I tried Neva too, all missiles are shown in AAR, but many of them were not visible on the screen. Note there was only one hit and two launches for targets 2-5.
I tried Neva too, all missiles are shown in AAR, but many of them were not visible on the screen. Note there was only one hit and two launches for targets 2-5.
00:07:47, Missile exploded on Channel-2 Practice target LA-17M [program-1] simulating A-4 Skyhawk killed by SAM. (miss distance: 1m)
Total, SNR On Air Time: 7min 55sec
Did you change launcher after a salvo? (We not used to expell all missiles from the same one, if we have other ready.)
It might be a bug, or natural limitation of the Neva system. The missile has 4s unguided acceleration phase, and the SNR has quite a narrow fixed missile capture beam, so if it is turning during launch, it can be a "NE ZAHVAT" (loose) the missile.
During 78 days of Operation Allied Force, the 3/250rd PVO fired on 7 target expelling 13 V-601 missiles. (one was not started at all) From the 13 launched missiles, 2 had "NE ZAHVAT", so only 11 was guiding. They had 21% (3 from 14) of non performing missile during the war.
Their close defense launched... 3 9K32M Strela-2 (SA-7B) 1 RL-4M [R-60 AA-8] missile on ground launcher 1 R-73E (AA-11) missile on ground launcher ... IR missiles also.
Last edited by Hpasp; 08/10/1211:12 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Yes and no. Here is what I did: I acquired the first target, when it is close enougn I fired two missiles from PU1 After succesful hit I acquired the second target and fired at it After lauch (shortly) I changed PU1 to PU2 and no missiles emerged on the screen, so I thought it is caused by early PU change So I fired two missiles from PU2 After acquisition of the third target I fired from PU2 again (only one missile shown and only one hit). After acquisition of the fourth target I changed PU and fired. Only one missile and hit again. The same for the last target (no PU change).
Maybe it is the NE ZAHVAT because targets were quite close, I will retry it. Unfortunately I have no 3DAAR because I have not run SAMSIM as an administrator to have it rights to write files to Program Files (I clicked the Save 3DAAR, but no file has been created, this is first time I run SAMSIM on win 7, until now I had XP, I was lazy to reinstall :-))
00:06:42, Missile exploded on Channel-1 Practice target LA-17M [program-1] simulating A-4 Skyhawk hit by SAM. (miss distance: 57m)
Total, SNR On Air Time: 7min 35sec
The first target fired upon from PU1. Everything went well. The second target also from PU1, only one missile shown and one hit. Changed to PU2 and fired upon the third target. One missile shown and one hit. After launch I noticed that OTKAZ I turned off while OTKAZ II remained on and missile was on its way to the target. The fourth target also from PU2, one missile and one hit. OTKAZ I remained on.
So far my only half-success with S-125 against SEAD fighters in the second Yugo mission At least I have survived. (Btw. it is much easier to shoot them down with Volkhov)
Click to reveal..
22:06pm 30th of April, 1999. Operation Allied Force, B-2A raid on Belgrade
Targets: Nat'l MOD HQ FRY MUP HQ MOD HQ South Serb MUP HQ Army HQ Facility A
Lets discuss S-125M1 Neva (SA-3B Goa) specific issues here...
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
The same situation, the second salvo failed at all. No NE ZAHVAT message.
We will need to track this bug down. End of next week, I will release a SAM.exe that will write all the missile loosing causes into the AAR.
Last edited by Hpasp; 08/17/1207:58 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
So far my only half-success with S-125 against SEAD fighters in the second Yugo mission frown At least I have survived. (Btw. it is much easier to shoot them down with Volkhov)
Still missing your Stealth shots of the new OAF situation...
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
00:06:21, Missile exploded on Channel-2 F-16CJ Falcon SEAD Number-2 killed by SAM. (miss distance: 40m)
Total, SNR On Air Time: 1min 11sec
3D AAR:
(download this to computer and change .jpg to .gpx)
Good battle!
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
On "S" screen you need to change method of arming missile warhead (black switch in right down - to right) so warhead is activated by command from your station. Then you need to manually control expected range of the target by manually managing elevation through known altitude from board.
It requires big precision and you also need to adjust manual setting according to the target flight direction - if it is flying towards you, lengthwise or receding.
It is like Volkhov's I87V-three-point but done manually.
As I said it is not easy but I do not know about easier method.
On "S" screen you need to change method of arming missile warhead (black switch in right down - to right) so warhead is activated by command from your station. Then you need to manually control expected range of the target by manually managing elevation through known altitude from board.
It requires big precision and you also need to adjust manual setting according to the target flight direction - if it is flying towards you, lengthwise or receding.
It is like Volkhov's I87V-three-point but done manually.
As I said it is not easy but I do not know about easier method.
dude.... in sa-3 PDF no where wrote about it... why??
I recommend training in asuluk against non-jamming target with this method. Without jamming you will see your error in commanding missiles against target.
Btw. It seems that easier target in the second 1999 mission is that F-16 coming from the northeast against 3/250 battery because of its turn within engagement zone - it is easier to track it than F-16s coming from the south against the other two batteries.
Here I made two firings with two missiles each. My first attack failed and only hit the decoy but my second attack was succesfull:
Click to reveal..
22:06pm 30th of April, 1999. Operation Allied Force, B-2A raid on Belgrade
Targets: Nat'l MOD HQ FRY MUP HQ MOD HQ South Serb MUP HQ Army HQ Facility A
00:05:30, SNR OFF THE AIR ----------------- 00:05:38, IRZ knocked out by HARM
That was close...
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
My personal opinion is that no B-2A was hit during OAF.
One F-117A was downed [82-0806 "Something Wicked"], another F-117A was hit on its left wing [82-803 "Unexpected Guest"], and one F-16CG was downed [88-0550].
Several other NATO planes were hit, but were able to fly back to base, so no real physical confirmation of these events are exist... ... and also huge numbers of AN/ALE-50 were hit.
(pilots called it an "American Express Card", "you simply do not leave home without it...")
PS: While You SAMSIM players used to regularly overachieve the historical score (being able to repeat the missions,while not being in life threatening situation), so far I not seen any AAR with hit on "Spirit of Missouri"... ... and its surprising, that no AAR was presented so far, with the historical hit on F-117A 82-803 "Unexpected Guest". You are still keep dodging with valueless Weasels, and give the most expensive Stealth bomber targets free fly away...
Last edited by Hpasp; 09/13/1205:22 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
[ ... and its surprising, that no AAR was presented so far, with the historical hit on F-117A 82-803 "Unexpected Guest".
I have shot the F-117 down, I even posted a video here :-)
Ooops, I missed it... ... could you link it?
Last edited by Hpasp; 09/13/1208:41 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
First of all I would like to thank you for your amazing sim and all the hard work you put in it. My question for you is are you going to produce more OAF scenarios? I presume that the scenarios come from a certain book about OAF - will you include more NEVA regiments engagements described in the book and will you include KUB engagements - provided that you model KUB itself first? (I wish... or at leastas an option for KRUG)
Hello guys, has anyone tried to bring Gary Powers down with S-125? I have conducted several tests and I think it is not possible, missiles are lost just a bit before hit.
Should be added to the manual that the range boresight needs to be close to the target to be able to lock it up.
Seemed to be trivial... ... to be able to track a target, you need to follow it in both angles (Fi1/Fi2).
As Fi1 displays only the 3km magnified area of the range boresight, you can only lock it up if it is visible in Fi1.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
OK, what is up with SA-3 SDC? Is the system not finnicky enough without it on? I keep losing lock every five seconds with it on, even with all the parameters ( velocity switch ) and using or trying to use the little knob thingy.
OK, what is up with SA-3 SDC? Is the system not finnicky enough without it on? I keep losing lock every five seconds with it on, even with all the parameters ( velocity switch ) and using or trying to use the little knob thingy.
Here is the diagrams of the target signal strength vs target Doppler speed.
First shows the 80km mode, where the usage of SDC is not recommended. The middle diagram shows the 40km Slow speed setting (V<300m/s), while the lower is for 40km high speed (V<600m/s).
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Well, on the ashuluk range with the tornado, it still loses lock, even in the BSZC MD mode. Is it supposed to lose lock from time to time? It's an old system, I can certainly understand that there are imperfections in the SNR's SDC system.
Well, on the ashuluk range with the tornado, it still loses lock, even in the BSZC MD mode. Is it supposed to lose lock from time to time? It's an old system, I can certainly understand that there are imperfections in the SNR's SDC system.
What was the target speed when you lost it, and what mode was the SDC in?
(Remember, if target speed is higher than 600m/s, you loose it. Also do not use SDC with 80km range mode.)
Last edited by Hpasp; 10/08/1207:01 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Well not in ashuluk, it works fine there, but appaently in the War of Attrition scenarios is where it doesn't work. I am tracking some of the mirages in the first scenarion, and I shoot at them, but after that I lose lock, with the speed indicator staying in the 300 m/s - 600m/s range. It might be due to the ground blocking the way though.
Question by S-125 Neva? What about if the interference In the documentation that there is little, what to do? Need only 3 Tumbler include all or something else ... Question can also S-125 Neva shoot Dogon? I tried, but it did not permit lamp is not lit when the target is removed
You achieved something, that neither I, neither 3.rd/250.rbr PVO were never be able to achieve! They hit the F-117A and damaged it to be unable to fly any other mission. Its wing was bleeding fuel so much, that to be able to fly it back to the US after OAF, it had to be continuously refueled by a tanker...
