Threat Guide
-
Nice document.
I have a question regarding your comment to the SA-5 on page 6: “At very high altitudes I have seen it get up to mach 30.6.” Do you really mean mach 30.6?I saw a lot of weird things over the years. :rolleyes: I was surprised myself. It may have been an ACMI glitch or it may have been because it went really high where no F-16 would ever go. I saw it and wrote down the speed. There were some notes that I should have omitted but it was hard to decide what to omit and what to keep in. I thought about omitting that note but moved on to other things.
-
Where did you get the image on 1st page? Can you share with us? It looks really cool.
Are you sure in page 47 and SA-4 without RWR?
Many times I cannot decide you wrote about RL capabilites or capabilites in Falcon. (R-73 is not a WVR missile, etc. )
Because in this case are such difference between some SAMs this doc. can be base the future changes. For ex. Osa had almost identical guidance to SA-4, but it was more advanced.As I can judge you checked the DB values.
The information on the cover image is at the bottom of page 2. A-7E bombing Duong Bridge during Operation Linebacker-1, wikipedia.org. I tried to give credit for all the photos but I usually could not find who took the photo and just where it was posted. I spent several days collecting images and then picked the ones to fit where I had left over space. I had to photoshop that photo a lot. It was an old image with streaks and blotches in it.
I think that the only RL number that I put in the document was for the engine thrust. Everything else was tested in the sim. The idea was to have stats in the sim to plan for.
I tried to find a correlation between DB and performance in sim but as you have noted in previous posts there is a lot of difference between the two. I added in the DB info for the AA to missiles to get the gimble limits and left the rest in for comparison of the parts that we can’t see. Grey numbers are DB numbers and black numbers next to them were observed. The ranges of the missiles and seekers were tested in the sim.
Some of the information may be skewed by the sensors that I used to determine things or the AC that I tested them against. For example, I checked the range to target when I heard RWR noises for search and fire control. And they were not always the same going toward or going away or going toward for the second time. I learned later that the different RWR’s pick up different band. Then I learned that at different times different letters were used for different frequencies. So trying to get it all under the same standard was difficult.
I tried to note how I checked everything at the beginning of each section.
-
A bit confused on max range of guns and would appreciate some clarifications.
For instance, it is known that the KS-19 has a max range of 34, 000ft and when you fly at say 20, 000ft, your aircraft is not affected by the ks-19 shots
Is there a lethal zone for these shots?
Want to believe that if max range is 34000ft, shot from the ks-19 should hit at 25000ft.I only checked to see how high they shot, not if the F-16 was taking damage or not. If I saw flak then I wrote the altitude down. I didn’t use range numbers from outside sources or concern myself with what the real ranges are. The numbers out there are all over the place. I will leave that to more qualified people like the BMS developers.
-
Great job TeeSquare and thanks
-
Excellant work, Compadre! It will be with me when I fly
-
I updated the link on the first post.
-
Outstanding work! Thank you very much for sharing.
-
Good job, very helpfull.
From my experiance :
KS-19 Max fire range : 27500ft (In PDF - 34000)
KS-12 Max fire range : 23000ft (In PDF - 30000)
S-60 Max fire range : 16000ft (In PDF - 6000)The KS-19 shoots up to at least 30K in BMS in my experience.
Nice doc TeeSquare
-
The guide was updated to reflect changes made in the U2 release. A better pdf printer was used that increased the resolution of the images and reduced the pdf file size by half.
-
Very nice TeeSquare. This is seriously useful stuff. Many thanks!
-
The KS-19 shoots up to at least 30K in BMS in my experience.
Nice doc TeeSquare
Yep, those guns are so annoying, from my experience its also about 30K.
But Shilka ceiling seems to be overrrated. 18K? Well, i don’t think so. More like 12K IMO.
ZU-23 has same guns (only number is different, ZU-23 has 2 and Shilka has 4, and OFC Shilka has radar) so ceiling should be the same as for Shilka. But it is not in the PDF.
Bar Lock-B Chaff Vulnerability:High? Well, its searching (target acquisition) radar so using chaff against it makes no sense at all as it is not guiding missiles, its just battery early warning radar and not FCR. Same for Long Track.
Square Pair (SA-5) ECM BT Range: 0 nm?? Really? It’s a strong radar. Initial/ Terminal: Command/ SARH?? Well, AFAIK SA-5 has no command guidance at all. The only guidance methods are SARH and HOJ, at least in SAM Simulator.
