homepage

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline)

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/22/12 05:39 PM

Repost:


Originally Posted By: piston79
Hi Hpaps,

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/22/12 05:55 PM

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

Nothing.

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

Shouldn't be over 4 degree.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/22/12 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Shouldn't be over 4 degree.


Yes, that's it, but in that case I can swear that on 923.0 (and maybe 932.1 and .2) it wasn't 4 degrees it was less... And I was so unpatient with your answer, because it was the essence of my "How to cook Habu for 10 minutes" cookbook. You swear you didn.t touch anything? confused
Also, I've noticed that when shooting against reflector on Ashuluk, on UPR or K mode, missile didn't jump to 4 degrees mark on the screens. I've tried with AS on epsilon and beta only, seems to me it doesn't have any diference. Even when put distance boresight far beyound the target it seems that missiles adjust their way to target path, no matter that target is not tracket on distance, and often didn't stick to 4 degrees mark (when the target is miving fast missiles goes to 4 degrees mark, there is something with speed). I've experimented on Hungary and Ashuluk, and that's what I've observed... Something is different... screwy
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/22/12 06:41 PM


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

75 degrees only against the ADA.

80 degrees and more than just Dogon!

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

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

Clearly too soon.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/25/12 06:46 PM

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

Nothing.

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

Shouldn't be over 4 degree.

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

923.3:
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/25/12 07:42 PM

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


923.3 seems to be the correct one.
The target is far away (over 75km), so in epsilon, the missiles has the maximum elevation for method K, and in beta maximum UPR.
cowboy
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/25/12 09:20 PM

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


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


Hmmm, and you said "No change in missile behaviour" - little sneaky developer... biggrin
Anyway, the + 4 degrees is depending from distance, what else have "Dvina"/"Volkhov" in mind, when determing the degrees of UPR. Speed?
If the target is not tracked in distance (which ussualy is not possible under jamming), thus moving of boresight closer or further has no effect.
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/25/12 10:55 PM


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

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

Need T / T?

It is not clear to me!

confused
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/04/12 09:33 AM


Question about Hpasp!

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

But while the Dvina on a Maximum of 110 km.

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


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/05/12 11:22 AM

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


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

You can move to the Dvina range bore-sight to 110km maximum.
The impulses sent out using two period (110km, and 120km), and displayed only till 110km.
The range between 110km and 120km is simply not displayed.
thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/05/12 05:51 PM

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

Nothing.

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

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

923.3:


Originally Posted By: Hpasp

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


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

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


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


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

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/05/12 07:04 PM

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


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

If this "HLP" is less than 4 degree from the bore-sight, the missile will fly towards it.
If this "HLP" is more than 4 degree from the bore-sight, the missile will at the 4 degree limit.
thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/05/12 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

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

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

I understand, but what input data is needed to be known from the APP to know where is that point and where to guide the missile ( 4 or less degree)? I can't find anything in what I have.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/06/12 06:18 PM

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

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




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



Miss distance was sometimes less than 55 metters!

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

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

923.3:


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

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

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

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/06/12 07:58 PM

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

Here are my thoughts about Dvina vs Habu...

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

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

... but it is also slower a bit.

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

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

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

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

cowboy
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/06/12 08:17 PM

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


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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/07/12 06:14 PM

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


Thank You!
This is why we keep developing this SIM, to give You a sneak-peek into this (long ago) secret world.
cowboy
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/13/12 08:12 PM

This is what I meant:
Previouse version:


Current version:


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

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

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

S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/18/12 12:56 AM

Since I goofed and deleted the original thread, let's discuss S-75M3 topics here.
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/18/12 08:50 PM

please guys cuss did u think with yourself??? until when we have to talk about analog system! nope
we can show our skill's about control better system! popcorn it not soon for us. we can if we have bump
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/19/12 09:20 AM

Originally Posted By: milang
please guys cuss did u think with yourself??? until when we have to talk about analog system! nope
we can show our skill's about control better system! popcorn it not soon for us. we can if we have bump


First - this should be in "Future plans" topic...
Second - SA-6 is analog too... And what skill you will "show", when using a robot, which decides alone what and when to kill... And your "skills" is just to switch on and switch it off... Great skills...
screwy blahblahblah
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/19/12 09:48 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: milang
please guys cuss did u think with yourself??? until when we have to talk about analog system! nope
we can show our skill's about control better system! popcorn it not soon for us. we can if we have bump


First - this should be in "Future plans" topic...
Second - SA-6 is analog too... And what skill you will "show", when using a robot, which decides alone what and when to kill... And your "skills" is just to switch on and switch it off... Great skills...
screwy blahblahblah

first - i realy tnQ dear piston! congratulation yep u open S*HI*I*T bottle on my head abducted

second - nothing!
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/20/12 04:36 PM

By Milang's request:
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/20/12 04:38 PM

very beautyfull picture thumbsup is'nt? popcorn
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/07/12 08:13 PM

What happened when push "Vozvrat" and we have a V-760 missile in the air?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/07/12 08:27 PM

http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/elab_rakiet.html

http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/002437/2437876.jpg
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/002437/2437878.jpg
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/09/12 05:43 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
What happened when push "Vozvrat" and we have a V-760 missile in the air?


K1/2 commands are no longer emitted, and the missile fells.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/09/12 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
K1/2 commands are no longer emitted, and the missile fells.


With this it's nuke intac screwyt?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/09/12 08:05 PM

Here V-760


Quote:
... The G-force of the launch initiated the clock for self destruction mechanizm.When the O component acheved 20 atm before the missile motor it removes first lock.
Also when inertional g-force starts to decrease (exhausted fuel), the self-destruction timer also starts.
On the 10-th second of the missile flight PMK-60 (53 & 53a)starts and powered up with +26V in the warhead and prepared it to detonation. When missile reached ~2 km altitude, barometric sensor activates the self-destruction mechanizm in case of height loss.

On 6-8,5 km altitude another barometric sensor deactivates the second lock of the warhead.

On 20-th second after starting, PMK-60 (53 & 53a), warhead is powered up and ready for detonation.

K4 removes third lock.
K3 detonates the warhead.

If there is a miss, on the 81+/-6 second the timer activates "passive timer self-destruction" of the missile.
If there is a miss and altitude drops under 2 km, barometric sensor activates "passive height self-destruction"...





Some elements from V-755:


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/12/12 08:50 AM

eek skullhead eek

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15095714-fuel-dumped-from-expired-missiles-in-libya

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/12/12 11:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
eek skullhead eek


This should be the "SAMIN", right? Those missiles are really tough - I knew that they shouldn't stay long time with fuel and oxidizer, they should be emptied and washed inside, because of the high corrosive fuel... And this one is even bombed... screwy
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/12/12 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
eek skullhead eek


This should be the "SAMIN", right? Those missiles are really tough - I knew that they shouldn't stay long time with fuel and oxidizer, they should be emptied and washed inside, because of the high corrosive fuel... And this one is even bombed... screwy


My bet was ...

AK-20K “Melanj” oxidizer (“O” substance)
Composition: Nitric Tetroxide in solution with Nitric Acid, with Phosphoric and Fluoric acid inhibitors.
20±2,5% N2O4, 73,4% HNO3, 1-1,25% H3PO4, 0,5% HF, 2±0,8% H2O
Orange-brown, evaporating liquid. Self ignites combustibles. Highly corrosive, only few materials can withstand its effect: chromium steel, pure aluminum, glass, and for a short period, some rubber mixes.
Posted By: Architrav

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/13/12 09:34 AM

Most definitely. See the orange-brown fumes? They are all sorts of nitrogen oxides which do a jolly good job of oxidizing lungs when inhaled. And apparently there have been several nasty accidents since it is necessary to empty and refuel rockets at regular intervals.
At least they don't do much of environmental damage once they are done oxidizing.

Nitric tetroxide is the best reason for solid fuel rockets.

Edit: Having fluoric acid listed as "inhibitor" should be a sure sign to STAY AWAY from this.
Posted By: montieris

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/13/12 05:13 PM

Stay away for sure, except if you have to work with it (like fueling V-880 with it).
Person who served on S-200 (K3V kabin) told me about case in of improperly equipped NBC suit which resulted in minor oxidizer inhalation. After hour person was dead. Mainly because of this missile fueling crew had a nickname "smertniki"("marked to death").
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/20/12 09:31 AM

A question just occurred to me about the SA-2.

How does the system track the missile it's launched when the system's radar isn't transmitting? Especially knowing the missile's range?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/20/12 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore

How does the system track the missile it's launched when the system's radar isn't transmitting? Especially knowing the missile's range?


Please, check the manual for SA-2 from Vintorez... Also discussed in the old topic (using "Search" option is a good idea too..) thumbsup
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/21/12 08:27 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Mdore

How does the system track the missile it's launched when the system's radar isn't transmitting? Especially knowing the missile's range?


Please, check the manual for SA-2 from Vintorez... Also discussed in the old topic (using "Search" option is a good idea too..) thumbsup


I read the manual AGAIN. And I didn't find an answer AGAIN

I searched the forum AGAIN. And I didn't find an answer AGAIN.

Since you seem to know the answer, could you please just tell me or at least give me a link to the right place?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/21/12 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore

How does the system track the missile it's launched when the system's radar isn't transmitting? Especially knowing the missile's range?


In angles, the wide beam antennas are continuously receiving the missile beacon.
(you can check it on the "A" panel, with the Target/Missile switch)

In range, the system uses a time/range mathematical function to approximate missile range.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/21/12 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
I read the manual AGAIN. And I didn't find an answer AGAIN


It was in the manual from Vintorez:
Quote:
Missile channel jamming story:
Such jamming did have effect versus early Dvina V-750VK missiles in Vietnam. Between December 1967 and February 1968, literally hundreds of Vietnamese missiles went out of control right after launch. SNRs were unable to locate their missiles as their relatively weak transponder (transmitters of back-facing reply signal from the missile towards SNR which made them visible) signal was suppressed by very effective USAF’s QRC-160-8 jamming pods. Soviets reacted quickly after an example QRC-160-8 was salvaged from a downed F-105 in February 1968 - solution was to double the missile marker number of pieces, and increase its output with the introduction of the V-750VM/VMK missile type. Since then, missile channel jamming was ineffective.
Interestingly, the US TAC HQ learned this, and the Weasels/F-4's were not jamming this channel for several years. However, this info was lost in the USAF organization, so SAC HQ had no knowledge of it. As late as during Linebacker II in 1972, all B52s were still instructed to jam the missile downlink signal channel, using up - for no effect – their valuable jammers which could otherwise had been tuned to deal with SNR target tracking.