Also your 2~3s on air time practice is extremely valuable!!!
PS: can you make a YouTube video about it?
Last edited by Hpasp; 10/21/1203:17 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Hpasp can you please write here something about differences between Neva versions - S-125, S-125M and S-125M1?
S-125 Neva (SA-3A) system with the V-600P 5V24 missile was the first version, fielded in 1961. It had four, two missile capable launcher. This system seen only limited export from 1969 into: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, and Iraq.
Range: 6 to 20 kilometers Maximum target ceiling: 12,000 meters Minimum ceiling 300 meters
S-125M Neva-M (SA-3B) system with the V-601P 5V27 missile was the second version, fielded from 1970. It had four, four missile capable launcher. It introduced printed circuit boards, and the Karat target tracking camera. It was exported between 1973 and 1983.
Target intercept ceiling ranged from 50 to 18,000 meters.
S-125M1A Neva-M1A (SA-3B) with the V-601PD 5V27D missile was fielded from 1978. The near aerial target interception boundary was reduced to 3.5 kilometers and intercept ceiling to 20 meters. The anti jamming GSN equipment was introduced.
It was exported between 1983 and 1989.
Last edited by Hpasp; 10/21/1203:49 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
guyzzz do you have any video link about sa-3B launcher? this launcher could turn around itself on 360 degrees or this launcher limited and can't turn 360 degrees like sa-2 launcher?????
SM-78 5P71 (SA-3A) launcher...
SM-106 5P73 (SA-3B) launcher...
Both has 360 degree capability.
Last edited by Hpasp; 10/23/1201:10 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Seems to be a dangerous home made Surface-to-Surface weapon.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
00:04:46, Missile exploded on Channel-1 F-117A Stealth hit by SAM. (miss distance: 118m)
00:04:52, Missile exploded on Channel-2 F-117A Stealth killed by SAM. (miss distance: 80m)
00:04:54, SNR OFF THE AIR -----------------
00:05:01, IRZ knocked out by HARM
Total, SNR On Air Time: 56sec
Extreme video of an exceptional fight!!! Can I share it on SAMSIM website?
PS: In real life, you have just one chance, and you have to keep in mind the consequences of faliure (mind the blood on the wall).
Last edited by Hpasp; 10/29/1211:42 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
This video is nothing spectacular. I just want to show how to set up parameters to find that F-117. Btw. I did not switched off transmitter after I have found the target - that was mistake and only IRZ saved me. Not to mention that I should not switch on and off transmitter so repeatedly but I should use dummy thing instead.
I think it is for changing the frequency of the radar. One for peace time, and one for war.
Vympel is right. The switch has 3 positions (from botom to top) - "Lambda 2", "Lambda 1" and "Auto". The greek symbol λ "Lambda" is used to name the wavelenght. As frequency is the speed of the wave travels/wavelenght, with wavelenght changing and speed = const, the result is different frequency...
I think it is for changing the frequency of the radar. One for peace time, and one for war.
Vympel is right. The switch has 3 positions (from botom to top) - "Lambda 2", "Lambda 1" and "Auto". The greek symbol λ "Lambda" is used to name the wavelenght. As frequency is the speed of the wave travels/wavelenght, with wavelenght changing and speed = const, the result is different frequency...
It has no effect in the sim as far as I know. In real life it is used so potential enemys dont record your frequency and do a better job of jamming the radar in event of a war.
This video is nothing spectacular. I just want to show how to set up parameters to find that F-117. Btw. I did not switched off transmitter after I have found the target - that was mistake and only IRZ saved me. Not to mention that I should not switch on and off transmitter so repeatedly but I should use dummy thing instead.
why do we need to switch the transmitter off after tracking a target? how will the missile hit it's target?
and how does changing the antenna mode from operational to dummy might help me?
Switching the transmitter to the dummy load has the same effect as switching it completely off: It stops transmitting. Which means that it doesn't provide a target for HARM missiles anymore.
1) Switching off and on transmitter in such repeated way can cause harm to the transmitter so I should use dummy load. 2) Switching off transmitter or use of dummy load needs to be done after several seconds or HARM can be launched against me. When I started to search for targets I used only several seconds scan - I should made one last turning off or use dummy load just before firing missile to minimize time exposed to HARM attack. Though I was very lucky - IRZ saved me in the last moment. Btw. my best results from Libya are when Wild Weasels are unable to launch single HARM despite my killing of three to four aircrafts.
Note variouse type of jamming - most of them not seen in SAMSIM!!!
Wow, how do you find such amazing videos?!
I've heard about these various jamming techniques, but I've never seen actual video of what it looks like!
It's also nice to see this upgraded SA-3, with some of the analogue dials digitally superimposed over the display. Maybe Hpasp could give us the option of having it too?
we can see how the missile pass near "Saman" target, without exploading. There was a comment in a forum, that this is due to the radiofuse, which cannot detonate agains targets with low RCS (the value mentioned was <0.3 m2, for "Saman" RCS is 0,36-0,51 for type 1 and 0,56-1,03 - for type 2) Saman
If that's true, it appears that Col. Dani used K3, or RCS of F-117 is bigger than uppermentioned...
In the end of this video: we can see how the missile pass near "Saman" target, without exploading. There was a comment in a forum, that this is due to the radiofuse, which cannot detonate agains targets with low RCS (the value mentioned was <0.3 m2, for "Saman" RCS is 0,36-0,51 for type 1 and 0,56-1,03 - for type 2) Saman
If that's true, it appears that Col. Dani used K3, or RCS of F-117 is bigger than uppermentioned...
The shape of F-117 and any other stealth aircraft is optimized to reduce the reflection towards the most probable observers, e. g. SAM and aircraft radars. This means that its RCS diagram will have not only deep gaps, but also a few sharp spikes, up to several square meters, or even tenths of square meters, in directions from which its illumination with such radars is highly unlikely. For example, if one would place a radar directly under the passing F-117, pointing towards the sky and illuminating it from below, its flat belly would create a very powerful return signal, on the order of several tenths of square meters. This means, that if missile would pass directly below, or above the F-117, its radiofuse would have no problem with return signal. There are also few narrow "bright spots" from other directions as well. On the opposite, if it would pass in the area, where its RF signal will be reflected to the different direction, it will most likely fail to detonate. I guess that Col. Dani had as much luck with this as with anything else. IIRC, his first missile failed to detonate, and only second did the job.
Also, the RCS of Saman is not that low, remember that mentioned values are for frontal RCS, not for the one from the side, where it will be much bigger due to reflection from its body and especially fins and rudders. My bet is that a failure to detonate was due to the faulty radiofuse - remember that the newest of these missiles were manufactured around 1990, and by the time of these trials have already exceeded their guaranteed shelf life.
Also, the RCS of Saman is not that low, remember that mentioned values are for frontal RCS, not for the one from the side, where it will be much bigger due to reflection from its body and especially fins and rudders. My bet is that a failure to detonate was due to the faulty radiofuse - remember that the newest of these missiles were manufactured around 1990, and by the time of these trials have already exceeded their guaranteed shelf life.
I am agree with all your arguments, dear Lonewolf, I just wondering is it true, that missile radiofuse has dificulties against small RCS object (since I havent find such data). If true, and having in mind that Col. Dani hasn't idea what was comming against them, it appears he was really lucky (as no evidence of using K3 mode was mentioned from Z. Dani, nor in Anicic book).
Pity, that Hpasp is too bussy with doing a Christmass gift for Faroukh, Max and other childrens, and cannot help in this one...
My bet is that a failure to detonate was due to the faulty radiofuse - remember that the newest of these missiles were manufactured around 1990, and by the time of these trials have already exceeded their guaranteed shelf life.
Fully agree with your assumption.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
The switch at the bottom right, I think Hpasp said before that it's for toggling between Automatic fuse selection, proximity fuse or command fuse detonation modes.
Pity, that Hpasp is too bussy with doing a Christmass gift for Faroukh, Max and other childrens, and cannot help in this one...
The cheap, 2cm wavelength (weak-high frequency-narrow pencil beamed) Zeus, proved in the Middle East on several occasions, that it is more lethal, than its more expensive SAM counter-pairs...
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
My bet is that a failure to detonate was due to the faulty radiofuse - remember that the newest of these missiles were manufactured around 1990, and by the time of these trials have already exceeded their guaranteed shelf life.
The V601 uses a much more advanced radio proxy fuse (5E18). It detects the target between 0..105m or 0..30m (SB) distance. (adding receiver gain with impulse time)
Last edited by Hpasp; 12/10/1208:10 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
1.in ashuluk target with sa-3 always my "miss distance" is usually under 20m but in scenarios my "miss distance" is upper than 70 m why? how can i fix this ? its normal or i have to do another tactics ?
2.what different between sa-2 CG method and sa-3 CG method? why in sa-2 we can use self destruction, but in sa-3 we cant use it!
1.in ashuluk target with sa-3 always my "miss distance" is usually under 20m but in scenarios my "miss distance" is upper than 70 m why? how can i fix this ? its normal or i have to do another tactics ?
Real targets might not fly so low parameter (or try to avoid missiles), as the Ashuluk targets.
Originally Posted By: farokh
2.what different between sa-2 CG method and sa-3 CG method?
Never heard of "CG" method.
Originally Posted By: farokh
why in sa-2 we can use self destruction, but in sa-3 we cant use it!
You can self destruct the Neva missile, similarly to the Volhov.
Last edited by Hpasp; 12/15/1202:27 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Still not get it... ... you have K/TT methods on both systems.
