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)???
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)???
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? 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...
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:
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.
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.
Hmmm, and you said "No change in missile behaviour" - little sneaky developer... 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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 02/05/1211:22 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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... ). 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
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...
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!
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!
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
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!
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???
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!
Thank You! This is why we keep developing this SIM, to give You a sneak-peek into this (long ago) secret world.
Mission: El Dorado Canyon Target: SR-71 Blackbird Method: T/T87B
EDIT: This was noticed thanks to MAX2012...
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!!!
please guys did u think with yourself??? until when we have to talk about analog system! we can show our skill's about control better system! it not soon for us. we can if we have
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/19/1209:20 AM
Originally Posted By: milang
please guys did u think with yourself??? until when we have to talk about analog system! we can show our skill's about control better system! it not soon for us. we can if we have
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...
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 08/19/1209:48 AM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: milang
please guys did u think with yourself??? until when we have to talk about analog system! we can show our skill's about control better system! it not soon for us. we can if we have
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...
first - i realy tnQ dear piston! congratulation u open S*HI*I*T bottle on my head
... 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"...
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/12/1211:08 AM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
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...
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...
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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 11/13/1209:34 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.
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").
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...
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 ≤ N ≤ 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 ​​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.
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 ≤ N ≤ 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 ​​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.
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...
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/25/1308:42 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.
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."
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.
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....
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...
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 04/11/1311:08 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)
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.
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.
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...
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."
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/01/1306:33 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"
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 05/06/1310:54 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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/19/1311:01 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.
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.
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 !!!!!
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.
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?
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/1307:26 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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/1309:09 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).
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/1309:49 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?
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/23/1310:49 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.
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.
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*...
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):
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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/1306:35 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?
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/1308:22 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...)
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/1308:54 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...)
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 07/24/1310:47 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*...
*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
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
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.
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 sensitivityon.
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"]
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 01/15/1411:52 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 ​​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 ​​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 ​​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.
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.
(changing it is just rewriting one character in the code for me...)
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)...
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.
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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/03/1410:13 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...
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.
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...
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 06/15/1408:56 AM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
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!
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....
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?
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.
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?
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?
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)...
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...
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.
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....
Will all systems be getting Karat at once, or just one system at a time?
Flying elephant, thanks
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) ...
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....
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....
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
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)
00:09:14, 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)
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/28/1406:49 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.
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?
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.
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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/07/1410:53 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 10/22/1411:30 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)
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?
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.
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.
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)
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:
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.
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...????
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/09/1601:22 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.
Re: S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) - 09/15/1610:03 AM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Great description!
Keep continue, with the Diskriminator.
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...
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 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!
Keep continue, with the Diskriminator.
I have found some bits on Diskriminator 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
Hi folks, does anyone know the dimensions of the equipment racks? It looks like the same rack is duplicated for every station but with different equipment in a standard spacing?