I've searched back the forum, but didn't find where was discussed, so sorry being stubborn...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 12/25/12 10:51 AM




Here on polish:
http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/elab_rakiet.html

Here some memories about using the nuke-tipped missiles:
http://www.kap-yar.ru/index.php?pg=443

Quote:
Operation "SAM-215"
As noted, during the second half of the 50's, in connection with the development of air defense with nuclear warheads are interested for the nuclear explosion at an altitude of alleged use of missiles of these complexes (10 km &#8804; N &#8804; 40 km).
First in a series of explosions had a blast, conducted "Operation SAM-215."
It was produced on 1/19/57 at noon on rocket range MO Kapustin Yar.
Was selected for the explosion charge with energy 10 kt successfully tested earlier.
The charge was set to anti-aircraft guided missile SAM-215, on behalf of which the operation is called. Automatic docking was done to undermine the charge and missile control systems, as well as a series of pre-launch of a missile with the models of the charge.
The point of impact was a transponder beacon, thrown off before putting on a parachute airplane security.
Undermining the nuclear missiles was planned to make a charge at a time when the transponder beacon parachuted into a height of 10.4 km. To obtain direct information on the effectiveness of the harmful effect of a nuclear explosion in the area of &#8203;&#8203;the aiming point before the start of combat missiles aimed two radio-controlled target aircraft in such a way that at the time of the explosion, they were away at a distance of about 500 m and 1000 m as aircraft targets were equipped with radio control system and means of recording combat aircraft IL-28.
For registration of parameters affecting the effects of nuclear explosions at close range was created so-called TARGET 16 special conditions of cylindrical containers, equipped with measuring devices. Containers were dropped by parachute advance support aircraft so that the explosion of which 12 were at approximately the height of the explosion at various distances. The remaining 4 konteynepa housed at other altitudes.
The containers were installed devices that record the pressure in the passing shock wave (pressure recorders), penetrating radiation (gamma-ray detectors and neutron flux), the pulse light (calorimetry).
The actual position of containers at the time of the explosion of the nuclear charge and the position of the point of explosion was determined by the results of a ground-based photography in several ways, namely by direct resection. Aerial cameras used for photography. There was also a set of ground stations deployed to measure the shock wave light (spectrum, integrated fluxes, timing), and penetrating radiation. Near ground zero and several other points were constructed of wooden models of buildings.
To measure the power of the explosion using the same set of procedures as for conventional air explosions. Overall, the experience was a success: its main tasks to execute.
Energy charge in the experiment was 10 kilotons. Height of the explosion point, determined by a straight serifs, to 10.37 km.
"Target" of the situation in the most appropriate to a calculation: both aircraft "IL-28" and most of the containers at the time of the explosion were at given points to 0.1 km, and only the first row of containers was located twice as far from the point of explosion than planned. This situation prevented the measurement of effects of explosion, where they would be the most powerful.

The explosion of both aircraft were shot down by the target: one of them, who walked away from the center of the explosion, burst into flames, the second, who was walking towards virtually shock wave broke off the wing.Measuring equipment on each of the planes worked fine, and the results of measurements by telemetry failed to transmit to the ground. These results are further used to determine the criteria and the affected areas of aircraft in nuclear explosions.
Ground-based observatories is not a single case of a significant effect of an explosion on the wooden structures and glazing.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 12/27/12 12:21 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Click to reveal..



Here on polish:
http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/elab_rakiet.html

Here some memories about using the nuke-tipped missiles:
http://www.kap-yar.ru/index.php?pg=443

Quote:
Operation "SAM-215"
As noted, during the second half of the 50's, in connection with the development of air defense with nuclear warheads are interested for the nuclear explosion at an altitude of alleged use of missiles of these complexes (10 km &#8804; N &#8804; 40 km).
First in a series of explosions had a blast, conducted "Operation SAM-215."
It was produced on 1/19/57 at noon on rocket range MO Kapustin Yar.
Was selected for the explosion charge with energy 10 kt successfully tested earlier.
The charge was set to anti-aircraft guided missile SAM-215, on behalf of which the operation is called. Automatic docking was done to undermine the charge and missile control systems, as well as a series of pre-launch of a missile with the models of the charge.
The point of impact was a transponder beacon, thrown off before putting on a parachute airplane security.
Undermining the nuclear missiles was planned to make a charge at a time when the transponder beacon parachuted into a height of 10.4 km. To obtain direct information on the effectiveness of the harmful effect of a nuclear explosion in the area of &#8203;&#8203;the aiming point before the start of combat missiles aimed two radio-controlled target aircraft in such a way that at the time of the explosion, they were away at a distance of about 500 m and 1000 m as aircraft targets were equipped with radio control system and means of recording combat aircraft IL-28.
For registration of parameters affecting the effects of nuclear explosions at close range was created so-called TARGET 16 special conditions of cylindrical containers, equipped with measuring devices. Containers were dropped by parachute advance support aircraft so that the explosion of which 12 were at approximately the height of the explosion at various distances. The remaining 4 konteynepa housed at other altitudes.
The containers were installed devices that record the pressure in the passing shock wave (pressure recorders), penetrating radiation (gamma-ray detectors and neutron flux), the pulse light (calorimetry).
The actual position of containers at the time of the explosion of the nuclear charge and the position of the point of explosion was determined by the results of a ground-based photography in several ways, namely by direct resection. Aerial cameras used for photography. There was also a set of ground stations deployed to measure the shock wave light (spectrum, integrated fluxes, timing), and penetrating radiation. Near ground zero and several other points were constructed of wooden models of buildings.
To measure the power of the explosion using the same set of procedures as for conventional air explosions. Overall, the experience was a success: its main tasks to execute.
Energy charge in the experiment was 10 kilotons. Height of the explosion point, determined by a straight serifs, to 10.37 km.
"Target" of the situation in the most appropriate to a calculation: both aircraft "IL-28" and most of the containers at the time of the explosion were at given points to 0.1 km, and only the first row of containers was located twice as far from the point of explosion than planned. This situation prevented the measurement of effects of explosion, where they would be the most powerful.

The explosion of both aircraft were shot down by the target: one of them, who walked away from the center of the explosion, burst into flames, the second, who was walking towards virtually shock wave broke off the wing.Measuring equipment on each of the planes worked fine, and the results of measurements by telemetry failed to transmit to the ground. These results are further used to determine the criteria and the affected areas of aircraft in nuclear explosions.
Ground-based observatories is not a single case of a significant effect of an explosion on the wooden structures and glazing.


Tough one.
Thanks for the find and translation.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/21/13 08:44 PM

A remark about S-75M3...

The "Podgotovka" switch (3-6-n missiles) shouldn't lit off when missiles are overheating. The switch only alerts the missile preparation officer for how many of them should be wormed-up and it is his choice which of them he must turn on preparation mode...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/25/13 08:42 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
A remark about S-75M3...

The "Podgotovka" switch (3-6-n missiles) shouldn't lit off when missiles are overheating. The switch only alerts the missile preparation officer for how many of them should be wormed-up and it is his choice which of them he must turn on preparation mode...



Correct, it is just a shortcut in the simulator, as we do not have the OP instrument implemented.
I consider adding one other officer's job would make the SAMSim user hopelessly overload.


Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/27/13 05:14 PM

Hi guys... I need some reliable info about when China starts to build their own SA-2 (HQ-2?)?
Posted By: Lonewolf357

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/28/13 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Hi guys... I need some reliable info about when China starts to build their own SA-2 (HQ-2?)?


That's what Jane's says:

"The China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) Hongqi-2 (HQ-2, Red Flag-2) was the
result of a redesign of the HQ-1 system. The basic HQ-1 system was purchased from the then Soviet Union in the late
1950s, and was known as the System-75 Dvina.
On arrival in Chinathe system was renamed HQ-1. Shortly after arrival of the system and system components, China
and the USSR diplomatically fell out. Chinawas therefore forced to reproduce spare parts for its operational systems.
Furthermore, copying and reverse engineering resulted in a modified HQ-1 incorporating anti-jamming techniques this
system became known as the HQ-2.
In April 1965, co-ordination of the system development was assigned to the No 2 RA of the 7th Ministry of Machine
Building. An accelerated development programme then followed which resulted in the weapon passing its type
certification by the end of 1966. In July 1967, the complete system received its design certificate approval for
production. It was then used operationally to shoot down a Lockheed U-2 in September 1967.
The HQ-2 saw combat service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force in the late 1960s against Taiwanese-flown
U-2s; the missiles claimed five U-2s, one in each of the years 1967, 1968 and 1970 and two in 1969."
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/28/13 06:51 PM

Thanks Lonewolf!!!

I was wondering why China didn't supply NVA with those...?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/29/13 04:53 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Thanks Lonewolf!!!

I was wondering why China didn't supply NVA with those...?


China received SA-75 Dvina “five van” (SA-2A) with V-750 1D (Guideline mod.0)
in 1958-3+1*, and 1959-2 pieces (* means training system) only.

The Chinese 1D missile had severe limitations compared to the 11D supplied to Vietnam by the Soviets.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/29/13 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

China received SA-75 Dvina “five van” (SA-2A) with V-750 1D (Guideline mod.0)
in 1958-3+1*, and 1959-2 pieces (* means training system) only.
The Chinese 1D missile had severe limitations compared to the 11D supplied to Vietnam by the Soviets.


From 1958 to 1973 is a quite long time.... rolleyes
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/29/13 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

China received SA-75 Dvina “five van” (SA-2A) with V-750 1D (Guideline mod.0)
in 1958-3+1*, and 1959-2 pieces (* means training system) only.
The Chinese 1D missile had severe limitations compared to the 11D supplied to Vietnam by the Soviets.


From 1958 to 1973 is a quite long time.... rolleyes


I know SAM systems that was developed by technically advanced nations on the same time-frame...

The US MIM-46 Mauler was developed between 1956-1965, used up 200 million US, and failed.


In 1960, the third PVO-SV SAM system development "Ellipse" started (after the KRUG - circle, KUB - square).


It took more than 11 years for the Soviet Union, to create a real system from this plan...
Posted By: piston79

China developed? - 01/29/13 07:14 PM

You believe that chinese didn't evolve stepping on the already developed system? rolleyes
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: China developed? - 01/31/13 08:07 AM

Ukrainian upgrade S-75M3A

Click here
Posted By: farokh

Re: China developed? - 04/09/13 05:42 PM

here is the question

i cant fire on 90 degrres on samsim with sa-2 !
this video is really for sa-2 ?
Posted By: Mdore

Re: China developed? - 04/10/13 04:18 AM

The camera is behind the missile, not to the side. It makes the angle look steeper than it really is.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/11/13 11:08 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: milo11
Yes, indeed the "flashing car index" stuff after launch is something that appears in the s-75 advanced manual. If you look at the aar, you´ll notice that i launch with snr turned off. I´ll activate it during the missile´s last seconds of flight. This aproach of course has its disadvantages, you can read about them in the manual. This is imo, the main advantage that the s-75 has over the s-125, being able to launch with having snr on (i dont know much about neva, maybe you can do that with it aswell).


I am a bit confused about this tactic and particulary the ANT/EKV switch.... As on "EKV" mode the transmitter is sending the energy not true antena, but to a "absorbing device", thus allows "going in air" to be achieved in just seconds (which is the mainstay in this tactic). Otherwise, switching "Peredatchik" ON is a proccess which takes a bit longer, especially for the first time (because electric lamps are taking some time to warm-up), and that\s why I am confused, as ANT/EKV seems better accomodated to such actions. In other way ANT/EKV is cutting the receiver (in Sam Simulator), which is not logical to me...(I believe it should cut only the transmition, not receiver)... Also, when going to EKV, the missile is lost immideatly (still in some modes RPK is transmitting, so no reason for selfdestruction... Of course, this is strictly my opinion (I am not a profecional), and it is about SA-2...

Originally Posted By: milo11

I think that a thread about SAM tactics would be great, what do you guys think?


It was discussed before, but as all we are non-military, it would be though one...

P.S. I believe this post could be moved to a relevant topic if found neccesary....


The ANT/EKV switch is routing all microwave energy (inbound and outbound) to the EKV antenna (mounted above the cabin doors) instead of the P11V/P12V wide-beam antenna.
As you always receive your missile (beacon) positions by the P11V/P12V antennas, switching EKV means loosing all missiles in flight.

Switching high voltage off, means no transmission, but the missile beacon signals still received on the P11V/P12V.
Other disadvantage of switching high voltage too often, is that the PV technician will eventually kill you.
(the high voltage switches will burn in, and their swap was a hellish work)

biggrin

At the Neva, it is more straight forward...
... during target tracking the UV10 antenna is illuminating the target, and the UV11 pair (F1/F2) is receiving both missile and target signals.
You always receive you missile (beacon) positions by the UV11 antenna pair.
If you go back to target acquisition, than only the UV10 is used for transmit and receive, so missiles in flight are lost, as UV11 is switched off.



Posted By: milo11

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/11/13 12:30 PM

Lol. pls can u add on next SAMSIM version the following sentence for AARs, after extensive High voltage switch abuse?

Sam Operator knocked out by PV technician.