Last edited by Hpasp; 12/15/1203:35 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Still not get it... ... you have K/TT methods on both systems.
ok, lets begin this subject from other view... ....how many command guided methods developed in the world?
i see one new method in the s-125 pechora 2A, they call it "SNK-A" with low "missile trajectory deviation up to 40m" also they fire one missile on T/T method with "trajectory deviation up to 80m"
why we have not any SNK-A on samsim? s-125 pechora 2A fired on T/T , so this system use command guided too like neva/pechora
i see one new method in the s-125 pechora 2A, they call it "SNK-A" with low "missile trajectory deviation up to 40m" also they fire one missile on T/T method with "trajectory deviation up to 80m" why we have not any SNK-A on samsim? s-125 pechora 2A fired on T/T , so this system use command guided too like neva/pechora
Which variant of S-125 (SA-3) is simulated into the SAMSIM??? (Bet IT IS NOT "PECHORA 2A"!)
Last edited by piston79; 12/15/1207:00 PM. Reason: Grammar
i see one new method in the s-125 pechora 2A, they call it "SNK-A" with low "missile trajectory deviation up to 40m" also they fire one missile on T/T method with "trajectory deviation up to 80m" why we have not any SNK-A on samsim? s-125 pechora 2A fired on T/T , so this system use command guided too like neva/pechora
Which variant of S-125 (SA-3) is simulated into the SAMSIM??? (Bet IT IS NOT "PECHORA 2A"!
piston79? i ask this question from hpasp
i want know just about other command guided methods, like SNK-A what is it? what different between SNK-A and T/T?
As the manual of SAMSIM states, its simulates the operation of the "S-125M1 Neva (SA-3B Goa)" system, "Realistic to the Switch".
No Pechora please...
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Anyone else notice that the track line moves from right to left and back again at the 6:50 mark? Switching between displaying the left or right receiver?
Anyone else notice that the track line moves from right to left and back again at the 6:50 mark? Switching between displaying the left or right receiver? I guess that's a switch we don't have in SAMSim.
Correct guess! This one (missing from the sim):
Last edited by Hpasp; 01/20/1302:30 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
f-16 CJ Weasel : this place is safe enough ?! . . . AWAX : yeah, go ahead ! . . . . f-16 CJ Weasel : roger that..... hey babe babe , Ooo babe babe [singing with low sound] . . . AWAX : take care , open you eyes , you are close to suspect zone ! . . . . f-16 CJ Weasel : ROGER ! . . . f-16 CJ Weasel : i have an attention on my RWR! . . . . AWAX : when you get sign from SAM , just try to lock on it . . . f-16 CJ Weasel : i trying but , its not stability sign ! i cant lock on it . . . . AWAX : dont worry , just remember what i said about jettison decoy , get deep breath and relax, go ahead! . . . . f-16 CJ Weasel : ROGER . . . f-16 CJ Weasel : OMG WTF missile missile !!!!!!!! . . . AWAX : i got it ... i counting the countdown numbers . 8,7,6,5,4,3,2 NOW . . . AWAX : hey ? . . . AWAX : HELLO ? . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Click to reveal..
02:04am 2nd of May, 1999. Operation Allied Force, F-16CG Falcon DEAD mission against Belgrade Air Defense
question from hpasp about during killing f-16 555th by genral zoltan dani.
1.zoltan dani for tracking f-16 555th used from what kinde of method for tracking target altitude ? IADS was enable for zoltan dani ?
2. in allied forces scenario ! i check all of f-16 and f-15 over there on p-18 scope! why fighters dont used DM jammer for hiding from p-18 or p-15 scope ?
It seems to be something all command guided missiles do. Probably since it doesn't know exactly where the missile is from moment to moment, it's hard to know exactly which way the missile is going until it's gone that way a few metres.
While the manoeuvres look 'many' and extreme viewed end-on... they are relatively "straight" absolutely and particularly when compared to a passive IR missile in P/N mode, which turns significantly.
All missiles have 'slop' in aerodynamics and control ~ these just 'meander' single sided a bit more ~ but a higher frequency 'jitter' around the mean of a lower amplitude will generate very similar (possibly even higher for a 'tighter' profile) drag, and only marginally longer range if that... Lofting and better prediction of impact point will give longer range, but only in cases where the target is non-manoeuvring (or lacks the time to appreciably alter position compare to predicted impact point).
The G-5 is simply a gun. But the G-6 was also a self propelled vehicle. Every time that they used their G-5, the Cubans in Pechora were able to determine the trajectory of the projectile. They would then send their MIG-23s to destroy the battery. As a result, the South Africans began to use their G-6. It was, after all, mobile: it fired a few volleys and moved off. Just like that!
The G-5 is simply a gun. But the G-6 was also a self propelled vehicle. Every time that they used their G-5, the Cubans in Pechora were able to determine the trajectory of the projectile. They would then send their MIG-23s to destroy the battery. As a result, the South Africans began to use their G-6. It was, after all, mobile: it fired a few volleys and moved off. Just like that!
That's highly unlikely. 155-mm artillery shell has an RCS on the order of 0,001 square meters, IIRC. Remember how difficult it is to lock on that F-117 with a comparable RCS in the skies over Serbia? Locking on a shell that flies very fast will be next to impossible. Also, chances that P-15 radar will ever see it are very minimal.
Thing is that shells don't fly 'very fast'... they are nearly universally below 200m/s near their practical ranges for indirect fire ~ only with low angle direct fire over open sites can you expect supersonic flight throughout.
The trajectory is fairly predictable once you have 2-3 points you can rapidly estimate an origination... anything else coming from this region will confirm the exact firing site.
There exist a specialist (but not more complex) series of counter artillery and counter mortar radar that perform this exact function. I think it possible that there is some confusion about exactly what is being discussed, but equally I can see a gun position that was static and a 'nuisance' being pinpointed over a matter of hours or days, even with the 'wrong' equipment...
Flash and sound ranging could give some indication of 'grid square' and then a systematic 'search' with radar of this zone during gun activity should pinpoint the location.
Is it also possible that the Rgt had attached a 'proper' counter artillery radar element, using the ADA net to coordinate with fixed wing strike aircraft?
** And to add to the AD-system as C-Arty Radar... the 'official' Counter artillery radar was a development using elements of the Krug Radar, on an MTLB chassis...
That's highly unlikely. 155-mm artillery shell has an RCS on the order of 0,001 square meters, IIRC. Remember how difficult it is to lock on that F-117 with a comparable RCS in the skies over Serbia? Locking on a shell that flies very fast will be next to impossible. Also, chances that P-15 radar will ever see it are very minimal.
You made an interesting post. I did a little googling, and found a few different places that give the RCS of shells as 0.001m, so I think I know where you got it from.
But, I found a couple of other places that supposedly give theoretical or real RCS from a shell depending on the angle to the shell, and the RCS varies hugely depending on the angle to the radar.
From side-on a shell can give an RCS of 0.01m between 70 and 110 degrees, or 0.1m if even closer to side on, around 80 to 90 degrees. Even at less perfect angles, it can still be over 0.001m with a little luck.
Now I'm sure all this depends on lots of factors, such as radar frequency, shell shape, shell trajectory, etc... but it doesn't seem as impossible as it initially seemed, and that an SA-3 could see a shell with a bit of luck.
Thing is that shells don't fly 'very fast'... they are nearly universally below 200m/s near their practical ranges for indirect fire ~ only with low angle direct fire over open sites can you expect supersonic flight throughout.
I think that modern long-range howitzer shell never goes subsonic. About 320-350 m/sec. is the lowest speed for maximum range.
Quote:
There exist a specialist (but not more complex) series of counter artillery and counter mortar radar that perform this exact function. I think it possible that there is some confusion about exactly what is being discussed, but equally I can see a gun position that was static and a 'nuisance' being pinpointed over a matter of hours or days, even with the 'wrong' equipment...
Yes, but these radars use a specialized search mode, not a manual-steered narrow "pencil beam".
Quote:
Is it also possible that the Rgt had attached a 'proper' counter artillery radar element, using the ADA net to coordinate with fixed wing strike aircraft?
** And to add to the AD-system as C-Arty Radar... the 'official' Counter artillery radar was a development using elements of the Krug Radar, on an MTLB chassis...
There was a specialized artillery radar, designated as 1RL239, but it appears that it wasn't exported from USSR.
Not the G5, but the similar GC-45, because I have three 'extracted from FT' values for max range firing of ERFB-BB, ERFB, M107 ammunition natures.
The 'headline figures' are:
ERFB-BB mass 48kg, V0 (zone 10) 897m/s Range 39600m, *average* range-rate zero-zero 353m/s ERFB mass 45.5kg, V0 (zone 10) 897m/s Range 29900m, *average* range-rate zero-zero 302m/s M107 mass 43kg, V0 (zone 8) 675m/s Range 17800m, *average* range-rate zero-zero 274m/s
The actual path travelled will approximate a parabola, so 'actual average' velocity will be a bit higher, however the minimum velocity, which is usually near or just after the apex, is considerably lower.
For the M107 projectile at max charge I get 'around' 250m/s at between 10, 11km, for projectile impact at 17800m. For ERFB, 'around' 260m/s at 15km, for projectile impact at 29900m.
The actual value may differ by a few m/s, but I'd be *very* surprised if the minimums exceeded the 'average range rate' for a max-range shot.
Last edited by Lieste; 04/05/1310:15 PM. Reason: ERFB, not ERBB for second example.
