#3580942 - 05/27/12 04:38 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: piston79]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Lonewolf357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
|
Could you be more specific? Thanks!
There was a report at scientific conference held by Russian MoD and Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences recently, that went to the internet. I tried to post it here, but Russian fonts do not display correctly. I currently trying to find a link. In short, according to it, Pantsyr has serious problems with engaging targets with course parameters more than 2-3 km, advertized range of 20 km is overly optimistic and can only be achieved against non-maneuvering targets, there are problems with the missile fuze, problems with engaging targets in rainy and foggy conditions due to use of millimeter-wave radar, the wheeled vehicle cannot be transported by aircraft and railroad due to its excessive height without disassembly, and so on. Rumors about problems with Pantsyr have long circulated on Russian military forums, this report was a clear confirmation. EDIT: There is a link: http://bmpd.livejournal.com/197121.html A first part of report is in above post, the rest is in post from user off_topic_off dated by 2012-04-07.
Last edited by Lonewolf357; 05/27/12 04:44 PM.
|
|
#3580951 - 05/27/12 04:48 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh
farokh
|
farokh
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
|
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 beautifull PDF ...ThnQ mr.hpasp
|
|
#3580969 - 05/27/12 05:17 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Lonewolf357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
|
USAF over self-confidence in Stealth technology, till 1999.
Honestly, I dobn't think there was an "over-confidence" in Stealth technology within the USAF. There is an extract from book Dark Eagles by Curtis Peebles, about first strike on Baghdad by F-117 in 1991: "As the F-117 pilots turned for home, their mood was somber. They knew they had won a victory, but they were sure the cost had been high. Captain Rob Donaldson said later, "I came out of there on that first night and went 'Whew .. . I survived that one!' But on the way back, I really thought that we had lost some guys due to the heavy volume of bullets and missiles that were thrown up in the air." At Tonopah East (how the King Khalid AB was named), the ground crews awaited the planes' return. The first wave landed at night, while the second and third came back after sunrise. One by one, the returning planes were counted. Every one returned." Maybe after that war there was some over-confidence, but I believe that belonged more to the political circles, rather than military professionals.
Last edited by Lonewolf357; 05/27/12 05:19 PM.
|
|
#3580978 - 05/27/12 05:25 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh
farokh
|
farokh
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
|
ha ha ha ha... guys I'm dying of laughter looock at this site ! http://www.f-117a.comone guys please tell to web sites admin :(col.dani shot down this aircraft like a dirty dog) woooo look at this site... is very complete and no shame about shot down f-117 !!!
|
|
#3581054 - 05/27/12 07:16 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Vympel]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
|
Thank you Ok, then do you have book title/ISBN please? Yes, ISBN: 978-86-87833-00-5 Title: Smena It is a war journal written by Lieutenant colonel Đorđe S. Aničić.
-- 44th VFW
|
|
#3581062 - 05/27/12 07:23 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
|
They dismantled the Iraqi IADS. They suppressed the Serb IADS. Those were IADS, though their quality may have been poor. I agree, these were all old and export versions of SAMs. But also keep in mind that F-16's recently purchased by UAE (Or was it Saudi?) were equipped with a pod capable of jamming the S-300... or some version of the S-300 at any rate. And if you are referring to me calling them speed-bumps, please note that I added other qualifiers for this as well. I am not claiming that you can just ignore SAMs, and, in the case of S-300 being shipped to Iran, that would of course easily deprive Israel and the US of a straight-line attack (and a straight line is badly needed. You don't have the fuel for anything else), and it also makes ambush my S-300 easy. That's why. (By comparison, their indigenous, more short-ranged HAWK, the Tor, etc, can probably be negated by attacking the mission target with stand-off weapons). 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?
-- 44th VFW
|
|
#3581173 - 05/27/12 10:26 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: GrayGhost]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Lonewolf357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
|
They dismantled the Iraqi IADS. They suppressed the Serb IADS. Those were IADS, though their quality may have been poor. I agree, these were all old and export versions of SAMs. But also keep in mind that F-16's recently purchased by UAE (Or was it Saudi?) were equipped with a pod capable of jamming the S-300... or some version of the S-300 at any rate.
