Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#4500830 - 12/18/19 04:13 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
No, there is no radio-command guidance.
Target tracking and illumination radar 1S31M has 2 transmitters using the same parabolic antenna as a reflector. First one is for monopulse tracking of the target and guidance of the antenna towards the target, and the second one is for CW illumination of the target. They are based on the same rotation system, and as monopulse target tracking radar automatically tracks the target, it is forming the commands for moving the antenna for further tracking and for illumination. The same as in TV mode, the illumination transmitter is moving as the TOV is tracking the target manually from SURN cabine.
Target tracking monopulse transmitter and CW illumination transmitter work in different frequencies.
As for the missile, normally, it has a lock on target while on the SPL. When the missile is launched it flies in straight line, while the booster is working, to the projected position of the point of impact calculated by the missile while on SPL. When missile seeker starts semi-active guidance, it corrects the flight path of the missile to the impact point, while scanning in the direction of the target.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4501041 - 12/20/19 12:33 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
Is the missile radiofuse independant or it needs the CW transmition

#4501136 - 12/21/19 04:24 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
It needs CW illumination!

#4501158 - 12/21/19 07:55 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
Well, would you share some wartime experience?

#4501408 - 12/24/19 02:49 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Czech Republic
Kub operator: GREAT!!!! I will read thoroughly and will have some questions for sure :-)

#4503571 - 01/13/20 06:30 AM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 914
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 914
I-RAN
Originally Posted by Kub operator
No, there is no radio-command guidance.
Target tracking and illumination radar 1S31M has 2 transmitters using the same parabolic antenna as a reflector. First one is for monopulse tracking of the target and guidance of the antenna towards the target, and the second one is for CW illumination of the target. They are based on the same rotation system, and as monopulse target tracking radar automatically tracks the target, it is forming the commands for moving the antenna for further tracking and for illumination. The same as in TV mode, the illumination transmitter is moving as the TOV is tracking the target manually from SURN cabine.
Target tracking monopulse transmitter and CW illumination transmitter work in different frequencies.
As for the missile, normally, it has a lock on target while on the SPL. When the missile is launched it flies in straight line, while the booster is working, to the projected position of the point of impact calculated by the missile while on SPL. When missile seeker starts semi-active guidance, it corrects the flight path of the missile to the impact point, while scanning in the direction of the target.


You come so late man , he's #%&*$# gone

#4504385 - 01/21/20 01:08 AM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 39
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 39
Ontario

Originally Posted by Kub operator
No, there is no radio-command guidance.
Target tracking and illumination radar 1S31M has 2 transmitters using the same parabolic antenna as a reflector. First one is for monopulse tracking of the target and guidance of the antenna towards the target, and the second one is for CW illumination of the target. They are based on the same rotation system, and as monopulse target tracking radar automatically tracks the target, it is forming the commands for moving the antenna for further tracking and for illumination. The same as in TV mode, the illumination transmitter is moving as the TOV is tracking the target manually from SURN cabine.
Target tracking monopulse transmitter and CW illumination transmitter work in different frequencies.


May I ask what is the purpose of having such a complicated dual frequency system? ECCM? If you are able to jam the tracker, you will throw away the antenna from the target, so the illumination will be also lost at some point. If you are able to jam the CW illumination channel, well, the antenna is still on target, but you lose the missile.

Seems kind of overcomplicated with no real benefit for ECCM. Just increases the number of ways you are vulnarable to the jammer.

#4505057 - 01/26/20 08:28 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
@jonas85