Is it also possible that the Rgt had attached a 'proper' counter artillery radar element, using the ADA net to coordinate with fixed wing strike aircraft?
At same article - complaining about counter battery commands (probably used some old sound tracking devices), that they didn't do anything...
Originally Posted By: Lieste
** And to add to the AD-system as C-Arty Radar... the 'official' Counter artillery radar was a development using elements of the Krug Radar, on an MTLB chassis...
Share some!
p.s. Could they used Karat for tracking muzzle flashes?
(I'm familiar with these systems from other research some time ago, but these pages were the best that I could 'grab' quickly ~ my Google-Fu is being overwhelmed by a surfeit of Lamphreys silly copy & paste lists, such as the "armour and penetration" wargame estimates lists ~ which make it *very* hard to find the primary or secondary sources needed to evaluate information for value).
Not the G5, but the similar GC-45, because I have three 'extracted from FT' values for max range firing of ERFB-BB, ERFB, M107 ammunition natures.
The 'headline figures' are:
ERFB-BB mass 48kg, V0 (zone 10) 897m/s Range 39600m, *average* range-rate zero-zero 353m/s ERFB mass 45.5kg, V0 (zone 10) 897m/s Range 29900m, *average* range-rate zero-zero 302m/s M107 mass 43kg, V0 (zone 8) 675m/s Range 17800m, *average* range-rate zero-zero 274m/s
The actual path travelled will approximate a parabola, so 'actual average' velocity will be a bit higher, however the minimum velocity, which is usually near or just after the apex, is considerably lower.
For the M107 projectile at max charge I get 'around' 250m/s at between 10, 11km, for projectile impact at 17800m. For ERBB, 'around' 260m/s at 15km, for projectile impact at 29900m.
The actual value may differ by a few m/s, but I'd be *very* surprised if the minimums exceeded the 'average range rate' for a max-range shot.
OK, I got it. Still, I wouldn't belive that lock on 155-mm shell with SNR-125 can be achieved - it still flies fast, and it has a small RCS. Anywhere near the apex it would be simply too far and too high, and at the terminal phase it would dive quickly. Maybe, some top-notch crew at the range could do that for an experiment, but in a combat situation... Besides, even if you did traced a few shells, you still need to calculate the firing point from this data, which is quite challenging. You need a very accurate flight profile and some really complex calculations. Possible theoretically, but practically... Very unlikely. More like one of countless tales from that war, like making boots from the skin of captured South Africans and presenting them to the Soviet general, and so on.
It isn't intrinsically more difficult than working the equations several times in reverse.
Two data points for each trajectory are considered sufficient for a mortar trajectory ~ I'd think that 2 would also be enough for a BAI strike on a detected firebase*. Bombs and rockets are easier to aim using a Mk1 eyeball than artillery against a 'vague' but "confirmed" location. *So perhaps one, plus the impact crater...?
I'd be happy that no 'kills' arose from this ~ but the uncomfortable 'arrival' of fixed wing air during the operation right on top of and looking for your fixed artillery base which has limited mobility would be a nuisance. At the least it would neutralise the artillery position until the air rtb'd.
I don't have any information that this *did* happen ~ just demonstrating that it isn't an impossible task, and armies actually routinely use this technology, or close derivatives of it to perform this function.
Note that a fully encapsulated G6, with INS can move, set-up, fire several rounds, and displace within a few minutes... which is *much* faster than any towed unit, particularly one which is planning on supporting a long duration, low force size expeditionary force. Things can go very badly if artillery becomes unavailable for long periods and you meet superior forces.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Tomorrow will be the 15th anniversary of an event nobody expected before...
Last edited by Hpasp; 03/26/1404:29 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
I think I will replay the situation tomorrow It was a GREAT achievement. It is hard even in SAMSIM without life dangering threat from HARM's. And you know the F-117 will fly. They did not know in 1999.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
I've been playing SamSim for some time now and I would like to say a big thanks to Hpasp for this awesome simulator Now I decided to make a contribution to the community and translate some of the SamSim documentation into Finnish. I think SA-3 would be the best to start since it was in Finnish service too. So if could ask Hpasp to provide me with a template of the doc so I can get started
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Lol. Why go on what Dani said himself? Let's speculate like we don't know what we're on about. Especially theory 1 and 3
1, Lucky shot? Try to hit a Radar Reflector (relatively static, just drifting with the wind) without an emitting SNR at Ashuluk.
2, Radar hack? No comments here...
3, The Invisible Man in the Rain... Probably the Serbs had agents at the end of the Aviano base with cellphones, they could calculate approx bomber arrival over Belgrade. (nothing else, just their SAMs were ready than)
4, How would you detect a stealth aircraft? I would use metric radar, like a P18 Spoon Rest, or even better a P14 Tall King. (do you know what was hit first during the conflict by a Tomahawk???
Last edited by Hpasp; 08/15/1409:24 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
I've been reading an excellent book "Ilmatorjuntaohjukset Suomessa" (Anti-aircraft missiles in Finland). Published in 2009: editor of the book, colonel Ahti Lappi, is former Inspector of Air Defence, so he knows his stuff. The book is very through and contains quite detailed information about the missiles and their use. Surprisingly good information even from some still operational missiles, traditionally Finnish military has been more secretive about its stuff than North Korea. Thought that some bits might interest some people here.
Paris Peace Treaty 1947 banned Finland from acquiring missiles. In the face of developing technology, this restriction soon was viewed obsolete as it became essentially impossible to have any kind of effective military without missiles. Finnish airspace was essentially defenceless in the '50s - this greatly irked Soviet Union, as not only US recon aircraft used Finnish airspace, many likely bomber routes went over Finland. Thus in early '60s, Soviets pressured Finland to update its air defences. This didn't sit well with US & UK who were worried about Soviet military influence in Finland. Result was a bizarre Mexican standoff, as each of the three countries supported modifying the Paris Peace Treaty restrictions, but only if the missiles were acquired from THEIR country.
Missiles were also expensive, but it was argued that "Helsinki would surely cost much more!" In 1962 a preliminary deal was struck with USSR about purchase of 15 MiG-21's and three batteries of SA-2's, but the missile part was torpedoed by foreign politics. Buying missiles from both West and East was not financially feasible, so missiles were dropped altogether. (Price comparison: three batteries would have costed 4.6 billion Marks (87 million Euros in modern currency), 15 MiG's costed 89M. Thus, fly-away cost of a MiG-21F was around 3.67 million euros - less than 1/10th what cheapest modern fighters cost today!).
This debacle led to unfortunate situation where old 88mm Rheinmetall-Borsig remained as primary air defence asset against high-altitude threats until late '70s. Only then political climate had changed and missile purchase finally became feasible. Missiles were bought from Soviet Union, as the purchase was easiest to fund using bilateral Soviet trade.
Strela-2M (SA-7B, in Finland ItOhj 78): 122 launchers and 1091 missiles were acquired. They were organized to form six batteries which basically meant that six most important brigades got a missile battery each. Tactics were to position the missile teams well behind front line, to take shots against targets attacking frontline units. Strela's ability to really "defend the target" was of course limited as it would lock only on jets exhaust, thus their role was defined to attrit the enemy air assets. Strela batteries also experimented forming a "line" against cruise missiles (simulated by Hawk trainers). Results were thought as promising, single battery could cover a front of about 30 kilometres and about 70% of the targets were 'intercepted', even in nighttime.
611 missiles were expended in training against various targets: of these, 10% were direct hits, 75.5% were "aircraft hits" (ie. passed so close they would have likely hit a real aircraft), 14.5% were misses. Thus, the hit probability was over 85%, which is especially good when one figures that some misses were because missile was fired well outside launch envelope, or that many rounds had reached or exceeded their operational lifetime. Lappi mentions that aging missiles tended to become "stiff" (I assume this means they would not guide well). The missile proved highly accurate which might sound surprise given many horror stories about Soviet manufactured missiles.
Practice targets were usually either target rockets, or drone, or balloon. Rocket was the most common, it was uncomplicated but somewhat challenging target as it was quite fast and flight time was short. Soviets did not utilize any kind of proximity sensor with the targets, so Finns designed their own to find out how close the missiles passed. About two-thirds of the firings were made by conscripts, accuracy difference between conscripts and professional soldiers was negligeble. Trial firings were made also from Nuoli-class motor gunboats, but these were somewhat abortive, rocking small boat was not an ideal platform for a MANPADS.
S-125M1 Pechora (SA-3 Goa, ItOhj-79): choice was made between SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6. SA-2 was probably rejected as increasingly obsolete, whilst SA-6 was seen as having inadequate ceiling and range for intended role (defence of the capital). Although SA-3 did not represent latest Soviet technology, version was the most recent which had entered Soviet service only few years earlier. Purchase included equipment for three firing batteries and one 'technical battery' (ie. support unit).
Sometimes it is written about deficient Soviet customer support for the weapons they sold, but this is not the impression one gets from reading about these missile projects. Personnel training in Soviet Union for SA-3 was very through, some of the instructors had combat experience from Vietnam or Middle East. Pretty much only mentioned problem was that some of the training equipment was very unreliable (Soviet practice was to relegate systems rejected by operational units for training). When the missiles arrived, all the components were very throughly packed and supporting equipment bordered on being excessive (down to stuff like vacuum flasks for the missile testers). There was also plenty of spares. Some upgrades to system was done in 1984, mid-life overhaul was performed in 1993. Manufacturer also regularly issued technical bulletins about user experiences and maintenance, these were written by other end-users and were very useful. Being old-fashioned tube-technology, it was sometimes difficult to recruit enough qualified people to maintain the system, particularly in later years.