And if you are referring to me calling them speed-bumps, please note that I added other qualifiers for this as well. I am not claiming that you can just ignore SAMs, and, in the case of S-300 being shipped to Iran, that would of course easily deprive Israel and the US of a straight-line attack (and a straight line is badly needed. You don't have the fuel for anything else), and it also makes ambush my S-300 easy. That's why. (By comparison, their indigenous, more short-ranged HAWK, the Tor, etc, can probably be negated by attacking the mission target with stand-off weapons).
No. Neither Iraq nor Serbia had an IADS by modern definition of this word - an automated system, that would receive data from all radars in the theatre, process it and distribute target designations to SAMs, allowing them to operate far, far more efficiently, somewhat similar to the AWACS/Link 16 combo that USAF has, only for ground SAMs. Regarding the ability to jam the S-300 - we won't be able to find out, since Russia agreed not to sell them to Iran, and other countries that possess them are not in position of being attacked by U. S. or Israel, fortunately. And, by the way, are you sure that those jamming pods shipped to UAE can REALLY do that? Render these systems useless? Or they only capable to slightly degrade their capabilities? If you're played SAM Simulator that is being discussed here, you would discover that even those antiquated year-1957 Dvinas in Vietnam cannot be jammed "completely" - jamming might only complicate their operation, especially against certain types of targets, but will never render them inoperable. Cheers.
Last edited by Lonewolf357; 05/27/12 10:27 PM.
|
|
#3581185 - 05/27/12 10:44 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
|
I was under the impression that Iraq had this, but I could be wrong. No. Neither Iraq nor Serbia had an IADS by modern definition of this word - an automated system, that would receive data from all radars in the theatre, process it and distribute target designations to SAMs, allowing them to operate far, far more efficiently, somewhat similar to the AWACS/Link 16 combo that USAF has, only for ground SAMs Exact capabilities of jamming equipment against the ... opponent equipment is secret; either way, the exact capabilities will dictate tactics. It doesn't matter if the system is degraded or disabled if 'degraded' means you can stick a HARM or SLAM or some other stand-off weapon in it. It was, however, part of the pod's stated capability (I think it was the 184). Regarding the ability to jam the S-300 - we won't be able to find out, since Russia agreed not to sell them to Iran, and other countries that possess them are not in position of being attacked by U. S. or Israel, fortunately. And, by the way, are you sure that those jamming pods shipped to UAE can REALLY do that? Render these systems useless? Or they only capable to slightly degrade their capabilities? Depends on the type of jammer and its power; there are of course backup capabilities as well. But most importantly, the Dvina does not use a homing missile. This allows it some backup capabilities that a homing missile would not normally have ... although arguably, one might say that a Patriot/S300 can use the TVM system to function in a similar manner in the case of heavy jamming. If you're played SAM Simulator that is being discussed here, you would discover that even those antiquated year-1957 Dvinas in Vietnam cannot be jammed "completely" - jamming might only complicate their operation, especially against certain types of targets, but will never render them inoperable. Cheers.
-- 44th VFW
|
|
#3581235 - 05/28/12 12:24 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: GrayGhost]
|
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 129
Wolfhound
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 129
|
A missile typically need about 5x the g's that the aircraft is pulling in order to hit that aircraft. So, if the SAM can only maintain 9g, you can escape it with a 3g maneuver (sort of. You probably need to maneuver harder in a bunch of cases) I think it depends on the guidance strategy being employed. A pure pursuit missile or similar (three point guidance) may require 5 times the target 'g' level to prosecute an intercept, however a missile flying an intercept geometry and also using a form of proportional navigation, may only require 3 times the targets 'g'. Also reading Vietnam accounts of missile evasion, pilots would often pull a minimum of 6g to evade an SA-2 and these missiles (only capable of around 7g) would still past pretty close by.
Last edited by Wolfhound; 05/28/12 12:31 AM.