Well Jonas, I see You do realize that it is the receiving channel that is being jammed and not the transmitting one.
So. monopulse target tracking radar can be jammed, but in daytime you can use TOV (television optical system) as an "equivalent" to monopulse target tracking radar and continue illuminating the target with the CW illuminator.
Also, there is a possibility to manualy track the target with monopulse target tracking radar, if possible, and if jamming is not constant...
If you would have the CW illuminator as a transmitter and a receiver on radar antenna on the ground, you would be blocked from further tracking the target (example: HAWK).
Kub sistem has the opportunity to use TOV or other additional passive tracking devices (IR, for example).
When it comes to CW illuminator, it is a sort of "bistatic radar" in a way that receiver and transmitter are separated. Transmitter is on the SURN, and the receiver is missile SARH system. Of course, we can now discuss about the jamming of the SARH of the missile.
When it comes to missile 3M9 it is proven that it can be jammed more easily in a way that in needs 2,5 - 3 seconds to obtain "new" lock on the target during the flight, while flying the "projected trajectory" to the point of impact. If the missile does not acquire the target "by velocity" in that given time, it is lost.
However, it is proven also that the newer missile 3M9M3 has got much better anti-jamming capabilities, as it can obtain "new" lock on the target during the flight every 0,30 seconds while flying the projected trajectory. Also, it is proven, that it is not enough just to jamm the missile SARH system for a second or a part of a second (as the missile is moving), it is neccessary for jamming signal to "stay a while on the SARH" for the missile to lose the lock. But as I said, it can get "back on track" in 0,30 seconds!
So, it is not easy to jam the SARH system (1SB4M semi-active homing seeker) in the missile.
The other theme is using of the AN/ALE-50 and other active jammers, which do not jamm the missile or target tracking radar so it can not engage the target, but instead it misleads them by receiving and then re-emitting the signal in the same frequency and higher intensity thus "tricking" the missile SARH and leading it to AN/ALE-50 instead to the target.....

Last edited by Kub operator; 01/26/20 08:28 PM.
#4505146 - 01/27/20 02:52 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
Yep. I think the AN/ALE-50 is the main reason that SA-6 haven't got a manned plane on this war...
Did you know about some close calls with SA-6, also any other destroyed targets (cruise missiles, projectiles, drones, etc.)

#4505165 - 01/27/20 06:58 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 9
Well Piston, as you had the chance to read in my topic "Controversies of Air War 24/03/99 - 24/06/99" on MCM forum, I have invested some of my time to find some western sources that could support a certain claim. It is easy to clame a shootdown of a plane, but it is harder to back it up with some evidence of at least some sources that could be "controversial".
Since I have read and learned a lot from Your SAM simulator Tutorials (I do not play simulator) about SAM systems such as 2K11 Krug, 9K33 Osa and other, I feel that it would be only fair to share some info with all of You, that might be interesting.

"B-1B Lancer Units in Combat", Autor: Thomas Withington, Publisher: Osprey Combat Airfcraft, Botley-Oxford.

Quote:
“DESERT FOX AND NOBLE ANVIL

The first B-1B mission occurred on 2 April against the Novi Sud petroleum production facility at Pancevo, northeast of Belgrade. Although ONA was originally limited to only ‘tactical’ targets at the start of the campaign, it became clear that hitting such sites alone would not persuade President Milosevic to fold. Instead, the target set was expanded to cover ‘strategic’ installations such as the Novi Sud facility, which was literally helping to oil the Serbian war machine. The combined load of 168 Mk 82 ‘slicks’ dropped from the two bombers that were sortied had no trouble knocking out the key sections of the plant.
These Mk 82 bombs are lined up on an ammunition-handling truck, waiting to be loaded into the weapons bay of the 77th BS Lancer parked in the background. The access ladder in the crew compartment is down and the aircraft awaits the arrival of the four-man team who will fly the bomber over western Europe and the Adriatic Sea and then onto its targets in Serbia and Kosovo (B-1B Systems Program Office)

