Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14
#3500993 - 01/22/12 05:39 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) ***** [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
Repost:


Originally Posted By: piston79
Hi Hpaps,

A question about last version. Is there any changes in missile behavior and/or way of calculating the impact point, particulary about UPR and K modes for Dvina/Volkhov?
If there are changes, please, describe them, because It seems to me that missiles do much more UPR than before (say ver 923.0)???
confused darkcloud

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3501006 - 01/22/12 05:55 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
A question about last version. Is there any changes in missile behavior and/or way of calculating the impact point, particulary about UPR and K modes for Dvina/Volkhov?

Nothing.

If there are changes, please, describe them, because It seems to me that missiles do much more UPR than before (say ver 923.0)???

Shouldn't be over 4 degree.


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

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#3501011 - 01/22/12 06:05 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Shouldn't be over 4 degree.


Yes, that's it, but in that case I can swear that on 923.0 (and maybe 932.1 and .2) it wasn't 4 degrees it was less... And I was so unpatient with your answer, because it was the essence of my "How to cook Habu for 10 minutes" cookbook. You swear you didn.t touch anything? confused
Also, I've noticed that when shooting against reflector on Ashuluk, on UPR or K mode, missile didn't jump to 4 degrees mark on the screens. I've tried with AS on epsilon and beta only, seems to me it doesn't have any diference. Even when put distance boresight far beyound the target it seems that missiles adjust their way to target path, no matter that target is not tracket on distance, and often didn't stick to 4 degrees mark (when the target is miving fast missiles goes to 4 degrees mark, there is something with speed). I've experimented on Hungary and Ashuluk, and that's what I've observed... Something is different... screwy

Last edited by piston79; 01/22/12 08:18 PM.
#3501037 - 01/22/12 06:41 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481
max2012 Offline
Member
max2012  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481

In favor of the Dvina rise of 60 degrees is the limit.

75 degrees only against the ADA.

80 degrees and more than just Dogon!

This is so or not, I saw a map in the diagram 60 degrees was the affected area, 75 for the ADA.

In the Dogon limit Speed of Target V(t) <= 420 m / s

Clearly too soon.

#3503342 - 01/25/12 06:46 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
A question about last version. Is there any changes in missile behavior and/or way of calculating the impact point, particulary about UPR and K modes for Dvina/Volkhov?

Nothing.

If there are changes, please, describe them, because It seems to me that missiles do much more UPR than before (say ver 923.0)???

Shouldn't be over 4 degree.

Definitely there is a diference in missile behaviour between 932.1 and 932.3 versions.
13:45 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number one.
Battery 261/57.
923.1:

923.3:

#3503392 - 01/25/12 07:42 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Definitely there is a diference in missile behaviour between 932.1 and 932.3 versions.
13:45 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number one.
Battery 261/57.


923.3 seems to be the correct one.
The target is far away (over 75km), so in epsilon, the missiles has the maximum elevation for method K, and in beta maximum UPR.
cowboy


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

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#3503466 - 01/25/12 09:20 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Definitely there is a diference in missile behaviour between 932.1 and 932.3 versions.
13:45 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number one.
Battery 261/57.


923.3 seems to be the correct one.
The target is far away (over 75km), so in epsilon, the missiles has the maximum elevation for method K, and in beta maximum UPR.
cowboy


Hmmm, and you said "No change in missile behaviour" - little sneaky developer... biggrin
Anyway, the + 4 degrees is depending from distance, what else have "Dvina"/"Volkhov" in mind, when determing the degrees of UPR. Speed?
If the target is not tracked in distance (which ussualy is not possible under jamming), thus moving of boresight closer or further has no effect.

Last edited by piston79; 01/25/12 09:34 PM.
#3503543 - 01/25/12 10:55 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481
max2012 Offline
Member
max2012  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481

The question of why the CP-71 You Set the "K"

SR-71 High-rise and high-speed target and interference, why the "K"

Need T / T?

It is not clear to me!

confused

#3510961 - 02/04/12 09:33 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481
max2012 Offline
Member
max2012  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481

Question about Hpasp!

I noticed a feature that has long Volkhov Line range can be extended only to 140 km and 150 km are not!

But while the Dvina on a Maximum of 110 km.

Why this is so, it is this feature or not!



#3511717 - 02/05/12 11:22 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: max2012]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
I noticed a feature that has long Volkhov Line range can be extended only to 140 km and 150 km are not!
But while the Dvina on a Maximum of 110 km.
Why this is so, it is this feature or not!


You can move to the Volhov range bore-sight to 140km maximum.
The impulses sent out using two period (1044 micro sec for 140km, 1132 micro sec for 150km), and displayed till 150km.

You can move to the Dvina range bore-sight to 110km maximum.
The impulses sent out using two period (110km, and 120km), and displayed only till 110km.
The range between 110km and 120km is simply not displayed.
thumbsup


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

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#3511955 - 02/05/12 05:51 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
A question about last version. Is there any changes in missile behavior and/or way of calculating the impact point, particulary about UPR and K modes for Dvina/Volkhov?

Nothing.

