S-75M3 Volhov qualification day

Today I am at the Asuluk SAM range where I will be qualifying on the S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) SAM system. I will be engaging an LA-17M target drone which will be flying a B-52 flight profile. Enough chatter, lets shoot something out of the sky, da?

The target:


My "work station" for today.



Lets get started, da? Systems... Check!


Start the generators.


Raise the antenna.


Activate the RSN-75V3 Fan Song E radar. It might come in handy. =p


A check of the Vector-2VE Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) shows our target is inbound.


A flick of this switch will bring our RSN-75V3 Fan Song E onto the target. Note, the small black needle is the direction our Fan Song is facing. The orange needle represents the direction our SAM battery is facing.



Switching the Fan Song to narrow beam mode.


Acquiring the target.


Begin the missile gyro spin up.


Switch our Fan Song into Lobe On Receive Only (LORO) mode. Note, LORO is the only mode that can ACCURATELY guide missiles.


Set the missile radio fuse. SOP calls for a "standard" fuse of 300m, however, I prefer the 100m. The standard is all the way to the left if you're wondering.


Missile gyros are spun up, and they're ready to fly.


Activate the guidance system.


I will be using the "Three point guidance" for this engagement. Under the current engagement parameters this is SOP. Three point guidance guides the missile(s) straight at the target instead of leading. To enable we want the "T/T" setting.



Aligning the battery with the target.




Missiles are ready.


Target is within 70km, lets set our radar for 70km.


Note, the upper set of numbers is used for range when using the 150km mode. Our target is currently around 67km.


We should probably choose "live fire" mode over "simulation"...


Target is in range! Note the dotted line below our target. It's the estimated point of impact. So we should intercept our target ~45km.


Pusk!



Three direct hits! The "splatter" on the radar is the debris field. Now then, how do we know it's really dead? Lets look at the altitude and airspeed before and after impact.

Before:


After:


The Fan Song's view of the crash.




I'm really glad I found this little sim, it's a lot of fun to play. I really hope the developer keeps working on this for a long time. I'd love to see the SA-10 Grumble simulated one day. On a side note, only the SA-2E "Guideline" and SA-3B "Goa" are playable. The good news is the SA-4 "Ganef" is currently in the works.

Which 'little sim'? I didn't on first glance see a link or description.

Oh, sorry about that. http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

However, there's one catch to this sim. You MUST use 1280x1024 resolution to play it, if your monitor doesn't support that res you're sadly out of luck. I hope the developer will add support for other resolutions sometime.

Do you need to set the desktop to that res, or does it switch to full screen rendering at that resolution on start?

Sadly you have to set your desktop res to 1280x1024 then start it. It's a pain in the butt if you want to use another resolution, but it's worth it.

Edit: I forgot to mention, it also takes like 10 minutes to install.

Now that is an interesting write-up! Something I've never before seen for sure!

Very cool!

Ditto, never seen anything like that. It would be cool to have a cut session where the missile is launched and tracks to target.

Wow, this looks mightily interesting! :o

That is indeed very interesting. Thanks for posting this. Please show us more. One of the first things which came to mind was "wouldn't this be neat if the DCS series incorporated this into one of their modules."

Perhaps a realm of possiblity? Can you imagine being in multiplayer and trying to track and shoot down human opponants in aircraft? Anyway, just some random thoughts. Again, thanks.

DCS would be an extremely good candidate too seeing how LOMAC 2 will be compatible. Hey, lets just throw SBProPE in too.

I was thinking about it yesterday watching the preview on VBS2 preview.
I recall back in the day, Microprose wanted to do something similar even though it was only planned to be compatible for their titles; have M1 Tank Platoon2 simmers hook up with Gunship! fliers and play together.

Why could developers not agree on a defined standard for a plug in for different sims, that would allow different sims to communicate with each other. That way you have people playing DCD:BS play with, say SBPro. While having air support from LOMAC2, and infantry being controlled by Arma2 players.
I mean, you wouldn't have to allow any other sims to connect, as you change the options for the servers, but it'd be great to have the possibility.

Now that would be a shhhhweeet deal!

This is fascinating. Are there other views, like a 3D view, or a missile or target view?

Yah, I've always thought a "all-in-one" sim that actually had high fidelity modeling would be great. However no one is interested in putting the time and resources into making a sim like that. The best we can hope for is arcade games like BF2... Altho, so long as there is an AWSM included I'm happy (Naise|AWM4Joo/Naise|OM4Joo).

@Brian

No, there's no 3d to it. It's purely what an operator would see. Maybe one day he'll add a 3d engine to it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

No, only 'panel' displays within the control van. It is like 'Harpoon' but with the 'click to designate' replaced by the full switchology.



Can be very busy as well - here I only made three successful lock-ups on targets within range (all on the low altitude intruders from the south), and splashed two with two engagements using 5 missiles... The third and fourth in this formation were predicted to be outside the kinematic range by the intercept point. The other two flights turned away after accomplishing their reconnaissance task (identify the location of the S75 firing battalion).
No IADS for target designation, so targets picked up using the P18 search radar.

Pretty awesome sim! Would be great if it had a debrief screen rather than just dumping you back to menu though. I want to know what it was that I just shot down...

Agreed. Even a sim needs some game elements.

Looks pretty cool...is there a scenario editor?

vertical

No, but the developer is making more combat zones.

We'll have to check this out. It looks very neat.

(EDIT) This is cooler than an ice machine at the South Pole. Full-on procedures for employment of both the S-75 and S-125 missile systems, both as part of an integrated air defense system and on its own, using its organic air-search and tracking radars to isolate approaching targets. And the radars are modeled in a very sophisticated fashion. Whoever put this together has a very detailed understanding of these systems. It even models early jamming countermeasures and launcher reload times! Fan-tastic! And the PDF based documentation is absolutely top-notch.

And it is 100% free to download! I'll be recommending that we do a formal review of this software at some point in 2010.

Miao, Cat

Yah, this guy really knows his stuff. Hope to see a SimHQ review!

Moo, Chris

It's coming, I just have to get familiar with the software and get organized. Should have the review to guod sometime during 1st quarter 2010.

I'm in contact with the developer already. He's a nice guy and I've invited him to come and post here. It's a fascinating story. Sim's been in development for 4 years already, and it is based on declassified Hungarian and Russian sources that have come out since Hungary obsoleted its Soviet air defense systems in 2000. It's an effort by an enthusiast for enthusiasts.

BTW, how did you get the screenshots? Is there a key for that to take them within the sim?

Miao, Cat

Good to hear. I didn't know how long he had been working on it. Four years shows a good desire to see it done, so hopefully we'll get more SAM systems to play with!

As for screenshots I used FSScreen, but it only saves in .bmp. I'm not aware of any in-game screen capture function.

Moo, Chris

I just used 'Printscreen' and Photoshop.

Very tolerant of Alt-tabbing, & although it doesn't appear in the program list you only need click into the sim to return to it.

Just tried it out. Very neat, gives a very good idea of what it must have been like to use these for real. I just took out a drone flying a B-52 strike profile, now to try something a little more challenging.

-Jenrick

For the ultimate challenge, see if you can stop a two or three missile ripple of the Koliber AShM fired on the Ustka test range in Northern Poland. They travel so fast that even locking them in the time available isn't assured, and the remaining fragments often overfly the firing battalion...

Being under fire from SSN22, SSN12 or SSN19 type AShM suddenly doesn't look fun at all...

(S75 is equivalent to the SAN-2, and S125 to the SAN-1 so both saw service as shipboard AADMS).

The P15 'Styx' isn't too much of a challenge by comparison, but having more than one in the air tends to make them too short-legged to reach as they perform a dog-leg.

I'll try that. Currently I've been messing with 4 aircraft flights, or a pair with jamming. More then one target moving at high speed makes for a very difficult exercise regardless of profile.

-Jenrick

So far, you shot on drones, and other easy targets...
... now, you can feel the full might of the USAF unleashed.

New version of the SAMsim is released:
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Includes the situation of Hanoi (Linebacker-II raid 19.12.1972.):
4:40am 19th of December, 1972. Hundred plane is participating in the third wave, during Night-1 of the Linebacker-II raid against Hanoi, the biggest bombardment of a city since World War-II. 51 B-52 will deliver carpet bombing against the Kinh No Industrial Complex (18 B-52), Gia Lam Rail Road Yard (12 B-52), and the Hanoi Radio (21 B-52). The supporting force consist of 36 F-4E Phantom-II, 6 F-105G Wild Weasel, 2 EB-66B Destroyer, 2 EA-6B Prowler, 1 EC-135 Looking Glass and 1 EC-121H AWACS. The nine SA-2 battery, defending Hanoi is firing 35 missiles during 16 engagements. B-52D `Rose-01` is shot down, Cpt. Richard Cooper, and TSgt. Charlie Poole dies. Cpt. Hal Wilson, Cpt. Charles Brown, Maj. Fernando Alexander, and Cpt. Henry Barrows are survives the ejection. B-52D `Rainbow-01` is also hit, but able to fly back to base.

Target acquisition radar display range can be selected between 90-180-360km.
Corrected several minor issues. (invisible ground targets, ground targets out of destruction zone, switching to I87V while range tracking)
Missile g limit is reduced to the realistic level.
Jamming burn-through is implemented.
Wartime scenario pre-mission briefing maps added.

Happy New Year!

Looks good, and I have downloaded the new version.

Looking further ahead, the AAR functions of .916 will be very welcome.

The most frequent comment I see is the lack of scalable resolution is hurting accessibility for those with flat screens particularly.

This is going to be a cult classic. I'm looking for our old trackball so I can see if that helps target acquisition with the P18 radar in manual control for the S75. I can't seem to get it right with the mouse, I'm forever jamming the radar down.

Miao, Cat

Use the H<5 switch
That allows the SNR-75V3 to bank 3 degrees below the horizon, without locking down.

Welcome Hpasp!

Thanks for this labor of love!!!

Version v916 is released
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home
It contains After Action Report window, and some fixes...

Happy New Year,
Hpasp

That was fast!

Miao, CAt

I was toying the idea of AAR for quite of a time.

We also wanted to give the players of the feeling of the FOG of WAR.
Most of us were probably laughed on the Vietnamese, or Serbian reports of shooting down the 2000. US plane, but sitting behind the controls of an SA-2, you could only see, that your missile blown up...
... is it really hit anything???
You will be never sure of.

Now I would need to dig myself inside of the historical reports about El Dorado Canyon.
That was the fist time ever, the HARM missile was fired by anger.
(The toughest opponent of any SAM)

Best Regards,
Hpasp

Some serious military site about this sim...
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Sov-SAM-Simulator.html

"Air Power Auatralia sought advice from several contributors with operational experience on these systems, and all confirmed that the simulator provides a high quality representation of the SNR-75 Fan Song E, and SNR-125 Low Blow."

There's nothing better for a sim than guys that operated the real thing to say it's realistic. Playing flight sims gives the impression that the SAM operators have it easy, so it's nice to see how challenging it really is to operate even the "simple" SA-2. I'm looking forward to seeing which systems you'll model, and I'll keep hoping for an SA-10 Grumble!

Now THAT's certainly interesting.

Documentation describing the events of the "Operation El-Dorado Canyon" can be downloaded from:
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/

As my historical analysis of these events are now concluded, I can start to program it into the SAMSIM.

It might be interesting for You, that:

How to shoot the F-117A with the S-125M1 Neva (SA-3B) VIDEO TUTORIAL, made by UV59 Hungarian exSAM battery commander is available...

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

I don't share this pessimistic view. It may still be five to ten years ahead, but the chances aren't too bad, the more simulations are capable of interfacing with each other. This is not a trivial issue ... but since armies more and more are willing to throw low cost simulations into their mix of simulation tools - and at the same time want them to work with the "big" sims as well - even us small developers have an incentive to develop the necessary drivers for interaction.

Okay, so we still need to come together at some point and create a common package. I could imagine that a joint game server with a pay for play scheme might be a business model that will make the (independent) developers consider if they shouldn't recycle the already finished integration work for the military to integrate their products for the consumers as well. I don't think it would work with a big game publisher though.

But give us some more time to develop really mature interfaces that are robust and capable. Soldiers make better guinea pigs than consumers. We need to work out the rough edges first.

Would be interested to 'integrate' this into FC2....

New Version of the SAM Simulator (v0.917) is avaiable.
LINK


It includes the situation of the 1st of May 1960, the famous U-2 shot of Francis Gary Powers above Sverdlovsk.

Cool!

Miao, Cat

2K11M1 KRUG (SA-4B Ganef) simulator under construction pictures...

Excellent, but I've not even started to lean the SA-3 yet

SA-3 is the Stealth killer.

You might had theoretical discussions about how the Serbians were able to down it...
(and if they done it once, why they were unable to duplicate it)
... now you can try it by yourself.

(The situation in the sim is exact representation of the events, personally from those, who were in the UNK cabin that night

Man, I love you guys doing this kind of sims, my hat off for you.

Gary Powers Jr, visiting the Almaz design bureau...
... looking at the system, that downed his fathers U2 plane.




Any similarity to the sam simulator, is not accidental...

What a fun simulator! I'm still learning the SA-3, but am a little confused by the 3 scenarios as it seems that every target turns away before getting within striking distance. I've re-tried them with the transmitter off the whole time (to see if I was scaring my prey off) but they still turn away after closing to within 30 km - not a great solution for a 25km missile!

edit: What am I doing wrong?

Hi,

As you not written any specific info, I could only guess...

1, You can select different battery by clicking at on the map, before you start the situation.

2, You need to wait for the next target.
Air attacks can lasts for more than 30min, as several attacker waves arrives.
The scenarios at the sim are from declassified (eastern, and western) military materials, and the timing is as it happened in reality.

3, Contrary to the practice of the firing ranges, real targets not used to fly head-on against the SAM battery...
... except if the target is a Wild Weasel, working on you.

Best Regards,
Hpasp

Here is the Sa-20 sim...

Realistic to the switch!


Or rather this:

Thank you, I've really found this program very interesting.

I have a few questions regarding S-75 system

1) What does the H<5 actually do (I know it's for low altitude targets), besides freeze the radar in wide-beam mode?

2) I've noticed a lot of undocumented switches, lights, and knobs on the Q screen. What do some of these do? In particular, what are the other fuse options besides normal and 100m?

3) Is there any way for users to make their own scenarios?

Quick Reply:

1, H<5
There is a safety switch in the SNR, that stops its movement down, when it is at zero degrees.
(before it rolls over

When this safety switch is locked, you cannot move it in elevation, before you unlock it.
(page 12, point 4 in the manual)

When your target flies low, it would be annoying to lock the SNR down accidentally, so there is H<5.

When you select H<5, your bore-sight is moved down by 3 degree, electronically.
(on the elevation [left] display, it is at -3 degree)

So you can safely target low flying targets, you will only lock-down at 3 degree below ground.

This mode can only be used with the 20degree wide beam antenna.
With Narrow beam, and LORO antennas, you cannot sink the bore-sight by 3 degree down electronically, as they are only 1,7 degree narrow.

2, There are several switches, that has effect, but not described in the manual.
(RAB-OT-VM, Elliptical Search, RAB na Fo/2, etc...)
The manual is already 50 pages, so I wanted to include only the most important ones.

There might be sometimes an advanced manual be released, describing these tricks.

FUSES:

STAN: normal mode 300m (for targets flying over 1,5 degree elevation)
RAB PO ADA: Against 50's spy balloons. It will detonate the warhead sooner, and cause the warhead fragments to impact in a bigger area.
ZAGRUB RV: Against targets releasing Chaff, with older type of missiles.
(it will not explode by chaff)
USU-ZAGRUB RV: Against targets releasing Chaff, with USU equipped missiles.
USU-NLC: 100m sensivity
USU-NC: For nuclear armed missiles.