As a system, SA-3 was somewhat cumbersome, at best semi-mobile. One deployment was done in Lapland, in middle of winter: this proved workable, though pretty laborous. Although the system itself performed well, it was vulnerable to both countermeasures and direct attacks. Finns attached ZU-23 batteries as close-in defence for the missile batteries, 57mm guns were also used in this role.
40 missiles total were fired in training, of these, 38 were hits (95% hit rate). One of the misses was with optical back-up system. Live firings were done by both conscripts and reservist units. Targets were either drones (Northrop KDR2R-5) or parachute target deployed from MiG-21. As can be seen, targets were not very challenging, so system's actual combat performance can't be deduced from these. However, system in itself was highly reliable and accurate. Longest range hit was from distance of 20.4 kilometres. Lowest altitude hit was 400 metres, highest 4.5 kilometres. As can be seen, system's ceiling was never put to proper test, Finns did not have suitable targets. As a curious detail, sometimes foreign militaries attempted to jam the radars, particularly Swedes (Lohtaja training area is located on Finnish west coast). Generally this jamming did not cause major problems.
Last firings were done in 1995 and system was retired in 2000. There was a plan to keep the radars operable after missiles were retired, but this was not done. Upgrade of the system was not considered as manufacturer had announced in 1992 that 'Pechora' spare part production was to be discontinued and missiles were no longer manufactured. This proved to be premature as the upgrade packages were later indeed marketed, but by then Finns had already purchased Buk.
Igla-1 (SA-16, ItOhj-86): as said, there were enough Strela units only for six brigades. More were needed, and as Soviets were willing to export their newer Igla-1 missiles, a major new purchase was made: around 160 launchers and over 1500 missiles. This meant that there were now enough missiles to attach a MANPADS battery for all frontline brigades. Igla-1 was much superior to Strela in essentially all respects. Seeker head was tested against various aircraft targets and it proved many times more sensitive than old Strela seeker, now frontal aspect attacks against jets were possible. Seeker also had limited ability to dodge flares. Guidance had an interesting feature - unlike Strela, it did not guide directly to the hottest part of the target (ie. jet exhaust), but slighly ahead of it, thus hitting more vulnerable parts of the aircraft instead of exhaust pipe.
Curiously, no actual training course took place: missiles were taken to training without any prior experience. This didn't prove to me much of a problem as firing of the missile was not too different from Strela. Later, a short course was held in Turkmenistan. 302 missiles were expended in training, producing 45 direct hits (15%) and 40 misses. Hit rate was thus around 87%. This was only marginally better than Strela, but in real battlefield, difference would have been undoubtely considerable.
Igla (SA-18, ItOhj-86M): in 1990's, preliminary plans about Strela modernization were made. Russians considered 17 years as absolute maximum for missile's service life, after that missile propellant would become unsafe. However, these plans were abandoned. Russia began to pay off old Soviet debt by weapon deliveries, and this proved to be somewhat of a jackpot for air defence arm. Newest variant of Igla was presented to Finnish officers in 1992 and purchase of 912 missiles was made in 1994. Russians told that this variant had been produced since 1983, which explains why Igla-1 was released to export so soon. Cost of a launcher was 13 580 US dollars, and missile costed $66 680. Whole deal costed about same as two F-18's.
Most important feature was the new dual band seeker, which was about twice as sensitive as Igla-1's. Russian presenters had claimed that it's ability to avoid countermeasures was superior to other similar missiles, and tests showed that this was not an empty boast. Seeker would completely ignore all IR flares, it wouldn't lock to them at all! Even Mistral was not as good at avoiding flares. Russians also claimed that the countermeasure avoidance was effective against "optic-electric" active IR jammers (I assume this means 'lamp' style radiators like L-166), but it was not designed to counter 'shutter' type modulated IR jammers.
Magnavox-IR sights were also tested on Igla (same sights were used on Stinger), and the sight worked well. American representative commented that the sight was actually easier to use on Igla, which was more ergonomic than Stinger. Compared to older types, relatively few Iglas were expended in training. Only 67 missiles were fired: six were direct hits (9%) and seven missed (10.4%). Since entire weapon type was removed from service, there was no large "shoot-off" of older stock, like with previous missile types. Last firings were done in 2005, and missiles were gradually removed from stocks.
Crotale NG (ItOhj-90): First missile acquisitions left air defence lacking any short range missile systems to protect important targets and key forces. This role was covered by radar-guided artillery systems like 35mm Oerlikon KD or 57mm S-60, however, they were few in number and their range insufficient against some threats. S-60, particularly, was rejected already in 1960 as an "obsolete weapon" - and then bought anyway 15 years later. SHORAD acquisition was long and drawn-out process. Since first missiles were bought from USSR, it was decided that SHORAD system would be bought from the West. Despite this, several Soviet systems were also evaluated. Of various requirements, mobility, all-weather operation and good performance envelope (range & ceiling) were thought paramount. One problem was that when the project got underway (mid-80s), first generation systems were getting obsolescent and newer systems might be politically difficult to acquire. US & UK were traditionally sensitive about selling modern military equipment to Finland, and Roland had to be dropped out as Paris Peace Treaty made acquiring German made systems impossible. Anyway, one by one, candidates were narrowed down:
-SA-13 and RBS-70 were too short-ranged and lacked all-weather capability -SA-8 was viewed being obsolescent tube technology (note the problems maintaining same generation technology in SA-3), and also overpriced. -Rapier Blindfire was obsolescent, lacking in range and overpriced. Finns requested information about Rapier 2000, but British refused, undoubtely believing that Finns would immediately sell it to nearest GRU agent. -Skyguard was lacking in mobility, also the missile (Sparrow) was American and export license might not be granted. -ADATS seemed for long a front-runner, but it was lacking in all-weather capability, and eventually, US would not grant export license. This was probably a blessing in disguise, as ADATS ended up having a rocky development path.
Crotale was eventually a clear winner, particularly after French offered a completely new NG-variant at very reasonable price. It featured new, very capable Vought VT-1 missile, and entire system, along with radar, could be integrated to one armoured vehicle - for example, Finnish XA-180, resulting to intimidating looking system. Original plan called for 16 batteries (32 vehicles) at first phase, later expanded to 30: it was a major disappointment that only ten units (20 vehicles) were acquired. Nevertheless, Crotale was a huge boost to Finnish air defence capabilities as the system was truly top-notch. Total cost of 20 vehicles was over 900 million Marks (240 million Euros in modern currency): about same as the cost of later Buk acquisition.
Sensor equipment was extensive: surveilance radar, fire control radar, TV camera, IR detector and FLIR. All are integrated to vehicle turret. Surveilance radar was frequency-hopping doppler radar, it could handle 20 targets at one time, and track 8 of them simultaneously, at range of 18 kilometres. Fire control radar was frequency-hopping monopulse radar with range of about 20 kilometres. FLIR could detect targets from up to 15 kilometres range under good conditions. In addition to normal radar guided mode, missile could be fired using either of two different optic backup methods. Radar was so sensitive that it was calculated that stealth aircraft could be targeted near maximum firing range, which was 11 kilometres. Although the system could fire at only one target at the time, flight time of the missile was so short (10 seconds to 8 kilometres) that flight of four aircraft could be shot down in less than a minute, this capability was later demonstrated in training. Operationally, Crotale battery was coupled with separate mobile surveilance radar and ZU-23 batteries.
Of course not everything was perfect. As the system was so new, there were some teething problems which attracted some embarrassing publicity. First firings resulted to several misses: proximity fuze failed to detect small targets and there were problems with datalinks. These issues were solved.
Initial training was done in France: training course was well-executed, though schedule was puzzlingly loose, with hours of time reserved for matters which were handled in 15 minutes: apparently the French were used to less experienced foreign trainees. Spare time proved no problem as it left more time for practical training. English skills of some of the teachers was not the best and could be described as 'Franglish'.
Russian general Pavel Grachev visited Finland in 1993 and told the press that Crotale was a crappy system and Finns should have used their money on Russian systems. Finns pointed out that none of these mythical systems had been offered to Finland at the time: SA-15 was presented to Ahti Lappi in 1993. It might have been a serious entry had it been offered five years earlier, but Lappi's impression was that its fire control system was much more basic than Crotale's.
Crotale MLU program was started 2004. Designation was ItO-90M. Not much detail is provided about the modernisation, it seems however that new, longer ranged missiles are integrated.
Mistral (ItO-91). Navy had occasionally experimented using Strelas, both to protect ships and bases. However, dedicated missile was needed. As the missile had to be fitted on small combatants like Rauma-class missile boats (240 tons), weight & space restriction was severe. Crotale was studied, but naval variant was far too large & cumbersome for these small vessels. Again, number of potential candidates was quite small. Missile with 'fire & forget' capability was preferred as it was thought that small ships' rocking and heaving would make command guided missiles impractical, this ruled out RBS-70. Norwegians had been using Mistral, so they were quickly consulted about the system, and procurement decision was made.
Original idea was to construct combined gun-missile turret, with Mistrals and 23mm guns. This proved impractical for the space constraints, so instead Sako designed separate but interchangeable turrets for Mistral and ZU-23, which could be switched at the harbour. In addition to shiborne systems, Navy acquired land launchers: it is mentioned that six launchers were bought for every ship-based system. I'm unsure about total number of shipborne systems, but it was probably around ten to fourteen: this would mean 60-70 or so Mistral land launchers. Naval launcher has a FLIR and TV camera; land launcher has just an electro-optical sight, though FLIR could be attached.
