homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation SAM Simulator

Actually it is the correct assumption, for a whole bunch of reasons, including the fact that usually guidance signals mean someone has launched or is launching on you. Often enough the RWR cannot make that distinction for you, other than to signal 'missile launch' if it receives guidance signals with a certain transmit power (ie. inside lethal range).

??? Did u even listen the interview? This has nothing to do with Serbs and what they knew or didn't knew. He said that because many people ask him how did he get shot down when F117 is stelth (completely invisiable in their heads). Then he said that not even B2's are completely invisiable. And not 'everyone' knows that espetially because in media (both western and eastern) there was created mith of invisibility rather then low obesrvability around stelth planes. Zoltan Dani contributed to this mith when he said that he used modified radar (which is not true).

IMO it is a silly and risky way of assessing enemy missile capabilities - you 'defeat' every brief out of kill-zone non-launch and then are hit by the first pair of real missiles... yet can still claim that hit rate is less than 10% or some such nonsense... even saying that 50% is 'correct' based on one hit from a pair of missiles misses the point that this is one hit from one engagement.

It is silly until you realize that you may not sight all launches, and you have to depend on your sensors.

This could be correct for command guided SAM's in theory, but as deceptive launches (just giving out signals, without actual missile launch) are pretty basic practice during the fight, counting RWR signals would overestimate launched SAM numbers, thus underestimate their effectiveness.

This is completely false in case of SAM's using semi active, or passive guidance.

I doubt this to be true, especially in an environment rife with SEAD, you want to take shots, and make those shots count - but hey, that's just speculation.

This hasn't got anything to do with 'faking out' your opponent, at least AFAIK. It's simply a limitation of what an RWR can do.



Reaction to STT is immediate evasion in the majority of cases. The fact is, in at least some situations you're not going to bother waiting for a launch signal, you will go evasive. Eg. Iraqi MiG-29 flight vs 2 F-15's. The MiG locked up one F-15 at about 4nm range, that F-15 went defensive immediately, while the other F-15 launched an AIM-7 at the same time. You could argue that this was part of a drag and bag tactic (the F-15's were closing to VID because they had some form of EID failure, IIRC), but frankly I wouldn't want to be going head to head with some SARH missile at 4nm. I'd rather drop into the notch then and there and prevent the shot.

There's also a possiblity that you can't tell radar STT from missile shot - ie. perhaps it's always generating an M-link, or perhaps you can't pick up the M-Link. The radar itself doesn't necessarily have to change waveforms to guide a SARH missile.

Again, this has a lot to do with limitations of RWRs AND training.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be underestimating the B-2 and think of it as a bigger F-117. I think that like with the F-22, we probably know only around 10% of what's on the B-2, and the rest is classified. There is a reason why the B-2 is still in service, and the F-117 is not. About that active cancellation thing, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it actually works as advertised, and who knows what else the B-2 packs that we don't know. I personally wouldl expect it to have a system that triangulates radars as well. I'm not saying that SAM Simulator should be trying to guess about these secret things, but just keep that in mind when discussing the B-2 and the F-117 together. I personally have a much higher opinion of the B-2.

THe B-2 isn't anything like a bigger F-117. It has onboard toys that the F-117 did not and could not have.



That's because you don't understand it; it sounds simple (and is simple) in principle, but in practice it's just next to impossible to properly implement outside of a laboratory where you can strictly control your emitter.



That's part of what ESM package.

Please note, that Soviet SAM systems has no STT mode.
SA-1/2/3 are TWS and stays in that mode during engagement, as it has to track 3~4 targets always (1 target + 2~3 missile).
SA-4/8 are monopulse sets
SA-5/6 are just illuminating their target, while their semi active missiles are guiding themselves



Radar triangulation capability is grossly overestimated in the case of '99 Belgrade nighttime bombing.

Approx 6~8 Metric (HARM friendly target acquisition) radars were continuously emitting all around Belgrade.
2~4 (on duty SAM) Centimeter band (fire control) radars were only emitting for a maximum of 20~30 second, during engagement (when target was closer than 15~20km), than moved to another position.
Several Centimeter band IRZ (radar decoy) were emitting and hopping positions during all night.

During B-2A attacks F-15C CAP, and F-16CJ SEAD were usually buzzing around Belgrade.
(So TOT timing was critical.)

The B-2A should overfly downtown anyway, they had to cross the SAM rings, each night.

This is for other participants, which are not fluent in techical stuff short names, like GrayGhost and Hpasp..

http://www.tscm.com/rdr-mode.pdf

hi guys i conecting with GPRS i cant leave here

i read all of latest post but one thing in my minde realy confuseing.... all of us talk about sa-3 acting war! but serbian army at that age armed with sa-6 !

so gainful is very newer than goa! so here is big logical qouestion
why sa-6 cant track any f-117 in serbia but sa-3 can shot down 2 f-117 ??????
sa-3 is real analog system but gainful is semi-homing


plase explain to me

KUB is just five years newer (due to protracted development of the solid fuel ramjet missile engine), than the Neva.

They really miniaturized quite a many system component compared to the Neva...

while a Neva Battery needed separate vans for these:

DES Diesel electric generator
RKU-N power distributor cabin
P-15 target acquisition radar
UNK fire management cabin
UNV SNR-125M1 (Low Blow) fire control radar

... the KUB SURN (Straight Flush) fire control radar has it all in one tracked chassis.

Anyway, it also scored above the Balkans...

Ok, just to be very clear then, I used AI radar terminology and I should not have done so - you are correct, SAMs can perform TWS constantly because they have multiple radar systems, as opposed to an AI radar. So to be a lot more precise, what I mean by STT was fire control target track.



You're right; TMA has been used in fighters against jamming targets etc, but it all takes time. A newer system can potentially operate faster, but there are also spatial requirements, at least for the older equipment.



Sure, SEAD is planned to deal with the TOT, there are even some interesting presentations/docs on this somewhere

Just to be clear - there are no more radar systems like in for example Nike system - for example SA-75 and S-75 uses only one system for tracking target and missiles simultaneously. Of course it has effect on missile trajectory, lead distance and so.

guys.... all of us have a lot of controversy about tracking b-2 on next scenario but i think we have to, still wait
until mr.hpasp creat that scrnario for us. and then we can test it and we can share our report after action in here.


about nike hercules or somthing like sam nuclear system ... i dissagree with this project
because it looks like (you glue one Grenade on your hand and try to throw this at somewhere = this is realy Suicide)

The following command guided Soviet SAM systems has separate missile and target tracking antennas...
2K11 KRUG (SA-4)
9K33 OSA (SA-8)
S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A)
S-300PS/PMU Volhov-M6 (SA-10B)
S-300PM/PMU1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A)
S-300PMU2 Favorit (SA-20B)

Yes, and as I remember correctly, Krug was the first one.

PS: in my previous post I was talking about the first three "true" TWS systems. (Of course the other can see more targets in one beam using one antenna system, but they are not designed to do that during its work - for the first three it is a must).

There were a 9V21M ZIL truck fielded, that helped to set the target/missile tracking antennas parallel...




... for the 2K11 KRUG (SA-4) system.

I have read some notes from a former Krug maintenance technican - he described the procedure and also mentioned there were some lights on the tower for optical alignment of antennas.
Also the position of antennas was measured with potentiometers and each was capable of more than 100 revolutions to get the required precision.

O M G ! mr.hpasp i read again sa-4 PDF .. but i never ever seen this truck at pdf!