3, In Hungary, you can add targets, and modify waypoints, speed altitude etc...

Thanks for the reply. I would be very interested in an advanced manual.

I get the impression that against medium altitude targets (2000m-5000m or even lower), if they get close and elevation is high, it is as good or better to use LOBO instead of H<5. Would you say this is possible?


Thanks for fuse settings. Is chaff modeled in the sim?

Yes, I am aware of Hungary. I was thinking though of the Cuban Missle Crisis, or earlier Vietnam Rolling Thunder scenarios, or use by Syria, or use by PRC against ROC. S-75 played a central role in world history for a quarter century, I think. Some way to build more complex scenarios would be very useful.

Thanks again for making this interesting sim. For a long time I was under the impression that the SA-2 (S-75) system used a semi-active radar homing terminal phase in addition to command guidence. But here I find out, no, the command guidence is just more accurate than one would expect. it's been very interesting.

SA-1 (S-25), SA-2 (S-75), SA-3 (S-125) used Track While Scan radar and Command Guided missiles
SA-4 (KRUG) used Monopulse radar and Command Guided missiles
SA-5 (S-200), SA-6 (KUB) used Continuous Wave radar, with Semi Active Radar Homing missiles

"I get the impression that against medium altitude targets (2000m-5000m or even lower), if they get close and elevation is high, it is as good or better to use LOBO instead of H<5. Would you say this is possible?"

It is possible, but strongly not recommended.
Your target can sink, and your SNR could lock down, causing the loosing of the target.

"Is chaff modeled in the sim?"

Chaff layer is simulated over Hanoi, when the B52's arrive...

"Some way to build more complex scenarios would be very useful."

All situations included are from declassified military material, as exact, as possible.
(routes, timing, jamming, etc...)
Real history is more interesting for me, than imaginary situations...

Yes, you're very right. After more practice, H<5 is the way to go.

I think your situations are very complex and VERY well done. I wasn't trying to suggest that they weren't. It's just that after I've already played all the missions- that's it...

Anyway, this is the best I've been able to do so far. Five kills during LinebackerII, 2 unknowns
(F-105Gs I suspect) and 3 F-4s.

First, think I got into a shootout with the wild weasels, which I somehow mannaged to win. I suspected this at the time because they were lower than the main raid and hit the deck when I engaged them. I had no idea they were shooting back until I read the debrief. I avoided the worst by being very disciplined with the radar transmitter. You don't need it much in the Linebacker mission anyway....

Next, I turned my attention to the main raid. My battery was southeast of the target area and after I shot down the second target, the raids had finished their bombing runs were turning off target and heading into my firing range. Some of the targets were able to jam the fan soing, but not the spoon rest and showed up as distinct, very large blips against the soup of ECM noise. So, I handed off the bearing and locked on (without turning my radar on) to the ECM signal with the fan song. I then used the spoon rest to feed real-time range information to I87V, rather than than getting the altitude off the plotting chart. (Besides, the plotting chart is next to useless in Linebacker. This is a massive airraid and the chart is unreadable in miutes.) The tactic seemed to work and I claimed two escorts. After the raids passed by I turned my attention to a flight at medium altitude to my north that happened to be in my firing circle. Again, I was able to get info from spoon rest and get another kill this way.

I think to moral of my story is how important it is to be disciplined with the fan song transmitter, and how much more useful spoon rest can be instead.

******************************************************
4:40am 19th of December 1972
Night-1, Wave-3 of the Linebacker-II raid against Hanoi.

Targets:
Kinh No Industrial Complex - 6 cells of B-52s (18)
Gia Lam Rail Road Yard - 4 cells of B-52s (12)
Hanoi Radio - 7 cells of B-52s (21)

Supporting force:
36 F-4 Phantom-II
6 F-105G Wild Weasel
2 EB-66B Destroyer
2 EA-6B Prowler
1 EC-135 Looking Glass
1 EC-121H AWACS.


45:55, F-105 Wild Weasel number 1 of pair-2 launched AGM-78 Standard ARM missile.


47:06, Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 39km
Target azimuth: 253°
Target elevation: 3°
Target altitude: 2.5km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 75km
Missile guidance method: T/T (Three Point)


47:36, Missile launched on Channel-2
Target distance: 29km
Target azimuth: 253°
Target elevation: 3°
Target altitude: 1.9km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 75km
Missile guidance method: T/T (Three Point)


47:50, Missile exploded on Channel-1
killed by SAM. (miss distance: 9m)

48:26, F-105 Wild Weasel number 1 of pair-2 launched AGM-45 Shrike missile.

48:46, B-52 number 1 of cell-2 bombed Hanoi Radio.
49:01, B-52 number 2 of cell-2 bombed Hanoi Radio.

49:18, Missile launched on Channel-3
Target distance: 28km
Target azimuth: 252°
Target elevation: 8°
Target altitude: 4.1km
SNR mode: Wide Beam H<5 - 75km
Missile guidance method: K (Half Lead Elevated By Constans)

49:18, B-52 number 3 of cell-2 bombed Hanoi Radio.
49:51, B-52 number 1 of cell-1 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.

49:52, Missile exploded on Channel-3
killed by SAM. (miss distance: 7m)
50:09, B-52 number 2 of cell-1 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
50:27, B-52 number 3 of cell-1 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
51:20, B-52 number 1 of cell-4 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
51:23, B-52 number 2 of cell-4 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
51:29, B-52 number 1 of cell-3 bombed Hanoi Radio.
51:44, B-52 number 2 of cell-3 bombed Hanoi Radio.
51:52, B-52 number 3 of cell-4 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
52:01, B-52 number 3 of cell-3 bombed Hanoi Radio.
54:50, B-52 number 1 of cell-5 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
54:58, B-52 number 2 of cell-5 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
55:10, B-52 number 3 of cell-5 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.

57:40, Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 51km
Target azimuth: 308°
Target elevation: 9°
Target altitude: 8.2km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 75km
Missile guidance method: I87V/TT (I87V Three Point)

57:53, B-52 number 1 of cell-6 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
57:58, B-52 number 2 of cell-6 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
58:03, B-52 number 3 of cell-6 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.

59:00, Missile exploded on Channel-1
F-4 number 1 of pair-4 escorting the bombers killed by SAM. (miss distance: 32m)
02:54, B-52 number 1 of cell-7 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
03:10, B-52 number 2 of cell-7 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
03:29, B-52 number 3 of cell-7 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
04:08, B-52 number 1 of cell-8 bombed Hanoi Radio.
04:22, B-52 number 2 of cell-8 bombed Hanoi Radio.
04:36, B-52 number 3 of cell-8 bombed Hanoi Radio.
06:26, B-52 number 1 of cell-9 bombed Hanoi Radio.
06:40, B-52 number 2 of cell-9 bombed Hanoi Radio.
06:55, B-52 number 3 of cell-9 bombed Hanoi Radio.
06:57, B-52 number 1 of cell-10 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
07:16, B-52 number 2 of cell-10 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
07:38, B-52 number 3 of cell-10 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
08:04, B-52 number 1 of cell-13 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
08:19, B-52 number 2 of cell-13 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
08:33, B-52 number 3 of cell-13 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.

09:04, Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 43km
Target azimuth: 321°
Target elevation: 11°
Target altitude: 8.6km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 75km
Missile guidance method: I87V/TT (I87V Three Point)


10:07, Missile exploded on Channel-1
F-4 number 1 of pair-6 escorting the bombers killed by SAM. (miss distance: 23m)
10:29, B-52 number 1 of cell-14 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
10:43, B-52 number 2 of cell-14 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
10:58, B-52 number 3 of cell-14 bombed Gia Lam Railroad Yard.
11:39, B-52 number 1 of cell-11 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
11:53, B-52 number 2 of cell-11 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
12:08, B-52 number 3 of cell-11 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
12:54, B-52 number 1 of cell-15 bombed Hanoi Radio.
13:08, B-52 number 2 of cell-15 bombed Hanoi Radio.
13:23, B-52 number 3 of cell-15 bombed Hanoi Radio.
14:01, B-52 number 1 of cell-12 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
14:14, B-52 number 2 of cell-12 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
14:27, B-52 number 3 of cell-12 bombed Kinh No Industrial Complex.
15:07, B-52 number 1 of cell-16 bombed Hanoi Radio.
15:20, B-52 number 2 of cell-16 bombed Hanoi Radio.
15:33, B-52 number 3 of cell-16 bombed Hanoi Radio.
17:15, B-52 number 1 of cell-17 bombed Hanoi Radio.
17:29, B-52 number 2 of cell-17 bombed Hanoi Radio.
17:41, B-52 number 3 of cell-17 bombed Hanoi Radio.

19:11, Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 18km
Target azimuth: 25°
Target elevation: 8°
Target altitude: 2.8km
SNR mode: Wide Beam H<5 - 75km
Missile guidance method: I87V/TT (I87V Three Point)


23:23, Missile launched on Channel-2
Target distance: 7km
Target azimuth: 354°
Target elevation: 20°
Target altitude: 2.7km
SNR mode: Wide Beam H<5 - 75km
Missile guidance method: I87V/TT (I87V Three Point)


23:51, Missile exploded on Channel-2
F-4 number 2 of pair-1 blocking Noi Bai airfield killed by SAM. (miss distance: 59m)

25:30, Missile launched on Channel-3
Target distance: 21km
Target azimuth: 12°
Target elevation: 22°
Target altitude: 8.2km
SNR mode: Wide Beam H<5 - 75km
Missile guidance method: I87V/TT (I87V Three Point)


Total, SNR On Air Time: 8min 10sec

Commander Nguyen Van Phiet of the 261/57 SAM battalion, describing how to shoot down a B-52. He downed three. (Brick 01, Tan 03, Scarlet 03)

See the drawing on the board.

Great thread, hpasp. I haven't had the opportunity to write up a review, but I haven't forgotten. We're watching, and we all think your efforts are outstanding.

Miao, Cat

Thanks,

After my holidays, you will be able to got close relationship with the first eastern MONOPULSE SAM system.
It was never exported beyond the iron curtain, and has secret capability against Nuclear Tactical Ballistic Missiles...
... ~30 years earlier than the Patriot flop at the Gulf War.

Upcoming KRUG (SA-4B Ganef) indicators:

Angle Officer's IPP instrument



Range Officer's instrument

Downloaded it some days ago and I'm really having a great time with the S-75. Next step is to try the S-125. Looking forward to the SA-4 too.

BTW, didn't the wild weasels target search/acquisition radars (i.e. spoon rest) during Linebacker II? As there is no option to turn off it in the simulation it shocked me at first that it wasn't being destroyed.

You will be shocked more, if you learn, that Wild Weasels were unable to target P-18 Spoon Rest (metric wavelength) radars during Operation Allied Force, over Serbia in 1999.

The small head of the AGM-88 HARM missile is not capable to guide on metric wavelenght.
(Simply physics...)


This is one of the main reason, why the F-117A was lost over Serbia, as the Spoon Rest's were able to work without any danger.


(Serbian P-18 Spoon Rest During OAF, 1999)



The SA-4B (KRUG) simulator is ready, currently I'm working on the English language documentation...

Next year, the Big Stick will come...
... the SA-5B Gammon, the biggest SAM ever deployed.




(Now the Iranians are muscling with that...)

The 2K11M1 KRUG (SA-4B Ganef) simulator will be released within weeks.
(the program itself is ready, the documentation is not yet)

I'm patiently waiting for it!

The new version of the SAM Simulator (v918) is ready.

It expands the already simulated systems,
the SA-2E Guideline (S-75M3 Volkhov), and the SA-3B Goa (S-125M1 Neva)

with the newly added

SA-4B Ganef (2K11 KRUG-M1).

It can be downloaded from here:
SAM SIMULATOR HOMEPAGE

Excellent! Just had my first kill from it, after much head-scratching I will admit. I thought the 'target designation mode' switch was up....when actually it was only in the middle "why isn't the radar rotating..why..."

Now the actual learning of the system can begin!

Practice target LA-17MV [Program-1] simulating EA-6 Prowler killed by SAM. (miss distance: 22m)

Congratulation.
You need to decrease the ON-AIR time also.

The toughest target will be the SCUD-A missile.
At some point, it will overfly the 1S12M1 SOC detection zone...

I love this sim! I've finally abandoned my beloved SA-2 in favor of the SA-4. It's a lot more complex, and I've probably barely even scratched the surface of learning the system. But man this thing is fun to use!



The only problems I've noticed is not all of the systems work backwards. For example, while shutting down the SA-4, if you lower the antenna and engage the travel lock the radar display is still lit. Also, I can change the radar modes, and the right side of the radar mode select box stays lit instead of reverting to all of the left side lights being on. Of course, this is a overly minor thing that probably only bothers me, lol.

Thanks,

Stowing the Antenna tower is done at different order, I will be include it in the next minor correction version.
(There is one button at the K04-9M1 that is not discussed in the manual...)

Step-0, Turn off the transmitter
Step-1, Rotate the antennas to zero position with that button (the four epsilon/beta zero light will light up)
Step-2, Stowe the antenna tower with the deploy switch
Step-3, Lock it

You know, that these infos are that James Bond risked his life 25 years ago...

Ah, good to know. And yes, it's odd to think that people risked their lives years ago for what is common information today.

Another thing I noticed is the manual doesn't cover all of the steps to engage multiple targets. It covers the two buttons for a soft/hard reset, but it doesn't cover how to reset the LONGTRACK radar so you can designate a new target. If anyone is wondering how to do it, there's a switch to the left of the mode select switch (which is to the left of the gyro switches). Flipping this switch up and then back down seems to reset the LONGTRACK, returning your target select cursor.

Ah thanks! I was just going to ask this.

You are right, its the left one...

[/quote]

Great shot, but if your SNR is on the air for more than one minute, than your performance is evaluated as
"does not meet the requirements".

Yah, That was my first intercept after I figured out how to work the basic systems. At that point I wasn't too concerned with remaining hidden, as much as just trying to hit that SCUD, lol.

The new version of the SAM Simulator (v0.919) is available.
SAM SIMULATOR HOMEPAGE

All scenarios can be played with each of the simulated SAM systems.
The KRUG doc is extended with the "SOC request new target designation" switch.
The antenna tower can be stowed now.

Very cool, thanks!

Out of interest do you have a full list of the Version History? it would be interesting to see the evolution of the SAM Simulator..

I've just tried to shoot down the SR-71 with a fictional Krug in Vietnam. It makes shooting down the Asuluk Scud look easy - you get a whole new perspective on why the SR-71 guys consider themselves almost invincible... the thin-ness of the valid launch zone is breath-taking...

Hi Hpasp and all others
At first thanks for this nice simulator. However I noticed that in the latest version (0.919) is one mission from 1970 - War of Attrition not available although it was available in previous version (0.918). It is the fifth mission - day VII.3.
Regards

The SR-71 guys were always turning beside the target (ruining intercept point prediction), never flown directly ahead...
... and of course, they were jamming like hell.

If I EVER GET FIVE FRAKING MINUTES I want to try to hit a Scud with the SA-2. hehehehehe

Miao, Cat

Oh, a question: Does the sim work with Win7?

I'm still planning to do a writeup. I just haven't had time-been in court or traveling-and I'm out of town again all next week.