*********I have quite a large collection of Flight, Weapon Systems, Tactical & Supplementary Aircraft Manuals for Jets, Helicopters & some Props, spanning the Vietnam era to present. If you're interested in trading Flight Manuals, mainly for modern military aircraft, send me a PM.*********
|
|
#3581242 - 05/28/12 12:41 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Wolfhound]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
|
I think it depends on the guidance strategy being employed. A pure pursuit missile or similar (three point guidance) may require 5 times the target 'g' level to prosecute an intercept, however a missile flying an intercept geometry and also using a form of proportional navigation, may only require 3 times the targets 'g'. The rule of thumb is five. It is a rule of thumb; the actual numbers will depend on the given situation. Typical PN constant is 5. Also reading Vietnam accounts of missile evasion, pilots would often pull a minimum of 6g to evade an SA-2 and these missiles (only capable of around 7g) would still past pretty close by. You maximize the miss distance by pulling the most g you can. It's that simple. This isn't a game where you try to 'nail the optimal pull'.
-- 44th VFW
|
|
#3581243 - 05/28/12 12:41 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Wolfhound]
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
Lieste
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
|
I think it depends on the guidance strategy being employed. A pure pursuit missile or similar (three point guidance) may require 5 times the target 'g' level to prosecute an intercept, however a missile flying an intercept geometry and also using a form of proportional navigation, may only require 3 times the targets 'g'.
Also reading Vietnam accounts of missile evasion, pilots would often pull a minimum of 6g to evade an SA-2 and these missiles (only capable of around 7g) would still past pretty close by. The required 'g' is no more than x2 for PN, although an acheived x3 is often selected to make the guidance 'brisker' and lower energy use by earlier manoeuvring. Under many circumstances required 'g' is far lower, x1.5 should be ample to maintain aiming error constant (and thus miss distance reducing monotonically with range).
|
|
#3581252 - 05/28/12 01:06 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: GrayGhost]
|
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 129
Wolfhound
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 129
|
I think it depends on the guidance strategy being employed. A pure pursuit missile or similar (three point guidance) may require 5 times the target 'g' level to prosecute an intercept, however a missile flying an intercept geometry and also using a form of proportional navigation, may only require 3 times the targets 'g'. The rule of thumb is five. It is a rule of thumb; the actual numbers will depend on the given situation. Typical PN constant is 5.
I agree that it depends, particularly on attack geometry. However it does make me wonder about quotes of 20g SAMs being able to hit targets manoeuvring at up to 7g, but I guess this falls into the 'it depends' category, where the 'it depends' criteria are favourable. Also reading Vietnam accounts of missile evasion, pilots would often pull a minimum of 6g to evade an SA-2 and these missiles (only capable of around 7g) would still past pretty close by. You maximize the miss distance by pulling the most g you can. It's that simple. This isn't a game where you try to 'nail the optimal pull'.
I understand that, but what is confusing is why the missiles often passed very close to the evading jet, despite a well executed manoeuvre? BTW, where did you get those AIM-9L/M graphs from and do you have any more similar information and performance charts? Cheers
Last edited by Wolfhound; 05/28/12 01:07 AM.
*********I have quite a large collection of Flight, Weapon Systems, Tactical & Supplementary Aircraft Manuals for Jets, Helicopters & some Props, spanning the Vietnam era to present. If you're interested in trading Flight Manuals, mainly for modern military aircraft, send me a PM.*********
|
|
#3581259 - 05/28/12 01:26 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Wolfhound]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
|
I agree that it depends, particularly on attack geometry. However it does make me wonder about quotes of 20g SAMs being able to hit targets manoeuvring at up to 7g, but I guess this falls into the 'it depends' category, where the 'it depends' criteria are favourable. Yep Possibly either the jet or missile were quite slow, or it was an in-plane maneuver. That's all speculation though. I understand that, but what is confusing is why the missiles often passed very close to the evading jet, despite a well executed manoeuvre? 'Very close' doesn't mean much. Did someone get out and measure with a tape? If not, then the testimony is not very reliable. Additionally, 'well executed maneuver' is again subjective - the type of maneuver and geometry needs to be known, etc. BTW, where did you get those AIM-9L/M graphs from and do you have any more similar information and performance charts? Cheers It was a study of missile aerodynamics modification - the second performance line is the same missile with fins more like the 120's and a pointed radar radome instead of the IR radome. The paper is not free though.
