Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 15
#3784972 - 05/20/13 04:33 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) ***** [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
you know guys !
this one , is my one of thousands dreams
biggrin
i hope that one day , i see huge missile explosion of sa-2 warhead at this TV on samsim explode




Last edited by farokh; 05/20/13 04:34 PM.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3784974 - 05/20/13 04:36 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
I agree 100%

Every system in SAM Sim has a camera or visual aiming system, except for the SA-5. ( I think so, but might be wrong )

It would be amazing to actually a camera or similar system on everything else.

A telescope for the ZSU-23-4 and SA-2F, and TV for the SA-2E, SA-3 and SA-4.

Though I think the SA-3 only has a TV on the updated Pechora-2A and Pechora-M. So maybe no TV here

Last edited by Mdore; 05/20/13 04:40 PM.
#3789601 - 05/30/13 01:36 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Senior Member
Hpasp  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Some nice videos...

http://infowsparcie.net/wria/video/galeria/video.html

(link corrected, thnx piston)

Last edited by Hpasp; 05/30/13 06:19 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
#3789724 - 05/30/13 06:12 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


... In this section: Galeria filmów

#3792737 - 06/06/13 10:59 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481
max2012 Offline
Member
max2012  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 481

Piston79 generally well done.

Piston79 and Hpasp are both very good.

Always give a lot of different Information Video know probably know each other well.

#3793976 - 06/09/13 11:41 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
two brother
beercheers


#3811588 - 07/19/13 10:05 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
question to hpasp and other guys

why GshV method in volhov do not simulated?
confused

we have much more jammer on other scenario ! maybe with this method we could attack them without any loos damage !

#3811593 - 07/19/13 11:01 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
From the advanced manual

Quote:

What's exactly the GShV, and how it works?
When the KRUG was fielded in large numbers in the WARPACT, the US started the use of the
Angular Jamming Technique.This is mostly developed against the monopulse radars (SA-4/SA-5/SA-
6/SA-8/SA-10, ...) but it can also confuse older TWS radars (SA-2/SA-3).
Thus the GSh instrument was developed, to counter these kind of jamming utilizing a special TWS
technique. For the Volkhov, it was called GShV. For the Neva, it was called GShN.
So far, this kind of jamming is not simulated in the SIM... and its technique is not discussed.


The jamming the GShV is designed to counter, isn't in SAM Simulator.

Though the whole thing confuses me, isn't crosseye jamming used against monopulse radars? I don't see how crosseye jamming could confuse a TWS radar like the SA-2 uses.

Anyway, shooting jamming targets is already WAY too easy, since only noise jamming and not modulated noise jamming is simulated. It's very easy to get a dozen kills without turning your radar on at all with the way SAM Simulator is now.

Last edited by Mdore; 07/19/13 11:04 AM.
#3811599 - 07/19/13 11:42 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
mdore... could u tell me what kind of jammer simulated and what kind of jammer not simulated ?

#3811607 - 07/19/13 12:19 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
I should warn you, I'm no expert. What I say could be wrong.

The only jamming simulated in SAM Simulator, is noise jamming.

The problem with noise jamming, is you can see which part of the sky the noise is coming from. On the radar display, it creates a thick band of noise. If you point at the centre of the band of noise, you're pointing directly at the jammer. The only thing noise jamming blocks is the ability to find a target's range.

After the first few years of the Vietnam War, the US introduced modulated noise jamming. Instead of transmitting noise of a constant power, they vary it slightly.

This modulation makes it difficult for radars like the SA-2 and SA-3 to detect exactly where in the sky the noise is coming from, and fills their radar display with multiple bands of jamming, instead of a single band.

Modulated noise jamming isn't simulated.

There are also lots of types of deception jamming, like inverse gain jamming, swept wave jamming, cross eye jamming, range gate pull off, velocity gate pull off, and many, many other types of deception jamming. None of them are simulated.

-----

Also, in my previous post when I mentioned crosseye jamming, that was just a guess and I very well could be wrong. I don't know which kind of jamming GShV counters, the advanced manual just says "angle jamming" and that it's against monopulse tracking. Crosseye jamming fits that description, but it could be some other form of jamming that GShV is designed to counter, and not crosseye.

Last edited by Mdore; 07/19/13 12:25 PM.
#3811629 - 07/19/13 01:15 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Mdore]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
Originally Posted By: Mdore

There are also lots of types of deception jamming, like inverse gain jamming, swept wave jamming, cross eye jamming, range gate pull off, velocity gate pull off, and many, many other types of deception jamming. None of them are simulated.


if these jammers simulated on samsim ... we have to shoot sa-2 3 4 5 6 to trashcan !!!!!

ps: tnQ to Mdore for these explain thumbsup

Last edited by farokh; 07/19/13 01:22 PM.
#3811632 - 07/19/13 01:25 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
More types of jamming would be interesting, along with decoys and chaff.

But a higher priority should be aircraft that try to dodge missiles!

It's too easy to hit targets in SAM Simulator.

#3811694 - 07/19/13 03:33 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 55
JWNoctis Offline
Junior Member
JWNoctis  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 55
Wild Weasels already dodge missiles with noise jamming and vertical maneuver over Hanoi, but yeah, those are not our targets.

And yeah, to see aircrafts trying to counter missiles with more drastic maneuvers would indeed be nice...and most likely difficult to program as well.