How much switching is considered "too often"?. Using the "flashing" tactic, you only have to switch it number of planes engaged + 1 times adn with some spacing between switching.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/11/13 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: milo11
Lol. pls can u add on next SAMSIM version the following sentence for AARs, after extensive High voltage switch abuse?

Sam Operator knocked out by PV technician.

How much switching is considered "too often"?. Using the "flashing" tactic, you only have to switch it number of planes engaged + 1 times adn with some spacing between switching.


In peacetime, it was the reality...
... in wartime, the situation changed dramatically.

You, the Fire Control Officer, sitting in the relative safety of the UV cabin (2) had to shout "JUMP" to the PV technician sitting inside of the PV cabin (7), in case you expected a HARM hit...
grunt


Posted By: milo11

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/30/13 12:04 PM

Does any of you have more info about this incident?

"The Su-27 has seen limited action since it first entered service. These aircraft were used by the Russian Air Force during the 1992–1993 war in Abkhazia against Georgian forces. One fighter was reported shot down by an S-75 Dvina on 19 March 1993."

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-27_Flanker
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/01/13 06:33 AM

Originally Posted By: milo11

"The Su-27 has seen limited action since it first entered service. These aircraft were used by the Russian Air Force during the 1992–1993 war in Abkhazia against Georgian forces. One fighter was reported shot down by an S-75 Dvina on 19 March 1993."


All I could find was that this is not 100% SA-2 work, but maybe a IR missile. SU-27 was intercepting a pair of SU-25, last report from the pilot is that he cannot find the target and start gaining altitude (last reported one - 800 meters).

Su-27 was shot down near Suhumi(about 8 km from it - vilage Odishi/Shroma?). If we found some info about SA-2 positions in this area, we could found is it true or not... Also, pictures from the wreckage...

And "Dvina" was out of service at this time, should be "Volkhov"
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/06/13 10:54 AM

OFFTOPIC:

Originally Posted By: milo11

"The Su-27 has seen limited action since it first entered service. These aircraft were used by the Russian Air Force during the 1992–1993 war in Abkhazia against Georgian forces. One fighter was reported shot down by an S-75 Dvina on 19 March 1993."


pictures from the wreckage...:



It became highly unlikely this one to be a victim of SA-2 (E/F)..

1. No reports from the pilot for any illuminations from SNR...
2. In georgian forum found info that at this moment no SA-2 where available (all withdrawn by russians), also no case of using it against other targets...

Anyway, the wreckage was found at this area: ( 43.076999°/ 41.019375°)

The highest ground is at ~570 meters, while the pilot reports 800 meters and gaining altitude... If he didn't mistaken the altitude, he could be shot down by IR- missile.
Posted By: milo11

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/06/13 05:03 PM

Thx a lot for the info , piston79 thumbsup
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/20/13 04:33 PM

you know guys !
this one , is my one of thousands dreams
biggrin
i hope that one day , i see huge missile explosion of sa-2 warhead at this TV on samsim explode



Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/20/13 04:36 PM

I agree 100%

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

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

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

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/30/13 01:36 PM

Some nice videos...

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

(link corrected, thnx piston)
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/30/13 06:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


... In this section: Galeria filmów
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/06/13 10:59 AM


Piston79 generally well done.

Piston79 and Hpasp are both very good.

Always give a lot of different Information Video know probably know each other well.
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/09/13 11:41 AM

two brother
beercheers

Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/13 10:05 AM

question to hpasp and other guys

why GshV method in volhov do not simulated?
confused

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/13 11:01 AM

From the advanced manual

Quote:

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


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

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

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/13 11:42 AM

mdore... could u tell me what kind of jammer simulated and what kind of jammer not simulated ?
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/13 12:19 PM

I should warn you, I'm no expert. What I say could be wrong.

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

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

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

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

Modulated noise jamming isn't simulated.

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

-----

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/13 01:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore

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


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

ps: tnQ to Mdore for these explain thumbsup
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/13 01:25 PM

More types of jamming would be interesting, along with decoys and chaff.

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

It's too easy to hit targets in SAM Simulator.
Posted By: JWNoctis

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/13 03:33 PM

Wild Weasels already dodge missiles with noise jamming and vertical maneuver over Hanoi, but yeah, those are not our targets.

And yeah, to see aircrafts trying to counter missiles with more drastic maneuvers would indeed be nice...and most likely difficult to program as well.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/21/13 01:44 PM

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/22/13 02:56 PM

How does the SA-2E actually track a target? And how does it track the missiles it's guiding?

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

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

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

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

Does anyone know what tracking algorithm the SA-2E uses?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/22/13 04:45 PM

How did you found those numbers?
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/13 07:26 AM

I didn't find those numbers, I calculated them.

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

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

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

5 pulses per degree means one pulse is 0.2 degrees.

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

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/13 09:09 AM

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

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

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

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/13 09:49 AM

I'm not an expert in electronics, physics, radar or anything like that.

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

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

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

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

SAM Simulator seems much too accurate.
Posted By: JWNoctis

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/13 10:49 AM

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

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

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/13 05:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
I'm not an expert in electronics, physics, radar or anything like that.

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

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

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

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

SAM Simulator seems much too accurate.


Disagree.
nope

There is a manual describing the guidance accuracy of the Volhov.
Its more than 70 pages, so I would not copy it here.
The maximum error in the guidance system at 56km is less than 20m.
(Its on the history.pvo site)

Do not think digitally.
The target is measured by several successive beams.
(thus is why the same target is visible on several beams)

During live firing exercises against maneuvering supersonic drones, always only one missile was launched by one battery (and usually killed the target).

SAMSIM is realistic in that sense...
... its unrealistic that allows YOU to use Volhov against Powers and Vietnamese targets.

Exactly this is the reason why I hate "Allow non historic scenario" (unrealistic) mode of the SAMSIM.
(just imagine the same situations with Vega)

Maybe I will have to remove it from the next version onwards*...
banghead


*just a joke
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/13 06:21 PM

Could you say the name of the file, maybe I'll manage to translate some about angle measurement?


Quote:
Exactly this is the reason why I hate "Allow non historic scenario" (unrealistic) mode of the SAMSIM.
(just imagine the same situations with Vega)

Maybe I will have to remove it from the next version onwards...


Only over my dead body!.....

I am not going to explain widely why you should keep this option, just the main reasons:

1. Some of the systems where available at this period of time, just not delivered to the frontline ("Volknov" and "Neva" at Vietnam, "Dvina" at Serbia)

2. A total lack of scenarios at all...

3. Comparing system performance at identical/same situations (like monopulse "Ganef" in Egypt/Serbia/Vietnam)....


If this option will be removed, I'll reconsider my future participation in this community (discouraged already by some tweaks in Sam Sim future development, which I am accepting as deviations from the "Realistic to the switch" line, IMO)....



P.S. Here how the angle error was calculated (comparing the areas from the target return divided by the strobe):


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/13 07:11 PM

Thanks for this picture, it nicely shows how it works.

Also problem that we has the latest version of Dvina simulated, not the one that was used in Vietnam.
During every 5 years, new technical bulletins introduced new features.

As our is the last version, it already modified to counter the system weaknesses observed in Vietnam.
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/13 06:35 AM

Thank you, that was the information I was looking for! This is a great forum, so many very knowledgeable people!

So, the reasons I can kill the U-2 with one missile is because we're using SA-2F and not SA-2A?

The reason I can kill 13 bombers over Vietnam in one mission, is because they're using only noise jamming and not modulated noise jamming. And no chaff?

The reason I can get so many kills in other missions, is because they don't try to avoid missiles?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/13 08:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
Thank you, that was the information I was looking for! This is a great forum, so many very knowledgeable people!

So, the reasons I can kill the U-2 with one missile is because we're using SA-2F and not SA-2A?

The reason I can kill 13 bombers over Vietnam in one mission, is because they're using only noise jamming and not modulated noise jamming. And no chaff?

The reason I can get so many kills in other missions, is because they don't try to avoid missiles?


- On the earlier systems, there were no APP (had to use paper charts), only had 1 missile guidance method selector (all three missiles used the same method), no K guidance method, long missile preparation time, no possibility to shoot low flying targets at all.

- Till the middle of 60's there were no attached P12/18 radars, just the plotting board.

- You has the possibility to replay the situations in a pleasant time, without life dangering threat.
(Select one SAM battery around Hanoi, stick to it, and try to play all scenarios sequentially, each night at 2am only one, and see if your battery would survive...)
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/13 08:54 AM

Quote:
(Select one SAM battery around Hanoi, stick to it, and try to play all scenarios sequentially, each night at 2am only one, and see if your battery would survive...)


Okay smile
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/13 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Exactly this is the reason why I hate "Allow non historic scenario" (unrealistic) mode of the SAMSIM.
(just imagine the same situations with Vega)

Maybe I will have to remove it from the next version onwards*...
banghead

*just a joke


im sure that this sentence was a joke !
one deadly joke for samsim users !
if one days hpasp decide to remove this object from samsim
we cant compare between our systems in one scenario !
so that is my reason for non historical scenario should be ON
for example we can compare between sa-2 and sa-4 performance at hanoi night 8 !
non-historical scenario allowed to users for comparing between the systems in one scenario


popcorn


but i am in shock till now that why you do not put sa-5 in non-historical scenarios ?
what is your logical reason !
if this happend done ... we will have deadly hobby for next 6 months in samsim

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/13 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: JWNoctis
SA-75M was still not the system that engaged Gary Powers' U-2, and a lot of the missiles were supposedly directed at the interceptor in mistake. Readiness problems were also cited.


Click to reveal..





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://translate.google.bg/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=bg&ie=UTF-8&u=http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8865
Posted By: Vadifon

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/22/13 12:09 PM

Taken from Manual Supplement by Vintorez:-
Rab-ot-VM is of some use when shooting at low-altitude jamming targets. A “chaff corridor”, which detonates your missiles before the target, is conceivable only for high-altitude targets. In such case, do not forget to switch radio fuse 100-m sensitivity on.

Video shows imitation shooting at the low-altitude jamming target [USU NLC + RAB OT VM + TT]. (Ideal conditions)
No hits, if the fuse in the switch "USU NLC"/"ZAGRUB RV"
The average miss distance -40m.
I'm doing something wrong?



PS
While I use "USU ZAGRUB RV" instead of "USU NLC" - it works, but is it right?
[example:- asuluk; target RM-217 Zvezda [program-1] simulating jamming Tornado, h=100m. - average miss distance: 40-80m. "killed by SAM"]
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/22/13 06:27 PM

Hm.... It is disturbing that USU-NLC shots detonates on range boresight... Could you move/copy your post in "bug" topic?
Posted By: Vadifon

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/22/13 11:03 PM

ok
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/29/13 06:38 PM

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/09/13 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Vadifon
...remained unconvinced smile

Click to reveal..


I guess, they had it in mind at least in the begining....
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 12/02/13 01:39 PM

Interesting Vietnamese forum, mainly with S-75 stuff....

HERE
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/06/14 08:45 PM

End of Volhov in Poland...

http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/eksport_pzr.html#table5
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/07/14 08:33 AM

Not so positive pictures nope
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/15/14 11:52 AM

Not sure it is for this topic, but didn't find a better one:

Click to reveal..
October 27, 1962 S- 75 shot down a U- 2 over Cuba


In 1962, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis 27 October was recorded eight violations of Cuban airspace by American planes . Division Major IM Gerchenova missile launch S- 75 "Desna" knocked down at an altitude of 21,000 m spy plane U.S. Air Force U- 2 . Head developer of the complex - KB- 1 (now of " GSKB " Almaz-Antey ").




More about the event from the archives of "Vestnik PVO " :
A KENNEDY suspects KHRUSHCHOV ...
Who ordered to shoot down U.S. spy plane over Cuba ?