Miao, Cat

Yes

Hi
Two questions. Was anybody able to shoot down SR-71 with 2K11 Krug? And was anybody able to shoot it down with any type of SAM in the third scenario (XII. 19. - 14:40) and with which battery?
Regards

This seems like a really interesting sim . I've been wondering, are the missiles modelled physically, with regard to their manoeuvrability and also is the 'three point' method of guidance mainly used in the presence of jammers? I ask this because this form of guidance is pretty sub-optimal, so will impair the range of the missile. Also the pure pursuit style of intercept requires that the target being track not take severe evasive measures (such as would be executed by an agile tactical fighter aircraft), as only a very manoeuvrabale missile will be able to complete the interception.

Missiles, and targets are modeled in the digital area, with 1/10th sec accuracy.
When the missile, and the target is close enough, the modeling accuracy increased to 1/100 sec.

Three Point is only a backup method in case of the S-75M, and the S-125M (SA-2/3), when jamming cannot be burned through.
The main method is the Half lead, or the K.

Three point is still the best method with command guidance, if the jammer denies the range information.

Do not forget, that when these systems were designed, what "agile fighter" meant...
... these are 50 years old weapons!!!

Thanks for the reply Hpasp

In terms of turning performance do you know what these early generation missiles were/are capable of? I know the U.S Nike Hercules initially had a 7G limit, which was later increased to 10G.

Also you mentioned 'Half Lead' & 'K' guidance. I assume 'K' is an intercept trajectory but how his half lead calculate and when is it advantageous?

Thanks

Hi,

If you download the simulator, and install it, English language documentation is describing all type of data, and guidance method...
... overload capability is depending on missile type:

SA-2
2.5-3g

SA-3
6g

SA-4
6g

SA-5 (depending on altitude)
H=0km 6g
H=20km 10g
H=35km 2.5g

Your next workplace, to be implemented into the SAM Simulator:

*drools*

I love the long range stuff.

I promise you the longest range stuff of the Cold War.

And also I can promise to you the biggest target acquisition radar of the Cold War...
... 33 meters (110 feet) wide, and 11 meters (36 feet) tall. (NATO Code: Tall King)

Thanks for the info Hpasp
I'm downloading the sim now, so hopefully I'll be able to get stuck into it over the next few days.

BTW, would I be correct in assuming half lead guidance is different to intercept guidance, i.e with half lead the missile leads the target, but doesn't initially head for the intercept point?

Wow... I've got it to less than 1:17 but shaving that last bit is hard...

Also I haven't managed to successfully use half lead yet - all my shots so far have been 3 point guidance. Nothing has happened when in half-K when pushing the Launch button. Anything un-obvious I will have missed?

Was the launcher in the forbidden zone?
(launcher pointing toward the SNR)

Please find the doc:

page 25, point 6
page 37, column description

It fired immediately in 3 point, but nothing in half-K - I assume some goof on switchology (user error) but no idea what.

The restricted firing zone is wider in 1/2, than in 3T, because of the large lead of the missile.
The SPU was in the wide restricted zone of the 1/2 method, launching was forbidden.
When you switched to 3T, where the restricted zone is much narrower, the SPU got outside of it, and you were able to launch.

No something is wrong, I can not get a ready light in 1/2lead. Switch to 3T on it goes so i can launch. Not bad tho I still hit.
And that last SR-21 scenario. The aircraft is allways above the envelope. Ive tried I87V distance input instead of altitude. Allways miss.
How does the SR-71 know that Im switching my APP-75v range to <75 when transmitter is off? Because as soon as I do he starts jamming?
Can guidence switch midflight to 1/2 lead?

These two questions are getting deeper, that the SIM documentation...
... so these will be long answers.


"How does the SR-71 know that Im switching my APP-75v range to <75 when transmitter is off? Because as soon as I do he starts jamming?"

In Vietnam, the USAF started to use the RWR's, that would alarm the crew in case a missile is launched.
It receives the command guidance signals emitted by the SNR to guide the missile, and alarms the crew.
The crew in response would drop their bombs, to gain maneuverability, thus abort mission.

When this was recognized by the Soviets, the SNR's were field modified to allow emitting missile command guidance signals, without launch of a missile.
(This is where the 10'000 launched missile number came from...)
On the Q screen, below the right corner of the left "K1hE" instrument is a green lamp, named RPK.
When it is lighted up, then you are emitting command guidance signals.

So when the SNR is in BR mode, and 75km resolution, it will start to emit false command guidance signals, and the SR-71 start to jam.

These two questions are getting deeper, that the SIM documentation...
... so these will be long answers.


"Can guidence switch midflight to 1/2 lead?"

You can change it (at least in theory), but it will add severe dynamical error to the guidance equation.
To have enough time for the missile to reduce this error, there is a rule, that you shouldn't do it when the missile-target remaining flight time is less than 25 second.

At the "A" screen, there is a red lamp between the displays, illuminating when it is too late to change...

"So when the SNR is in BR mode, and 75km resolution, it will start to emit false command guidance signals, and the SR-71 start to jam"

BR mode?=Narrow Beam?
What does the H>15 switch do in the I-64V panel SA-2E?
And the Primary-Continous switch on the K04-1M1 panel SA-4B?
Why does the SR-71 sometimes jam sometimes doesnt in the SA-4B scenario?

BR mode?=Narrow Beam?

"live fire mode"
Please check included documentation, page 33, point 5.

What does the H>15 switch do in the I-64V panel SA-2E?

H<1, or H<5, or H>18 ???

And the Primary-Continous switch on the K04-1M1 panel SA-4B?

It changes the target designation mode of the SOC, when using PNS by the SNR.
Please check included documentation, page 26, point 1.

Why does the SR-71 sometimes jam sometimes doesnt in the SA-4B scenario?
Hmmm, I should check it...

H>18 Sorry using a lcd flatscreen not in native resolution. looked like a 15.

So Continous=IS32 (PatHand)
Primary=IS12 (LongTrack)
and should be Continous to Fire?


The random jamming is only SA-4B
Allways jamming in SA-2E scenerios.

H>18 should be used, when your target is flying over 18km altitude.
Changing this switch will change the missile guidance equation.
(narrow guidance vs wide guidance channel)

[if you forgot to switch, you loose only few percent of hitting chance...]
... so it is not described in the manual.


So Continous=IS32 (PatHand)
Primary=IS12 (LongTrack)
and should be Continous to Fire?

Nononono!
Please read the manual.
Primary is used, when the SOC is transmitting target data for the SNR target acquisition.
Continuous is used, when the SOC is transmitting target data for the SNR "PNS" target tracking mode.

Well, that's what I could get vis-a-vis the SR-71:

13:45 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number one.

2K11 KRUG-M1

13:03, Missile launched
Target distance: 78km
Target azimuth: 191°
Target elevation: 17°
Target altitude: 23,9km
Missile guidance method: TT (Three Point)

14:10, Missile exploded
SR-71 Habu hit by SAM. (miss distance: 223m)

Total, SNR On Air Time: 1min 32sec

Little concern, because for the SR-71, I think, almost any damage (or even a turbulence caused by near miss) during flight with such parameters would mean crash.
Of course, it took me a few occasions to score any hit (one that I did not record was as near as 167 m). What's interesting, you can get better results using 3T rather than 1/2 guidance method (no hit at all), which seems surprising when engaging such a fast mover...
Ah, and he NEVER attempted to jam.

Hpasp, thanks again for a new set of enjoyable whiles behind the "pusk" and accompanying stuff.
By the way, does the Krug have its own "K3" option? I deplore watching the missiles bypassing targets at the range display without detonating...

Last but not least - as you are planning to make your fans happy with the SA-75M, will you attempt to simulate the visual channel? (I know that it's a backup one, nevertheless... :))) )

SR-71 were able to fly back from a sortie over Vietnam, with several (SA-2 made) holes in its tail fin.

Ah, and he NEVER attempted to jam

That is a mistake in the current version.
In the current version, the SR-71's RWR is only alarms upon SA-2 illumination.

At the next version, it will be sensible for SA-2/3/4/5 also.

By the way, does the Krug have its own "K3" option?

It has no K3, as it could be jammed easily...
... shown in Vietnam.

You either launch normally, or arm the fuse right after the launch.
manual page 46, point 8.

Last but not least - as you are planning to make your fans happy with the SA-75M, will you attempt to simulate the visual channel? (I know that it's a backup one, nevertheless... :))) )

Currently Im working on the S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) system.

You can start to learn these panels...
... the Cold War longest range system.
S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon)

Target Acquisition Officers workplace


Target Tracking Officers workplace


Firing Officers workplace

to vintorez - nice catch of that Habu anyway

to Hpasp - question - is it possible to burn through jamming with SA-4 as with SA-2 and SA-3? - in Vietnam scenario no matter how close is jamming fighter it still jams SA-4 range information

PN79: more on that topic (the odds in the 1440 scenario):

14:40 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number two.

S-75M3 Volkhov


52:24, Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 84km
Target azimuth: 256°
Target elevation: 16°
Target altitude: 23,9km
SNR mode: Narrow Beam - 150km
Missile guidance method: UPR (Half Lead)


52:32, Missile launched on Channel-2
Target distance: 78km
Target azimuth: 257°
Target elevation: 17°
Target altitude: 23,9km
SNR mode: Narrow Beam - 150km
Missile guidance method: UPR (Half Lead)


52:38, Missile launched on Channel-3
Target distance: 74km
Target azimuth: 258°
Target elevation: 18°
Target altitude: 23,9km
SNR mode: Narrow Beam - 150km
Missile guidance method: I87V/TT (I87V Three Point)


53:34, Missile exploded on Channel-2
SR-71 Habu hit by SAM. (miss distance: 264m)

Total, SNR On Air Time: 3min 56sec

The path is as follows: track him at narrow beam (greater range) in 150 km resolution (not to make him jamming), set the I87V/TT for the station and UPR at the missile. Successful tracking will quite accurately feed the I87V, so when he starts to jam (at your launch moment at the latest, see Hpasp's explanations above), the missiles will "have some idea" where to fly, because "track" will be maintained by I87V.
This all provided that he SR-71 doesn't come to an idea to make slightiest turn in the meantime...

I also experimented with switching the missile guidance from I87V to UPR at some 30th kilometer of the missile flight (launch when the SR-71 is in the middle of the envelope). Switching 10 km up or down makes huuuuuuuuge error . I scored a hit (still, not a kill).

To Hpasp: how big is the missile (SA-2) damage radius as modelled in the sim? Does it vary? ShTAN fuse has only 300 m of sensivity. In operational sense: will K3 bring greater chances to damage in case the ShTAN would't be triggered anyway? (I mean the case of a SR-71 when triggering the radio fuse is rare, due to huge computing errors). Setting aside using K3 at very small altitudes - easy to understand, tried with success

Et voila!

14:40 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number two.

S-75M3 Volkhov


56:18, Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 83km
Target azimuth: 256°
Target elevation: 16°
Target altitude: 23,9km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 150km
Missile guidance method: UPR (Half Lead)


56:30, Missile launched on Channel-2
Target distance: 74km
Target azimuth: 258°
Target elevation: 18°
Target altitude: 23,9km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 150km
Missile guidance method: UPR (Half Lead)


56:42, Missile launched on Channel-3
Target distance: 67km
Target azimuth: 260°
Target elevation: 20°
Target altitude: 23,9km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 150km
Missile guidance method: UPR (Half Lead)


57:17, Missile exploded on Channel-1

57:24, Missile exploded on Channel-2
SR-71 Habu killed by SAM. (miss distance: 27m)

57:32, Missile exploded on Channel-3

Total, SNR On Air Time: 4min 14sec

Fusing was set for K3.

Congrats and thank for info. I was able to shoot it down only in the second Vietnam scenario (13:45). Now I will try to do it also in this scenario (my previous attemts were unsuccessful).

is it possible to burn through jamming with SA-4 as with SA-2 and SA-3? - in Vietnam scenario no matter how close is jamming fighter it still jams SA-4 range information

The KRUG (as it was the first mobile SAM system), is emitting much weaker impulses, compared to the fixed SAM systems, so I do not expect successful burn through.

how big is the missile (SA-2) damage radius as modelled in the sim? Does it vary?

It is depending on altitude, against the SR71, it should be around 300m the maximum.

Thanks for explanation.

"The path is as follows: track him at narrow beam (greater range) in 150 km resolution (not to make him jamming), set the I87V/TT for the station and UPR at the missile. Successful tracking will quite accurately feed the I87V, so when he starts to jam (at your launch moment at the latest, see Hpasp's explanations above), the missiles will "have some idea" where to fly, because "track" will be maintained by I87V.
This all provided that he SR-71 doesn't come to an idea to make slightiest turn in the meantime..."

The Habu is continuously climbing as the fuel is used up. This effect is modeled in the SAMSIM, but it seems to be not enough to ruin the effectiveness of the I87V.

SR-71 Habu killed by SAM. (miss distance: 27m)

Congratulation!

Where was the wreck fallen?
If it fallen outside of the defended country, than it will be hard to prove the kill...

KRUG CAN SCORE TOO!

13:45 19th of December, 1972.
SR-71 bomb damage assessment flight number one.

2K11 KRUG-M1


05:08, Missile launched
Target distance: 100km
Target azimuth: 192°
Target elevation: 13°
Target altitude: 23,9km
Missile guidance method: TT (Three Point)


06:23, Missile exploded
SR-71 Habu killed by SAM. (miss distance: 101m)

Total, SNR On Air Time: 7min 9sec


I noticed that when I shoot at SR-71 with Krug the dot showing point of impact is actually wrong and true point of impact is slightly forwarded. Thus missile launched when dot shows impact in the middle of max and min ranges in fact hits target (if it hit) practically in the minimum range circle. So I launched missile before impact dot reached the maximum range circle and then true impact point was ideal - target distance 100km when firing missile. There is however another problem to detect SR-71 at that range as when you use only transfered info from SOC then you usually detect it at about 90 km. So it is needed some manual adjustments.
Regards

To Hpasp: Da... I just read a Post Action Report. Do you think it's reliable source, or maybe provided by CIA-imperialists? And if something fell, how do you prove that it was not, for instance, an UFO? It's true that it would be easy do deny any link with the US. And with such high alt kill the only English-speaking "proof" would probably also be missing (in fact, Mr Powers was pretty lucky to survive). The only Habu to have brought home a single S-75-made hole in 1967, by the way, was a CIA-owned A-12, not USAF SR-71.
I wonder how such kill would have influenced the psychological effect of Linebacker II (already weak given the photos of burning B-52s and unknown - even if hard - Vietnamese losses), if properly published and explained by propaganda...

To PN79: Niiiice! Let me try... By the way, I tried similar thing ("out-of-range" launch with kill occuring eventually at some 18-km range) with Neva. Of course, not against Habu

Congratulation for the kill!

I noticed that when I shoot at SR-71 with Krug the dot showing point of impact is actually wrong and true point of impact is slightly forwarded.

The SRP is calculating the launch zone by assuming that the target is following a straight line.

The Habu never flown a straight line in enemy airspace, but a curved one, to confuse the SAM fire control computers...

Do you think it's reliable source, or maybe provided by CIA-imperialists? WinkNGrin And if something fell, how do you prove that it was not, for instance, an UFO?

Few days ago I had a personal chat with a guy, who shot down one F117A, one F16CJ, and another big Stealth.
He can only prove the first two, because these were fallen inside Serbia.
The third target he hit, was fallen outside, so nobody believes him...







His workplace during Operation Allied Force, the UNK van...


And his door...

I thought future updates would fix this, but screen resolution is still a problem. Regardless of my setting, even if I set 1280x1024, game will not launch saying that my resolution is off. Sigh. For example I set my display to 1080P and it thinks my resolution is 1536x864. If I set my display to 1280x1024, game things it is 1024x819.2.