Mistral was larger than shoulder-launched missiles. Missile was faster, had large warhead (almost three times heavier than Igla/Strela) and proximity fuze (shoulder-launched missiles had only impact fuze). Maximum range, however, was only marginally greater than that of Igla. Missile seeker contained four separate detection elements and was more complicated and sensitive than in smaller missiles. Approaching jet aircraft without afterburner could be tracked at distances of 4 to 5 kilometres and light helicopter at 3 to 4km, this was beyond even new Igla's performance. Seeker was programmed to reject flares based on their angular movement, however it was not as insensitive to flares as Igla. Launch required spinning up the gyro and cooling the seeker, this took about five seconds, similar to Igla.
No detailed shooting results are given, but it is mentioned that ships' combined gun/missile fire against two separate targets was not a problem. After Gulf War where several Iraqi missile boats were sunk by helicopters, it was claimed that the boats small size rendered their fire control radars ineffective, but this does not seem to have manifested at least on Finnish vessels. Of course, target drones are not particularly challenging targets: author expresses some scepticism whether Mistral could actually shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles due to missile's range limitations.
As a shipborne system, Mistral is on its way out: all ships carrying the missile are either retired or upgraded or going to be upgraded to Umkhonto. It however appears that the land launchers will remain in service for at least some time.
Buk M1 (SA-11, ItO 96): In 1990, Finland declared Paris Peace Treaty arms limitations null and all the political wrestling associated with weapons procurement was finally history. Preliminary plans to replace SA-3 were put in motion in 1991. Finnish delegations checked out several different systems: particularly impressive was a demonstration seen in Moscow visit 1993: heavy & complex S-300V (SA-12) unit went from firing positions to marching order and back to firing position under five minutes - without any soldiers having to step out of the vehicles! Given what a pain redeployment of much less capable SA-3 had been, this showed just how much this class of systems had advanced. Other systems showed were Tor M1 (SA-15), S-300PMU (SA-10) and Gang (SA-11) which had only recently entered Russian service (name 'Gang' was apparently meant to designate export variant, but it was later dropped in favour of 'Buk').
Following systems were considered:
-S-300V (SA-12): complex and very expensive -S-300PMU1 (SA-10): expensive and somewhat vulnerable to combat damage compared to lighter systems -Buk-M1 (SA-11): seemed most suitable -SAMP/T: modern but not yet ready, and expensive -NASAMS: cheap and generally satisfactory, but lacking in range, very simplistic -RBS-23 BAMSE: potentially capable, but short-ranged, not yet ready
Patriot was not amongst the candidates, though Lappi had seen the system live. It's problems were similar to SA-10/12: expensive and vulnerable to SEAD.
Funding of the missile project was however in doubt: country was in severe depression, and F-18 -acquisition forced other Army projects to tight budget. However, political leadership in both countries was willing to solve some of the Soviet debt issue with military acquisitions. As said earlier, this was a huge boost for air defence arm and made a large missile purchases possible. Buk M1 (SA-11) was selected as the preferred system.
At last minute, Russians began backtracking: they were reluctant to sell Buk to Finns, and instead offered S-300PMU1 (SA-10). It is not clear why, but it was possible that it was because SA-11 was not yet exported to other countries. SA-10 was somewhat older system, and perhaps considered less sensitive. However, Finns were adamant: funding (one billion Marks, about 170 million Euros in todays money) was adequate for barely one SA-10 battery: by contrast, it would buy three SA-11 batteries. (In comparison, F-18 deal ended up costing around 14 billion Marks). Eventually, Russians relented. Negotiations went somewhat differently than in the Soviet era: in the past, customer would be offered a complete unit at fixed price: "You buy this missile battery with associated equipment for X rubles". Now, every item was priced individually - though Russians seemed inexperienced in that, and prices appeared somewhat arbitrary. Representatives from manufacturing company were also present in pricing negotiations - for the first time! It was truly the new era of Kapitalism.
New era also showed in three month training period undertaken in Russia in 1996. Although instructors were still competent, there was shortage of workable training equipment, owing partly to all technical engineers in the garrison having quit or retired. Russian administration was often uncooperative and there were various attempts to milk extra money from the guests. Problems were perhaps partly because this was the first foreign course for the type, but it was clear that old times of Friendship and Cooperation were gone. Live fire practice was done in Kazakhstan 1997 and it went well: low-flying jet drone and ballistic missile target were both shot down. Buk M1 is first missile in Finnish inventory which could intercept ballistic targets, although this capability is limited to 'aeroballistic' targets, ie. mostly just artillery missiles. No data is given on Finnish live firings, but it is implied that the system has worked well. Like with other missiles in Finnish service, operationally Buk batteries are coupled with ubiquitous ZU-23 batteries.
Performance-wise, SA-11 was considerable improvement over SA-3: maximum range was 35km, maximum inteception altitude 22km and minimum altitude 15 metres. Pk against aerial target maneuvering at 8G was 0.6 which in practice meant that outmaneuvering the missile was very difficult. But even bigger improvement was ability to disperse to cover wide region. SA-11 battery could cover area of over four times greater than SA-3 battery. All vehicles are tracked and have very good all-terrain mobility. Deployment from marching order to firing position took 5 minutes for all vehicles, including phased array surveilance radar (which had maximum detection range of 160 kilometres). TELAR (firing unit) could keep its equipment running during march, cutting deployment time to mere 20 seconds. Whereas SA-3 battery was dependent from its single fire control radar, in SA-11 each TELAR has its own fire control radar.
According to manufacturer, operational lifetime of Buk's missile is 25 years: this is unusually long, achieved because aging parts of the missile can be replaced. Current plans are that Buk is to be retired by 2016: needless to say, col. Lappi thinks this is a major mistake, as several upgrade packages exist.
Umkhonto (ItO 2004): this naval SAM was acquired both to supplement and replace Mistral for Navy's frontline vessels. Four new missile boats and two old minelayers were equipped with it. The book tells very little about Umkhonto: possibly because it was a navy project and Lappi was not involved. The missile itself is command linked with targeting information from either radar, IR sensor or datalink; with terminal IR guidance. Maximum ceiling is very respectable 8km and maximum engagement range is 10km. Four separate targets can be engaged simultaneusly. I'm somewhat unclear whether upcoming modernization of Rauma class missile boats will feature Umkhonto, or upgraded Mistral (or perhaps nothing at all?).
ASRAD-R (ItO 05, ItO 05M): this project began in late '80s to replace obsolete Bofors 40mm guns as point defence weapons. Both gun and missile systems were considered: gun systems included new Bofors 40mm BOFI, and 25mm Oerlikon Diana. Missile systems studied were Javelin (the SAM, not the ATGM), Mistral, RBS-70 and Stinger. Gun systems were capable, but quite expensive: BOFI costed up to 15 million Marks per gun. (for comparison, few years earlier Army had bought Igla-1's for less than 100 000 Marks for launcher+missile, and ZU-23's for 300 000 Marks per gun). RBS-70 was considered most suitable, only down side was that command guided missile required quite a bit of training to master (around 100 hours of simulator training). However, detoriated economic situation of early '90s terminated these plans. Only result was that 35mm Oerlikon guns were modernized in 1988, these guns are still in service.
As Crotale purchase ended up much smaller than hoped, these plans were revived in mid-90s. Requirements were range over 5 kilometres, night fighting capability and ability to fire at incoming targets. LGB's were thought as one of the primary threats. Three companies responded to specification:
-Shorts (ASPIC with Starstreak missile) -STN Atlas Elektronik (ASRAD-R with RBS-70 Bolide) -Matra (Mistral 2)
Igla, Stinger and unnamed Israeli missile (I assume SPYDER) were also considered, but they did not fill the requirements and manufacturers dropped out from the competition. For the first time, field trials were undertaken between the competitors. Starstreak was the fastest (Mach 3+) but shortest ranged (6 kilometres). It had no proximity fuze. Mistral 2 had marginally greater range. However, being IR guided it was probably not best fit for the requirements, also it had only manual target tracking and no radar. Bolide missile was longest ranged (up to 9 kilometres) and declared winner in 2002.
Relatively small quantity of the missile was bought: four batteries, each consisting of two vehicle mounted systems and two MANPAD variants. Latter got their own designation ItO 05M, where M stands for "MANPAD" (and not 'modernized' like in case with ItOhj 86M). Some systems were mounted on domestic Nasu tracked transports. The plan was to attach one battery to each of the three new 'Readiness Brigades' and one battery was relegated for air defence of the capital. Missile carrier is equipped with HARD 3D surveilance radar: it is an LPI radar with detection range of around 20km. Other sensors include FLIR and TV camera. Man-portable system can also employ FLIR. One ASRAD-R battery can cover up to 400 square kilometre area: in comparison, old 57mm AA gun battery could cover max. 80km^2.
To make up shortage of missiles caused by retirement of Iglas, more MANPAD variants were ordered in 2007 and further in 2010. However, the numbers were very small (2007 order apparently consisted of only five systems) and unable to replace huge quantity of Iglas retired.