Pat Hand (SA-4) Initial/ Terminal: Command/ SARH?? Probably wrong again. In SAM Simulator it is only command guided, no SARH at all.From what i know all early Soviet systems (SA-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, not sure about 6) was based on single guidance method. So either command or SARH (well, preatty much all of them except 5 and probably 6) was command guided. So no combinations like initial command and later SARH. Its not AMRAAM
Tunguska Notes: 1982. Very Dangerous. 1msl/tgt 6 tgts. Well, guns should be dangerous but missiles not so much, at least IRL. Those missiles was designed as anti helicopter weapon and they are far from good when used against high speed/high manouver ability fighters like F-16.
SA-13 Tracking/ Name: OB Snap Shot (K), IR/ 9K35 Strela-10. Well, IRL it uses combined IR +TV tracking (similar to Avenger with combined IR + UV), this is the reason why its hard to evade them with flares.
Spice is under GPS guided bomb which is not really correct.
AGM-65D and G are not TV IR, but only IR (IIR to be precise).
JASSM… Well… Not sure if its imlemented. And AFAIK it has no IR guidance at all, not sure about DL, AFAIK it has no DL. And JASSM is useless against armor because its intended to attack fixed strategic targets. -
Yep, those guns are so annoying, from my experience its also about 30K.
But Shilka ceiling seems to be overrrated. 18K? Well, i don’t think so. More like 12K IMO.
The rounds go up higher than the target in tacview but I was unable to estimate how high they are really going in the sim. I was being shot at as far as approximately 3nm so I converted it into feet for maximum altitude in the sim.
ZU-23 has same guns (only number is different, ZU-23 has 2 and Shilka has 4, and OFC Shilka has radar) so ceiling should be the same as for Shilka. But it is not in the PDF.
The numbers are based on what the sim was doing when I tested it. Not what it should be doing in real life.
Bar Lock-B Chaff Vulnerability:High? Well, its searching (target acquisition) radar so using chaff against it makes no sense at all as it is not guiding missiles, its just battery early warning radar and not FCR. Same for Long Track.
These radars used to provide fire control in the sim until they were separated in 4.33. The values that were tested during that time were left alone. I think that I was able to detect the search radar range in 4.33 but I don’t remember if I pursued that information and changed it. Search radar provides early warning and can hand off the target to the fire control radar. This may or may not be what is really occurring in the sim, but no sense in ruining the illusion.
@macieksoft:Square Pair (SA-5) ECM BT Range: 0 nm?? Really? It’s a strong radar. Initial/ Terminal: Command/ SARH?? Well, AFAIK SA-5 has no command guidance at all. The only guidance methods are SARH and HOJ, at least in SAM Simulator.
The burn through range is somewhere inside the minimum range. Since the system does not shoot while ECM is on at any range, the value ends up being 0. ECM was so effective against the SA-5 that it was like turning on a flash light that instantly blinded the system when I tested it. Seemed like the K-2 van could provide command link functions.
Pat Hand (SA-4) Initial/ Terminal: Command/ SARH?? Probably wrong again. In SAM Simulator it is only command guided, no SARH at all.
Probably? I read that it has a semi-active terminal homing phase. Some sources only mention the command guidance. Would be nice to have a good source saying it is only command guided.
@macieksoft:From what i know all early Soviet systems (SA-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, not sure about 6) was based on single guidance method. So either command or SARH (well, preatty much all of them except 5 and probably 6) was command guided. So combinations like initial command and later SARH. Its not AMRAAM
SA-2 shows command only
SA-3 shows command only
Already wrote about SA-4
Already wrote about SA-5
SA-6: I read that it has both command and SARH.
@macieksoft:Tunguska Notes: 1982. Very Dangerous. 1msl/tgt 6 tgts. Well, guns should be dangerous but missiles not so much, at least IRL. Those missiles was designed as anti helicopter weapon and they are far from good when used against high speed/high manouver ability fighters like F-16.
The Vault mostly shows in sim performance. Go inside the typical engagement range and see what happens. If you can evade it a few times, please send me the ACMI tape.
SA-13 Tracking/ Name: OB Snap Shot (K), IR/ 9K35 Strela-10. Well, IRL it uses combined IR +TV tracking (similar to Avenger with combined IR + UV), this is the reason why its hard to evade them with flares.
Optical homing and/or IR thanks.
@macieksoft:Spice is under GPS guided bomb which is not really correct.
It is described as an electrical optical GPS guidance kit that uses satellite guidance.