Hi
That's weird. I also had to change resolution (from 1920 x 1080) but then I have no problems with starting the simulator. It can have problems understand 1080p but 1280 x 1024 should work.

to Hpasp - Confirmation of shootdown is usually very problematic - Tom Cooper just few days ago posted pictures of exploding MiG from attacking plane camera at ACIG forum, it looks like that MiG had to split to little parts, yet that MiG survived, landed in its base and was repaired. So without crash site there can never be certainty of kill.

I thought future updates would fix this, but screen resolution is still a problem. Regardless of my setting, even if I set 1280x1024, game will not launch saying that my resolution is off. Sigh. For example I set my display to 1080P and it thinks my resolution is 1536x864. If I set my display to 1280x1024, game things it is 1024x819.2.

I simply cannot fix it, as the programming language, Visual Basic 6.0 is not capable of screen resolution change.
(Even I cannot play my game in my new notebook...)

I could change the resolution checking at the beginning of the game, to allow it to be started at different resolution...
... but than half of the panel might be missing.
Should I do it?

You can try. With associated warning.

The translation of the documentation into Russian is ongoing.
The first to be released, will be the S-75M3 Volhov SA-2E Guideline.

Maybe while you are making the Russian version, you can also expand the English (and Hungarian) manuals to include a Key Reference and brief explanations on the lesser used keys such as "H<1" (can be lit separately from the Ground Attack mode), or all those mysterious clickable switches on the bottom of the I-64V and I-62V.

Just a suggestion that I will be grateful if you implement.

Hi,

Currently Im working on the S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon).

"H<1" is used to cancel the target ground echo, when it flies very low.
As the target ground echo effect is not modeled, this switch has no effect beyond "H<5".

Click-able switches on the bottom of the I-64V are used for station self test.
Click-able switches on the bottom of the I-62V are really simulated, so be aware, when playing with those.


They will be sometimes added to a documentation, question when...

Hi there,

I'm impressed by this sim, even more from the idea for such is.

Re the above and the instructions. Many of the switches are for system chechs and adjustments.
The "Instuction for shooting with SA-75" is about 50 pages, but the "Directions for studying the "Instuction for shooting with SA-75"" is more than 600 pages. Think that the instuctions accompaning the sim are more than enough.

I' waiting for the SA-200 and heating the magnethron.

I always tried to keep the documentation shorter than 50 pages, including some historical data, and how-to-do-guide.
I think that even this length is frightening to most of the gamers.
The complexity of the simulation is reduced accordingly.

It could contain for example Volkhov startup adjustment procedures (there are several types), but then the doc would be 150 pages, and still the Volkhov would be the only system simulated.

Keeping reasonable complexity is thin ice anyway, but I think, that it is the most realistic Free SAM Simulator.

So no plans on removing resolution check?

You mean, we are still NOT at the full emulable depth yet?

If this game got more complicated, you'll have to make it multiplayer, b/c each player will only be able to handle one screen.

Personally, I find the S-125 the least intuitive. I can work the Volhov and Krug w/o the manual, but the S-125 is always a struggle.

By the way, is it true that there are no elevation indicators for the Krug's fire control radar? When I am in free search, how do I know when it has reached max elevation and depression?

Anyway, looking forward to the S-200.

"So no plans on removing resolution check?"

Resolution check will be in the next release also, but it will offer to continue with a warning.

Personally, I find the S-125 the least intuitive. I can work the Volhov and Krug w/o the manual, but the S-125 is always a struggle.

Strange, because several improvement were made compared to Volhov.
- Easier to follow the missile preparation
- Indicator range is selected automatically (during tracking)
- Radio proximity fuse settings are automatic
- Automatic missile launch, with the right interval


By the way, is it true that there are no elevation indicators for the Krug's fire control radar? When I am in free search, how do I know when it has reached max elevation and depression?

Maximum elevation.
Why do you need it? The target altitude what you are looking for during target search can be seen on the K11-102M1 instrument.

Minimum elevation.
There is a yellow lamp at top of the K11-102M1 instrument. It will illuminate if you are in the 0-5 degree range (no point to depress more), but again, you are looking for the targets altitude during search rather the antenna elevation.

Anyway, looking forward to the S-200.

That will be the toughest system.
It is so different to anything before (semi active guidance, continuous wave radar, digital computer with reset button), that i really struggle with the documentation.

Oh, this explains it. And also why I have so much trouble with Neva when I'm not wedded to the IADS. The shift to allowing me to set altitude instead of elevation while searching is probably counterproductive for me. It is just much easier to lay the radar in azimuth (following the search radar's feed from the 2nd target designation channel) and then just swing up and down in elevation until I see the blip rather than playing with altitude-setting.

Besides, I find setting my own fuse settings, and even remembering to turn on the H<5km thing fun.

Besides, I find setting my own fuse settings, and even remembering to turn on the H<5km thing fun.

You can set your fuse in the Neva also. (It is left out from the manual)

At the "S" screen you have three lamps indicating the fuse setting options.
CB* (SB) is used against low altitude target
PB (RV) is used against medium altitude target
K3 is the same as in the Volhov. This is used when the target is jamming the radio proximity fuse of the missile.

The switch control the options has three settings:
PB-CB (RV-SB) automatic setting
PB (RV) manual setting
K3 see above



* hmmm, there are no Cyrillic characters allowed...

If You had hard time with the SA-4B Ganef (2K11M1 KRUG-M1), now video tutorials made by Matthew Barry are avaiable here...
Free SAM Simulator

The one I want to see is the advanced S-75. That's coming out after the S-200, yes? That's the biggest reason I haven't put a push on the review-the sim keeps evolving and there are things I want to talk about in it.

Miao, Cat

(Note to HPASP: I have to post from work because there is a DNS error in my home ISP and I can't see SimHQ. Email me at toricat@naveron.net if you need to get hold of me.)

The one I want to see is the advanced S-75.

The "75" system can be divided into two different versions.

The S-75 Desna (SA-2C), S-75M Volhov (SA-2E) were the main versions that were used by the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact.
The SA-75 Dvina (SA-2A), SA-75M Dvina (SA-2B or SA-2F) were the export versions that seen fight in Vietnam, and Egypt.

So the most advanced version of the "75" system is the S-75M3-OP Volhov (SA-2E). It is already in the simulator.


The most advanced "export" version, the SA-75M Dvina (SA-2F) might be included next year, only to make the historical missions more realistic, with the reduced capability of the Dvina, compared to the Volhov.


Next minor release (probably this year) will contain the possibility to overrule the screen resolution check, and Russian/Slovakian translation of the documentation.

The next major release (probably next year) will contain the S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B) system.

Ah. I see.

I've put in a request for a forum on the site specifically for the SAM simulator. This topic has been active enough to warrant reviewing that possibility. We'll advise on that.

Miao, Cat

As for "75" it is interesting that according to now declassified CIA materials US military knew already in early 70s that "Fan Song F" ist just modernized variant of older Dvina also avialable to export to other countries and the most advanced variant is "Fan Song E" but western public literature stated for long time that "Fan Song F" is the latest variant and successor to others.

The next major release (probably next year) will contain the S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B) system.


Well there goes christmas.

As for "75" it is interesting that according to now declassified CIA materials US military knew already in early 70s that "Fan Song F" is just modernized variant of older Dvina also available to export to other countries and the most advanced variant is "Fan Song E" but western public literature stated for long time that "Fan Song F" is the latest variant and successor to others.

James Bond sometimes made mistakes, and when it turned out, they does not changed the sign as that would only made confusion.
For example the SA-2D is mistaken to another system.

There is the SA-5 Griffon, and the SA-5 Gammon.
The former is marking the S-50 Dal (never fielded), the S-200 competitor.

Well there goes christmas.


I cannot promise Vega for Christmas, just a sneak peak of it...

Maybe you can just write the S-200 manual first this time as part of the sneak peek. From the sounds of it, we'll need all the time we can get to study it before actually using the Complex

Maybe you can just write the S-200 manual first this time as part of the sneak peek. From the sounds of it, we'll need all the time we can get to study it before actually using the Complex

The manual is written parallel to the program.
I cannot shot pictures, without the working simulator.

S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) in the works screen shots...
P-14F (Tall King-B) long range target acquisition radar screen in the middle...


Extended plotting board of the SA-5B system...

It almost covers the entire country. LOL

I really like what you're doing here. Unfortunately is too sim for me, hehehe. If at least I can see my missile hit
lol

Though it would be a bit cheap, it should be fun to turn on the Non-Historical mode and engage SR-71s flying over Vietnam with the S-200 - their flight path is not made with that in mind.

"Though it would be a bit cheat, it should be fun to turn on the Non-Historical mode and engage SR-71s flying over Vietnam with the S-200 - their flight path is not made with that in mind."

Another interesting scenarios is in the cards, for the future release of the sim...
... just imagine:

28th of March, 1985. An SR-71 is taking off from Mildenhall UK, for a routine recce flight of the the Warsaw Pact.
The alarm "JASTREB" (Hawk) sounds, and the whole WarPact air defense goes to alert.
(You can listen the original Jastreb alarm here: http://peters-ada.de/B1_signal%20jastreb.mp3 )

All training flights are immediately landed, to clear the airspace.
"FANTOMAS" (codename of the MiG-25PD) is taking off from Finow-Eberswalde GDR, to fly parallel track, and be ready just in case.
The "VEGA" (SA-5B Gammon) complexes are in Alert One, missiles are on the launchers, at ready to launch state.

Everybody is looking at the radar scopes...
red - Jastreb (SR-71)
green - Fantomas (MiG-25PD)
yellow - E-3A AWACS
purple - KC-135



and the plotting chart


The Jastreb makes a turn in the narrow airspace of the BRD, and returns to the UK...
... another "normal" day of the Cold War passed without any incident.

read more about it here: JASTREB

Hi,

looks very promising. please consider, that during the cold war the actual map of eastern europe looked different: the CSSR was one country (chechoslovakia), as was yugoslavia (no croatia, no serbia, no montenegro etc.)...

regards
phamtuan

Hi Pham Tuan,

Trust me, I lived there personally.
Few pictures, that might made you happy, regarding the future of the SAM Simulator...





BR,
Hpasp

PS: if you know what system is in the picture, than your nick is a bit closer to the real Pham Tuan...

S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) Target Tracking Officers DV (distance/velocity) indicator, in speed search regime.

Anybody could recognize the system above?

SA-2 is as specific as I could get.

Dvina. Cabin for optic guidance in the first photo.

Correct.


This is the SA-75MK Dvina (SA-2F) the "export" version.

I think it will be an eye opening experience for all of you, who taken the time & trouble to learn to operate the S-75M Volhov (SA-2E) [WarPac version], to find out the difference to the "export" version.

Here it is in Vietnam:

S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) simulator in the works screen-shots...

Might be a not well known fact, that the Vega is capable to determine the target type, by analyzing its Doppler spectrum, and radar echo strength versus its range.
It is called by the west: NCTR (Non Cooperative Target Recognition).


Boeing B737 Doppler spectrum


MiG-21MF Doppler spectrum


Cessna C-172 Doppler spectrum

Let me just say this about that: That is cool as hell.

That is all.

Miao, Cat

The S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) Target Tracking Officer's instruments are slowly coming up to life also...

NICE

That would be nice. And what about side scroll bar?

The S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) system is capable of intercepting tactical ballistic missiles.
In 1972, R-300 Scud-B missile was successfully intercepted by the S-200.



The target speed is over Mach4.


Its altitude is well over 50km. (165kft)


It needs only 5 minutes, to fly 300km. (162nm)


CIA was monitored the missile tests from Beshar in Iran, during the "Project Melody" an electronic intelligence gathering operation.
They successfully intercepted the test, that was against the international ABM treaty.
Kissinger during the next Geneva negotiations, officially complained because of this exercise...

Next version (v0.920) is planned to be released during the next weekend.

It will contain some translation of the documentation, and a "sneak peak" of the S-200VE Vega SA-5B Gammon system, but it will be far from fully functional. (it will be able to lock on, and track target using MHI* only, without any documentation)


*MHI / mono-chromatic emission

until then, just look at the web best source of SA-5B information: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-200VE-Vega.html

Hey group! How about this one:

http://www.peters-ada.de/russland.htm

and scroll down to Altek-300 training software.

If we raised a few bucks (wonder how much?) we would end up as the best-equipped player community on the globe.
... and they claim to have multiplayer mode


Anyway, the webpage kicks ass! Memoirs of a guy who spend many years working as a Leitoffizier in DDR's Neva battery. Lots of technical stuff (with photos) and daily (BR too) life and work conditions of a SNR team. Today it's only in German, but who knows?

S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) Fire Control Officers KI-234V instrument.

And the original stuff...

You sir, are my god. This simulator is godly, i can't stop playing it over and over again. If i ever travel to Hungary, we must drink much Palinka lol. I'm still somewhat noobish but i can shoot down things with the Volkhov and Niva. I can't wait for the S-200; it's a beast.
I wonder if Cuba or North Korea or other countries are using your program right now for training? Kaching Kaching, sell it to them

PS i know it is kind of obvious, but i hope you will continue on to implement at least the SA-6 Kub, the "three finders of death" where mortally feared by Israeli pilots.

I can't wait for the next version, to test the SA-5 and new scenarios. If i may suggest, there should be a "Air War in Europe" scenario, basically WW3 in europe; a "shooting gallery" of tons of friendly and enemy aircraft going at it. Linebacker II style.

Also, a 1960ies Nuclear war scenario, deep in the USSR armed with 15D Nuclear SAMs against marauding B52s. Nuclear explosions would cause huge kill radiuses but create large interference similar to jamming.

Cheers, keep on doing what you are doing!



I literally want to cry; there is so much information there that the stupid language barrier denies me.

Also...

You CAN shoot down a F-117 with a V-75!


Final evidence!

Is it normal that Volkhovs do not need to have their targets illuminated by your radar in "red" mode in the last 15 seconds? I beleive this is the beamriding mode; but i have had hits when i forgot to put it on. For example, this F117 kill was made in "Orange" mode; i forget the exact name

v0.920 is out, go get it!

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

You are faster than me!

The Vega has limited functionality, meaning that it is not yet ready.
No documentation is provided.

You can press the (q,a,z,w,s,x,d,c) buttons to see the screens.
q - plotting board
a,z - fire control officer
w,s,x - target acquisition officer
d,c - target tracking officer

You can switch it off with the red button under the K2B sign at the "w" panel.

Who will be the first, who can switch it on, and can track a target???

Honestly...I'd seen you had put "current version, v0.920" but not changed the download link to the new version, so I kept an eye the page for a little while

Thanks!

Christmas comes early! I hope i will be able to use a S-200 as christmas tree and woo everyone
My friends hate me now, everything i do in Garry's Mod is missiles based on what i've learned, i've somewhat replicated a volkov and well they haven't invented Wild Weasels yet so to say

PS: I would love the 2K12 Kub before the Shilka; this is the SAM simulator after all :P

KUB is still fielded by the Hungarian Armed Forces, so its operation is still a Hungarian National Secret.
Our fielded version is a heavily upgraded one to NATO standards, but I wouldn't touch it, until it is completely removed from service, and I can simulate it properly.

The resolution no longer is required to be 1280x1024 - so if you have never given it a look before it is worth a look now.

Successfully tracked a Mig21 and B747 and noted their distinctive NCTR profiles from the SA5.

It may not be required but now even though sim runs, it runs distorted. I tried different resolutions but it would not right properly. Too bad.