However, after the bomb run, the weapons bay doors on one of the B-1Bs failed to close. The Lancer was subsequently targeted by a Serbian SAM, although a combination of defensive manoeuvres, chaff and electronic countermeasures defeated the missile. The weapon succeeded in forcing the bomber into the engagement zone of a second SAM, however, which the crew was also able to defeat. According to the pilot of the aircraft, Capt Gerald Goodfellow, at the first indication of a SAM launch ‘your training kicks in. It feels very natural. You don’t really think about it until later on, when the mission is completed. You take on an almost business-like attitude. You have to beat that missile. When I’m up there, my biggest worry isn’t about getting shot down, but about missing the target. As a whole, the crew is concentrating as one putting those bombs on target’. The open weapons bay doors and the manoeuvring of the aircraft caused Goodfellow’s Lancer to use more fuel than anticipated, leaving the bomber with insufficient fuel to return to Fairford. During the mission, the B-1B was also struck by lightning, which blew off a section of the aircraft’s horizontal stabiliser, but the crew was still able to get the aircraft home. Goodfellow remembered that ‘we felt a huge relief at the completion of the mission. The SAMs came closer than we’d anticipated, and after thinking about it for a couple of days, we were glad to have survived’.
Retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen John Jumper was Commander USAFE and Commander Allied Air Forces Central Europe during OAF, and he remembers clearly how well the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy worked on this first mission: "The pair of B-1Bs came down south over the Adriatic Sea information with their ALE-50 towed decoys deployed, and we watched the radars in Montenegro track the bombers as they turned the corner around Macedonia and headed up into Kosovo. We watched the radars, in real time, hand off the targets to the SA-6s, which came upon full-target track and fired their missiles. Those missiles took the ALE-50s off the back end of the B-1s just like they were designed to..."
“Lancer 85-0075 of the 77th BS sits under a partially cloudy Gloucestershire sky whilst being readied for another mission to Serbia. This aircraft left Fairford a mere 11 days after its arrival. The jet’s early departure, in contrast with some of the other aircraft deployed, may have been due to mechanical problems (B-1B Program Office)...END QUOTE

So as You can see, this B1B was engaged by a Kub missile batery that launched 2 missiles. The rest You can read in this quotation from the book. They claim that the aircraft "manouvered and beat the missiles" (bomber manouvered Kub missile?) . But because of that manouvering and because weapons bay door did not close, they used more fuel than expected and needed to be refueled. During this mission they were also "struck by a lightning" (Kub missile?) which blew of a part of the aicraft horizontal stabiliser, but the crew was able to return to Fairford. It happened on the 02/04/99, and the aircraft left the Fairford on 11/04/99 because of the "mechanical problems". The aircraft that replaced him, arrived in Fairford on 08/04/99...

So, this is the first controversy, but certainly a proof that Kub missiles were very close to hitting th B1B, with some chance that perhaps some fragments perhaps hit the aircrafts horizontal stabilizer, even if they flew towards AN/ALE-50...

Maybe some comments and then we can continue? smile

#4505166 - 01/27/20 07:10 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,814
I think it is more interesting to share stories from SAM crews... We all could read those US stories, but your part of story is unknown...

Did you ever succeed in matching this raid with certain SA-6 activity in the area? (You posted a shootout between SA-6 battery and a HARM carrier recorded by a news cameraman in a live news report during war... wink

Last edited by piston79; 01/27/20 08:02 PM.
#4505816 - 02/01/20 06:02 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 39
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 39
Ontario
@Kub operator,

thanks for explaining this! Now I understand the ECCM logic in KUB a bit more. That's some really deep technical knowledge I must say!

I was also thinking a bit what you said on the SARH jamming in CW channel. I agree it would be EXTREMELY difficult to spoof a missile. Monopulse itself is notoriously resistant against angles jamming. Crosseye demands a very great precision in controling the jammer beam directivity and phase wavefront with respect of a target to cause disturbances. This means you need an extremely precise and stable jammer platform and a cooperative target, which I don't believe to be possible against a fast moving missile (but I don't really know for sure the todays advancements in the field, so I might be easily be wrong on this). Also, you cannot use cross-polarization jamming either, if you don't know the exact polarization of a missile SARH receiver or if it has polarizer filter to eliminate the effects. So probably the only really usefull technique is velocity-gate pull of or trying to wreak havoc with the fuse. Group targets could also use sinchronized blinking against missile in CW channel.

But in any attempt to actively jam the SARH missile you would of course self-illuminate for the missile Home-On-Jam.

Last edited by Jonas85; 02/01/20 11:17 PM.
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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
'Microjets' are so cool.
by MarkG. 02/24/20 05:41 AM
And This Year's "Darwin Award" Goes to...
by vonBaur. 02/24/20 12:25 AM
The most popular games on Steam
by PanzerMeyer. 02/23/20 02:10 PM
Anyone use VoiceAtttack?
by bones. 02/21/20 01:50 PM
Fanatical Platinum Bundle
by Red2112. 02/21/20 12:21 PM
Raising the Kursk
by CyBerkut. 02/20/20 11:09 PM
Borderlands the movie?
by PanzerMeyer. 02/20/20 07:41 PM
Post script on our fires
by Mad Max. 02/19/20 09:43 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0