Really strange...
... I modified all the links.

Klicking the link still does not work, but pasting the URL into the address bar does.
Probably some referral issue, maybe MEdiafire doesn't allow that anymore?

From Hungary, under Firefox/IE it works.
Now I modified it to https is it better now?

Ah, apparently it's a problem with Opera, it works with Internet Explorer for me.
I'm quite happy with the advanced manual - with the growing thread lenght it's becoming increasingly difficult to find the explanations of the more obscure switches!

excuse me mr.hp on i can understand your mean sentence (those foor falcons migts have been rusted :D)

if falcon if freaK wht can run from 6 missiles sa-2 at below link

http://www.aparat.com/v/9c78a1ce36cf29e1e9c2fc5ee3641f74191329

where is exactly wrong?? pilots skill of falcon is very good or iraqian sa-2 sam crew is a freak ???

wich one u guess??

Vintorez is THE BEZ (-t) !

mr.hpasp

we are not kiding! look at the below picture!!! that pdf is realy blocked!! i try with firefix and ie .. but i get one result



please repair home site sam simulator... mayhap sites hit by virus or mayhap accident bug

attention attention


when i open link from copy pase link into the address bar is working ! but when im going to sam somulator home site and from there i clikcing at link's media fire write blocked !

I dont have a link, I have the book.

When looking at hit rates of early SA2/SA3 weapons (and indeed some others) you must consider that on locking the FCR you obtain a launch signature from the missile control antenna, even if no missile is in the air... these "missiles" are really easy to dodge, having no energy (or indeed warhead). You can compare the numbers of SA2 fired at bombers (actual counts by NVA) against number of launches (USAAF records) to see a dramatic difference in these two values.

When a missile is launched it tends to be one of a pair/triplet - it is rare to have a solitary launch.

With a real missile in the air, it is typical that the tactical situation will include either or both of self protection jammers (ALQ131 etc) or standoff jammers (EF111 and EA6B ~ though I think? that both of these types are now withdrawn, and I don't know what the current jammer platform is?). This should force the less energy efficient (and less effective against manoeuvring targets) T/T mode, instead of 1/2 K or an INS & P/N mode. With no lead, command guidance and possibly unknown range and a shot at too high (or too low) range, the missile will be far easier to avoid than one fired in 'clear skies' in the heart of the envelope. Heavy jamming also incidentally increases the likelihood of missile warning without launch.

one big question! please help evry one can do it favor to me .. about it one my question!
karat TV track targeting is realy famous in sam system's but it no simulated!!! why??
because if it created sam sim need 2 FCO ?? i quess if we want .. we could creat it with our knowlege!

i think this happend can be done ... with creat 2 object internal and external viewing
for hit & track target for long and mediun distance use internal view looks like that we have in sim
and for hit target for 5 km distance swich to external view and change position to karat tv tracking!
i think this is good idea for develop full realestic sa-2 and sa-3 !

every person who use sam sim know exactly sa-2 and sa-3 without include karat tv tracking sam sim is defective

without tracking tv target i think sam simulator is semi realestic to swich not full realestic to swich

to be honest : i think if mr.hpasp wants to creat more senarios about operation for alied forces ! karat tv tarcking most include at future
best shot to nato weasel f-16 in operation allied forces only with karat tv tarcking mode is good to be done!

Ok, then do you have book title/ISBN please?

There's a replacement for the pod, and a bunch of aircraft have internal jammers. The F-18G currently does the EA-6B's job. I don't know what replaced the EF-111, but right now anything with an AESA radar can probably rain on a SAM's parade.

Unless you can show me where the USAF suddenly stopped flying, operating or producing or planning stealth fighters, that statement is pretty much a fairy tale.

Rather, when all you get in a 2-month bombing campaign is a couple of planes shot down, makes it sound more like SAMs are heavily over-estimated. Although, the Serbs were clever people - by doing what they did they kept their SAMs operational in order to cover their army should there have been a ground invasion.



This isn't the first time or the last time an aircraft is shot down due to lack of EW support. There is a good deal of examples since '91 at least, and probably earlier than that as well.

And once more, the SAMs were proven to be nothing but speed-bumps.



Yeah, except they didn't. All the US pilots had to do was call 'Magnum' in the clear and the SAM operators would tuck their tails between their legs and hide.

It worked.

I truly love the documentation. If you bought a book with all this it would be tremendously expensive.

Also, guys-I can see that the discussion regarding the combat effectiveness of defensive missiles is one that's causing some emotion on both sides. Let's keep the debate civil and refrain from calling the opinions of others "fairy tales" or claiming that the other side's pilots are cowards. Thanks.

Fully agree.
Lets behave like professionals do in Peace...




... and concentrate on the SAMSIM!

Yes,
ISBN: 978-86-87833-00-5
Title: Smena

It is a war journal written by Lieutenant colonel Djordje S. Anicic.

Adding the possibility to launch the V-880N 5V28N (Gammon) Nuclear tipped SAM Missile, for the S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) system.
The 25kt TA-18 warhead has 60% more destructive power than the V-760 15D (Guideline Mod.4) Nuclear tipped SAM Missile, available for the S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) system...



... and a bit larger than the conventional warhead at the left.



Nice reading here:
http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/pdf/pzr_s_200_w_880n.pdf

Nope. S-300/400 belongs to Air Defence forces (currently a part of Air Force), while Tor belongs to the Army (ground troops), at least that's how it was in Soviet Union and currently is in Russia. The Tor's primary mission is to protect troops in the field. Each Soviet combat division had 12 Tors (or 16 Osa's) in its Air Defence Regiment. Granted, Army had its own version of S-300, the S-300V, but it was issued at Army, not divisional, level and its mission was to protect troops against ballistic missiles, such as Pershing-1. Air Defence forces saw (and see) Pantsyr as a companion to S-300, although it is likely to be used to defend targets other than S-300 batteries. But due to poor performance of Pantsyr, Almaz-Antey now develops a Morfei SAM, that I mentioned a few pages above, for this and other purposes.

But you must admit that U. S. NEVER encountered any 3rd generation SAMs in combat. S-300, Tor-M1, Buk-M2. Neither they encountered an integrated air defence network. I wonder if SAMs are so inefficient, why both U. S. and Israelis made such an enormous effort to prevent a shipment of Russian S-300 to Iran?

Thanks for the correction Lonewolf357, you are right!
My point is that this system engaged some small-sized targets like missiles...



Could you be more specific?
Thanks!