#3812437 - 07/21/13 01:44 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Rocket 5YA23 (B-759) - one of the latest models of missiles for the complexes of S-75 was designed in the bureau MMP "Vanguard". The development was initiated by the Decree of 22 September 1967 Missile length was 10.91 (10,806) m, weight fully kitted out and tucked the rocket - 2406 kg warhead mass 5ZH98 with ready-made debris in the form of a truncated pyramid - 201 kg (according to other sources - 197 kg), and the mass of the explosive - 90 kg, the number of ready-made debris - 29,000. Another intended for the warhead missiles 5YA23 with ready-spherical fragments had a mass of 197 kg, including the weight of the explosive -90 kg. With the introduction of this modification missiles affected area was provided: range 6 (7) -56 (76) miles in height - 0.1 (0.05) -30 km. Maximum speed of target - 3700 km / h
Anti-aircraft missile system S-75m2 with a missile B-759 (5YA23) was put into service in 1971 the Order of the USSR Ministry of Defense N0023.

#3812824 - 07/22/13 02:56 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
How does the SA-2E actually track a target? And how does it track the missiles it's guiding?

The more I've thought about this, the more confused I've become.

Using the simplest, obvious ways to track a target and missile, I calculated would lead to 140m inaccuracy at ranges of 40km, yet SAM Simulator is much more accurate than this. Missile's often get within 20m against a slow straight flying target like the F-86 target drone.

So either SAM Simulator isn't realistic, or the SA-2 is using a clever tracking system.

If it's using a clever guidance system, then how does it work? I can think of three different ways that would improve accuracy from 140m of the simple tracking technique, but I'm just guessing. I don't know how it actually tracks the target and missiles.

Does anyone know what tracking algorithm the SA-2E uses?

#3812900 - 07/22/13 04:45 PM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
How did you found those numbers?

#3813231 - 07/23/13 07:26 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
I didn't find those numbers, I calculated them.

Count the radar scan lines on the SA-2 displays. You'll see there are about 2.5 or 5 per degree.

Maybe SAM Simulator doesn't draw the correct number of scan lines, so I checked some websites that mentioned the PRF and scan rate. From that I also calculated around 2.5 to 5 radar pulses per degree.

So that's two way I found the Fan Song transmits roughly 5 pulses per degree.

5 pulses per degree means one pulse is 0.2 degrees.

Basic trigonometry says 0.2 degrees at 40km is 140m. So there is 140m of uncertainty in elevation and azimuth for a target at 40km distance.

There are clever ways you could improve on that, but I don't know if it's possible with 1957 technology.

Last edited by Mdore; 07/23/13 07:27 AM.
#3813250 - 07/23/13 09:09 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
Lieste Online sigh
Senior Member
Lieste  Online Sigh
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
Did you take account of the polarisation being equivalent at 180/360 (or 090/270)? That would bring the 'cell width' down to 71m at 40km.

There will be differences in maxima with polarisation between different pulses ~ simple interpolation/analogue summation/differences may be sufficient to offer improvements to effective 'position' resolution to the "part cell" level. (eg if cell 3 and 4 have equal strengths, then the target location is at 3.5: if 4 is a maxima and 5 is less than 3 ~ then an approximation to the location would be 3.75 etc) Digitial systems can often be more 'precise', but they may lose the subtleties that an analogue system can offer ~ similar arguments can be heard from audiophiles comparing the "better" CD quality to the subtle variations that can be captured in vinyl (or indeed tape)...

That said... I do sometimes feel that SAMSIM tends to be optimistic about tracking performance and missile accuracy performance** ~ and added to that the target avoidance is minimal/non-existant. The lethality also seems optimistic ~ there *is* a reason that multiple rounds were expended per target from almost all systems, while that seldom feels "required" within the program where a valid launch parameter can be observed before the Weasels take their bite - a single missile is usually sufficient for a successful engagement.

** this might be confirmed/refuted once we can observe the target/missile flight from the operator's POV using Karat (especially if the GPX could be viewed from within the 'cabin' using Karat rather than the radar screens if they were used during the engagement).

#3813257 - 07/23/13 09:49 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
I'm not an expert in electronics, physics, radar or anything like that.

I did think of ways the accuracy could be improved, some of the ways you mentioned. But I don't know if they are used in reality. It's why I asked for more information.

The systems in SAM Simulator seem too accurate to me as well. But I'm not sure if it's because we're guiding missiles more accurately than can be done in historical reality, or it's because targets do not try to dodge or avoid missiles. Or both reasons!

In some of the Vietnam era missions in SAM Sim, I can shoot down 10+ aircraft very easily. I managed to shoot down 13 aircraft a few times. This is WAY more than could be managed in reality.

And I can shoot down Gary Powers with nearly 100% reliability in the 1960 mission with one missile. In reality didn't they fire 12 missiles?

SAM Simulator seems much too accurate.

#3813266 - 07/23/13 10:49 AM Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) [Re: Cat]  
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 55
JWNoctis Offline
Junior Member
JWNoctis  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 55
SA-75M was still not the system that engaged Gary Powers' U-2, and a lot of the missiles were supposedly directed at the interceptor in mistake. Readiness problems were also cited.

And we indeed need targets - or more targets that maneuver according to the operator's actions, if possible. That also calls for more, and maybe theorical scenarios, but currently those (I guess) are not the priority.

Page 4 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 15

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

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


Recent Topics
RIP Louis Gosset, Jr
by bones. 03/29/24 02:40 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0