If there are changes, please, describe them, because It seems to me that missiles do much more UPR than before (say ver 923.0)???

Shouldn't be over 4 degree.
Definitely there is a diference in missile behaviour between 932.1 and 932.3 versions.
13:45 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number one.
Battery 261/57.
Click to reveal..
923.1:

923.3:


Originally Posted By: Hpasp

As I see missile reacts just like that on epsilon and beta, but still can't figure it out is moving the range boresight reflecting on missile, or not.
Basically you should see no effect, except for K method, where the added elevation is depending on target range.


We are talking about exactly for K metod. In examples I've ilustrated, we have no data for speed, only changes of the angular speed, which if we set manually distance at 34 km, could be equal to slow moving target. Anyway, in the previouse version, no matter where the boresight is set (usually it was left on the distance of the first launch against Habu), missiles in K mode are going straight on the azimuth boresight, and slightly higher on epsilon (due to K coponent in guidance). There are two explanations for me:
1. If the distance boresight is left on 70-80 km and it is count, it should calculate that this is supersonic (thus - 4 degree leading, see pic from last version), or:
2. If the distance boresight is set at say 34 km (max. missile range), it could calculate that this is slower target and gave some less leading (see pic from older version).

Quote:
Also, when practicing on Ashuluk in UPR/K:
- against supersonic target the lead hits 4 degrees mark
- against subsonic target - lead is not more than 3 degrees


Correct.
Subsonic target UPR point is closer to the target. It can be less than 4 degree, depending on the P.
Supersonic target UPR point is further to the target. It can be more than 4 degree, but the system allows the missile max 4 degree.


That's mean that speed of the target is a part of the calculation of the lead value, right? So in case the distance is set closer than the distance to the target (p. 2 above), it should result in less lead.

Anyway, I don't understand why it "leads" so much on azimuth, when SR-71 is aproaching almmost with zero parameter, and missile is still climbing...
The examples above are from the same shooting conditions, with distance boresight left on position of first "pusk" (between 75-80 km).

Last edited by piston79; 02/05/12 06:35 PM.
#3511997 - 02/05/12 07:04 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
We are talking about exactly for K metod. In examples I've ilustrated, we have no data for speed, only changes of the angular speed, which if we set manually distance at 34 km, could be equal to slow moving target. Anyway, in the previouse version, no matter where the boresight is set (usually it was left on the distance of the first launch against Habu), missiles in K mode are going straight on the azimuth boresight, and slightly higher on epsilon (due to K coponent in guidance). There are two explanations for me:
1. If the distance boresight is left on 70-80 km and it is count, it should calculate that this is supersonic (thus - 4 degree leading, see pic from last version), or:
2. If the distance boresight is set at say 34 km (max. missile range), it could calculate that this is slower target and gave some less leading (see pic from older version).


You are over mystifying the UPR method.
rolleyes
It simply calculates the expected missile-target meeting point (lets call it Lead Point "LP"), than the middle point of a section between the target and "LP". (lets call this Half Lead Point "HLP")

If this "HLP" is less than 4 degree from the bore-sight, the missile will fly towards it.
If this "HLP" is more than 4 degree from the bore-sight, the missile will at the 4 degree limit.
thumbsup

Last edited by Hpasp; 02/05/12 07:07 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

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#3512012 - 02/05/12 07:34 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

You are over mystifying the UPR method.
rolleyes
It simply calculates the expected missile-target meeting point (lets call it Lead Point "LP"), than the middle point of a section between the target and "LP". (lets call this Half Lead Point "HLP")

If this "HLP" is less than 4 degree from the bore-sight, the missile will fly towards it.
If this "HLP" is more than 4 degree from the bore-sight, the missile will at the 4 degree limit.
thumbsup

I understand, but what input data is needed to be known from the APP to know where is that point and where to guide the missile ( 4 or less degree)? I can't find anything in what I have.

#3512783 - 02/06/12 06:18 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
Hi,
Quote:
Piston, have you noticed the Habu's altitude in AAR? 10-12 km? Seems suicidal... or another bug.

After the addition of the SA-75(SA-2F)"Dvina", I really wondered is it really possible to do what NVA did against SR-71 (A-11) flights... I've tried many times, but as everybody noticed, missiles "slipped away" just before expected point of impact, due to low G capabilities. I even started to think that the punctured skin of the "Blackbird" is a myth. Than I exposed my doubts here and our dear Hpasp hit me with those CIA reports about Blackshield missions and the hole, found on the SR-71. One piece of information makes me to thing about new tactic... tactical




So, i started to think that that was not a T/T guidanse... Of course, they used RS probably, but due to this is not possible for us, I've desided to try with using of a K mode (know that is against the rules, but... wink ). I hoped that the added altitude will gain some lead to compensate "sliping", and it happens!!! I managed to achieve some close calls (like the last I've posted), and after some SINE calculations, I found the distance of the succesful "Pusk" (it is about 71 km for the 261/57 batterie)... And it happens!
Click to reveal..



Miss distance was sometimes less than 55 metters!