Major USAF Rudolph Anderson , raising the morning of October 27 , 1962 in high-altitude air reconnaissance " Lockheed " U- 2 , did not know that it was his last flight , in fact - this is the last day of his life . At 8:00 local time, he crossed the border of the Cuban Air Force , and after 1 hour and 20 minutes body manned aircraft shook them a heavy blow . Anderson is the second blow did not feel ... Falling , U- 2 fell to pieces .

Dozens of versions over the past 38 years, expressed about the drama . The most common - spy plane shot down by Cuban anti-aircraft gunners . President John F. Kennedy was convinced that the plane shot down on the orders of Nikita Khrushchev . But this is not true .

International assistance

In June 1961, Moscow agreed to provide military assistance to the government of Fidel Castro , the goal - to prevent the U.S. invasion of Cuba . General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR developed an operation for the transfer of military units and medium-range missiles R-12 and R-14 on the revolutionary island. Commander of the Group of Soviet Forces in Cuba was appointed Gen. Issa Pliev . Among other things, went and 6 anti-aircraft missile and artillery regiments , summarized in two divisions .

Americans could not know that the Soviet antiaircraft calculations arrived on the island . Their planes invaded Cuban airspace , sometimes they reached SAM positions that are " silent ."

However, by October 25-26, setting difficult.

Of cryptogram from Havana to Moscow : "Since October 23 , more frequent incursions of American planes in Cuban airspace and flights over the island at various altitudes , including at altitudes of 150-200 meters. Only for 26 October were more than eleven such flights .

Cuban friends think inevitably invasion and bombing of military targets . 26.H.62 Resident of the State Security Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR . "

American pilots requested their command posts on the start bombing plaintext . Then Fidel Castro ordered his armed forces to shoot down without warning all enemy warplanes appearing over Cuba . Notify the General Pliev was raised . Late in the evening of 26 October, he made &#8203;&#8203;a decision in the case of strikes by U.S. aircraft on Soviet troops to use all available means of defense and sent a coded telegram to the Minister of Defense Marshal Rodion Malinovsky . In Moscow, the decision adopted .

October 27, 1962

Morning ... for antiaircraft missile battalion , commanded by Major Ivan Gerchenov ( they carried on combat duty in the town of Banes , 180 km from the higher command post ) , began with the strongest tropical downpour . Here it is appropriate to refer to the story of Nicholas Antonets participant in the events ( in October 1962 captain, chief of staff of anti-aircraft missile division ) : "Yesterday we received a secret coded telegram : be ready for combat operations , expected American invasion . We were allowed to be aired include station . Everyone felt that the war is possible . at ten o'clock in the area under the radar troops we have evidence that the American Guantanamo in our direction moving U.S. aircraft - goal number 33. Immediately station found him . at signal " - another's " response not followed. Height - 22 kilometers ...

In the cockpit - complete silence , frozen in anticipation with me battalion commander Ivan Gerchenov commander Vasily Gorchakov radio batteries , guidance officer Alexander Ryapenko operators . Goal taken by hand, then on the automatic tracking , here it is - in the area of &#8203;&#8203;start-up. The silence was interrupted by the voice of Major Gerchenova : " What do we do ? Shoot ? " Looked at me. I kept in touch with KP part , so immediately asked when will be the team to destruction. Then repeated the request . I said, " Wait , the team is about to go ." And then : " Destroy target number 33 , three, turn." This means - three rockets should go one by one in six seconds . We have turned out differently.

Ryapenko reported: "First , start" . Startovapa first rocket . Have a seizure . Again silence , you can hear a panting operators. Her voice broke the officer's guidance : "The goal - a meeting ." And the purpose of flying. And then suddenly remembered Gerchenov instead of three missiles we let one . It turned out, they began to shoot single . Addicted duel. Launched the second missile . On the radar screen is seen as two points closer together - and the purpose of the rocket . Here they are merged into one , and a new report Ryapenko , this time joyous " Second - undermining , target is destroyed , bearing 322 , range 12 kilometers." Analysis showed that the plane was shot down a missile in the first 9:00 of 20 minutes, but was still gliding flight . From the second U- 2 rocket fell apart into small pieces.

In place of the crash has left our political officer Major Grechanik . Impact area is patrolled by the Cuban military. The front part of the U-2 with the pilot fell near Banes , and the tail - the coast , in the Gulf. Grechanik at his request, handed a piece of the fuselage with the room, and he is now stored in the part .

After a day or two heard : there telegram defense minister supposedly plane shot down prematurely, but to us it does not affect . The decision was made not to destroy us. "

So who makes the decisions?

It seems a rhetorical question. In the army, all painted, including this. All true. But the fact of the matter is that in the case of the destruction of the U-2 over Cuba , apparently , got the problem .

Some participants in the events of the Cuban believe that the decision taken by the CP Group's troops in Havana - namely, the deputy commander of the air defense Lieutenant General Stepan Grechko . The latter contend that Grechko faltered , and the goal is ordered to destroy the commander of the 27th Air Defense Division Colonel Georgy Voronkov . In the arsenal of evidence on both sides - the memory , and it is known to happen , and sums , especially after a few decades.

According to a former deputy commander in Cuba for military training Leonid Garbuz , now Major General Retired , events unfolded so .

When he arrived in the morning on October 27 KP Groups troops fighting crew work led Stepan Grechko, radio center was leading a reconnaissance plane . Grechko GARBUZ reported that on several occasions called Pliev , but he does not answer. At this time, a duty officer reported on changing the course objectives in the north- west. Grechko picked up again , but there was no reply . U- 2 could open fully missile defense grouping and grouping and leave, but Grechko not dare to give an order without a commander . According Garbuz , Pliev established strict order in the management of defense . He forbade the field to open fire on their own and said that decision will be made by himself. Pliev at this time was likely to Fidel Castro. After another query operations duty gearbox division , Grechko prone to being to destroy the target. He asked the opinion of the first deputy commander Lieutenant General Paul Dankevich , Chief of Staff of Military Force Lieutenant-General Pavel Akindinova and Maj. Gen. Garbuz . All of them were in favor of destroying targets , and Grechko ordered . But is it ?

Order Colonel Voronkov

Checkpoint 27th Air Defense Division , which was located on the outskirts of the city of Camaguey , which is 600 km from Havana , cut a crew headed by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat Management - a duty officer Major General Nikolai Serova .

According to him , and they also presented a rather convincing , events unfolded as follows .

"I made &#8203;&#8203;atonement for combat duty at 9 am on October 26 - wrote me Serova . - Duty carried in radio silence . Evening on the phone with me contacted the division commander Colonel Georgy Voronkov . He gave me the following: " Got encryption - tomorrow at dawn war . Bring the division in combat readiness , but secretly . " After a few minutes officers directions reported on their readiness for combat , were all included air defenses, the CP arrived Colonel Voronkov officers full combat crew .

In readiness for combat duty we spent the night of 26 to 27 October . Dawn , but it was quiet , the radar aerial targets were not observed. But nerves are all on edge, fatigue impacted sleepless night . At eight o'clock came even encryption . We were instructed to go on duty abbreviated calculations and open fire only when you explicitly enemy attack . Therefore, the division commander, with staff officers went for breakfast and stay at the headquarters , which was located in the city. Again, we did not sleep all night . KP on my shift Acronym calculation and responsible staff of the division of Colonel Ivan Aleshin (Head radar troops divisions).

At nine o'clock in the morning on October 27 tablet planshetisty general air situation began to render high-altitude target, which moved over Cuban territory towards Havana - Santiago de Cuba . The flight route and altitude ( 20 km ) leads to the conclusion that it is the U.S. spy plane U- 2 , and that he photographed our military formations . Commanders of air defense missile regiments became strongly request from me, the decision to open fire , proving that this is a clear attack . Others believed that a scout with impunity intelligence can not produce our products - after his position collapses crushing bomb . Let me remind you , by the time we were all set to repel an attack , " not cool down " yet . Reported by telephone to the CP Group's troops in Havana General Grechko that commanders insist on destroying reconnaissance aircraft . This is where it all started.

For more than 30 minutes were interminable " debates " between MP antiaircraft missile troops , our MP and General Grechko : open fire or not, clear the attack or not, what the consequences for our troops can then be etc. General Grechko advised to take the time to wait , he says, " did not get through to the commander ."

A U- 2 is already close to the southeastern tip of the island , the city of Santiago de Cuba, where there was a regiment commanded by Colonel Rzhevskij . I asked Colonel Aleshin him to report on the phone setting the division commander , but he answered you appropriately . I dialed landline and reported to headquarters : " Over Cuba spy plane U-2 photographs battle formations of our troops. Commanders of insisting on opening fire on it , find it obvious attack. Checkpoint Groups troops no solution, more than 40 minutes did not get through to the commander . " After a short pause , apparently weighing the "pros " and "cons " , Colonel Georgy Voronkov ordered to destroy spy plane , and added that immediately goes to KP.

Decision commander of the 27th Air Defense Division I immediately handed over to the officers directions antiaircraft missile parts and reported this to the CP Group General Grechko troops , but he said nothing. Colonel Korolev officers hurried to the cabin areas for personal involvement in the leadership of the destruction of the enemy aircraft . Lockheed U- 2 in the meantime , flying over Cuba , more than 600 km, retired towards the sea, and our means of finding his lost . What to do? I give the command in the shelves: " Be prepared to open fire on the U- 2 in the case of re-entry ." After a few minutes , U-2 found again . My assumptions come true - scout returned for re- photographing our positions . At 9 hours and 20 minutes Division Major Gerchenova goal destroyed near the town of Banes . I reported this to the CP Group of Forces General Grechko , but again he told me nothing .

Soon arrived at the KP Colonel Voronkov and took control calculation in their hands. After 30-40 minutes of silence with the CP Group's troops began to request , specify : who shot down, where the plane fell , and so on. "

And now back to Havana. Army General Pliev took the report on destruction reconnaissance aircraft safely . He only gave the order to expedite data collection and prepare coded telegram to the Minister of Defence. On the basis of its Malinowski

October 28 at 10.45 Khrushchev sent an official report .

October 28th Chief of Staff of Military Force Lt. Gen. Paul Akindinov briefed all those involved in the destruction of U- 2 encryption of received from the Minister of Defense. It consisted of two sentences : " You hurry. Outline ways of settlement."

The headquarters were expecting a more stringent telegrams , but they were not followed. Cuban leadership is perceived fact preventing the flight of delight - the first time the Americans were punished for rule of the demand in the sky without Cuba.

source of information

Anatoly Dokuchaev, Independent Military Review, number 30 , 18.08.2000



Even professionals made mistakes when adrenalin starts rushing... I could say I have a privilege to feel some thanks to our beloved SAMSim!!!


Quote:
In the cockpit - complete silence , frozen in anticipation with me battalion commander Ivan Gerchenov commander Vasily Gorchakov radio batteries , guidance officer Alexander Ryapenko operators . Target tracked on RS, then on the automatic tracking , here it is - inside the kill zone. The silence was interrupted by the voice of Major Gerchenova : " What do we do ? Shoot ? " Looked at me. I kept in touch with CP part , so immediately asked when will be the order to shoot. Then repeated the request . I said, " Wait , the order is about to go ." And then : " Destroy target number 33, launch three." This means - three rockets should go one by one in six seconds . But it happens either...

Ryapenko reported: "First , start" . Started first rocket . We have a track on missile . Again silence , you can hear a panting operators. His voice broke the officer's guidance : "Target - a meeting! ." And the target continuing the flight. And then suddenly remembered Gerchenov instead of three missiles we let one . It turned out, we began to shoot single . Launched the second missile . On the radar screen is seen as two points closer together - the target and the rocket . Here they are merged into one , and a new report Ryapenko , this time joyous " Second - detonation, target is destroyed , bearing 322 , range 12 kilometers." Analysis showed that the plane was shot down a missile in the first 9:00 of 20 minutes, but was still gliding flight . From the second U- 2 rocket fell apart into small pieces.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/15/14 03:30 PM




Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/03/14 12:29 PM

Check the firing officer:
Posted By: Lonewolf357

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/06/14 08:52 AM

Hello, friends.

