|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045 |
You've forgetting the most important factor in whether a radar can detect a target or not. Range!
If you halve the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by sixteen times!
If you quarter the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by 256 times!
Are you sure with the numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 249 |
Yup, I'm sure.
Radar signals have to make a two way journey, so they fall off at the square of the distance on the way to the aircraft, then the reflections fall off at the square of the distance on the way back to the radar receiver. Squared twice is fourth power. distance�� = distance^4
It makes radar detection REALLY dependent on range.
Last edited by Mdore; 02/07/14 07:54 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
Hotshot
|
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893 |
Do you know the real capabilities of a system and tactics designed to penetrate airspace defended by TOR-M1? See, all of these SAMs are great, but one way or the other, compared to aircraft they are static defenses. Also, TOR is simply old. If you're just facing a single F-35 or F-22 lobbing SDBs everywhere, ok, great. Maybe he'll run out of SDBs before you run out of missiles. But on the other hand, if he comes in with a 4 ship and lobs 32 SDBs (it doesn't even matter if he can find the SAM battery. If you don't reveal it's location right then and there, those SDBs destroy whatever they are aimed at. That might be your fuel depot), you're forced to defend - and in reality, what you will be defending against is 4 F-35's (let's forget F-22's for a moment, ground attack is really not their job, but they can do it) lobbing their SDBs and then jamming any radar that turns on. Another 4 F-35's behind them will be doing a similar job, so that the front guys can get out. At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at. If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus. Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS. A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?
I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .
My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.
If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.
Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.
Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US. No decoys were used in 99 OAF. Jamming was not so strong (NAVY EA-6B had to cover USAF planes, as the EF111 were scrapped). Technology designed in the '50s(!!!) were able to kill the most advanced US jet of 99. One of my reason why I developed SAMSIM, is to show you (military enthusiast of the west) how dangerous these SAM's can be if you do not take them seriously enough. (One of a US Electronic Warfare officer compared them to a Samurai Sword... ... hopelessly outdated technology, but still as deadly as ever)
Last edited by Hpasp; 02/07/14 07:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045 |
Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.
I guess he means MALD decoys.... May moderators move those posts in new topic...., like "Modern air defense", or similar ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339 |
Do you know the real capabilities of a system and tactics designed to penetrate airspace defended by TOR-M1? See, all of these SAMs are great, but one way or the other, compared to aircraft they are static defenses. Also, TOR is simply old. If you're just facing a single F-35 or F-22 lobbing SDBs everywhere, ok, great. Maybe he'll run out of SDBs before you run out of missiles. But on the other hand, if he comes in with a 4 ship and lobs 32 SDBs (it doesn't even matter if he can find the SAM battery. If you don't reveal it's location right then and there, those SDBs destroy whatever they are aimed at. That might be your fuel depot), you're forced to defend - and in reality, what you will be defending against is 4 F-35's (let's forget F-22's for a moment, ground attack is really not their job, but they can do it) lobbing their SDBs and then jamming any radar that turns on. Another 4 F-35's behind them will be doing a similar job, so that the front guys can get out. At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at. If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus. Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS. A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?
I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .
My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ... Thanks God that till now my country didn't start world war III and won't face the above scenario ... PS:1. TOR-m1 is an element in the intergrated Air Defence of NATO ,among many others. 2.Yes,i have participated many times in missions designed to protect/penetrate air deference assets.Do you ?
Last edited by ePap; 02/07/14 09:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,841
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,841 |
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !
Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!
A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?
I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .
My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...
Well, I could also say that I would hate to see my countries (I "have" two) armed forces underestimate enemy threats and overestimate their own capabilities like you do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,841
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,841 |
At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.
If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.
Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.
Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US. No decoys were used in 99 OAF. Jamming was not so strong (NAVY EA-6B had to cover USAF planes, as the EF111 were scrapped). Technology designed in the '50s(!!!) were able to kill the most advanced US jet of 99. One of my reason why I developed SAMSIM, is to show you (military enthusiast of the west) how dangerous these SAM's can be if you do not take them seriously enough. (One of a US Electronic Warfare officer compared them to a Samurai Sword... ... hopelessly outdated technology, but still as deadly as ever) I agree with GrayGhost. Jamming and how it's employed is one of those many factors/variables that makes real wartime scenarios very different from peace time training/exercises scenarios. Don't forget that countries such as US (at least the US Navy) and Australia (among other countries) will still really on jamming aircraft in the future, in the case of the US Navy and Australian Air Force (RAAF) with the F/A-18G Growler. Also don't forget that modern aircraft equipped with AESA radars such as the F-22 and F-35 will have self standoff jamming capabilities using their AESA radars (and on board jamming equipment of course).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339 |
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !
Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!
A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?
I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .
My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...
Well, I could also say that I would hate to see my countries (I "have" two) armed forces underestimate enemy threats and overestimate their own capabilities like you do. I assume that you have not clearly realized that SAMSIM is not just another simulator and some people try to contribute it with infos coming from real world and not from what you can find on the Internet or to other flight sims... So SAMSIM is my concern and I stick to it._
Last edited by ePap; 02/08/14 03:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639 Likes: 1 |
S-400  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
S-300PMU2  This is the main difference between S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle) 48N6 missile (150km max range), and S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle) 48N6D missile (200km max range). 
Last edited by Hpasp; 02/11/14 08:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 432
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 432 |
What is the misshapen quadrilateral box for? Engagement range for a height vs. Range display? Also what are the hollow circles on the display for?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045 |
What is the misshapen quadrilateral box for? Engagement range for a height vs. Range display? Also what are the hollow circles on the display for? box - kiling zone circles - missiles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339 |
A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639 Likes: 1 |
And targets (dots) with their movement vectors.
The killing zone is for the missile/system (that's why you can see target movement vectors). And it is indicative - it is for a given probability, even target outside of it may be hit....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 339 |
The killing zone/in range zone is very specific and very important computation on the FC computer and not something indicative.
Also it (killing zone) has nothing to do with killing probabilities.
So,target vectoring is calculated in acquisition mode and killing zone in tracking mode.
Last edited by ePap; 02/16/14 05:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives This is the missile killing zone (same against each type of target), not the missile firing zone (depending on target speed and parameter). The missile killing zone is displayed on the round display (right), while target specific firing zone is displayed on the rectangular (left) display.  The missile killing zone display has vertical and horizontal view...  
Last edited by Hpasp; 02/16/14 06:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOA's
by Terl9999 - 09/18/26 04:12 AM
|
Football
by Terl9999 - 09/18/26 02:42 AM
|
Flags
by Terl9999 - 09/15/26 10:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
