Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 13 14
#3908112 - 02/06/14 07:36 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) ***** [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3908174 - 02/06/14 08:45 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Mdore]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted By: Mdore
You've forgetting the most important factor in whether a radar can detect a target or not. Range!

If you halve the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by sixteen times!

If you quarter the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by 256 times!


Are you sure with the numbers?

#3908393 - 02/07/14 07:52 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 245
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 245
Yup, I'm sure.

Radar signals have to make a two way journey, so they fall off at the square of the distance on the way to the aircraft, then the reflections fall off at the square of the distance on the way back to the radar receiver. Squared twice is fourth power. distance = distance^4

It makes radar detection REALLY dependent on range.

Last edited by Mdore; 02/07/14 07:54 AM.
#3908657 - 02/07/14 06:38 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ePap]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,074
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,074
Do you know the real capabilities of a system and tactics designed to penetrate airspace defended by TOR-M1?

See, all of these SAMs are great, but one way or the other, compared to aircraft they are static defenses. Also, TOR is simply old. If you're just facing a single F-35 or F-22 lobbing SDBs everywhere, ok, great. Maybe he'll run out of SDBs before you run out of missiles.

But on the other hand, if he comes in with a 4 ship and lobs 32 SDBs (it doesn't even matter if he can find the SAM battery. If you don't reveal it's location right then and there, those SDBs destroy whatever they are aimed at. That might be your fuel depot), you're forced to defend - and in reality, what you will be defending against is 4 F-35's (let's forget F-22's for a moment, ground attack is really not their job, but they can do it) lobbing their SDBs and then jamming any radar that turns on. Another 4 F-35's behind them will be doing a similar job, so that the front guys can get out.

At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.

Originally Posted By: ePap
A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...


--
44th VFW
#3908712 - 02/07/14 07:34 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.


Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.

Jamming was not so strong (NAVY EA-6B had to cover USAF planes, as the EF111 were scrapped).

Technology designed in the '50s(!!!) were able to kill the most advanced US jet of 99.

One of my reason why I developed SAMSIM, is to show you (military enthusiast of the west) how dangerous these SAM's can be if you do not take them seriously enough.

(One of a US Electronic Warfare officer compared them to a Samurai Sword...
... hopelessly outdated technology, but still as deadly as ever)

Last edited by Hpasp; 02/07/14 07:56 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
#3908726 - 02/07/14 07:49 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.



I guess he means MALD decoys.... May moderators move those posts in new topic...., like "Modern air defense", or similar ?

#3908744 - 02/07/14 08:24 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
ePap Offline
Member
ePap  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Athens
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Do you know the real capabilities of a system and tactics designed to penetrate airspace defended by TOR-M1?

See, all of these SAMs are great, but one way or the other, compared to aircraft they are static defenses. Also, TOR is simply old. If you're just facing a single F-35 or F-22 lobbing SDBs everywhere, ok, great. Maybe he'll run out of SDBs before you run out of missiles.

But on the other hand, if he comes in with a 4 ship and lobs 32 SDBs (it doesn't even matter if he can find the SAM battery. If you don't reveal it's location right then and there, those SDBs destroy whatever they are aimed at. That might be your fuel depot), you're forced to defend - and in reality, what you will be defending against is 4 F-35's (let's forget F-22's for a moment, ground attack is really not their job, but they can do it) lobbing their SDBs and then jamming any radar that turns on. Another 4 F-35's behind them will be doing a similar job, so that the front guys can get out.

At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.

Originally Posted By: ePap
A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...


Thanks God that till now my country didn't start world war III and won't face the above scenario ...

PS:1. TOR-m1 is an element in the intergrated Air Defence of NATO ,among many others.
2.Yes,i have participated many times in missions designed to protect/penetrate air deference assets.Do you ?

Last edited by ePap; 02/07/14 09:06 PM.
#3908995 - 02/08/14 01:13 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ePap]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,831
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,831
Portugal
Originally Posted By: ePap
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !

Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!

A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...



Well, I could also say that I would hate to see my countries (I "have" two) armed forces underestimate enemy threats and overestimate their own capabilities like you do.

#3908997 - 02/08/14 01:26 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,831
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,831
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.


Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.

Jamming was not so strong (NAVY EA-6B had to cover USAF planes, as the EF111 were scrapped).

