf8o2n79/SA-10B_ENG.pdf... basically you have the same options, as the older systems depicted in the SIM. (Target acquisition can arrive from IADS, or local ST-68U Tin Shield, 76N6 Clam Shell, or Autonomous acquisition from the 30N6 Flap Lid-B Fire Control Radar) Does this mean that te SA-10 will be the next SAM system modeled in SAM simulator? If yes, will it be available in the next version?
|
|
|
#3526171 - 02/25/12 11:18 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 123
wasfa
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 123
|
can we found any of the first (or previous) releases of SAM Simulator any where ?
Just the last.
(and no chance to follow piston79's "laboratory experiences" !) ??Manual for the S-300 simulator is pretty far from ready... Does this mean that te SA-10 will be the next SAM system modeled in SAM simulator?
If yes, will it be available in the next version? HPasp, I like your short description of the s-300 engagement procedure, any chance you could give us some more, like, how to lock the target maybe?
But still nice to have a preview of what is waiting us, after his release, but in the way;
I still confused about "Pusk" and "Puska", any deep explanation about it, just one level up ?
(just to start making "wiring's patch" for my brain, to be ready to understand this system's logic working, when released !) 
Last edited by wasfa; 02/26/12 02:10 AM.
|
|
|
#3526360 - 02/26/12 09:51 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 123
wasfa
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 123
|
After reading the new manual, and after several turn of these new information, with previous one in my brain,
I could deduce only this situation: (be careful it may be wrong at 100% !)  - there is 4 firing units.
- there is 3 Tel missile launcher (one principal 5P85SU, and two secondary 5P85SD) by firing unit !
(with 4 lamps of each one - may be it's a missile readiness lamp-)
- there is 3 green square buttons, to select (or activate or maybe to prepare ?) Tel missile launcher.
(I think the first one (UP) is for the principal launcher 5P85SD)
- channel's guidance missile are the pinky Columns.
(It seems to be like S-125, all first missile -in firing unit- have the same chanel !, and so on for all others missiles !)
but the only "mistake" in this case, that we have 16 channels instead 12 channels ??!
- "Pusk" or "Puska" and "Vozvrat", no idea if it's the green square buttons, or the red one ??!
- and at last: the 6 targets, (the most easy found thing !)Another thing: some green square buttons can have two lamps inside, an good example here !
- that's make 4 possibilities (all on, all off, right on only, and maybe left on only too,) 
Last edited by wasfa; 03/01/12 01:41 AM.
|
|
|
#3526421 - 02/26/12 02:24 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 54
arkhangelsk
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 54
|
Next version will have the 3D AAR feature, and several new scenarios. 1) Do you have a rough schedule for when the next version can come out? 2) In preparation for the very far off S-300 future, will you eventually expand Asuluk to allow more than 5 target drones? Thanks.
|
|
|
#3526472 - 02/26/12 04:14 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,011
piston79
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,011
|
The Firing Manual say, that you should illuminate the jamming target during engagement.
(My bet is that the missile should receive reference CW signal from the RPN, during all the flight.)
What is "RPN" and "CW"?
No. Detecting from big ranges, and performing burnthrough is 10 times of difference.
B52 is around 50~60sqm.
-----------------
Piston trying to gain any advantage he can
-----------------
B-52 - 80 sqm
F-105 - 3 sqm; SR-71 - 4 sqm...
So, the burnthru range for SR-71 should be comparable to the F-105's - less than 10 km in Wide beam, but for more powerful transmiter of Volkhov... So, no value in combat. But if the 4 sqm RCS, mentioned above is "a clear RCS" (without the effect of superheated gases from the engines), this could affect the RCS and, have some oportunity for "burnthru", for Volkhov in "Pencil beam" (up to 20 km against fighter-sized target...).
No. Detecting from big ranges, and performing burnthrough is 10 times of difference.
What is your point?
|
|
|
#3526822 - 02/27/12 05:01 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: piston79]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 54
arkhangelsk
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 54
|
The Firing Manual say, that you should illuminate the jamming target during engagement.
(My bet is that the missile should receive reference CW signal from the RPN, during all the flight.)
What is "RPN" and "CW"? CW is Continuous Wave (English) RPN is Russian for Radiolocator for Illumination and Guidance (i.e. fire control and illumination radar).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.!
.!