NASAMS II (ItO 12): In 2004 new project began for both medium- and long range SAM acquisition. Preliminary round for the latter included SPYDER LR, EUROSAM ER and Patriot. Russian systems had became politically unfashionable so they were left out. First two were still in development phase. Germany offered used, surplus Patriot PAC2+ systems, this deal would have included both anti-radiation and ABM missiles. Deal fell through: possibly because of uncertainities concerning support and operational lifetime. It was calculated that upkeep costs for single Patriot battery were around 3 million euros a year, and they would likely rise as the system aged.
Medium range SAM project to replace SA-11 went on, however. Buk M1 modernization was rejected on the grounds of lacking NATO compability (which Lappi thinks as somewhat bizarre as several current or prospective NATO countries use Russian AD systems) and cost (thought to be up to half of the acquisition cost of new system). New western system was preferred and several were shortlisted: NASAMS, BAMSE, Umkhonto ER, EUROSAM and Mica. In final round in 2009, competition narrowed down between SAMP/T (with Aster missiles) and NASAMS II (which uses AMRAAMs). Key requirement was ability to cover both capital region, and 'one military target' simultaneously. SAMP/T was more in the class of Patriot or S-300. It had long range, but was somewhat cumbersome and vulnerable. NASAMS was much more resilient, cheaper and networked, so it won the contest. Synergy advantage for using same missile as Air Force was also mentioned (though this is IMO rather dubious advantage). NASAMS offered 'more bang for a buck': Chief-of-Defence commented that "Instead of a Cadillac, we bought four Volvos". Total cost of the contract was 346 million Euros.
NASAMS II is somewhat different beast compared to earlier variant which lost out to Buk M1 in mid-90s. Radar is much improved AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel, with detection range of 75 kilometres. This is not too long for missile of this class (and probably made worse by low mounting of the radar) but adequate given it's cheaper cost (which means more radars). In addition the system has MPS 600 electro-optical sensor, which has FLIR, TV camera and laser range finder; under good conditions it can detect targets from up to 40km range. Several different communication links are used, including Link 11B and Link 16. As AMRAAM uses it's own radar for terminal guidance, the system does not have dedicated fire control radar; target information can be fed to missile from either surveilance radar, IR sensor or even some outside source. Thus the system has 'fire and forget' capability, which Buk doesn't have. All vehicles are wheeled; terrain capability is thus much worse than with its predecessor, but on the plus side, vehicles are cheaper to maintain.
Biggest downside is that missile's range is meagre 25km and maximum ceiling is just 10km: this is insufficient for several current and prospective threats, so the system would need a true long-range missile alongside to cover this shortcoming, but there doesn't appear to be any money available for such system. Potentially, new missiles could be fitted to the system in the future to partly cover these shortcomings.
----------------
So that's that. Present going project in Finnish Air Defence community is VSHORAD system acquisation to replace already retired Igla's and increasingly obsolete 23mm cannons. This project is too recent and didn't make it in the book. Rumour mill is that this time, IR guided missile will be preferred. This is somewhat bizarre development in the sense that it would have been perfectly feasible to extend Igla service life up to 2014 or so, now FDF is 'reinventing the wheel', possibly even with new version of the same missile! I guess there have been some personnel changes which have resulted to quick turnarounds in "officially endorsed views". It is said that shortlisted systems include RBS-70, Stinger, Igla-S, Mistral, Grom and South Korean Chiron.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Were you able to geolocate the 3 sites around Helsinki? I was unable so far. My best bets are... Firing Batteries: Santahamina, Pirkkola, Iso-Vasikkasaari Technical Battery: Tuusula
Last edited by Hpasp; 10/06/1406:38 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
The lower right may be in the fenced compound (roughly): ETRS-TM35FIN 391392E 6668304N
Checking against imagery... there is a tri-antenna structure just to the north of this compound, and what looks to be a blast resistant revettment to the east.
The location I initially thought fitted the lower left one looked less promising in imagery, but it is the "restricted" zone (of a type I couldn't translate) just to the south of Flakaholm south of Espoo. Miessaar Karlo. Might just have missed the features though. (Obviously used historically for coastal defence, as seen in the turrets/bunkers) There does appear to be a radio tower near the channel between the three islands MK,Flakaholm and Pukkisaari Stora Bokholm.
Directions and distance look 'about right' for these two, and there are some possible candidates for #3 within the BUA of Helsinki, near the E12 (south of the airport).
From the angle between south western and Kervala, I think the northern one may be at the location marked Haaga. Just the the NE of the junction Metsalantie & Hameenlinnanvala.
ETRS-TR35FIN 384362N 6677944E. Nothing much to see, but it appears to be more or less in the right place, is on a rise and is open.
Miessaar Karlo also has significant relief and there may be a suitable site in the ridge area. I found the exact location tricky to guess at though.
Can you provide geo-coordinates in a more understandable format? Or a Google Maps like this ?
Last edited by Hpasp; 10/07/1405:08 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
I found a possible bug for the SA-3 in the beta version you released yesterday 0.928.3b. Missiles are not visible on the radar screen if they're under the central radar stripe of a jamming target. I think they might be the same colour so blend in?
So in three point guidance mode, missiles aren't visible at all because they stay on the central line. And in half lead, missiles disappear if they cross the radar jamming stripe.
Lock a jamming target, and the jamming noise fills the central stripe of your radar scopes. Launch a missile. The missile is not visible if it's over the jamming noise stripe.
Is it the Neva-2M modernized Screen? The original WarPact karat has the same cross as other systems.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
I found a possible bug for the SA-3 in the beta version you released yesterday 0.928.3b. Missiles are not visible on the radar screen if they're under the central radar stripe of a jamming target. I think they might be the same colour so blend in?
So in three point guidance mode, missiles aren't visible at all because they stay on the central line. And in half lead, missiles disappear if they cross the radar jamming stripe.
Lock a jamming target, and the jamming noise fills the central stripe of your radar scopes. Launch a missile. The missile is not visible if it's over the jamming noise stripe.
I found a possible bug for the SA-3 in the beta version you released yesterday 0.928.3b. Missiles are not visible on the radar screen if they're under the central radar stripe of a jamming target. I think they might be the same colour so blend in?
So in three point guidance mode, missiles aren't visible at all because they stay on the central line. And in half lead, missiles disappear if they cross the radar jamming stripe.
Lock a jamming target, and the jamming noise fills the central stripe of your radar scopes. Launch a missile. The missile is not visible if it's over the jamming noise stripe.
Found the bug, and will be corrected in the next release.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
00:03:25, Missile exploded on Channel-1 Practice target LA-17 simulating F-86 Sabre hit by SAM. (miss distance: 114m)
00:03:36, Missile exploded on Channel-2 Practice target LA-17 simulating F-86 Sabre killed by SAM. (miss distance: 7m)
00:03:36, SNR OFF THE AIR -----------------
Total, SNR On Air Time: 30sec
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Its fine. AAR do not shows the real target data, instead of what the system calculates. As I used only KARAT and TT method, I simply left the range mark just a bit closer than 40km.
Last edited by Hpasp; 11/06/1407:05 AM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
The S-125M missile was a normal target few years back in Ashuluk, so shooting it down is not impossible...
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
SA-75A Dvina-A (SA-2F): 38 systems <- interestingly they received WarPact version solely in the 3rd world V-750V 11D missile: 379pcs V-750VM 11DM missile: 864pcs
S-75M3 Volga (SA-2E): 3 systems V-759 5J23 missile: 180pcs
S-125M1A Pechora (SA-3B): 6 systems V-601PD 5V27D missile: 365pcs
S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B): 2x2 systems V-880E missile: 72pcs
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
I have a query concerning the maximum range of 5V27U and 5V27D missiles. After extended testing I ended up with the fact that missile's actual maximum range is about 22km only against high altitude targets. Usually the longest range kill can be seen in the middle of the 20-25 km area in range indicator of the fire control panel as seen below.
However the displayed range in fire control panel depicts the length of a "line" which connects the fire control radar with the target, right?
Therefore the instrumented range is different than the horizontal range right?
In the plotting board screen where the range ring (maximum horizontal range) of the battery can be seen, I calculated the radius for S-125M1 which is about 22km.
A simple graph could be like this:
Normally the maximum range should be higher than horizontal range as the hypotenuse of the triangle but in many cases their values are very close. Why this happens?
Many sites state that maximum range for S-125M/M1 is 25km. Is this the instrumented range or the horizontal range?
Additionally I haven't seen any differences between 5V27U and 5V27D in terms of range. They seem to have almost equal range.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Been using the 125 in SamSim for a few weeks now (along with all of the simulated systems apart from the Shilka) And only now have I realized that it doesn't have an indicator to show the elevation of the antenna array...
Or at least I have not noticed it yet since I haven't looked too closely at the panels...
The rightmost (Vc, R, Hc) instrument below the indicators shows real elevation (in Km) instead of elevation angle compared to Dvina/Volhov. (seemed to be a good idea during Neva development, to make the Fire Control Officers life easier)
IMHO its a bit confusing arrangement (I would have swapped it with the Vc indicator).
S-300 went back to the original way, and again it shows elevation in degrees instead of Km's... ... so again you have that ugly elevation-range-altitude table, you can find between the indicators of the Dvina.
Last edited by Hpasp; 01/16/1704:33 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Thought so... Though the work saved by that feature is somewhat countered by this (Rather non-user friendly) feature (or should I say lack of a feature)
This display not having bearing markers coupled with the narrow scan angle of the SNR-125 sorta makes pointing it in the exact direction slightly challenging...