Switching the Vega on...

"w" Flip the middle 3 state switch on the top panel, to right into the middle state.(BKL)
The yellow lamp above it will start to blink.

Push the four black buttons from left to right.
All four yellow lamps above should illuminate.

Flip the middle 3 state switch on the top panel, to right into the rightmost state.(GOTOV)
The yellow lamp above it will illuminate steadily.

Now the system is on.

Lets look around...

"a" Fire control officers display.
Top line, horizontal is the range. Left 0, right 80/250/500km (selectable).
Bottom line in KRO mode, (currently only) range marks every 20km.
Bottom line in GSN mode, (no missiles yet) missiles Doppler receivers.

"s" Target acquisition officer left display (round).
Horizontal is speed.

Target acquisition officer right display (rectangle).
Doppler spectrum analyzer.
Top band.
Three band of the target Doppler speed, in the middle is the velocity bore sight.
Each band is showing 400m/s (1.3Mach), so altogether you can see 1200m/s (4 Mach).
Below band is the magnification of the top band.

"x" P14 "Tall King" radar display.
Indicated range 100/200/400/600km.
The map on the display is for the 400km setting.
Blinking line is where the fire control radar "Square Pair" is looking.

"d" Target tracking officers display.
Horizontal is again the speed of the target.

to be continued with target acquisition...

DuDe!!!! this is so fun .
Thank You and Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday .
(doing the happy dance)

After I install this my facebook.com dont work anymore...it has "cookies must be enable" but my cookies are already enable...do anyone know how to fix?

How to acquire and track a target with the Vega in three coordinates, using IADS for the range information...

"q" on the top right corner of the plotting board click at the number of the target.
(start IADS target acquisition)

"x" at the right side, between the joystick, and the wheel click the black button "CU" to track target using the IADS, in elevation and azimuth.
(green lamps should stop blinking, when the RPC (NATO Code: Square Pair) is rotated towards the target)

"c" in the middle, click on the two "CU" button to track target using the IADS, in range and speed.
(green lamps should stop blinking, when the RPC (NATO Code: Square Pair) is set to the speed and range of the target)

"w" at the right side of the top panel is a guarded switch. Click on it (4 times) with the left mouse button, until the red lamp illuminates above it.
(now you are transmitting)

"c" in the left, click on the a black button with "AC3" label below it. The red lamp labeled "V" should indicate, that the target is auto tracked in AC3 mode, and the Lissajous curve should appear on the indicators.
(AC3 means target tracking in 3 coordinates, azimuth, elevation and speed)

I don't use Facebook, but right now I think you are lucky that it installed. I'm getting a Error 52 on installation...

Phantastic! Great work. THX

Try to download it again.
When you extract the rar, you should find the following files:

2010.12.17. 22:53 450'072'547 SAM.CAB
1998.06.18. 00:00 140'800 setup.exe
2010.12.17. 23:00 64'866 SETUP.LST

A System Restore allowed me to install the sim - I guess something just got knocked out of kilter. Thanks.

Hoho! my bad i was not aware! Whatever is for the good of Hungarian National Security o> :P
These would be the original KUB not BUK systems? If you used the early Kub that was exported to the Arab countries, could you get away with it?
In any case, amazing work! I hope this simulator will one day include all Legacy soviet SAM systems
I would do anything for a S-400 sim but hey you don't want to give those Americans help for that :P

Is it normal that i can acquire and shoot down a F-117 with a V-75? I mean it is at least as hard if not harder than with a S-125 (i'd say easier because you can do anything with the V-75's radar, normal Mr. Z. D. used a Spoon Rest) but is it realistic? Just asking because i am incredulous, i would had loved to have had a real shot at it XD

If i ever become millionaire i will kill time by scaring trainee fighter pilots #%&*$# by locking them on a Soviet/ComBloc Radar for ten seconds. No harm done, right? Just some better training! That's what i'll say to the air force officers who come to visit me a few hours later, before offering them a drink and a tour of the surplus soviet radar i bought on the Internet

PS Thanks for the Vega instructions! Can't wait for the final version, but even more, documentation :P

I hope this simulator will one day include all Legacy soviet SAM systems

That is the plan.


Is it normal that i can acquire and shoot down a F-117 with a V-75?

Yes, but several factors are to be considered.

1,The simulator has the S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E) the most advanced, "WarPac" only version.
During most of the wars the less capable SA-75M Dvina (SA-2F), the "export" version was participated.
(It is planned to be added after the Vega)

2, Each WarPac nations air defense units had to pass the Asuluk live shooting exam yearly.
If they failed, that was bad news, even to the defense minister...
From 1988, the target RM-217 Zvezda was used. It represented the characteristics of the F-117A Stealth plane.
In Hungary we have several battery commanders, who shot the Zvezda at Asuluk, as part of their exam.

So it was a requirement to be able to shot the stealth, but it is only true for the "WarPac" version.
With the Dvina, you will have no chance.

3, At that night when the real F117 was shot beside Simanovci over Serbia, the weather forbidden to fly the F16CJ SEAD planes, so the target could be searched for longer time.
Usually the rule was during Operation Allied Force, that if you illuminate more than 20sec, you could be shot at, and if you illuminate more than 40sec, than you will be surely killed by HARM or GBU.

Mr. Z. D. wink used a Spoon Rest

Col. Zoltan Dani used the P-18 Spoon Rest to acquire the Stealth, and than used the SNR-125M1 Low Blow to track it, and to guide two V601 missiles onto it.

Col. Zoltan Dani at the left side of the picture, I'm holding a piece of the downed F117A.

S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) missiles are getting ready to be launched...

I would like to order 5 or 6 5V28 M
I got a few B-52's I want to swat.
And a couple for that Damn SR-71.

Just be aware, if those VF-102 Diamondbacks are around...

Roger That.
Tomcats in range.

The man himself!
It's always great to be able to put a face on those War Heroes. Especially interesting since it happened not long ago. At least, seems like yesterday and i was only a kiddo.

And i want a chip of that piece of F-117! I wish..



1. Cool! I'm impatient to see what is the real difference in performance. Not just on paper, but in-game performance. It did seem too easy, in the historical scenarios. It is easy to see that had the Vietnamese Air Defence had had the Soviet Version american losses would have been dramatically higher, especially had they been able to field SA-3/S-125s. (Using NATO designations: A Bad Habit that's hard to Kick LOL)

2. Amazing. The myth of Stealth invincibility is clearly that, a myth. WarPac air defences where nothing to laugh at, even in a stealth bomber. I certainly would not have tried a young man's 1991 exploit of flying a cessna from Finland to the Red Square; i wouldn't have like the chance to have a S-300 or other flying telephone poles directed at me.

3. Will you implement the B-2 Spirit bomber?

1. Cool! I'm impatient to see what is the real difference in performance. Not just on paper, but in-game performance. It did seem too easy, in the historical scenarios. It is easy to see that had the Vietnamese Air Defence had had the Soviet Version american losses would have been dramatically higher, especially had they been able to field SA-3/S-125s. (Using NATO designations: A Bad Habit that's hard to Kick LOL)

Using NATO designations is OK, but sometimes they are misleading.
Typical is the mixing of several systems by the SA-2 designation.
SA-2A/B/F Dvina
SA-2C Desna
SA-2E Volhov
SA-2D that not existed

2. Amazing. The myth of Stealth invincibility is clearly that, a myth. WarPac air defences where nothing to laugh at, even in a stealth bomber. I certainly would not have tried a young man's 1991 exploit of flying a cessna from Finland to the Red Square; i wouldn't have like the chance to have a S-300 or other flying telephone poles directed at me.

I would not call it a myth, rather a huge technical achievement.
To have an F4 Phantom sized plane with an RCS of a tennis ball, is really a breakthrough.
Serious military never called the stealth invisible, just the press over-hyped it.

The truth is that old metric wavelength target acquisition radars (P12/18 Spoon Rest, P14 Tall King) can track it, but only from severally reduced range.
Newer dm wavelength target acquisition and height finder radars will have hard time to see it at all.

Fire control radars can also track it (with their huge power output in small area of the sky), but first they should know, where to look for it.
Might not be well known, that with the SA3B fire control radar (SNR-125M1 Low Blow), even an eagle (bird) could be auto-tracked...


If the Stealth technology is used properly (F16CJ's around) than the fire control radars will not have enough time to find it (as the altitude info about the Stealth is always missing).

3. Will you implement the B-2 Spirit bomber? wink

Im currently collecting information about the war over Serbia (1999 Operation Allied Force), so those events are on the cards for the future.

Stupid question incoming!

In this tutorial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU1m9hMNiog the operator try to lock on a jamming target. Unsuccessfully.

So he turns the transmitter off, locks on the jamming signal, puts the height manually in the I-87B and then lets the missiles fly.

The transmitter is still off. Why do he see missiles and the debris on the Fan Song indicators?

I expected he would see nothing. Maybe the jamming would stop, if the jamming equipment was on the targeted aircraft.

I mean, he transmits nothing. So why do he see anything, except jamming signal?

Very good question.


It is a bug.
I will be corrected for the next release.

The transmitter is still off. Why do he see missiles and the debris on the Fan Song indicators?

More specifically.
Debris should not be seen, if high voltage is off.

The missiles should be seen, as they carry a beacon, that answers to the guidance signals sent by the P16 antenna on the RSN-75V3 (Fan Song E).

One more on that: in Hanoi scenario you can sometimes see "burn through" if the jamming target comes close enough - but without switching the transmitter on! I thought the essence of jamming was to deny range info, not to provide it. A bug?

Next: when launching SA-2 at a close target moving with a "high parameter" (resulting in big angular velocity), the missile signal just after leaving the launcher appears close to the line-of-sight, then suddenly "jumps" aside, close to the view window, and then needs a few seconds to regain this position. I think I understand what effect is being modelled, but maybe in a bit more linear way?

One on Neva: did you attempt to simulate failed launches (as they inevitable happen)? It often appears when using a missile from launcher no. 2. Missile disappears from the "readiness" light but is not caught by tracking antenna. Under failed launch I also understand the failure to "catch" a correctly (in a kinematic sense) flying missile.

And on Krug: how about reloading? In Ashuluk transloaders are available, but no corresponding switches in the manual

Now getting a bit inquisitive about ARM (Shrike/ Standard) use simulated at Hanoi:
1) to get the guy launch one you must directly illuminate him (no matter whether tracking or not). OK, but if an ARM homes on sidelobes (to simplify a bit), you should expect receiving an ARM at much greater angles (above 180 deg. from LOS, I suppose) as soon as you transmit. To have a practical picture - the guy launches an ARM only when you see it. I do not have problem with transmitting most of my time at Hanoi - and surviving.
2) A guy can launch an ARM while jamming at the same time. Peter Skarus wrote the jamming should be switched off before launching an ARM in order for the seeker to lock on SNR and not to be ruined by own jammer (using the same frequency!). Could you comment on that?

One more on that: in Hanoi scenario you can sometimes see "burn through" if the jamming target comes close enough - but without switching the transmitter on! I thought the essence of jamming was to deny range info, not to provide it. A bug?

Yes it is a bug, and the correction will be in the next release.

One on Neva: did you attempt to simulate failed launches (as they inevitable happen)? It often appears when using a missile from launcher no. 2. Missile disappears from the "readiness" light but is not caught by tracking antenna. Under failed launch I also understand the failure to "catch" a correctly (in a kinematic sense) flying missile.

Hmmm, can you describe how can it be recreated?
If the missile cannot be caught by the UV-12 antenna after launch within few sec, the missile is lost.

And on Krug: how about reloading? In Ashuluk transloaders are available, but no corresponding switches in the manual

Reloading of the KRUG takes so long time, that it is not simulated.

1) to get the guy launch one you must directly illuminate him (no matter whether tracking or not). OK, but if an ARM homes on sidelobes (to simplify a bit), you should expect receiving an ARM at much greater angles (above 180 deg. from LOS, I suppose) as soon as you transmit. To have a practical picture - the guy launches an ARM only when you see it. smile I do not have problem with transmitting most of my time at Hanoi - and surviving.

In Vietnam only the Shrike/Standard ARM is simulated.
They are not capturing side-lobes.
The HARM will be another thing...

Cool, thanks!

Would the missile "splashes" look different with transmitter off?
Now they look like a point with a horizontal line. Is the line the actual "splash" and the point - the answer from beacon maybe?

By the way, many thanks for the sim! Never had so much fun from a simulation!

That quite surprising Hpasp, but I guess it depends on the range to the bird. If the Eagle lands on the transmitter it would present a huge contact, but would be roasted within a few seconds I presume

2) A guy can launch an ARM while jamming at the same time. Peter Skarus wrote the jamming should be switched off before launching an ARM in order for the seeker to lock on SNR and not to be ruined by own jammer (using the same frequency!). Could you comment on that?

That is not true.


I just checked it again with an ex F-4G Wild Weasel driver...

"Operation of the jamming pod has no effect on Shrike operation. We normally flew with the pod in standby and didn't jam unless we were defensive. The pod did interfere somewhat when it was jamming, but the pods position would have sent it's very directional signals away from the Shrike seeker head."

I've been wondering, why doesn't the SA-4 integrate with IADS? I realize that if it's employed on the move it might not have access to the IADS, but how're you supposed to know what you're shooting at without IADS? I've successfully engaged several Migs and SUs in some of the scenarios due to not knowing what's friendly and what's hostile, lol.

Also, how does the SA-4 engage jamming targets? Does it have some form of home-on-jam? I remember needing to use IADS to get the targets altitude in order to successfully engage jamming targets with the SA-2, and yet the SA-4 doesn't seem to require this information?

I've been wondering, why doesn't the SA-4 integrate with IADS? I realize that if it's employed on the move it might not have access to the IADS, but how're you supposed to know what you're shooting at without IADS?

There are some different Air Defense organizations at the eastern style SAM troops.

IADS is used by the PVO (Air Defense of the Homeland) forces.
They had fixed location Radio Technical Troops in the country (usually one unit at every 50km) to feed the data into the system.
PVO is used the SA-1/2/3/5/10 systems during the Cold War.

PVO-SV (Air Defense of the Troops) as an offensive organization, are planned to operate away from the Homeland...
(Hungarian troops were planned to be employed in Austria, Germany, and Italy.)
... thus they were out of the range of the PVO's Radio Technical Troops.
So PVO-SV brought the 1S12 with them and it provided the situational awareness.
PVO-SV is used the SA-4/6/8/12 systems during the Cold War.

I've successfully engaged several Migs and SUs in some of the scenarios due to not knowing what's friendly and what's hostile, lol.

Congratulation, of getting familiar to the KRUG!
The KUB (SA6) SAM is also using the 1S12 for target acquisition, and during the middle east wars, the Arab PVO-SV forces scored several friendlies also...

Also, how does the SA-4 engage jamming targets? Does it have some form of home-on-jam? I remember needing to use IADS to get the targets altitude in order to successfully engage jamming targets with the SA-2, and yet the SA-4 doesn't seem to require this information?

Similar way, as the Neva (SA3).
It use the T/T guidance method, and arm the missiles fuse right after the launch.

I see, thanks.

Another question, is it currently possible to engage targets with the SA-5? I could swear the first time I played with it I got the top row of red lights to illuminate, and then the lower sets lit up. I'm assuming the top row is for the missile gyro, while the lower are the assorted missile indicator lights? I can't seem to reproduce this tho. Looking forward to seeing the SA-5 finished and learning to employ it! If it's as much fun as the SA-4 I don't know how I'll ever decide which to use. :p

Another question, is it currently possible to engage targets with the SA-5

Not with the current version.