Does anyone know if any Warsaw Pact nation ever had the "Dubler" equipment (original Soviet anti-radiation missile decoy) for their S-75's or S-125's?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/06/14 09:46 AM

We had kept in Hungary the old Dvina (PAA cabins) equipment that were able to emit, nothing more, after upgrading them to Volhov.
Posted By: Lonewolf357

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/08/14 07:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
We had kept in Hungary the old Dvina (PAA cabins) equipment that were able to emit, nothing more, after upgrading them to Volhov.


So it looks like "Dubler" was not exported even to the closest allies, strictly for Soviet PVO... Weird.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/08/14 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Lonewolf357

So it looks like "Dubler" was not exported even to the closest allies, strictly for Soviet PVO... Weird.


I think it never was fielded, even in USSR....
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/31/14 08:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Click to reveal..






U-2 track:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/dobbs/anderson_shootdown.kmz


Here - the "killer" site, just hours before shotting Rudolf Anderson:


Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/05/14 11:49 AM



Here: http://russianarms.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=87&p=2
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/09/14 11:16 AM




Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/09/14 11:19 AM




Posted By: farokh

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/13/14 05:15 PM

this is real honor ... because from hpasp hard efforts ! we have got a virtual sa-2 volhov on our systems smile



with high respect dear hpasp wave
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/18/14 04:06 PM

104/1. honi légvédelmi rakétaosztály, Sárbogárd
(in the sim, under Hungary)

http://index.hu/index2#bloghu/kameraalta...ztaly_sarbogard





Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/10/14 10:37 AM

Good friend of us...
Posted By: apelles

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/10/14 01:41 PM

My brother served in Sárbogárd from 1988 till '89. :-)
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 09:04 AM

Bad day in the office...

Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 12:21 PM

Try turning it off and on again, that usually fixes it
Posted By: Vympel

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 02:34 PM

Or hitting it on the side. biggrin
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 04:38 PM

I am sorry for the dumb question, but from where we knew that UPR is up to 4 degrees?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
I am sorry for the dumb question, but from where we knew that UPR is up to 4 degrees?


I would be very happy to see an official document describing UPR limitation.
So far I received contradicting lectures from different Volhov system military high school teachers, both with convincing arguments for 3.5 and 4 degrees.

Sim is using 4 degrees, as I was unable to decide between them.
biggrin

(changing it is just rewriting one character in the code for me...)
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 05:25 PM

Quote:
All good health !

quote: Originally posted by piston79:

The missile can deviate by + -4 degrees line CHP- Target... quote:



Where did you get this information ? This is not so . During my service, when the C -75 was already old and was an urgent need to extend the service life of equipment SAMs was devised and put into operation a military system(rational system maintenance) . Under this system, instead of the weekly routine maintenance ( 8:00 hours) produced advanced functional control of missile guidance ( 1:00 hour) . One of the tests was as follows - " shooting VM" . Set angular speed - 1.5 deg / sec , the approach speed of 500 m / sec and at a certain distance produced start -missile (electronic shot) natural method UPR ( PS ) . On the screens of SNR measured leading angle under normal adjustment value preemption equipment must be within 6 + / - 1 deg . So you are wrong . The missile can deviate in anticipation of more than 4 degrees.


Also had this:




P.S. It won't be so easy, because you got to rework the lead behaviour at all (IMHHHO)...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 06:07 PM

6 + / - 1 deg is right for the NEVA.
biggrin

To analyze this issue, you need to deeply understand the missile tracking system of the Volhov system.

The flying missile beacon is ALWAYS tracked by the P-11V/P12V wide-beam antenna pair.
If the missile beacon signal is not received by these two antennas, the missile is lost.

My question is for you, to tell me (based on your knowledge) the area, where the missile beacon is received by BOTH wide-beam antenna system.
thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 06:41 PM

The answer is on the above picture.... (7x7)...
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 07:10 PM


Why a bad day at the Office?

Picture perfect day in the Office is excellent.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
The answer is on the above picture.... (7x7)...


So what is the maximum lead angle (from the boresight) where the system can still track the missile beacon in both angles?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
The answer is on the above picture.... (7x7)...


So what is the maximum lead angle (from the boresight) where the system can still track the missile beacon in both angles?


The obvious is 3.5 degrees, but I have two confirmations already of deviation from the boresight at ~5 degrees.... screwy
Posted By: Lieste

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/01/14 11:27 PM

Presumably the boresight can lead the target with the missile leading the boresight, at least transiently.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/02/14 11:59 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
The answer is on the above picture.... (7x7)...


So what is the maximum lead angle (from the boresight) where the system can still track the missile beacon in both angles?


The obvious is 3.5 degrees, but I have two confirmations already of deviation from the boresight at ~5 degrees.... screwy


Consider H<5 mode...
thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/02/14 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Consider H<5 mode...
thumbsup


This is a bit irrelevant, as you must use T/T or K method, so not much possibilities of big lead in epsilon....


As per more than 4 degrees lead - it could be due to unguided flight of missile (until hitting the strobs on >2.1 km range...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/02/14 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Consider H<5 mode...
thumbsup


This is a bit irrelevant, as you must use T/T or K method, so not much possibilities of big lead in epsilon....


As per more than 4 degrees lead - it could be due to unguided flight of missile (until hitting the strobs on >2.1 km range...


In Epsilon in case of H<5, the boresight is moved down electrically by 3 degrees.
If I consider +-4 degree of elevation lead from the mechanical boresight, than in H<5 the lead can be -1 .. +7 degrees from the electrical boresight.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/03/14 10:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

In Epsilon in case of H<5, the boresight is moved down electrically by 3 degrees.
If I consider +-4 degree of elevation lead from the mechanical boresight, than in H<5 the lead can be -1 .. +7 degrees from the electrical boresight.


K and T/T mode? Also not relevant for beta plane...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/14/14 03:59 PM

I have a question - which method we can use when shooting on receding target - UPR/K/TT ?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/14/14 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
I have a question - which method we can use when shooting on receding target - UPR/K/TT ?


Firing Manual states...

78. Firing on receding target is allowed only if it was missed during incoming.
Receding target can be fired if its speed is less than 420m/s, and altitude is less than 25km.

79. If the parameter of the target is less than 12km, fire only after the SNR roll over.

80. prefer 20DSU missiles against receding targets.

The firing mode of the SNR, guidance method, radio proxy fuse setting should be set similarly as incoming target.
K3 method cannot be used.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/14/14 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

The firing mode of the SNR, guidance method, radio proxy fuse setting should be set similarly as incoming target.
K3 method cannot be used.


I've been told that system goes in T/T automatically no matter which method was selected.... Could we check this with FCO????
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/14/14 06:22 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

The firing mode of the SNR, guidance method, radio proxy fuse setting should be set similarly as incoming target.
K3 method cannot be used.


I've been told that system goes in T/T automatically no matter which method was selected.... Could we check this with FCO????


thumbsup
According to the Firing Manual you can select UPR, K, TT, I87V.



PS: checking with several FCO's
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/14/14 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


thumbsup
According to the Firing Manual you can select UPR, K, TT, I87V.

PS: checking with several FCO's


There is a bit difference between selecting and executing... (as automatic switching in T/T when target starts to dive)... As D and P are different because of the missiles, and same for all mentioned methods - I think that system uses only one of them, no matter of selection...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/15/14 08:56 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


thumbsup
According to the Firing Manual you can select UPR, K, TT, I87V.

PS: checking with several FCO's


There is a bit difference between selecting and executing... (as automatic switching in T/T when target starts to dive)... As D and P are different because of the missiles, and same for all mentioned methods - I think that system uses only one of them, no matter of selection...


The table above shows target altitude Hc=0.1km and max engagement range Dt=24km.

You cannot engage target at H=100m at 24km distance with TT method.
With TT if the target is at 24km, minimum altitude is 1km!
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/15/14 02:11 PM

See, if the target is receding, it moves in epsilon plane as like it is diving to earth (on approaching target) (so no UPR allowed). Only K and T/T left....
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/25/14 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


You cannot engage target at H=100m at 24km distance with TT method.
With TT if the target is at 24km, minimum altitude is 1km!


Where you got that?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/07/14 06:25 AM

I checked this topic with several exBattery FCO's.

In our S-75M2, S-75M3, and S-75M3OP batteries, the guidance system would not select different guidance method than it was set by the FCO.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/07/14 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
I checked this topic with several exBattery FCO's.

In our S-75M2, S-75M3, and S-75M3OP batteries, the guidance system would not select different guidance method than it was set by the FCO.


OK, I just wrote to some veterans in a forum, and they told some different stuff...

Also I have been told that up to 420 m/s target speed, UPR and T/T method behave at same way....

Another question - do we have at SIM method T/T + E?

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/07/14 05:20 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
I checked this topic with several exBattery FCO's.

In our S-75M2, S-75M3, and S-75M3OP batteries, the guidance system would not select different guidance method than it was set by the FCO.


OK, I just wrote to some veterans in a forum, and they told some different stuff...

Also I have been told that up to 420 m/s target speed, UPR and T/T method behave at same way....

Another question - do we have at SIM method T/T + E?



You are goofed.
biggrin

Ask for documentation prooving these claims.
thumbsup

ps: T/T + exponentially decreasing elevation (against missile-target range) is real for descening planes in case of H<5 is switched.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/09/14 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


You are goofed.
biggrin

Ask for documentation prooving these claims.
thumbsup


In data you provided, the zone is the same for K; T/T i T/T-87... neaner
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/11/14 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


You are goofed.
biggrin

Ask for documentation prooving these claims.
thumbsup


In data you provided, the zone is the same for K; T/T i T/T-87... neaner


The table above shows target altitude Hc=0.1km and max engagement range Dt=24km.

You cannot engage target at H=100m at 24km distance with TT method.
With TT if the target is at 24km, minimum altitude is 1km!

Did you read it earlier?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/11/14 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


The table above shows target altitude Hc=0.1km and max engagement range Dt=24km.

You cannot engage target at H=100m at 24km distance with TT method.
With TT if the target is at 24km, minimum altitude is 1km!

Did you read it earlier?


Yes, but I need the document where it was written (or drawn).
Posted By: scrim

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/15/14 09:44 PM

Is the SA-2 a bit too good right now? I'm asking because when I play the Linebacker scenarios, I rarely have an issue scoring an almost 1:1 SA-2 launch:hit ratio, whereas what I've read in the documents included in SAM sim is that the Vietnamese found they had to fire at least two to hit, and that it often took a lot more than that per hit.

Would you say that it's down to the missiles being too accurate right now, or because of other factors, such as Wild Weasels being slow to fire Shrikes and never "going in for the kill" with cluster bombs once you've turned off the radar, or because the IADS is too well informed of where everything is all the time?
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/16/14 01:19 PM

It's also partly us playing the same mission many times. In reality, SAM crews got only one chance.

Also, the way aircraft try to dodge missiles is very limited. In reality the US had specific manouvers to avoid missiles, but in SAM Sim they either dive or just fly straight.

And the jamming used in SAM Sim is also limited. They only use noise jamming. If aircraft used modulated noise jamming, like in reality, it would make hitting targets much harder. And they don't drop chaff.
Posted By: scrim

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/16/14 01:43 PM

I thought there was chaff in the Linebacker scenarios? Because an issue I encounter sometimes when I target the B-52s and fire with a passive targeting radar is that the 11 seconds post launch armed SA-2s detonate mid flight. Is that not due to simulated chaff?
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/17/14 07:25 AM

It might be a result of pre-existing chaff walls, but aircraft don't react to a missile launch by turning away and dropping chaff.
Posted By: scrim

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/17/14 09:05 AM

Pretty sure they didn't have chaff on fighters in '72, and the SAC bomber pilots were threatened with court martial if they took evasive manoeuvres.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/17/14 02:25 PM

Chaff corridors created by drones, and also B-52's flying in particular formations that took advantage of the size of SA-2 radar cells.