Technology designed in the '50s(!!!) were able to kill the most advanced US jet of 99.

One of my reason why I developed SAMSIM, is to show you (military enthusiast of the west) how dangerous these SAM's can be if you do not take them seriously enough.

(One of a US Electronic Warfare officer compared them to a Samurai Sword...
... hopelessly outdated technology, but still as deadly as ever)


I agree with GrayGhost. Jamming and how it's employed is one of those many factors/variables that makes real wartime scenarios very different from peace time training/exercises scenarios.

Don't forget that countries such as US (at least the US Navy) and Australia (among other countries) will still really on jamming aircraft in the future, in the case of the US Navy and Australian Air Force (RAAF) with the F/A-18G Growler.

Also don't forget that modern aircraft equipped with AESA radars such as the F-22 and F-35 will have self standoff jamming capabilities using their AESA radars (and on board jamming equipment of course).

#3909018 - 02/08/14 03:32 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
ePap Offline
Member
ePap  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Athens
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: ePap
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !

Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!

A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...



Well, I could also say that I would hate to see my countries (I "have" two) armed forces underestimate enemy threats and overestimate their own capabilities like you do.


I assume that you have not clearly realized that SAMSIM is not just another simulator and some people try to contribute it with infos coming from real world and not from what you can find on the Internet or to other flight sims...
So SAMSIM is my concern and I stick to it._

Last edited by ePap; 02/08/14 03:35 PM.
#3909735 - 02/10/14 09:59 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Czech Republic
S-300PMU2




#3909738 - 02/10/14 10:00 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Czech Republic
S-400



#3910488 - 02/11/14 08:03 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
Markan Offline
Junior Member
Markan  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
Serbia
Interesting video about anti advance sam weapons and tactics

#3910512 - 02/11/14 08:38 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Alien_MasterMynd]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
S-300PMU2




This is the main difference between S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle) 48N6 missile (150km max range), and S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle) 48N6D missile (200km max range).



Last edited by Hpasp; 02/11/14 08:39 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
#3912713 - 02/16/14 04:40 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 432
jazjar Offline
Member
jazjar  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 432
What is the misshapen quadrilateral box for? Engagement range for a height vs. Range display? Also what are the hollow circles on the display for?

#3912736 - 02/16/14 05:22 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: jazjar]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted By: jazjar
What is the misshapen quadrilateral box for? Engagement range for a height vs. Range display? Also what are the hollow circles on the display for?


box - kiling zone
circles - missiles

#3912741 - 02/16/14 05:32 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
ePap Offline
Member
ePap  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Athens
A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives

#3912744 - 02/16/14 05:38 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Czech Republic
And targets (dots) with their movement vectors.

The killing zone is for the missile/system (that's why you can see target movement vectors). And it is indicative - it is for a given probability, even target outside of it may be hit....

#3912747 - 02/16/14 05:51 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
ePap Offline
Member
ePap  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Athens
The killing zone/in range zone is very specific and very important computation on the FC computer and not something indicative.
Also it (killing zone) has nothing to do with killing probabilities.

So,target vectoring is calculated in acquisition mode and killing zone in tracking mode.

Last edited by ePap; 02/16/14 05:52 PM.
#3912756 - 02/16/14 06:10 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ePap]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Originally Posted By: ePap
A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives


This is the missile killing zone (same against each type of target), not the missile firing zone (depending on target speed and parameter).

The missile killing zone is displayed on the round display (right), while target specific firing zone is displayed on the rectangular (left) display.



The missile killing zone display has vertical and horizontal view...



Last edited by Hpasp; 02/16/14 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
Page 3 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 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
11 th day on lockdown
by carrick58. 03/30/20 12:26 AM
Drug combo working. Covid. Dr Zelenko NYC hospital.
by TerribleTwo. 03/29/20 12:27 PM
HILARIOUS videos found on YouTube.
by NoFlyBoy. 03/28/20 09:59 PM
Stuka!
by RedToo. 03/28/20 04:56 PM
social distancing
by KraziKanuK. 03/27/20 07:30 PM
How to correctly wash your hands properly.
by NoFlyBoy. 03/25/20 12:58 PM
Humble Bundle Driving Deal
by F4UDash4. 03/25/20 11:00 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0