Looking forward to seeing the SA-5 finished and learning to employ it! If it's as much fun as the SA-4 I don't know how I'll ever decide which to use. :p

It will be much more fun, I promise.

You probably already know about these two bugs, but I figure they're worth mentioning just in case.

1. Sim crashes if you right click the radar switch while it's in the initial "locked" state.
2. Jamming transmissions extend off of the radar screen.

Also, that last picture is beautiful. Couldn't have been taken at a more perfect moment.

1. Sim crashes if you right click the radar switch while it's in the initial "locked" state.
It is already corrected, and the correction will be in the next release.

2. Jamming transmissions extend off of the radar screen.
That is just an old code. Jamming is not written yet for the Vega.

Hpasp, have you considered making a Twitter account for your Sam sim? I'd be nice to know when you release new versions, or someone makes a new video. I'm sure I'm not the only person that checks this thread throughout the day hoping to see a new version, lol.

Good Idea NaiseFail.
If I get Bored I Check.
I would be happy with just a new scenario for the old systems. Not that i have "Mastered" any really. 'Cept maybe the "Habu" . Once the proper procedure was identified.

Hi,

This sim is really done by one otherwise working guy, in his non existent free-time.
I see very little to be twit about it, but I will try to keep you up to date about the development here.

Now, all the Vega RPC modes are in place (MHI, full/half-FKM, FM, NCTR, Vcr, etc...).
The missiles are preparing up, and can be launched, but not guiding, as the guidance code should have yet to be written.
(It uses completely different guidance methods [proportional, and combined] compared to the earlier systems)

The distant roar of the launched missile (we are sitting in the K2V cabin, that is ~1km from the launchers) is in place.
They are accelerating over Mach3 in 3 sec after launch...


The jamming section is not touched yet, as one of the main task of the Vega was to kill stand off jammers, so it is a bit complicated.
The documentation should yet to be written in English and Hungarian at least.

The next release will contain only Hungary, and Asuluk, to be able to release it earlier, and the system could be practiced.
Only later the "Giant Reach", "Operation Tallin", and "Operation Prairie Fire" will be released.

There will be an additional option tickbox, to be able to use the sim in silent mode.



Some interesting info about the V-880E missile.
- It is a hypersonic design, reaching 6.5Mach maximum.
- When it is aimed against low targets, it reduces its thrust to limit the heating caused by friction of the dense air, to Mach3.
- It reaches max range () in 3,5 minutes
- max altitude is 40,8km
- max range is 255km (but it is limited by several factors)

Some interesting info about the P14 (Tall King) target acquisition radar.
- It is really tall. (over 10m)
- Max range is 600km
- Its range is limited by the Earth's curvature. (at 600km range, anything below 20km altitude is below the horizon)

Sounds like it's coming along nicely. I had no idea that the radar could see THAT far, lol. Will it be possible to use the SA-5 in existing scenarios in the first release? I'd love to introduce myself to some of those Israeli aircraft that always turned around just outside of my SA-4's range.

First of a kind...

Asuluk training ground.

Practice target:
8K14 R-300 (SCUD-B) Tactical Ballistic Missile

S-200VE Vega-E


50:40, Practice target 8K14 R-300 (SCUD-B) Tactical Ballistic Missile launched

57:13, Missile exploded
Practice target 8K14 R-300 (SCUD-B) Tactical Ballistic Missile killed by SAM. (miss distance: 52m)

Total, SNR On Air Time: 5min 57sec

Have you considered making it open source?

With community involvement, I think some great things could be achieved. A few ideas for improvement immediately come to mind:

• User interface. For instance, the mission planner may be expanded to allow for more complex target behavior (more waypoints per target, etc.) and possibly for more scenarios. Another area is input and control for the systems. The 1S12's target selector could certainly benefit from a less awkward manipulation scheme; I've seen Youtube videos where the operators were able to move it and designate targets very rapidly indeed. Keyboard control of various parameters, like the azimuth and elevation of the target tracking antennas would be nice to have. Furthermore, feedback to the user about antenna positions (and of course, other parameters) is important as well.
• Environment. A basic visual representation of the world would be highly desirable. Even if missiles and targets were represented by little more than vague shapes, actually being able to see the engagement in three dimensions is going to make it significantly more pleasurable. Also, targets could be programmed to take evasive action when engaged.
• System functionality. Wouldn't features like the S-125's TV tracker be nice to have? Since we're simulating 1970s technology here, I think it's quite feasible to implement a representation of a low resolution, blurry television camera. I mean, it'd be one blob for the target, and a second blob for the missile.

Some of these objectives are obviously not readily achievable with Visual Basic 6. However, a separate port to a different language probably is unlikely to present excessive problems. The most difficult work -- particularly, data collection and photography -- is already done.

Equally interesting would be a release of some of the documentation you employed to simulate these systems. For all four modeled systems, real documentation simply does not exist on the internet. Notably, there are already technical manuals available for the Osa, Strela-10, Tunguska... It would be absolutely terrific to have these (or any other material) for the S-75, S-125, or S-200. With the systems in question being out of service in Hungary and in other states that had used them, I really cannot imagine any obstacles to such a disclosure. My gratitude (and that of the enthusiast community at large) for the provision of such material could not possibly be overstated.

Anyway, I also wanted to say that your simulator is a great joy to use. I am really looking forward to the full working S-200. Keep up the awesome work.

Equally interesting would be a release of some of the documentation you employed to simulate these systems. For all four modeled systems, real documentation simply does not exist on the internet. Notably, there are already technical manuals available for the Osa, Strela-10, Tunguska... It would be absolutely terrific to have these (or any other material) for the S-75, S-125, or S-200. With the systems in question being out of service in Hungary and in other states that had used them, I really cannot imagine any obstacles to such a disclosure. My gratitude (and that of the enthusiast community at large) for the provision of such material could not possibly be overstated.

Quite a number of manuals are already released on Russian Internet.
for example: http://historykpvo.narod2.ru/

Releasing the manuals I work from (usually several thousand pages per system), would not be a big help for the community, as they are written in Hungarian, and less then 0.1% of the people in the world could read it ...

Wow, that is quite the treasure trove. Thank you!

I've had the opportunity to review some of the material on that site. It is of tremendous historical value. Many thanks. Do you happen to know of other equally superb "examples" as the one above?

Also, I am curious about the origin of your Russian-language graphs for the S-75 Vietnamese scenarios. Besides the Hungarian literature, have you got any in Russian?

Yes, I have several English, Russian, and recently Serbian books, about air wars, and SAM's.

Would you mind providing their titles, please? Thanks!

I mean, several full bookshelf.

My latest interest is in the OAF ('99 Serbia) campaign, so the latest additions are...

General Spasoje Smiljanits: Agressija NATO (Serbian & Cyril)
Bojan B. Dimitrijevic, Jovica Draganic: Vazdusni Rat Nad Srbijom 1999. Godine (Serbian & Latin)
Benjamin S. Lamberth (RAND): NATO's AirWar for Kosovo

... these are highly recommended about the '99 events.

About Vietnam, this Russian title is one of the best:

I assume the picture is from Vazdušni rat nad Srbijom 1999 godine? It looks very interesting. Any idea why the 3. rd PVO did not use optics as 8. rd did, even though three point guidance was employed anyway?

Too bad that book is not available on the internet.


I looked around for that title about Vietnam. Unfortunately, the vko.ru archives are down, so it was impossible to download. The internet archive only has one of the chapters,
http://web.archive.org/web/20080622163639/old.vko.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2005.21.26, but with no pictures.

Please post a copy if you've got one!

Any idea why the 3. rd PVO did not use optics as 8. rd did, even though three point guidance was employed anyway?

TV is not effective during night.
During night combat, even if you find the target, when you launch, the missile exhaust is blinding the camera, so you loose your target.

According to the graphic, both engagements were at night. The 8. rd used a thermal camera, evidently. Does the book offer any other details?

This book, describe several detailed engagements, to be added to the SAMsim.

Very nice, looking forward to them.

New You Tube tutorial videos are available from Matthew Barry, for the SA-4 system.
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Screens of the upcoming system after the Vega...
... they might be a bit familiar for you.






At the right...

Dvina! Do you see any challenges with Dvina development having the Wolkhov already more or less complete? Does it differ in anything other than stripping Volkhov of some of its options? (I mean the game, not the system...)

One about manual tracking (in fact, those guys occupy the most of the room!). Does the real auto-tracking in S-75 and S-125 have the capabilities you modelled in the game? Or you "assume" the presence of ideally trained manual trackers that help the player? Where are the limits?

Hmm, I like the looks of the Dvina more than the Volkhov.

I always wanted to ask you, but never remembered. I noticed that almost every switch on the Volkhov works, but most of them aren't described in the manual. Do they have a function, or did you just make them click-able for the hell of it? :p

Hmm, I like the looks of the Dvina more than the Volkhov.

Dvina is much more cleaner, and easier to use (according to FCO's who used both), than the overcomplicated and ergonomics disaster Volhov.
The most stupid difference is that the "Fire" button is exchanged place with the "Cancel Fire" buttons.


I always wanted to ask you, but never remembered. I noticed that almost every switch on the Volkhov works, but most of them aren't described in the manual. Do they have a function, or did you just make them click-able for the hell of it? :p

90% has real effect, so be cautious clicking around.
Maybe in the far future, I create and "Advanced" Volhov manual about those. (another 50+ pages)
I just not wanted to scare potential users with the first modeled system, having a 100+ pages manual.

Dvina! bump Do you see any challenges with Dvina development having the Wolkhov already more or less complete? Does it differ in anything other than stripping Volkhov of some of its options? (I mean the game, not the system...)

The graphic, and the manual should be completely redone.
The 11D missile is less agile, and the SNR is much weaker.
I do not see big challenges, so probably it could also be done this year.

One about manual tracking (in fact, those guys occupy the most of the room!). Does the real auto-tracking in S-75 and S-125 have the capabilities you modelled in the game? Or you "assume" the presence of ideally trained manual trackers that help the player? Where are the limits?

Against non jamming target, the auto-track has good capabilities in the real system.
When the target can be seen under the jamming, or it is tracked by the TV, than manual tracking come into play.

Another question for you.

I have been reading some of the documents from the website you supplied earlier, for the S-125 (thank you again for posting that wonderful site). The technical reports on the 5V27, in particular, are fascinating. Yet, there is clearly not enough information for a full six degrees of freedom simulation of the missile. Although they at least provide centers of gravity under various conditions, no aerodynamics data is given. Nor is there other detailed data such as motor thrust curves or autopilot gains and the like (although I suppose one could try to analyze the circuit schematics ) in any of the books.

Of course, I am interested in the details of your simulation from a dynamics perspective. My guess is that such data (i.e. beyond the general level encountered in the documentation mentioned above) was probably not widely disseminated. Thus, for the simulation, some simplifications would have to be made.

Previously, references were made to specific quantities like integration time steps and missile acceleration limits. Additionally, the program seems to produce reasonable miss distance figures. While aerospace engineering is not my specialty, the model does not look too simple...

The question is, what was your approach to the physical simulation of missile flight?

Cheers.

Installed Sam-sim on my main system and I'm still having problem with resolution. I really would love to play it, but it seems impossible. Neither laptop or main system....

I can gladly state, that this program simulates missile behavior much closely than you think.
(atmosphere, g forces on control surfaces, acceleration, overheating, ...)
Around 50 dynamic parameters are used to simulate each missile.

The manual states the barely minimum only to be able to use the sim.
Each system, there are ~1000 pages of Hungarian manuals I used to get it as close as I could.


Some info about the V601P




by the way, I sent you mail...

That is a beautiful thrust diagram!

No wonder the Soviets had to use the "pear" to adjust the nozzle cross-section.

It's unusual, though, that both the booster and sustainer motor curves are relatively flat. The former apparently has fourteen exposed rods with single circular channels (easy to see how a roughly constant area of combustion is maintained), while the latter is quite unusual.

My interpretation is that the length of the grain containing the "cut-outs" (#2) has a large initial burning area, to compensate for the fact that the central channel has yet to expand much right at the start of operation. During the burn, the area of that part declines, while the area of the channel increases, roughly maintaining flat thrust. If so, that's a fairly clever solution, and one which likely was less expensive to manufacture compared to the typical "star-shaped" channel associated with flat thrust in textbooks.

Does that sound about right?

It sounds like you have a model of pretty decent fidelity, then.

Of course, quantities like missile acceleration (G) limits are well-known and documented. But less trivial information such as lift and drag coefficients for the body, wings, and control surfaces, or even the aforementioned autopilot gains may not be so easily available.

Did your materials actually provide most of these parameters, or did you make engineering guesses yourself?

autopilot gains may not be so easily available.

Nono, I not modeled autopilot gain, as it is not necessary.
In the manuals there are several charts that were digitized and the program grabs data from those, and at the end, the missile is behaving pretty close as it is described there.

For example:
describing missile range against time

That's a fair approach, I suppose. Were there any charts/data relating to miss distance? That would be the primary purpose of modeling the autopilot. A first-order approximation for the overall missile time constant would probably work almost as well, however.

On the subject of the missile itself, I have been slowly reading the five associated books. Unfortunately, the Russian set, despite quite a few symbolic equations, contains few numbers or graphs. While reviewing your SA-3 simulator documentation, I found a listed value of 6 Gs as the missile acceleration limit. A brochure I looked at earlier (but remembered only now) has 18 Gs as that quantity. Granted, it's only penciled in (because it is not listed anywhere else, no doubt), but similar marks made in other documents tended to be reasonable.



Various missile guidance literature that I've read has always promoted the rule of thumb that missiles must be able to accelerate at a rate at least three times that of a maneuvering target, to successfully prosecute it. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that 18 Gs is correct. Your thoughts?


Contrary to the missile publications, the UNK documentation, with complete numerical data provided with most equations, is excellent. I'm really enjoying the volume on guidance algorithms right now. It raises another question, however. Your simulator documentation states that the guidance methods are "three-point" and "lead." My documentation also uses the term "lead," but upon inspection of the equations, it does not appear to be full lead. In fact, it is claimed that the lead angles are limited to 3 degrees , making me wonder if it was worth bothering with the method at all. In the simulator, I wonder, is full lead used?

I have not yet fully understood the equations below, so if my assessment is completely incorrect, I accept any due ridicule.




Finally, on the console in the simulator the two switch settings are "TT" and "PS," the latter obviously referring to half-lead, as used in the S-75.

Wot? I think you mean K, T/T and K.

Here is the switch:

That's the S-125M1 Neva, you said "as used in the S-75". I'm guessing you were comparing the PS to the K?

While reviewing your SA-3 simulator documentation, I found a listed value of 6 Gs as the missile acceleration limit. A brochure I looked at earlier (but remembered only now) has 18 Gs as that quantity.

Do not mix lateral and longitudinal acceleration.
Longitudinal 18g is achieved during the launch only.
Lateral is 6g.

Various missile guidance literature that I've read has always promoted the rule of thumb that missiles must be able to accelerate at a rate at least three times that of a maneuvering target, to successfully prosecute it. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that 18 Gs is correct. Your thoughts?

6g is correct for lateral acceleration, and this is one of the reason that even at the hand of the most expert missile-men (3.rd/250.rbr PVO) only two missile hit from the launched 13.

My documentation also uses the term "lead," but upon inspection of the equations, it does not appear to be full lead. In fact, it is claimed that the lead angles are limited to 3 degrees hahaha, making me wonder if it was worth bothering with the method at all. In the simulator, I wonder, is full lead used?