Originally Posted By: scrim
I thought there was chaff in the Linebacker scenarios? Because an issue I encounter sometimes when I target the B-52s and fire with a passive targeting radar is that the 11 seconds post launch armed SA-2s detonate mid flight. Is that not due to simulated chaff?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/12/14 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Pretty sure they didn't have chaff on fighters in '72, and the SAC bomber pilots were threatened with court martial if they took evasive manoeuvres.


F-4 fighters dropped chaff bombs.
(they had great difficulty to climb to the B-52 altitude with that load)
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/21/14 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

The table above shows target altitude Hc=0.1km and max engagement range Dt=24km.

You cannot engage target at H=100m at 24km distance with TT method.
With TT if the target is at 24km, minimum altitude is 1km!

Did you read it earlier?




I got it.... But the veteran still insist that the system goes in TT when angular speed in epsilon is negative (when target dives to the ground and (when target recedes). I knew about automatic switch to TT when target goes diving, but it goes only from UPR (IMHO), because when the guidance method is K, it always use a correction in vertical plane:



say when angular speed in epsilon is less than 0.6 degrees per second, K method use the 0.6 degrees as value.... Not sure it is relative for negative values of epsilon negative speeds (like <0, which is in case of receding/diving target)...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/23/14 07:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

The firing mode of the SNR, guidance method, radio proxy fuse setting should be set similarly as incoming target.
K3 method cannot be used.


I've been told that system goes in T/T automatically no matter which method was selected.... Could we check this with FCO????


thumbsup
According to the Firing Manual you can select UPR, K, TT, I87V.
Click to reveal..



PS: checking with several FCO's


There must be a note under this table you post, could you check it for me, please?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/23/14 08:00 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Click to reveal..
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

The firing mode of the SNR, guidance method, radio proxy fuse setting should be set similarly as incoming target.
K3 method cannot be used.


I've been told that system goes in T/T automatically no matter which method was selected.... Could we check this with FCO????


thumbsup
According to the Firing Manual you can select UPR, K, TT, I87V.
[spoiler]


PS: checking with several FCO's


There must be a note under this table you post, could you check it for me, please?


Two notes:

1. With TT and TT-I87V guidance method, the lower limit of the killing zone is 0.5km at Dt=15km range.

2. *mark H=0.1km with 20DSU and 5Ya23 missiles, H=0.3km with 20DP missile.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/29/14 05:50 PM

It was in Ebay






Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/29/14 06:00 PM

Nice!
thumbsup



Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/31/14 06:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Consider H<5 mode...
thumbsup


This is a bit irrelevant, as you must use T/T or K method, so not much possibilities of big lead in epsilon....


As per more than 4 degrees lead - it could be due to unguided flight of missile (until hitting the strobs on >2.1 km range...


In Epsilon in case of H<5, the boresight is moved down electrically by 3 degrees.
If I consider +-4 degree of elevation lead from the mechanical boresight, than in H<5 the lead can be -1 .. +7 degrees from the electrical boresight.


Please, check the page 356 (end)-360 of the "Supplementation to the Rules of Shooting fir S-75M" (from where you show me the killing zone for receding target) and tell me how you understand it... screwy
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/31/14 06:56 PM

What was the price?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/31/14 07:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
What was the price?


Do not know... a guy in a forum post it with this explanation...
Posted By: Hpasp

Karat - 09/16/14 04:41 PM

Working on nuclear mushroom cloud behaviour (forming, rising), to be able to visualize it...

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: Karat - 09/16/14 07:23 PM

thumbsup nuclear explosion in karat ar15
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/17/14 11:01 AM


True altitude and distance is on the table!

Height: 0.1 I understand it 100 meters height, as well as 300 meters is 0.3.

Target speed is not more than 420 m/s as I understood.

Interested in a table with a height of 30 km there is no data, as I understand it, the planes don't fly at such altitudes.

That's right, at an altitude of 100 metres is 0.1, range 24 km.

Only it is not clear why the speed limit of 420 m/s if the Dogon only towards I think and the more you can.

And so true!
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/17/14 06:28 PM

max, if you look at the chart more precisely, then you will see that horizontal axis is a radius of a fireball and vertical axis is a height of it at moment of detonation.
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/17/14 08:40 PM


I do not mean a graph and table, where the height and distance, about the dates I did not.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: Karat - 09/21/14 08:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
thumbsup nuclear explosion in karat ar15


There is a fascinating book, everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask about a nuclear explosion...
http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content...on-complete.pdf
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: Karat - 09/21/14 10:12 AM

Thanks thumbsup

I also have this book, it is about history and effects of nuclear weapons. I have it also in a PDF file, I can share it if someone is interested, but it is only in Czech....
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 12:13 PM

Tough one...

Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 12:17 PM

Kinda looks like a flying elephant's head :P

Will all systems be getting Karat at once, or just one system at a time?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 12:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
Kinda looks like a flying elephant's head :P

Will all systems be getting Karat at once, or just one system at a time?


Flying elephant, thanks biggrin


Almost...




Currently Im working on Volhov, planning Neva, and thinking on Shilka (where the problem will be to move from the blueish monochrome to at least some color) ...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 02:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Currently Im working on Volhov, planning Neva, and thinking on Shilka (where the problem will be to move from the blueish monochrome to at least some color) ...


Missile trace gotta be overlaying the cloud... I think high atmosphere explosions wouldn't create a mushroom cloud....
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 02:31 PM

They can create mushroom clouds, even when detonated above ground.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 03:00 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Currently Im working on Volhov, planning Neva, and thinking on Shilka (where the problem will be to move from the blueish monochrome to at least some color) ...

I think high atmosphere explosions wouldn't create a mushroom cloud....


Wrong, please read manual lined above...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 03:30 PM

Not for the faint hearted...

18:18pm 30th of June 1970
First attack wave, against Cairo air defense.

Targets:
3rd Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade
9th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade
10th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade
11th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade

Attacking Force:
8 F-4E Kurnass
8 A-4E Ahit

S-75M3 Volkhov


+++++++++++++++++
00:00:30, SNR ON AIR


00:07:57, V-760 15D Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 32km
Target azimuth: 124°
Target elevation: 1°
Target altitude: 647m
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 75km
Missile guidance method: T/T (Three Point)


00:08:34, Missile exploded on Channel-1
F-4E Kurnass number 1 of flight-1 attacking 11th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade hit by nuclear blast. (distance from epicenter: 4426m)
F-4E Kurnass number 2 of flight-1 attacking 11th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade hit by nuclear blast. (distance from epicenter: 4654m)
A-4E Ahit number 1 of flight-2 attacking 10th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade killed by nuclear blast. (distance from epicenter: 83m)
A-4E Ahit number 2 of flight-2 attacking 10th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade hit by nuclear blast. (distance from epicenter: 3670m)

00:08:48, V-760 15D Missile launched on Channel-2
Target distance: 22km
Target azimuth: 130°
Target elevation: 1°
Target altitude: 518m
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 75km
Missile guidance method: T/T (Three Point)


00:09:14, Missile exploded on Channel-2
F-4E Kurnass number 1 of flight-1 attacking 11th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade killed by nuclear blast. (distance from epicenter: 718m)
F-4E Kurnass number 2 of flight-1 attacking 11th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade killed by nuclear blast. (distance from epicenter: 246m)
A-4E Ahit number 2 of flight-2 attacking 10th Battery of the 5th Air Defense Missile Brigade killed by nuclear blast. (distance from epicenter: 84m)
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/22/14 04:01 PM

Nice thumbsup
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/23/14 03:17 PM


Hi Hpasp!

 And what about the Elephant I do not understand or is it just a joke?

A Dvina will be there, too, there is this 'Dog house' Optical channel sight.

 
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/23/14 03:20 PM


And the Elephant is also planned in the Volkhov with nuclear toy.

 I'm kidding of course!
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/26/14 09:37 PM

Reload...

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/27/14 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Tough one...






Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/28/14 06:49 AM

It is shortly after detonation, I would like to know how it appeared few minutes later.

I remember I have seen some documentary movie about nuclear weapons and there was a test when some people stood on the ground and there was a high altitude blast directly above them. The blast as I remember looked VERY differently from those observed in lower altitudes. I think it was rather toroidal or something similar. And definitely there was not a mushroom cloud, probably due to much thinner atmosphere and so.
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/28/14 07:06 AM

It looked different because they were below it looking up, instead of to the side looking across.
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/28/14 07:13 AM

I think it was also photographed from some aircraft, but I can't remember correctly.

But anyways, when you sit in a SAM cabin, your camera is also looking up wave
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/30/14 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Tough one...

Click to reveal..







Fireball from similar angle...

Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/05/14 03:13 PM

I've been trying a purely optical attack on a parachute target, with the arm after launch switch on. Trying to keep the target in the crosshair on the television monitor.

So far no missiles I've launched have detonated.

Is it just because I'm not getting the missile close enough? Or is it currently impossible to have the missile detonate without a radar lock?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/06/14 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
I've been trying a purely optical attack on a parachute target, with the arm after launch switch on. Trying to keep the target in the crosshair on the television monitor.

So far no missiles I've launched have detonated.

Is it just because I'm not getting the missile close enough? Or is it currently impossible to have the missile detonate without a radar lock?


Is it just because you are not getting the missile close enough.
Please note, that target tracking is done by the manual trackers, and that mode is not simulated.
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/06/14 07:59 PM


Question about Hpasp!

When I chose the Volkhov and fired at the lowest end I turn on the regime H < 5 all right then on the TV screen I do not see the earth, why this is so, it is true or not.

Angle is very small less than 10 degrees, I was supposed to see the earth from the TV screen or it is not.

And yet one noticed when I turn mode 'Earth' is immediately activated wide beam, in this case the active and narrow beam and highlight too, it is true or error.
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 10:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Is it just because you are not getting the missile close enough.
Please note, that target tracking is done by the manual trackers, and that mode is not simulated.


Sorry Hpasp, I just don't think it's possible. You need a lock, or the missile just doesn't see the target.

I've guided missiles to a parachute target, with a radar lock, then unlock the target just before before impact, and the missiles just fly past without exploding despite being very, very close.

I've guided missiles to a parachute target, and locked in azimuth only, and manually set elevation and the missile will explode.

I've guided missiles to a parachute target, locked in azimuth only, and manually set elevation half a TV screen above or below the target, and the missile will still explode with around a 120m miss distance. So you don't need to be very close on the screen.

But if I guide a missile to a parachute target, without lock in azimuth or elevation, even if the target and missile are both closer than the size of the crosshair, the missile will not explode!

No lock = no explosion.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 01:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Is it just because you are not getting the missile close enough.
Please note, that target tracking is done by the manual trackers, and that mode is not simulated.


Sorry Hpasp, I just don't think it's possible. You need a lock, or the missile just doesn't see the target.

I've guided missiles to a parachute target, with a radar lock, then unlock the target just before before impact, and the missiles just fly past without exploding despite being very, very close.

I've guided missiles to a parachute target, and locked in azimuth only, and manually set elevation and the missile will explode.

I've guided missiles to a parachute target, locked in azimuth only, and manually set elevation half a TV screen above or below the target, and the missile will still explode with around a 120m miss distance. So you don't need to be very close on the screen.

But if I guide a missile to a parachute target, without lock in azimuth or elevation, even if the target and missile are both closer than the size of the crosshair, the missile will not explode!

No lock = no explosion.


The parachute is slowly moving in Ashuluk, so here is the experiment I did.
I stopped the parachute movement, locked in Epsilon/Beta, switched RAB-OT VM, unlocked both angle, and fired the missile, using T/T.

Now, I found the bug causing this behaviour.
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 01:32 PM

Good to know there is a bug, and I'm not going crazy :P
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 01:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
Good to know there is a bug, and I'm not going crazy :P


But!