Do not forget, that this system is originally designed to counter low flying targets, complementing the firing zone of the Volkhov. So generally you nod the antenna to just few degree in elevation, and scan into the approx azimuth, and the low flying target should pop up on the screen. At very low altitude, target detection range and time is limited by the radar-horizon, so no exact azimuth degrees are required (like during long range detection of Volkhov).
During 1975 WarPact expected at least of 65% of NATO planes attacking at very low altitude.
Last edited by Hpasp; 01/18/1706:32 PM.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Lately I have been extensively playing the 1986 scenario (Libya) and after a lot of efforts, I am capable of shooting down at least 3 aircrafts (only F-111s).
Here is my best score: (4 kills)
Quote:
2:00am 15th of April, 1986. Operation El-Dorado Canyon raid against Tripoli.
Targets: Bab al-Aziziyah barracks - 6 F-111F Aardvark, each armed with 4 GBU-10 LGB Murat Sidi Bilal Naval base - 3 F-111F Aardvark, each armed with 4 GBU-10 LGB Tripoli AFB - 5 F-111F Aardvark, each armed with 12 Mk.82/BSU-49 high-drag bombs
Supporting force: 6 A-7E Corsair-II SEAD (VA-46 Clansmen, VA-72 Blue Hawks from the CV-66 USS America) 4 F-14A Tomcat CAP (VF-33 Starfighters, VF-102 Diamondbacks from the CV-66 USS America) 3 EF-111A Raven ECM 1 EA-6B Prowler ECM (VMAQ-2 Playboys from the CV-43 USS America)
00:04:45, Missile exploded on Channel-1 F-111F Karma-53 killed by SAM. (miss distance: 23m)
00:04:49, Missile exploded on Channel-2 F-111F Karma-53 killed by SAM. (miss distance: 31m)
00:04:51, SNR OFF THE AIR -----------------
00:05:36, F-111F Jewel-61 bombed Murat Sidi Bilal Naval base, with 4 GBU-10 LGB. 00:06:08, F-111F Jewel-62 bombed Murat Sidi Bilal Naval base, with 4 GBU-10 LGB.
+++++++++++++++++ 00:06:10, SNR ON AIR
00:06:18, SNR OFF THE AIR -----------------
00:06:41, F-111F Jewel-63 bombed Murat Sidi Bilal Naval base, with 4 GBU-10 LGB. 00:06:49, F-111F Puffy-11 bombed Tripoli AFB, with 12 Mk.82/BSU-49 high-drag bombs.
Total, SNR On Air Time: 2min 20sec
Thus I have some queries:
1. Why Libyan Air Defense S-125M batteries were not able to shoot down at least few aircrafts since many of them entered their engagement zone?
Extensive jamming? Fear of being hit by HARMs? Poorly trained operators?
2. S-125M/M1 missiles (V-601P/PD) are able to maneuver at 6g. In real life, it was an easy or a difficult task for a pilot to evade those missiles using only aircraft's manueverability?
This procedure is not possible with the S-125, is it? Because turning off transmission sorts off causes the missiles to disappear... Though the 125 is at less risk during target tracking anyways since it tracks the target on LORO mode only...
But as seen KostasAK's AAR It's detectable enough even in LORO for the Anti Radiation Missiles to be launched...
What happened to this Neva? They thrown it into a hole? I doesn't see any fragment holes, or any burn mark...
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
A new book was introduced in Serbia about the 99-war. It might be interesting, that the authors used SAMSIM to illustrate the actual events.
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Hpasp Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch" (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
Has anyone experienced issues with miss distances since the introduction of v.930.2?
It is almost impossible to kill targets using a single 5V27/5V27U/5V27D when using the PS (Lead) guidance when playing in Asuluk, either playing the 1986 scenario. Previously most of the targets were killed with a single missile between 15-30m miss distance. There were cases when two missiles needed but they were few. Now most of the times targets need at least two missile to be killed with miss distances between 50-110m.
Has anyone experienced issues with miss distances since the introduction of v.930.2?
It is almost impossible to kill targets using a single 5V27/5V27U/5V27D when using the PS (Lead) guidance when playing in Asuluk, either playing the 1986 scenario. Previously most of the targets were killed with a single missile between 15-30m miss distance. There were cases when two missiles needed but they were few. Now most of the times targets need at least two missile to be killed with miss distances between 50-110m.
I tried twice against simulated A-4 and scored with both missiles in the salvo....
Some news on Ukrainian modernization of C-125M: a new version of "Neva" with overhauled, completely digitized SNR and missiles with new engines and a guidance package, that comes in Semi-Active and Active monopulse variants. Among claimed improvements, the Active radar-guided variant is credited with expansion in engagement envelope: max range up to 40km and max altitude up to 25km, also boosts in the number of possible engagements due to the shorter illumination time required as missile's own radar goes active (a capability of max up to 8 targets fired in sequence in the active mode is claimed)
In the video, you can see the new SNR (both outside and inside views, including some displays) in action during the live fire trials:
The missiles were overhauled by KB "Luch" (one of the main Ukrainian solid fuel missile producers), and the radars were modernized by KB "Radioniks". In next Youtube video, you can glance at the active guidanded warhead version on display (it is proposed not only for C-125 system, but also for the modernization of P-27 Air-toAir missile and the associated overhaul of radars of MiG-29/Su-27 in Ukrainian service):
The current plan of Ukrainian services seems to be to resurrect every soviet-era system that is still capable of firing from conservation (including C-125, "Kub", " C-300PT and V1, even "long hand" C-200 Vega to keep any possible Russian jamming support and AWACS planes), and then begin with modernization projects. As always, the biggest problem problem is having enough $$$ to pay for all the stuff. More is here:
Here is one schematic and text presentation of a fierce battle between 3 missile battalions of the 450. AD missile regiment (450. rp PVO) from Kraljevo ("Kraljevo foxes"), equipped with surface to air missile systems S-125M "Neva", that took place in the early morning hours of 03.051999. godine over the south-west region of Serbia, then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The schematic presentation is from the domestic Serbian authors Bojan Dimitrijevic and General Jovica Draganic called "Vazdušni rat nad Srbijom 1999" (Air war over Serbia 1999). In the textual part, I also used the sources from USA author Michael John W. Napier called "Tornado GR-1 An Operational History". By comparing the schematics from domestic sources and textual description from US source, I found that they are almost identical.
Textual part:
The battle was fought between 3 missile battalions from 450. AD missile regiment from Kraljevo in the southwestern part of Serbia and NATO air force strike group consisting of 6 Tornado GR-1, and 4 F-16CJ and 2 EA-6B acting as SEAD support. The air attack begun at 03:00 hours, and lasted until 04:10 hours.
At 03:40 hours, 3rd missile battalion launched 2 surface to air missiles at 1 of the Tornado GR-1 aircraft. Aircrafts from SEAD support group launched 2 HARM missiles at the battalion guidance radar SNR-125, but failed to neutralize the battalion. Only a minute after that, 4th missile battalion launched 2 missiles on the following Tornado GR-1 aircraft. The plane was forced to eject additional fuel tanks and fly away heading north to avoid the missiles.
Several minutes later, around 03:48 hours, 3rd missile battalion launched again on the Tornado GR-1 strike group, with 2 surface to air missiles. The second missile was not guided because of the technical error. 1 Tornado GR-1, which was targeted this time, was forced to eject additional fuel tanks and to quickly leave the engagement zone of the missile battalion in a low flight.
According to US sources, SEAD team informed when submitting the operation report, that "they have never faced such a strong resistance, large number of launched surface to air missiles in such short time and have never been so frequently illuminated by guidance radars "Low Blow" of the SA-3 AD system"
Who can explain what are these left-most and center indicators for? My guesses: 1) leftmost is for precision range-tracking 2) central displays the target (green) and missile (red) signal packet modulation in the angle tracking system (bell-curved shaped curves are like from Neva manual illustrations). Could it be to detect possible ECM, or double check the miss distance?
Who can explain what are these left-most and center indicators for? My guesses: 1) leftmost is for precision range-tracking 2) central displays the target (green) and missile (red) signal packet modulation in the angle tracking system (bell-curved shaped curves are like from Neva manual illustrations). Could it be to detect possible ECM, or double check the miss distance?
About those S-125M Neva indicators in Azerbeiyan army. One question: did Azerbaiyan modernize its Neva missile system to fire semi-active guided missiles? We saw that in Ukrainian modernization? That could explain the new added indicators that could be the azimuth/range guidance indicator (or elevation/range, by choice) and the smaller one could be distance/strobe target tracker?
About those S-125M Neva indicators in Azerbeiyan army. One question: did Azerbaiyan modernize its Neva missile system to fire semi-active guided missiles? We saw that in Ukrainian modernization? That could explain the new added indicators that could be the azimuth/range guidance indicator (or elevation/range, by choice) and the smaller one could be distance/strobe target tracker?
do you have any video link about sa-3B launcher?
i ask this question from hpasp 
Now I decided to make a contribution to the community and translate some of the SamSim documentation into Finnish. I think SA-3 would be the best to start since it was in Finnish service too. So if could ask Hpasp to provide me with a template of the doc so I can get started 
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/rjhiunsv2i1tq3g16klw.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/p9oa5ehfegfxp0pps1nl.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/8gfkil84cfpmkpbotmjp.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/jqaanzlnhrtpdwz4nyzg.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/y7h2gt7owy07s2brcy3a.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/6nnjvvjqb6rnnozwuack.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/8mgv0u17i04zig898wsm.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://kepkezelo.com/images/kui65estj0o0ysj262yw.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://abload.de/img/x4ujh.jpg)