Full lead cannot be used for several reasons.

At the "75" system, Half lead were utilized, with 4 degrees of limitation.
At the "125" system, it is more than half, due to the lower missile speed compared to the target.

Why are you laughing on 3 degrees?
It is measured from the UNK, so at 15km target distance, it is 785m.

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to lateral acceleration. It is shocking that it would be that low. The brochure claims, for the S-125M/V-601P combination, the possibility of engaging targets maneuvering up to "4-6" Gs. In my opinion, it would be virtually impossible to hit such a target with a 6 G missile due to the associated lags in the control loop.

Additionally, the Russian term in the brochure used to claim 18 Gs is "peregruzka" ("overload"). In the context of missiles, in my experience, this term is used to refer only to lateral acceleration.



I laughed because 3 degrees for a 700 m/s target wouldn't amount to much of an improvement over no lead at all.

PLCC, I'm also surprised that the maximum lateral acceleration for the SA-3 is only 6G. The U.S. Nike Hercules SAM (albeit designed as a long ranged medium to high altitude missile) entered service initially capable of 7G lateral acceleration, this was later increased to 10G. The Nike is much larger than the SA-3 and uses intercept guidance. Reading comments from Vietnam era pilots, I can't understand why a specific set of techniques were required to evade the SA-2 & 3 missiles. With such a lack of agility I would have imagined that a low G reversal of direction (immelmann perpendicular to the missile) would be sufficient to evade it.

I have also heard similar to you that a missile requires about 3 times the lateral acceleration performance of the target to be effect and there are also other factors to consider I think, such as the guidance/navigation method used. With 3 point/pure pursuit guidance, the missile at end game may require 5 times the G of the target.

Having said all this Hpasp does seem to know his stuff, as well as have access to the necessary technical documents.

It would be interesting to read detailed reports of the engagements by these missiles and how many of the targets took evasive action. There is or use to be a saying that "it's the missile you don't see thats going to kill you". If you spot a launch or chasing missile early enough, you could avoid it (However this may not be the case with current generation of missiles). I have a feeling that perhaps many of the tactical aircraft that were shot down by these missiles were surprised/ambushed.
There is a case of 3 or 4 tactical aircraft (A-4 Skyhawk's), being shot down by a single SA-2. My understanding is that they were in close formation at detonation and received little to no warning.

SAMSIM Status update.

The S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) simulator is ready.
Testing is ongoing.

Current task is to write, and translate the 50+ pages of documentation.

That's great, I've been really looking forward to the SA-5!

I'm bit afraid, that a 40 step target acquisition process will take its toll between the most hard core fans too...
... not to mention this, when the US NAVY is inbound from the Gulf of Sidra loaded with HARM missiles.

Documentation so far...

CONTENTS 2
PREFACE 4
REQUIREMENT TO RUN THIS PROGRAM 4
KEYBOARD REFERENCES FOR THE PROGRAM: 5
ENGAGEMENT ZONE 6
S-200VE VEGA-E (SA-5B GANEF) SITE LAYOUT 7
S-50 DAL, WITH THE 5V11 V400 MISSILE (SA-5 GRIFFON) 8
SWITCHING THE SIMULATOR ON 9
SWITCHING THE SIMULATOR OFF 10
METHODS OF TARGET ACQUISITION 10
SENEZH-ME, INTEGRATED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (IADS) 11
P-14F OBRONA (TALL KING-B) TARGET ACQUISITION RADAR 12
PARAMETRIC COORDINATE SYSTEM 13
5N62VE RPC (SQUARE PAIR) TARGET ILLUMINATOR RADAR 13
5N62VE RPC (SQUARE PAIR) MODE OF OPERATIONS 14
&#1064;&#1048;&#1056;. (wide) or &#1059;&#1047;&#1050;. (narrow) pencil beam 14
&#1052;&#1061;&#1048; (MHI) Mono-Chromatic Emission 15
&#1060;&#1050;&#1052; (FKM) Phase-Code Manipulation 16
&#1063;&#1052; (FM) Frequency Modulation 16
&#1040;&#1057;-&#1056;&#1055;&#1062; (AS-RPC) 17
Plamja-KV CVM (digital computer) 17
ROTATING THE 5N62VE RPC (SQUARE PAIR) TARGET ILLUMINATOR RADAR 18
Rotate the 5N62VE RPC (Square Pair) target illuminator radar in azimuth and elevation 18
Set the 5N62VE RPC (Square Pair) target illuminator radar bore sight in speed and range 19
TARGET ACQUISITION USING SENEZH-ME, IADS 20
TARGET ACQUISITION USING THE P-14F ACQUISITION RADAR 22
UNDERSTANDING THE DV INDICATOR IN MHI MODE 23
CIRCULAR TARGET SEARCH 24
SECTOR TARGET SEARCH 25
DETERMINING THE TARGET RANGE IN FKM MODE WITH “VERNIER” METHOD 26
FACTORS THAT WOULD LIMIT THE EFFECTIVE TARGET ACQUISITION RANGE 29
RADAR CROSS SECTION OF THE TARGET 29
TANGENTIAL VELOCITY OF THE TARGET 30
EARTH CURVATURE EFFECT 31
NCTR (NON COOPERATIVE TARGET RECOGNITION) 32
5V21 V-860P (SA-5A GAMMON) SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE 33
5V21N V870 (SA-5A GAMMON) SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE 34
5V21V V860PV (SA-5B GAMMON) SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE 34
5V28 V880 (SA-5B GAMMON) SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE 35
5V28N V880N (SA-5B GAMMON) SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE 35
5V28E V880E (SA-5B GAMMON) SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE 36
5V28M V880M (SA-5C GAMMON) SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE 37
5V28 V880 GLL CHOLOD HYPERSONIC TEST BED 37
5G24E GSN CONTINUOUS WAVE SEMI-ACTIVE SEEKER 38
5E23A SRP ONBOARD DIGITAL FLIGHT COMPUTER 39
5P72VE PU LAUNCHER 40
5YU24ME ZM RAIL LOADER 41
5T82M1E TZM MISSILE TRANSPORTER-LOADER 42

Good job, can't wait for it!

Excellent. Hpasp, you have my admiration.

40 steps sounds a bit excessive, but if that's what it takes to operate it then I'm fine with it. Personally, I hate it when things are dumbed down. Even if it means I have to struggle with the system under pressure, I like realistic things. Also, I have a button fetish. :3

How many more steps from here to launching the missile?

(Looking forward in masochistic anticipation)

Ok, this 40 steps target acquisition is only for the backup method, when IADS is not available, and we use the "Nonius/Vernier" method to find out the target real range.

Sounds interesting. Looking forward to seeing how it all works.

No problem, I think I'll express the view of whole community by saying that the complexity and accuracy are THA things that keep us here. We are bored of Tetris.
Maybe, as a matter of exception... Would you consider adding "time compression" (maybe up to 8x) option? Some sessions, e.g. in Middle East scenarios, appear a bit lengthy. I suspect the same will apply to Vega scenarios, where either side will have a few hundred miles to fly...

Now that's what i'm talking about, a missile that can work with five inches of Ice and snow on it. Canada should definitely seek to buy the newest version! I'll operate it myself, if needed...

Finally the Krug is giving up it's secrets to me! Now i will move on to the Vega, i can't wait for documentation. This is an absolute beast. I also agree with vintorez, time compression would be great. Even if it's a 2-speed. Yeah, we love them buttons, the more realistic it is, the better!

I cannot wait to try the Monkey version of the S-75 (Desna) and see how the Soviets where cheap, and how hardcore the Vietnamese really were.
And i think i have a solution for the Kvadrat. If only the 2K12E Export version was recreated, i am sure no national security would be jeopardized (except... syrias?) and the SAMsim world would be so much more complete

Now that's what i'm talking about, a missile that can work with five inches of Ice and snow on it.

After launch, within 3 second, the missile will accelerate over Mach3, so no snow will stay...


I cannot wait to try the Monkey version of the S-75 (Desna) and see how the Soviets where cheap, and how hardcore the Vietnamese really were.

They saved on the high frequency pipeline system, leaving out "narrow beam", and "LORO" modes.
Also the missile was reduced range, and the transmitter, less powerful.

And i think i have a solution for the Kvadrat. If only the 2K12E Export version was recreated, i am sure no national security would be jeopardized (except... syrias?) and the SAMsim world would be so much more complete.

I'm fascinated by the ZSU-23-4 Shilka system now.
After, or before the SA-75MK Dvina (SA-2F) it will come.

West used to think, that they will fly below the effective envelope of the SAM systems, so the ZSU-23-4 Shilka became their worst nightmare...

S-200VE Vega Official Firing Manual (Russian)

Just get it.
http://narod.ru/disk/start/07.dl18sf-nar...%D1%81-200.djvu

Thanks for the link! I can barely read anything in Russian, but this is still very cool to have.

IADS "Senezh-M1E". Some photos. "For the overall development".

Volhov in operation video at the bottom of the page.

http://lv-wv.de/geschi_frt/pinnow/iwp1.html

I skipped over this thread so many times and finally checked it out. I had no idea this existed.

Welcome to the word of Cold War secrets...
... James Bond risked his life, to get these.

What about the "Advanced Manual" for the S-75M3, with the undocumented functions and switches? I readed on the this topic about the fuzes... But there are more switches that still "untold".

I keep waiting for it

TY for the great work! Very nice job on researching and programming!

What about the "Advanced Manual" for the S-75M3, with the undocumented functions and switches? I readed on the this topic about the fuzes... But there are more switches that still "untold".

Currently I'm working on the Vega.
The code is more or less ready, the English manual "passed" the "Weasel Check".
Currently the code testing (by someone, who launched a real Vega missile in 1987 ), and the manual translation is ongoing...

Just a quick wrap-up of the undocumented Volhov switches...

"Z" screen
guidance modes rightmost settings are for the nuclear tipped missiles.

"RAB OT VM" is a method to arm fuses right after launch.

The rightmost switch can show, where all the launchers are pointing, one-by-one.

The two guarded switch makes possible to change the operating frequency.

There are 3 methods of target acquisition, without P18.
(When the 75 was fielded, at the 60's, there were no P18's attached to the SAM battery's)
KRUG - circular
SEKT - sector
Elliptic - with UL.
Just push the POISK button...

"A" screen
The 35km switch is not mentioned.
It is used if the enemy is doing standoff jamming.
(It will cut any signal over 35km)

"Q" screen
Most of the switches has no effect.
(If you are interested in, just ask)

Thank you!

(If you are interested in, just ask)

In this case...



Could you tell about these highlighted switches? Thx.

And one more thing... I couldn't find the Elliptic and i also didn't undertood what you mean with "UL"!
Thank you once again.

The red circled switches are for testing the station readiness.

The rightmost yellow circle is...
... The rightmost switch can show, where all the launchers are pointing, one-by-one.

The leftmost yellow circle are for a crazy jamming avoidance method.
During the Vietnam War, the US believed, that the SA-2 system has two PRF modes, acquiring (lowPRF) and tracking (highPRF).
As You know, this is caused only by the switching the range setting between 75/150km, and has absolutely no connection with the tracking.
So with these switches, you could have lowPRF with 75km range displayed, fooling the west.

During the Vietnam War, the US believed, that the SA-2 system has two PRF modes, acquiring (lowPRF) and tracking (highPRF).
As You know, this is caused only by the switching the range setting between 75/150km, and has absolutely no connection with the tracking.

In the Vietnam scenario of the SIM, the SR71 will start jamming, if You set the SNR to 75km mode, because the US believed, it means target tracking...

Thank you very much, very explicative!
But the button on the middle yellow circle i can press... Seems like nothem happens, but i don't know! It have any function?

Yet i still cound't find the Elliptic switch on Z screen!

Many thanks for the help.

Elliptic search is not a switch, rather a searching method, introduced against those #%&*$# Stealth targets...


Its description requires some theoretical knowledge also, so I will describe it later...

Please do not take as a promise, but the new version of the SAM Simulator might be ready within weeks...

Is that FRAG-431 from Prangendorf? I really can't wait for Vega, it's the system I've been waiting most impatiently for.

Keep up the good work Hpasp!

Another two switches, SVP:

on A screen: the black one with "C" (up) and "R" (down). I can see some effect on the display, but I don't understand it.
on Z screen" the black one with "SDC 2" (left) and "SDC 1" (right)

Thanks!

Upgraded Neva system


Panels might be familiar to You.

on A screen: the black one with "C" (up) and "R" (down). I can see some effect on the display, but I don't understand it.

One of the early phases of the Vietnam War, US was jamming the missile beacon channel.
For a few months, all launched missile were lost.
The missiles were field modified to the V-750VM standard, that effectively made this type of jamming method obsolete.

That switch is from this time.

Before transmission and missile launch, switching this switch to "R" (Missile) you can see, if the enemy is jamming the missile tracking frequency. Switching this witch to "C" (Target) you can see, if the enemy is jamming the target tracking frequency.
In the middle "standard" state, we can see both the missile, and the target tracking frequency channels.

So does the S-75's MTI switch do anything, or not?

In the current version not.

Before the "other SAMs into the SIM" fewer, one development possibility was to stick with the S-75M3 Volhov only, and integrate the NASA digital elevation map (SRTM) into the program.
If it would happened, there would have been realistic ground clutter displayed, and SDC (MTI) would be realistically modeled.

Some good news...
... the next version of the SAM Simulator will be released before the end of this weekend.

163. ZRBR, Loburg, DDR

That's great to hear, I'm really looking forward to the Gammon.

I think adding clutter in would be interesting - hampering the really low angle shots a bit... I think I could wait for the Dvina to get that

I would be interested in Your opinion about the possible SAMSIM development paths...

1, Add ZSU-23-4V1 Shilka, with the 1986 El Dorado Canyon, and some War of Attrition scenarios.
2, Add SA-75MK Dvina with realistic Vietnam and War of Attrition scenarios.
3, Add the NASA Digital Elevation Model, to have realistic ground clutter.

Each of the above options would take around a year of development...

Add the terrain first. It's going to be useful for anything that you may ever do, after that. And while you're at it, include the DTED format.

Add the Shilka only if you want to branch also into the area of mobile air defense platforms. That might open a big can of worms. But hey, maybe we can also talk about creating a network connection to Steel Beasts so that the vehicle movement could be done there in a tactical context while the air defense operator would run your software to simulate the engagement of the aerial targets. There's probably a big can of worms hidden in that, somewhere, too. Still - contact me (my forum name here @eSimGames.com) if you're interested.

I think (3) is the best option. A Digital Elevation Model would be useful for all the plataforms and knowing that looks like the hardest option i think that it would be best do it first!
Then, add another vehicles/maps.

I also think that the Shilka should be developed just when you have the condition to implement a 3D environment on the sim... That's what i think..

Yup, 3,2,1 and ADA in SB sounds really interesting - and then I'd choose 3,1,2

Something i would preffer first than the development of the Shilka: Increase S-75M3 complexity + advanced manual.
That would made me very happy

Actually, first, as soon as the S-200 comes out (please don't say you found some last minute bug and so it'll be next week or something), write out the Advanced Manual - it is IMO quite un-nerving to have all those undefined clickable buttons. Then do 3 then 1. Don't worry too much about 2 (really, I'm sure that we can be given the small handicap of using an advanced SAM model)

Actually, first, as soon as the S-200 comes out (please don't say you found some last minute bug and so it'll be next week or something)...


I can promise, that there will be bugs incorporated, as in any software...

The code, and the English/Hungarian manual is ready, just waiting for the Russian manual...
... it will be released pretty soon.