-- 44th VFW
|
|
#3581267 - 05/28/12 01:46 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: GrayGhost]
|
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 129
Wolfhound
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 129
|
I understand that, but what is confusing is why the missiles often passed very close to the evading jet, despite a well executed manoeuvre? 'Very close' doesn't mean much. Did someone get out and measure with a tape? If not, then the testimony is not very reliable. Additionally, 'well executed maneuver' is again subjective - the type of maneuver and geometry needs to be known, etc.
Sometimes the accounts use estimates such as 'within a wingspan' etc. Also I think in one of Randy Cunningham's accounts, he mentioned that the missiles fuse must have failed because it was well within lethal range. I just read these accounts the other day, so I'll post some of them later. BTW, where did you get those AIM-9L/M graphs from and do you have any more similar information and performance charts? Cheers It was a study of missile aerodynamics modification - the second performance line is the same missile with fins more like the 120's and a pointed radar radome instead of the IR radome. The paper is not free though.
Do you have the name of the paper?
Last edited by Wolfhound; 05/28/12 01:46 AM.
*********I have quite a large collection of Flight, Weapon Systems, Tactical & Supplementary Aircraft Manuals for Jets, Helicopters & some Props, spanning the Vietnam era to present. If you're interested in trading Flight Manuals, mainly for modern military aircraft, send me a PM.*********
|
|
#3581287 - 05/28/12 02:42 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
Lieste
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
|
The value N used in PN tracking is a gain factor for the autopilot, not a multiplier for the 'g' requirement. In fact as the N value increases the peak 'g' required for a centre of mass impact reduces.
The primary effect of a very high N is to eliminate aim-off error at launch (ie off-axis capability of a dogfight missile) - As most of the earlier SAM systems launch the missile along the target LOS (or the 'initial' estimate of required lead) a lower gain will have a similar effect over most of the distance.
A secondary effect of high N is to noticeably increase 'g' and turn requirement in the early phase of flight - the benefit is less tendency to a tail-chase intercept geometry and reduced terminal manoeuvring requirement - noise in the measured LOS rate tends to result in larger course excursions for the same sensor quality, although the correction is more rapid.
N doesn't alter the required lead angle to reach an intercept point at constant velocities, or the turning ability of either target or missile.
With a roughly 100m allowable miss distance, the effect of lower N, or alternative guidance strategies (eg command guidance, beam-riding etc) is a lower probability (and tighter geometry requirements) of a direct hit, but still high probability of passing inside the fusing radius...
This is obviously more likely to be survivable, than a direct hit, but you cannot guarantee forcing a miss unless residual missile 'g' is significantly lower than the target - with optimal geometry you can force a near pass with target 'g' near 0.5 missile 'g', but not only might this be insufficient against a succeeding shot from the same salvo, but any missile passing 'close' has the possibility of fusing.
|
|
#3581398 - 05/28/12 08:54 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh
farokh
|
farokh
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
|
guys... loock at this vietnam line brack II ! loock at number of missile launche! date one 65 missile launch but only 3 b52 it shot down! idont know why lauched a lot of missile like that chart ! i think vietnamian sam crew was very nerves
Last edited by milang; 05/28/12 09:01 AM.
|
|
#3581401 - 05/28/12 08:57 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
"In a jamming environment the TVM technique is still usable because the system can measure range difference and as it has the angular measurement of the target it can determine the difference in path length without loss of range resolution. It has the same range resolution as a non-jamming target"In normal words, if you successfully deny all information of your distance from a Patriot/S-300P SAM, it simply triangulate you (Fire Control Radar - SAM Missile TVM head - Jamming Target). As jamming is not affecting the lead point calculation at all, Patriot/S-300P systems has no TT guidance methods implemented, they fly UPR or lofted UPR depending on target range. AN/ALQ-184 is a BAD choice against S-300P. I would rather choose AN/ALE-50 / -55, or Stealth, after all metric target acquisition radars were eliminated by standoff weapons. I still think that sending in F-117A above Belgrade alone, without any support (CAP/ECM/Weasel) was over optimistic, or suicidal.
Last edited by Hpasp; 05/28/12 12:08 PM.
|
|
|
|