AGM-65D and G are not TV IR, but only IR (IIR to be precise).
I misunderstood imaging infrared. Thanks.
JASSM… Well… Not sure if its imlemented. And AFAIK it has no IR guidance at all, not sure about DL, AFAIK it has no DL. And JASSM is useless against armor because its intended to attack fixed strategic targets.
I read that it is to have IR and data link. A 1,000 lbs bomb will destroy a tank if it is stationary but I understand your point. It was in the sim when I tested it.
-
AFAIK K2 was fire control cabin under a FCR, K2 itself has no antennas, it’s just electronics container (not a van, it’s a static thing) under FCR. K1 is the FCR itself, with 4 antennas: transmit, receive, IFF and missile status downlink (receive only antenna, it does not transmits). Also the missile lacks antenna able to receive commands.
SA-5 was first SARH system, SA-4 missile noose would be too small to fit SARH seeker antenna at the time when SA-4 was build.
Here is reference, it’s in PL but it shows components of the missile, there is no SARH seeker. This is site made by guy who was SAM operator during Cold War: http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/pzr_krug.html#06k -
For the SA-5 I read this at ausairpower.net,
“The K-2 series Fire Control Centre van would qualify in part, under Western nomenclature, as a fire control van, and in part, as a radar control and management van for the 5N62 Square Pair. The 5N62 Square Pair is used to acquire the target, perform fine tracking, and provide FMCW illumination for the semi-active homing missile seekers. The K-2 van houses all of the radar consoles, but also houses the Plamya fire control computer which performs pre-launch and post launch missile trajectory calculations. Missile telemetry and command link functions are all controlled from the K-2 van.”
I’m still not sure about the command part not being present. It sounds like information on telemetry can be passed to the missile post launch.
Thanks for the SA-4 article reference. This was at the beginning,
“4. the difficult beginnings birth PZR “Krug”.
On a rocket 3M8 initially envisaged the use of a combined direct-radiokierowania on the primary flight segment and homing on the final flight segment. Semi-active radar homing head should work receiving the reflected signal to pulse radiation tracking channel to rocket guidance station.”It may be that they only planned to have SARH but didn’t implement it. But I couldn’t find that in the article. The article tends to use the word radiokrierowania in many spots which I am guessing is the command link. The translation to English was ok but not good and it was hard to read. It is also using names that are different from what I found in other sources so I am not sure if it is the same thing.
-
The KS-19 shoots up to at least 30K in BMS in my experience.
Nice doc TeeSquare
i often receive flak at ~32k (possible that the gun is on a hill somewhere, though)
-
Radiokierowanie means radio command guidance.
And HAPASP mentioned this about SA-5:
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3207415You’d think the Russians would’ve also given the missile the ability to remember it’s targets location/flight path and search for it with it’s seeker in the event the RPC lost track of the target. Any deviation by the target would probably result in a miss, but it’s better than nothing… And yes, a backup command guidance mode would’ve been extremely useful.
It is included. After loosing track, the missile will fly ahead, and will try to look for the signal received from the target, as long, as its battery runs out. (You can try it against a practice target, by switching the RPC off-on for few sec. The KRO signal will dissapear, and the missile should try to get the target at least.)
Command guidance would be inaccurate on these ranges, and would make this system more complex and expensive, and the missile even bigger.
(Just remember the S50 Dal, they were thinking about similar system)Mid course update would make the missile more susceptible against jamming.
So when missile looses target it simply flies ahead and waits for the target to be reacquired.
It sounds like information on telemetry can be passed to the missile post launch.
But where is antenna for command link?
-
Outstanding work - I remember the old version of this guide, which was also very useful.
-
Thanks for the SA-4 article reference. This was at the beginning,
“4. the difficult beginnings birth PZR “Krug”.
On a rocket 3M8 initially envisaged the use of a combined direct-radiokierowania on the primary flight segment and homing on the final flight segment. Semi-active radar homing head should work receiving the reflected signal to pulse radiation tracking channel to rocket guidance station.”It may be that they only planned to have SARH but didn’t implement it. But I couldn’t find that in the article. The article tends to use the word radiokrierowania in many spots which I am guessing is the command link. The translation to English was ok but not good and it was hard to read. It is also using names that are different from what I found in other sources so I am not sure if it is the same thing.
I think there are both versions. Original SA-4 (Krug) being command only, and later Krug-M being SARH for terminal. In any case it doesn’t really affect us in the sim whether it is one or the other.
-
SWEET ! You the man.
F-Bear
-
thank you!!