Fixing the parachute target on the sky, and Using T/T RAB-OT-VM, and one angle lock only, I was able to kill the chute.


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 01:48 PM

Lock on only at elevation, RAB-OT-VM, T/T.
Track manually only on Betha.

Easy kill of the moving parachute using Karat.

Asuluk training ground.

Practice target:
Radar Reflector

S-75M3 Volkhov


00:00, Practice target Radar Reflector launched

+++++++++++++++++
00:00:04, SNR ON AIR


00:00:29, V-755 20DSU Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 100km
Target azimuth: 72°
Target elevation: 15°
Target altitude: 26,2km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 75km
Missile guidance method: T/T (Three Point)


00:01:07, Missile exploded on Channel-1
Practice target Radar Reflector killed by SAM. (miss distance: 39m)

Total, SNR On Air Time: 1min 15sec




Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 01:53 PM

Yeah, that's what I found too. You only need one lock to be able to kill a target. Two or three locks works too of course.

But with zero locks and the missile just won't explode.

When doing single lock tests, I usually locked azimuth because it drifted faster. Elevation is easier to track manually.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 02:51 PM

After the fix, using optics only to align on the fixed parachute.

00:01:37, Missile exploded on Channel-1
Practice target Radar Reflector killed by SAM. (miss distance: 24m)


Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 02:59 PM

Excellent! Can't wait smile

I wonder if this bug also prevented one missile killing two targets.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 03:06 PM

You can try the fix here:
(the parachute position is fixed)

http://www.mediafire.com/download/.../samsim_141007.rar

Backup the original EXE, do not just overwrite it.
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 04:06 PM

Yeah, that works. Thanks Hpasp!

Edit: I've only quickly tested it twice, but I've noticed that the problem is even worse for the SA-2F. You need at least to lock both azimuth AND elevation for missiles to detonate. If you lock only azimuth or have no lock, missiles won't detonate.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/14 06:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
Yeah, that works. Thanks Hpasp!

Edit: I've only quickly tested it twice, but I've noticed that the problem is even worse for the SA-2F. You need at least to lock both azimuth AND elevation for missiles to detonate. If you lock only azimuth or have no lock, missiles won't detonate.


Same bug, same fix...

http://www.mediafire.com/download/.../samsim_141007b.rar

WARNING: Backup the original EXE, do not just overwrite it, as this EXE is for this fix testing only...
... might crash other systems/scenarios.
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/08/14 07:24 AM

Works! Sorry I kept bothering you with all these bugs. :P
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/08/14 07:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
Works! Sorry I kept bothering you with all these bugs. :P


It was a nice find!
I will check other systems also...
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/08/14 07:43 PM


Question about Hpasp?

Tell me and at Volkhov if low goal I include H < 5 there scoreboard lit and wide beam, and so I can not turn on and the narrow beam immediately and PODSVET, say it correctly or not.

At H < 5 can include a Narrow beam or PODSVET?

It is right or not?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/15/14 06:00 PM

Originally Posted By: max2012

Question about Hpasp?

Tell me and at Volkhov if low goal I include H < 5 there scoreboard lit and wide beam, and so I can not turn on and the narrow beam immediately and PODSVET, say it correctly or not.

At H < 5 can include a Narrow beam or PODSVET?

It is right or not?




With H<5, H<1, and Zemlja you can use Wide Beam only.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/15/14 06:10 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


1. It will be more complex, when Karat will be introduced...
(it also affects H<5 behaviour)

2. ???


1. It is not possible tho switch off "<5km" mode with other switch....

2. As antenna and KARAT are aligned, what is happening with antenna when "<5km" is switched? What will happen with the view in KARAT? screwy


Karat will still point to the original beam boresight.
At H<5 it will show 3 degree above of the electric boresight.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/15/14 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

At H<5 it will show 3 degree above of the electric boresight.


Which means 3 degrees above the target...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/15/14 06:36 PM

thumbsup

This is the reason, that there is another H<5 blocking switch (not simulated yet) but this time, it is related to the Karat.
Posted By: max2012

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/16/14 12:15 PM


In that case I could, when included H < 5 that could include a Narrow Beam and Podsvet.

 As I understand it this should not be at H < 5, I can not turn on a Narrow Beam and Podsvet, then I could do it.

 I could grab the lowest target Narrow Beam is true or not.

 
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/18/14 11:18 AM

Originally Posted By: max2012

In that case I could, when included H < 5 that could include a Narrow Beam and Podsvet.

 As I understand it this should not be at H < 5, I can not turn on a Narrow Beam and Podsvet, then I could do it.

 I could grab the lowest target Narrow Beam is true or not.

 


Could you please describe step-by-step in the BUG topic?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/22/14 11:30 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

At H<5 it will show 3 degree above of the electric boresight.


Which means 3 degrees above the target...


The interrelation of these modes are quite complex:

Wide Beam (WB), Narrow Beam (NB), and LORO are the basic modes.
As only the Wide Beam antennas has dummy antenna, NB and LORO could only be switched if ANT/EKV is on ANT.

H<5, H<1, or Ground switching will override antenna mode (NB/LORO) forcing it to WB, and move the elevation boresight electronically down with 3 degrees (antenna mechanically up to 3 degrees).

There is a TV tracking switch (not simulated yet in SAMSIM).
It will override H<5, H<1, or Ground switching. (moving the elevation boresight back to the center, and the antenna mechanically down with 3 degrees)
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/22/14 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


H<5, H<1, or Ground switching will override antenna mode (NB/LORO) forcing it to WB, and move the elevation boresight electronically down with 3 degrees (antenna mechanically up to 3 degrees).


It doesn't work in that way anymore (see Max2012 video)....

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
There is a TV tracking switch (not simulated yet in SAMSIM).
It will override H<5, H<1, or Ground switching. (moving the elevation boresight back to the center, and the antenna mechanically down with 3 degrees)


How it looks like (the switch)? Do you have photo?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/22/14 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79


How it looks like (the switch)? Do you have photo?


Its on the current Volhov panel, and in the next version, it will work.
(switch 27 in the Advanced Manual)
thumbsup




Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/01/14 07:13 PM

Silent kill, using Karat...


Asuluk training ground.

Practice target:
LA-17 simulating F-86 Sabre

S-75M3 Volkhov


00:00, Practice target LA-17 simulating F-86 Sabre launched


00:03:22, V-755 20DSU Missile launched on Channel-1
Target distance: 25km
Target azimuth: 80°
Target elevation: 27°
Target altitude: 11,8km
SNR mode: Wide Beam - 150km
Missile guidance method: I87V/TT (I87V Three Point)


+++++++++++++++++
00:03:23, SNR ON AIR


00:03:52, Missile exploded on Channel-1
Practice target LA-17 simulating F-86 Sabre killed by SAM. (miss distance: 40m)

00:03:52, SNR OFF THE AIR
-----------------


Total, SNR On Air Time: 29sec
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/09/15 11:53 PM

In Google Earth, the position of the Hungarian 11/8 Volhov battery can be seen in 3D...

Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/25/15 09:46 AM


When using these bulbs in reality?


LN32,33,34,35
Regim II
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/26/15 11:15 AM

and more:


Posted By: Comrade_Hedgehog

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/26/15 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: ROMANIA
and more:



Using the above image:
Pretty sure the handwheels are L > R:
Elevation, Range, Azimuth

I have a question for Hpasp:

When you "Lock" the FCR onto a target, using the "Right Click" button, what action on the cabinet are you doing/activating?
Do the crew pull/push the handwheel in/out?
Push a button?
Flick a switch?

Or does the "Right Click" represent a "fudge" of constantly turning the handwheels to keep track on a target?


P.S.
Really like the Karat camera,
Nice to have a view of the outside world.

Shilka next please!!
thumbsup
tanksalot
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/26/15 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Comrade_Hedgehog

I have a question for Hpasp:

When you "Lock" the FCR onto a target, using the "Right Click" button, what action on the cabinet are you doing/activating?
Do the crew pull/push the handwheel in/out?


Exactly.
Pull towards you, FCO tracking.
Push in, manual trackers or autotrack.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/26/15 06:08 PM

Originally Posted By: ROMANIA
and more:





The first panel is not simulated at all...
... second one is related to the V760 missile...
... third one, no idea.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/26/15 06:11 PM

Originally Posted By: ROMANIA

When using these bulbs in reality?
LN32,33,34,35
Regim II


Related to the original V755 missiles, befor the V755U introduction.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/27/15 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Exactly.
Pull towards you, FCO tracking.
Push in, manual trackers or autotrack.


Best SA-2E video (from 5:00):

Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/02/15 12:37 PM

I found Hpasp
all are used for missile with nuclear warheads(10-15 kT)V-760V(5V29)(SA-2e, guideline Mod 4)(in 1975 V.V. Koljaskina adapted submarine torpedo nuclear warhead size 533mm)

Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/02/15 12:43 PM

S-75M4 "Volhov" :






Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/03/15 10:57 AM

IR-63, IR-65 from RD-75 AMAZONKA

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/03/15 07:08 PM

Nice pictures! thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/03/15 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
Nice pictures! thumbsup


I would like to check the sources also....
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/04/15 01:34 AM

OK Piston79:




Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/04/15 03:30 AM

and more:

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/06/15 02:19 PM

Originally Posted By: ROMANIA
OK Piston79:




You have it in a hardcopy? screwy

also what about the other pictures? From which source they are (colored one)?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/06/15 03:58 PM

Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/06/15 09:08 PM

From Piston79:

[/url]
[url=http://peters-ada.de/sa2_technik.htm#S%2075%20M4]

[url=http://historykpvo-2.ucoz.ru/index/zenitnyj_raketnyj_kompleks_s_75_quot_volkhov_quot_m1_m2_m3_m4_sa_75_quot_desna_quot_s_75m_quot_dvin/0-6][/url]
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/06/15 09:12 PM

]
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/18/15 10:31 AM

I made a wiring diagram for ignition bulb LN35 Regim II; LN32,33,34 from SAM 5V29

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/18/15 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: ROMANIA
I made a wiring diagram for ignition bulb LN35 Regim II; LN32,33,34 from SAM 5V29


Can you elaborate, when should these be illuminated?
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/19/15 01:06 PM

STEP 1:

KL 1 - ON




STEP 2:

select V25,V26,V27 method guiding K,UPR,T/T from missile 5V29



STEP 3:


START (KN5,KN7,KN9) = illuminated LN32,LN33,LN34


Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/24/15 03:18 PM

From Hpasp:

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/24/15 06:55 PM

Repost:


http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3678817/Re:_S-75M3_Volhov_(SA-2E_Guide#Post3678817
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/24/15 09:22 PM

Tnx piston79





Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/01/15 11:05 PM

S-75M3:



S-75M4:

Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/04/15 11:21 PM

more wiring diagram

Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/04/15 11:27 PM

horn UV:


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/20/15 04:50 PM

salute
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/23/15 10:49 AM

Tnx Hpasp
clapping

Another test:
Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/29/15 01:41 PM


P1,P2,P3,P4



Posted By: ROMANIA

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/29/15 02:22 PM


Another test:

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/13/15 07:51 PM



HAWK and SA-2E
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/01/15 06:46 PM



Posted By: 3instein

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/08/15 05:01 PM

I don't understand the majority of this thread but the pictures and videos are really cool, thanks guys.

Mick. smile
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/08/15 05:32 PM

Originally Posted By: 3instein
I don't understand the majority of this thread but the pictures and videos are really cool, thanks guys.

Mick. smile


We all started from the same point as you... smile

You could always ask somebody on PM or here...

yep
Posted By: Comrade_Hedgehog

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/09/15 03:21 PM

Originally Posted By: 3instein
I don't understand the majority of this thread but the pictures and videos are really cool, thanks guys.