Personally, I'd like to see the Gammon released, the S-75 advanced manual written, and then 3, 2, and finally 1. On another note, I think it'd be very cool to see this linked with SB Pro PE! If you haven't already, you should make that same offer to DCS, Ssnake.

As for any bugs with the Gammon, I'm sure they'll be short lived. I'm sure there's quite a few people eagerly waiting to beta test. ;D

SAM Simulator + DCS would be REALLY great! In fact, it would be epic. Maybe the first "ground - air" simulation with a big level of detail/realism.
But I think it is for a further stage in the development of SAM Simulator.

With virtual simulations that both render 3D environments it is a lot more challenging to do, actually. As long as you only have to coordinate the radar of the terrain profile with that of the virtual exterior, this is much, much easier. The user doesn't experience a discrepancy in the representation of the virtual environment, so you don't have to implement methods for terrain correlation other than the height profile, which is almost trivial (once that both simulations can access the same base data like DTED files). You then only need to exchange unit positions and handle the weapons effects; not entirely trivial, but certainly manageable.

Hey Hpasp,

I know the release is close but maybe you could publish manuals so we all could start studying? Would be extremely cool.

Cheers

Here it is...

http://www.filefront.com/17898706/Vega-ENG.pdf

Thank you!

Thanks a lot!

Thank You.

New version is nearly here (already announced on Hpasp page)! Thanks!

As for the Hpasp's question I am too for the NASA Digital Elevation Model to be done at first. So low flying targets would be much harder to shoot down.

New version of the SAM Simulator, including the S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B Gammon) system is available.

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

After much head scratching as to why the missiles lived up to their name and always missed, finally worked it out and got a B-52 down

Edit: Experimenting...

20:31, Missile exploded
Practice target 8K14 R-300 (SCUD-B) Tactical Ballistic Missile killed by SAM. (miss distance: 7m)

20:35, Missile exploded
Practice target 8K14 R-300 (SCUD-B) Tactical Ballistic Missile killed by SAM. (miss distance: 10m)

After the host finally gave me my normal D/L speed (as opposed to the 1 kbps I was getting at first >_>) I've installed it and read through the manual. Wow. This thing is more of a nightmare than the SA-2, and I think it'll be awhile before I'm able to use it very well.

So far I've found one typo, and have a feature request. On page 7 of SA-5B_Eng.pdf the title reads "S-200VE VEGA-E (SA-5B Ganef) Site Layout". Someone was thinking about the SA-4 while writing this. ;D

As for the feature request, would you make everything work backwards? By backwards I mean being able to close the switch covers after opening them, and fully powering the site down. I realize that what I'm asking would take time to do, and that's time that you could spend working on a new system, or implementing the NASA terrain height. But it really does annoy me that I can't fully reset the system back to the way it was before I turned it on.

With that said, away I go to shoot at more stuff.

*Edit*

Not sure if this is a bug or not. Either way I like it.

Practice target:
B-747

S-200VE Vega-E


39:37, Missile launched from launcher-1
Target distance: 190km
Target azimuth: 155°
Target elevation: 3°
Target angular speed: 203m/s (0.7 Mach)
Target altitude: 12.9km
RPC mode: MHI - Wide Beam
GSN mode: Acquire target before launch
Received signal strenght: 28.8dB


43:37, Missile exploded
Practice target B-747 killed by SAM. (miss distance: 4m)

Total, SNR On Air Time: 8min 2sec

Yes, that's the Hungry practice. Also, I just noticed another typo, "Received signal strenght:" strength is misspelled.

You were right, I do like the SA-5 more than the SA-4. And that's saying a lot, as I love my SA-4!

*Edit 2*

Three more questions.

What does this do? I know far left is LOAL, far right is normal, and the second from the right is HOJ, but nothing mentions this mode.


I can't find anything that even mentions this entire panel, does it function?


And finally, what are the other methods of engaging a jamming target?

So far I've found one typo, and have a feature request.

The typo is corrected, with some other minor issues.

What does this do? I know far left is LOAL, far right is normal, and the second from the right is HOJ, but nothing mentions this mode.

Its simulated, but not mentioned...

In this mode, the missile will acquire normal (non-jamming, incoming) target only after launch.

Sad joke, but that setting is used against airliners...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812_accident)


The reason for having this mode:

Most of the Vega sites were built into the middle of a forest (this one on the pictures are called "Klondike"), to hide its existence from spies.
While the RPC's were located on an elevated platform, and could see over the tree line, the missiles were at the ground.
So it could happen, that the RPC were tracking, but the missile was not see anything, as trees blocked its line of sight.
If you have this setting, the firing ring will illuminate, and you can fire at your will.

Even more questions.

1. What do these do?


2. What do 1 and 2 do? 3 goes along with another question, how to intercept the SR-71. More on that later.


3. What does 1 do?


Now then, as I'm sure you've guessed the little green things are supposed to be the SR-71. How do I acquire it? In picture 2 the contact appears on the left most scan area and I can't figure out how to move it to the center scan. And in picture 3 the contact appears on the bottom scan area and I can't figure out how to move it up to the middle area? I've tried adjusting everything I could find that might effect it, but I can't move it to the right scan section..

Here written "V poliote "- in flight.
Hpaps explained in more detail =)

Some pictures of the original C-200 in work:

I can't find anything that even mentions this entire panel, does it function?
And finally, what are the other methods of engaging a jamming target?

You got it.


With this switch you can select what type of jamming the enemy is using against your RPC, and counter it.
In the sim, currently only the wide band noise jamming is simulated, so the switch is locked against that.

Typos in menu:
- written "CCCP", but should be "USSR".
- Tallin must be with two "n".

Now then, as I'm sure you've guessed the little green things are supposed to be the SR-71. How do I acquire it? In picture 2 the contact appears on the left most scan area and I can't figure out how to move it to the center scan. And in picture 3 the contact appears on the bottom scan area and I can't figure out how to move it up to the middle area? I've tried adjusting everything I could find that might effect it, but I can't move it to the right scan section..

Just move the joystick left/right.

2. What do 1 and 2 do?

They are just for limiting the sector search size.

1. What do these do?

They, with the wheel on the right lower part of the "s" screen, and with the RU button on the "c" screen are not implemented, and against ARMs.

It is called RU-V tracking.
These will be implemented with the Libyan scenarios later.

3. What does 1 do?

You can turn off the Nonius mode with that.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea that there would be another return if I scrolled over, lol. So far I've tracked the SR-71 in the second finest mode. However, I can't get a lock in the finest mode due to the damn elevation not auto tracking. Right as I get it into the finest mode and start fighting to keep it in the center I loose the track and have to start over again, very frustrating. I'm starting to wish I could just cheat with the IADS, lol.

Once again great thanks for S-200.

But I have a question regarding 2K11 Krug - What is that weird double circle in the middle of the radar scope?

I think I found a bug. When I acquire a target the green light for the narrow radar mode illuminates even if the radar is off. It also illuminates if the switch is down, and the only way to extinguish it is to select the narrow mode, and then select the wide mode.


I don't recall ever seeing that on mine. It could be something that was changed in the new version? I'll go have a look at mine.

*Edit*
Just looked and no, mine shows nothing like that.

I saw that double circle with Krug already in previous version of SAM sim but very sparsely - may be three or four times up to this time. But only this time I did not forget to take a picture of it.

It can be read in the manual that Polish Mrzezyno site has three batteries. In fact it always have had two. The site indeed reflects three-battery structure but the third one was never deployed (I guess the reason was budgetary - late 80's was not the best period for purchasing new toys for anybody in Soviet bloc. Another issue was whether Poland really needed the site. I think the final purchase was a sort of compromise between Soviet demands and Polish funding capabilities... or will :)).

Anyway, check out the video at this site.
http://www.78prop.sp.mil.pl/index.htm

The curiosity is that there are several shots of operator positions of a unique Polish-modernized "digital Vega" S-200C. All three modelled in the sim (acquisition, tracking, and launch control) can be found. Despite total rearrangement I could find counterparts for almost every feature, except for one: little screen with fluctuating spot at 0:39 remains mystery.

Found another bug.

I was at the Asuluk test range trying to engage a SCUD. As the SCUD entered my firing range I pressed the launch button without pressing the safety first. The system then displayed the projected intercept point, at which time I realized my error and launched by pressing the safety and then the fire button. My first attempt at firing yielded a intercept point, but had no firing sound which made me think the computer simply displays an intercept when the launch button is pressed, regardless of an actual launch taking place. However, my AAR clearly shows two launches, while I only had one missile.

Also note that both missiles are fired from launcher 1. If you're wondering why I used the LOAL mode, I was pretending my battery was hidden in a forest. ;D



Finally, could you give me some advice on intercepting the SR-71 in the Operation Giant Reach scenario? I'm using the FRAG 511, Eckolstadt battery and I'm having no luck at all. I engage him when he's around 200-190 degrees, and closing. I engage with 1 LOBL, followed by 2 HOJ after setting the system for a jamming target.

My settings for engaging a jamming target are by the manual, except for adjusting the height as it seems IADS has already fed that information to my battery. Everything is set, the missiles show in range and ready to fire. However, no matter how many missiles I fire or how many times I attempt the scenario I always miss. I've even gone so far as to order all 6 missiles prepared, and 5 are fired in HOJ at a closing target.

*Edit*

I finally got that pesky SR-71! After honing my skills against a friendly Foxbat I felt confident in my ability to acquire and track high level, fast moving targets. The Americans wanted to find out about the capabilities of our new SAM system, I felt I should oblige.


Again, note the two missiles fired from the #2 launcher. After re-reading the manual, I decided to try firing the second missile without pushing the safety first. My reasoning was the manual stated that the orange light was the computer calculating the optimal salvo timing. So I thought maybe the time between the orange light extinguishing and the green light illuminating was a sort of grace period.

Also, upon re-reading the manual I see that having the two missiles loaded in the Hungry practice isn't a bug. The manual clearly states that SA-5 batteries keep two missiles loaded in peace time. I guess I didn't make the connection the first time.

I think I found a bug. When I acquire a target the green light for the narrow radar mode illuminates even if the radar is off. It also illuminates if the switch is down, and the only way to extinguish it is to select the narrow mode, and then select the wide mode.

That is not a bug, just a feature of the Vega system.

That light is only shows the transmitter position.
(It changes the shape of the beam, by moving the transmitter away from the focus point of the antenna)

It is a nice feature, that it automatically changes to Narrow Beam, when you lock on the target, just to increase the received signal strength. You could override it switching it up and down, but there is no point to do that.

It can be read in the manual that Polish Mrzezyno site has three batteries. In fact it always have had two. The site indeed reflects three-battery structure but the third one was never deployed (I guess the reason was budgetary - late 80's was not the best period for purchasing new toys for anybody in Soviet bloc. Another issue was whether Poland really needed the site. I think the final purchase was a sort of compromise between Soviet demands and Polish funding capabilities... or will :)).

The preparations of fielding a new equipment was started usually 5 years before.
The abrupt end of the Cold War cut several deployments in half.

In the GDR, one of the fully prepared Vega sites were never actually had any equipment.
In Hungary, all the preparations were done to receive two S-300 battery, FCO's were trained, sites were prepared, but actually we never bought it.
(If you click over the Batteries in the Sim around Budapest, you will see, that actually two numbers (11/5, and 11/6) are missing due to this reason.)

Would you consider making the switch default to the up position? Now that I think about it, it makes sense that the system would default to narrow. But I see no reason to have to move the switch twice to change the mode.

Would you consider making the switch default to the up position? Now that I think about it, it makes sense that the system would default to narrow. But I see no reason to have to move the switch twice to change the mode.

No, as its official startup position is down.
(During first startup, all the switches are at the position, where they should be according to the official books.)

If an earlier unnoticed target suddenly pops up closer than 200km, that it makes sense to have the default Wide position.
If the target is noticed over 200km, than you have time to switch it up into narrow.

Finally, could you give me some advice on intercepting the SR-71 in the Operation Giant Reach scenario? I'm using the FRAG 511, Eckolstadt battery and I'm having no luck at all. I engage him when he's around 200-190 degrees, and closing. I engage with 1 LOBL, followed by 2 HOJ after setting the system for a jamming target.

My settings for engaging a jamming target are by the manual, except for adjusting the height as it seems IADS has already fed that information to my battery. Everything is set, the missiles show in range and ready to fire. However, no matter how many missiles I fire or how many times I attempt the scenario I always miss. I've even gone so far as to order all 6 missiles prepared, and 5 are fired in HOJ at a closing target.


SPOILER ALERT - do not look at this (1985 - Operation Giant Reach)

http://img535.imageshack.us/i/habu.jpg/

I finally figured it out. A valuable lesson, and a dirty trick. ;D

Hi NaiseFail,

Would You consider changing the Name/and-or/the place of this topic?

Best Regards,
Hpasp

I'm not a moderator so I can't move or rename threads. You could always start a new thread in the General - Tactical Simulations sub forum. I'm sure everyone that comes here to check for news and updates would happily migrate to your new thread if you provide a link here.

One question, do you happen to have information about Fla-Raketenabteilungsgruppe 511 (FRAG-511)? I'm interested in attempting a new story based AAR, but I'm having a hard time finding good information for my characters back story. Of course, it doesn't help that most of what I do find in written in German, lol.

I'm also interested in what ranks would operate the systems. I'd also be interested in information regarding the educational process of SAM operators. What types of schools teach operators, etc. Also, do you know what insignia FRAG 511 used? Information on batteries that were in service ~25 years ago, retired ~20 years ago, and operated by a country that has since been absorbed into another country sure is a pain to find..

Hey, NaiseFail, I can help with translating your materials from German, or their initial review to determine whteher they are relevant.

Can you elaborate a bit more on that dirty trick?

One question, do you happen to have information about Fla-Raketenabteilungsgruppe 511 (FRAG-511)? I'm interested in attempting a new story based AAR, but I'm having a hard time finding good information for my characters back story.

This site is for you.
http://www.frr-51.de/

As I mentioned earlier, one site never received the equipment, and it was the FRAG511...

It was planned to be part of the:
1. Luftverteidigungsdivision, Cottbus
FRBr-51 Fla Raketen Brigade, Sprötau /Thüringen
FRAG-511 Fla-Raketen-Abteilungsgruppe-511, Eckolstädt

This SAM battery group were planned to be deployed on 12/01/1990, but it never happened. The missile system S-200 was transported by railway transport under the utmost secrecy in the GDR:

* Rockets: Lossa (GSSD station) - Transport to Sprötau in the TA
* Measurement and radio cabs station Kölleda - Transport to Sprötau
* Charging Machines: Station Porstendorf - Transport to Eckolstädt

Another part of the technology was supposedly by rail on Polish territory, but was called back because of "political unrest" in the GDR, the Soviet Union, since these were so-called "sensitive" technology.
According to other reports, the recall was only because the East had not yet paid the system. Whether that is true is questionable. ?

The existing technology: the end of 1990 was returned to the Soviet Union (part of the technique was on 2/10/1990 picked up by the GSSD in Eckolstädt, the other transferred to the 1075th FRR of the 79th Armored Division GSSD in the north of Weimar, source).

And about the real event...

http://www.fumema.de/fumema/funkmess/06a_jastreb-frame.htm

Great links! If anyone else is interested in the frr-51 site, don't view it in Google translate! Google doesn't show you the entire website, and you'll miss out on some of the awesome content.

Thanks for the awesome info!

So I opened a new topic here:
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3202301/SAM_Simulator.html

Very good simulation game

besher is wrong i guess u meant is bushehr

if u work with google earth u can see serveral sam system like hawk and other.......