So, this was succesful 'till last version of the SIM - 923.3 sigh

Here, you can see how different became K mode in new version, compared to the older version:
13:45 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number one.
Battery 261/57.
Click to reveal..
923.1:

923.3:


Then I,ve started all this question to Hpasp (thank God he has nerve of steal!), just want to keep my domination against Habu and to understand which K mode is correct one (and hoped that older K mode is that one!). Nevertheless I continued to search the way to kill Habu in current version - even tried to lock it only on azimuth and to make some RS on epsilon screen with the mouse... screwy

At the end I, ve decided to aim at the point, where maximum range of missiles crossed Habu path, but still using K mode to compensate "slipping" from the trajectory on high altitude - Tovarisch Vintorez- AAR never lies! wink

So, that's the story.. I really hope Hpasp could dig deep and find why K is so different, I believe that there is something wrong, especially against jamming targets on low parameter (i.e slow angular speed on azimuth), but he knew better.
Thank you, and good luck!


Last edited by piston79; 02/25/12 10:13 AM.
#3512852 - 02/06/12 07:58 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
So, that's the story.. I really hope Hpasp could dig deep and find why K is so different, I believe that there is something wrong, especially against jamming targets on low parameter (i.e slow angular speed on azimuth), but he knew better.

Here are my thoughts about Dvina vs Habu...

To be able to consistently kill the Habu, the Dvina miss two things...
... jamming burntrough due to the small radar cross section of the Habu, and enough missile overload capability.

For the second, note that the 11DMVK missile could pull a bit more g's than the 11DKU...
11DKU is comparable to the V-755, while the 11DMVK to the 5Ya23.

... but it is also slower a bit.

The RCS of the Habu is lower than the F-105, so if all the jammers are working, no burnthrough.

The radio proxy fuse of the missile would need the following miss distance:

11DKU
30% chance of hit; 140m
50% chance of hit; 130m
80% chance of hit; 115m
100% chance of hit; 60m

11DMVK
30% chance of hit; 220m
50% chance of hit; 205m
80% chance of hit; 180m
100% chance of hit; 95m

cowboy


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

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#3512868 - 02/06/12 08:17 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
Yep, I found that DMVK is more succesful! But the guidance is the key... If you want, do it by yourself, use in the same scenario v. 923.0 and v.923.3 and tell me is there something different or not (don't forget to break the rule and switch on K guidance)...
I can say that thanks to this SIM, I really apreciate the skills of guys, that manage to "scratch" A-11 long time ago, with no pile of free missile from behind, no flight path on their ploating boards and no second chance...
Respect!
thumbsup


p.s Why Habu shows in AAR like 24.1 or 24.2 km, on plotting board 24.00 km and in 3D AAR - 24.0 km???

Last edited by piston79; 02/06/12 08:27 PM.
#3513605 - 02/07/12 06:14 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
I can say that thanks to this SIM, I really apreciate the skills of guys, that manage to "scratch" A-11 long time ago, with no pile of free missile from behind, no flight path on their ploating boards and no second chance...
Respect!
thumbsup


Thank You!
This is why we keep developing this SIM, to give You a sneak-peek into this (long ago) secret world.
cowboy


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

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#3625685 - 08/13/12 08:12 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,790
This is what I meant:
Previouse version:


Current version:


Mission: El Dorado Canyon
Target: SR-71 Blackbird
Method: T/T87B

EDIT: This was noticed thanks to MAX2012... thumbsup

EDIT2:Destruction zone was displayed in a different way and size (see range marks on the right of the epsilon screen), so there is some change in the algorytm of the S-75M3-OP APP-75M work!!!

Last edited by piston79; 08/18/12 07:07 AM.
#3628454 - 08/18/12 12:56 AM S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline)  
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,152
Cat Offline
Egyptian Mau
Cat  Offline
Egyptian Mau
Hotshot

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,152
Somewhere....over the Rainbow
Since I goofed and deleted the original thread, let's discuss S-75M3 topics here.


Miao, Cat
#3628791 - 08/18/12 08:50 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 910
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 910
I-RAN
please guys cuss did u think with yourself??? until when we have to talk about analog system! nope
we can show our skill's about control better system! popcorn it not soon for us. we can if we have bump

Last edited by milang; 08/18/12 08:58 PM.
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14

Moderated by  Cat, Hpasp, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Lest We Forget...
by WOLF257. 12/07/19 06:42 AM
There will be no painting in the shed today
by Ajay. 12/07/19 03:47 AM
P 40B
by carrick58. 12/07/19 12:47 AM
I want this this Christmas season.
by NoFlyBoy. 12/06/19 10:35 PM
The Last Full Measure (2020)
by NoFlyBoy. 12/05/19 09:24 PM
Movies that were totally NOT what you were expecting
by PanzerMeyer. 12/05/19 11:46 AM
Got ingrown toenail(s)? I found a MIRACLE
by Zamzow. 12/05/19 01:08 AM
No Time to Die (007)
by Chaz. 12/04/19 02:46 PM
People eat this ugly fish?
by NoFlyBoy. 12/04/19 01:09 AM
Yearly Reminder: Starcitizen
by Master. 12/03/19 09:02 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0