Mick. smile


I just like clicking switches and the "BikvrrrrKeChOOOOOOW" noise when you launch a Nuclear SA-2. tomcat duckhunter
(Also the Siren sounds pretty cool too)
smile

These guys are true SAM nerds.

I still can't really get my head around the SA-5.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/06/16 06:38 PM



Azimuth screen with RD-75 "Amazonka" raster on it...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/06/16 06:52 PM



Chaff deployment behind the plane...
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/11/16 08:40 AM

Nice, where did you get them from?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/11/16 11:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
Nice, where did you get them from?


http://www.vko.ru/oruzhie/zrk-s-75-pervyy-sredi-ravnyh-chast-iii

more about the system:

http://www.vko.ru/oruzhie/zrk-s-75-pervyy-sredi-ravnyh-chast-ii
http://www.vko.ru/oruzhie/zrk-s-75-pervyy-sredi-ravnyh-chast-i

http://www.vko.ru/oruzhie/zrk-s-75-pervyy-sredi-ravnyh-chast-iV
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/12/16 02:16 PM

Thanks thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/21/16 08:26 PM

SHE IS ALIVE!(and still bites!)...

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/22/16 12:34 PM

Which country is it from?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/22/16 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
Which country is it from?


Yemen... It appears they got a US drone...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/09/16 11:43 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79


Yemen... It appears they got a US drone...



http://news.rambler.ru/scitech/32538408/

because youtube deleted the video
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/04/16 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: piston79


Yemen... It appears they got a US drone...



http://news.rambler.ru/scitech/32538408/

because youtube deleted the video



Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/08/16 10:39 PM

As this "another SIM" thing escalated, please let Moderators move the last post in new topic...
Posted By: Snailman

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/09/16 11:16 AM

I beg your pardon for ruining the topic. I found nowhere else to ask questions about the Volkhov
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/09/16 09:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Snailman
I beg your pardon for ruining the topic. I found nowhere else to ask questions about the Volkhov


Not at all, it's just be more organized in a way... as it seems it will grow up ...

yep
Posted By: KostasAK

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/18/16 11:34 AM

What's the difference on launching the V-760 compared with the launch of the conventional V-755 and V-759 ? I tried to launch it but no success.
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/18/16 05:01 PM

Read the manual thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/05/16 08:00 PM

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/12/16 08:27 PM

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/08/16 09:07 AM

Regarding jamming, I've read here, that Volchov contains GShV module to counter impulse jamming. Is it simulated? How does it work?
Posted By: Jonas85

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/08/16 02:22 PM

GShV is an ECCM fix against AM-modulated jamming in angles.

It was introduced for the first time in C-25 Berkut, later - into C-75 Volkhov and C-125 Neva. In Berkut, this mode was called GSh, in Neva - GShN. I guess that the abbreviation GSh stands for the Russian Gashenie Shumov - that is, noise reduction, letters V and N means the implementation in Volkhov and Neva systems.

GShV is a side-lobe blanking and AM-demodulation scheme based on the comparison of the signal from the narrow-beam antenna, epsilon or beta (this is called main channel) with a reference signal coming from the wide-beam antenna (this is called auxiliary, or compensation channel).

In order to understand the main idea, you need some basic math.

Let

Umain(O) - target return (no jamming) in by main receiving channel.
Uaux(O) - target return (no jamming) in auxiliary receiving channel.
Ujam(O) - AM-modulated signal, introduced by jammer.

Here, letter U means voltage (corresponds to the signal strength in respective channel), O - means angle (O=beta or O=epsilon)

When tracking a jamming target, the return from the target in the main channel is

Umain(O)*Ujam(O),

where the factor Ujam(O) accounts for the parasite AM-modulation. Jamming is so strong, that Ujam(O) might obscure target return Umain(O).

In auxiliary channel, the return is

Uaux(O)*Ujam(O)

(note that you have same Ujam(O) in the auxiliary and main channels because jammer signal is very powerful).

You get rid of parasite modulation by dividing the two signals:

Umain(O)*Ujam(O) / (Uaux(O)*Ujam(O)) = Umain(O)/Uaux(O).

Now comes the trick: since Uaux(O) comes from the wide beam antenna, its graph is much "flatter", than the Umain(O), so one can assume that Uaux(O) = const (this is not very precise, but enough to understand the idea).

Uaux(O) is amplified in such a way, that the ratio

Umain(O)/Uaux(O) = 1

for any return coming from the first side lobe of narrow beam antenna (this is called the threshold, or base level).

Then the signal is passed to the filter with a cut-off at or below the base level

Umain(O)/Uaux(O) <= 1,

so you get a side lobe blanking as a bonus. This process is illustrated below (the form of the curves correspond to the antenna gain diagrams in the corresponding plane).




GSh was first implemented in C-25 Berkut M2 system in 1964. After Vietnam war experiences with Dvina, in 1970 it was introduced to Volkhov (C-75V-M3) and C-125-M Neva. In different systems, they use different antennas are for the main and aux channels, also the wiring for demodulation is done differently (in Berkut - by cutting of the signal at lower threshold, in Volkhov and Neva - by using logarithmic amplifiers in the subtraction scheme).

In C-75M3, separate GShV circuits are used for azimuth and elevation angle tracking.

In azimuth (beta),
main channel is connected to P-11V (azimuth wide beam) antenna,
aux channel is connected to P-13V (azimuth narrow beam) antenna.

In elevation (epsilon),
main channel is connected to P-12V (elevation wide beam) antenna,
aux channel is connected to P-14V (elevation narrow beam) antenna.

At first this might seem confusing, because one expects narrow beam antenna to function as main receiver and wide beam to function as aux receiver. But the notion of "wide" and "narrow" depends in what plane you are looking! For instance, in beta-plane, P-11 beam dimensions (vertical x horizontal) are 7.5 x 1.1] degrees, P-13 beam dimensions are 1.5 x 1.5; since 1.1 < 1.5 , the P-13 beam is actually wider than P-11 beam in azimuth plane.

Last things:

1) since GShV needs main/aux channels with wide & narrow beam antennas, in Volkhov it can be used only in LORO ('Podsvet') mode.

2) GShV mode is not compatible with SDC (the phase information required to filter targets from clutter is destroyed when transforming the signal).

3) GSh modes were designed to counter single jamming target; I've no idea if it works for group targets or in the background of stand-off jamming coming from from EB-66C or similar aircraft.

Sadly, I have found no pictures of the operator view of beta or epsilon indicators of a jamming target with GShV on/off.
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/08/16 05:03 PM

Thanks thumbsup

How does it work at S-25? There are just two antennas for epsilon and beta. What is the source of the second signal?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/08/16 08:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Jonas85
GShV is an ECCM fix against AM-modulated jamming. For the first time, this technique was introduced into C-25 Berkut, later - into C-75 Volkhov and C-125 Neva systems. In Berkut, this mode was called GSh, in Neva - GShN. I guess that the abbreviation GSh stands for the Russian "Gashenie Shumov" - that is, "noise reduction", letters V and N means the implementation in Volkhov and Neva systems.

In a nutshell, GShV is a side-lobe blanking and AM-demodulation scheme, that is based on comparison of the signal from the narrow-beam antenna, epsilon or beta (this is called main channel) with a reference signal coming from the wide-beam antenna (this is called auxiliary, or compensation channel).

............


1) since GShV needs main/aux channels with narrow & wide beam antennas, in Volkhov it can be used only in LORO ('Podsvet') mode.




Maybe it is the opposite - auxiliary signal received by narrow-beam antenna, main - by wide-beam antenna (as LORO is with narrow-beam antenna transmitting and wide-beam antenna receiving...????
Posted By: Jonas85

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/09/16 01:22 AM

Excellent question, piston 79!

Actually, in describing GSh mode, I used "narrow" and "wide" beam in a different sense!

"wide angle" antenna means = larger or at least equal diagram of reception than that of a "narrow beam" antenna in a particular plane.

So, in case of GSh, azimuth (beta) plane... (vertical x horizontal)

P-11V antenna, main lobe diagram 7.5 x 1.1 degrees
P-13V antanna, main lobe diagram 1.7 x 1.7 degrees

Note that the angles for P-11/P-13 antennas in beta-plane are

1.1 < 1.7!

So, the arrangement is as follows:

main channel receives from P-11 (which is usually called "wide angle")
aux channel receives from P-13 (when it is not transmitting) (which is usually called "narrow angle").

Now you see why the roles of P-11/P-13 are (as "wide"and "narrow" beam) are, technically speaking, reversed!

The same is true for vertical (epsilon plane), using P-12/P-14 pair as main/aux receiving antennas.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/09/16 09:10 AM

Here you go with the Volhov GShV operations panel.


Right from the FCO panel, at the wall...

Posted By: Jonas85

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/09/16 11:48 AM

Dear Hpasp, are you sure it's GShV panel?

I think you are actually showing a panel on block I-57V for a different ECCM feature, called DISKRIMINATOR.

You should look for GShVs on panels I-30(AV, BV, BB), I-31VU, I-330VMI, I-355MV.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/09/16 03:39 PM

Yes you are right!
Posted By: Jonas85

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/14/16 11:18 PM

I updated my post on GShV with more precise notation, pictures and included the answer to piston79's question. Enjoy! thumbsup
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/15/16 07:02 AM

Great description!
thumbsup

Keep continue, with the Diskriminator.
biggrin
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/15/16 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Great description!
thumbsup

Keep continue, with the Diskriminator.
biggrin


Maybe we must double it up (in special topic, say "SAM ECCM CAPABILITIES",so having this wonderful info not only in the parigular SA-xx topic, but summarized in a particular one...

How about you, guys...?
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/19/16 02:27 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Great description!
thumbsup

Keep continue, with the Diskriminator.
biggrin


Maybe we must double it up (in special topic, say "SAM ECCM CAPABILITIES",so having this wonderful info not only in the parigular SA-xx topic, but summarized in a particular one...

How about you, guys...?

I am for the new topic too.
Posted By: Jonas85

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/23/16 09:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
Thanks thumbsup

How does it work at S-25? There are just two antennas for epsilon and beta. What is the source of the second signal?

This question is now answered at C-25 Berkut (SA-1 Guild) thread...

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Great description!
thumbsup

Keep continue, with the Diskriminator.
biggrin

I have found some bits on Diskriminator copter My info is not very detailed (design projects are missing from PVO website), but I think I have some vague idea how it works (or at least I think I have...). Will post that at some point salute
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/27/17 05:05 PM

Capu Midia range; September of 2017

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/27/17 06:53 PM

DUBLER....
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/27/17 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by piston79

Great thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/03/18 10:07 AM

[video:vimeo]http://www.military.com/video/opera...r/b-52-hit-twice-lands-safe/661837272001[/video]

<iframe width='476 px' height='372 px' src='http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/persian-gulf-war/b-52-hit-twice-lands-safe/661837272001?snippetVideoId=207dde4ccaaceafaaf15d5b4baf33837' allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe> <iframe width='476 px' height='372 px' src='http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/persian-gulf-war/b-52-hit-twice-lands-safe/661837272001?snippetVideoId=207dde4ccaaceafaaf15d5b4baf33837' allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe>

HTML
<iframe width='476 px' height='372 px' src='http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/persian-gulf-war/b-52-hit-twice-lands-safe/661837272001?snippetVideoId=207dde4ccaaceafaaf15d5b4baf33837' allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe>


http://www.military.com/video/opera...r/b-52-hit-twice-lands-safe/661837272001
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/12/18 09:22 PM

[Linked Image]
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/12/19 07:01 PM

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/04/19 06:48 PM

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/26/20 08:38 PM

[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]


[Linked Image] ]
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/30/20 08:14 AM

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/video/album/1022/?mode=view&id=301907

[video:youtube]https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/video/album/1022/?mode=view&id=301907[/video]
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 03/30/20 08:22 PM

[Linked Image]

Attached picture nice_KARAT_S-75M3.JPG
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/30/20 09:43 PM

© 2020 SimHQ Forums