Can notching even work with SAMs? As far as I understand, if you want to notch a radar you have to have the ground in the background from the perspective of the radar, which is not going to happen with SAMs unless there's convenient mountains in the background. Excuse me if this is a stupid question, I don't play this game.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Notching works without being highlighted against terrain, just works MUCH better if highlighted against terrain. I think I show it here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eI2XmcmilLnZprg.html

@gmangnall

2 жыл бұрын

Yes it works. However if you are looking up in the air and not at the ground you can use a non doppler radar mode which isn't susceptible to notching....if looking at the ground that you really want to use doppler....and that is susceptible.

@OliverMiles98

2 жыл бұрын

The fire-control RADAR of this system in particular is a continuous-wave (or CW) RADAR, meaning it continuosly transmits (unlike a pulse/pulse-doppler RADAR which sends out a pulse and then listens for an echo. Because the weak return from the target competes with the transmit signal, these kind of RADARs need a way to separate the transmit signal from the received signal from a target, this is where the Doppler effect comes in, as a moving target will shift the frequency. The 5N62 in particular primarily uses a pure CW mode, which can only determine targets if they have a non-0 closure velocity (according to documention of the free SAM simulator, the limit is 40 m/s (~80 knots). As a pure CW mode, it can also only measure target velocity, elevation and azimuth, but not range. It does have another mode though: The first is a phase-modulated mode, which provides for range determination, though here the minimum closure velocity increases to 60 m/s (~ 120 knots). This mode has less range than the primary CW-only mode. It does have 2 additional sub-modes. The first is a frequency modulated mode, which is used against targets attempting to, or are notching the RADAR, and it can track targets with 0 closure rate. I'm unsure how it does this, but one thing to take into account is that this mode has the worst range. The last sub-mode is a memory mode when the target is lost, the RADAR tracks where the target is predicted to be, based on the last known target parameters.

@OliverMiles98

2 жыл бұрын

@@cdgncgn The missiles just home in on reflected energy from the target (SARH all the way), with an optional initial loft manoeuvre for distant targets. Unsure about simultaneous missiles, but the RADAR receives a downlink from missiles in flight (received by the small helical antenna on the left of the RADAR), but I'm not sure how many missiles are supported. As for targets, it's one per 5N62.

@pistonssssss

2 жыл бұрын

@@OliverMiles98 SAM Simulator?

Welcome back RC! MASSIVE props for all your hard work the past few months. Sir, I doft my cap to you!

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

He's already on his way back out there :(

@Decrepit_biker

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers I think I speak for all the valued viewers when I say, stay safe RC!

The missile isn't designed for low altitude's it was designed to protect high priority targets from high flying nuclear bombers and it does that well, for lower closer stuff you have s-300's and the like, it is a very power strategic option because it halts a lot of Ariel activity wanna sling jsows at 60 miles can't do that because at that altitude those missiles can easily hit you, and whoever has the sa-5 on there side has the advantage in bvr because they can sling missiles up high at long ranges while the enemy is forced down and can't fire back. Overall while missile at least a longer ranges isn't very deadly in the kill aspect it is very powerful because it can dictate how opfor is able to fight and gives your forces a major advantage.

@92HazelMocha

2 жыл бұрын

Since the initial production run of the S300 they’ve started making S300 missiles that perform closer to the Sa5, although none quite matched its range and altitude until the introduction of the S400 abm platform.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx

@tomriley5790

2 жыл бұрын

Might make it good for missions - forcing the planes down low and less flashy standoff stuff.

Is that RC?!!! Where has he been? We missed him!! Hope all’s well with the GR crew!

@koekiejam18

2 жыл бұрын

RC has been fighting wildfires for the past 2-3 months, mad respect for him

I really appreciate how well structured and informative these videos are! Cheers Cap.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

finally! My OCD comes in useful for something!

Very interesting! Well done GR ;)

I love these SAM test videos. If you feel like doing another one I'd love to see you take on an integrated air defence system with multiple types of SAM covering each other

This is one of the best best and briefly describing video ever... 👏 👏 👏 👏

The NPO Almaz S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna (Russian С-200 Ангара/Вега/Дубна), NATO reporting name SA-5 Gammon (initially Tallinn),[2] is a very long range, medium-to-high altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) system designed in the 1960s to defend large areas from bomber attack or other strategic aircraft. Each battalion has 6 single-rail missile launchers for the 10.8 m (35 ft) long missiles and a fire control radar. It can be linked to other, longer-range radar systems. -Wikipedia

It was interesting, and rigorous enough. Thanks.

Antennae are at the back for command link. Mid-Course and Terminal guidance is SARH.

Ahhh yes. They're back. Love these videos

Welcome back, RC!! Figured you were out fighting fires. Much repect, brother. Glad you're safe.

really well explained!!

In terms of the longest range SAM, the record is currently held by the S-500 which hit a target at 299 miles in 2018

@imjashingyou3461

Жыл бұрын

S-500 wasn't publicly acknowledged by the Russian Government till 2021. They still havent released data from it. And it would be a bit weird since its focused pretty heavily on BMD defense.

Altitude to stay blow radar as a function of range to target is Max Alt = Re [ sec(range/Re) - 1]. Set your calculator to radians, Re is radius of the Earth, and must be in the same units as range and Alt. Sec means secant, or 1/cos.

I remember the SA-5 from BMS Korean theater; setting a threat steerpoint over one of them was scary cause the range circle basically encompassed the entire map

It’s a really good addition to the sim bc it makes u be careful from longer ranges and if ur not careful it’s gonna get u but u can also overcome it fairly easily if u know ur buisnes

Best booster seperation was maybe the seaslug. Had front mounted wraoaround boosters. Used in the falklands on the antrim and glamorgan. and some were fired at stanley airport runway in the hope of the debris posing a threat to aircraft tyres. Also the spectacke of launch was thought of as morale boosting.

Looks like the old Thunderbird and Bloodhound Cap. I lived in Woolwich in the 70'S and a thunder bird was a gate gradian by the artillery barracks. Used to make me smile coz on a Saturday morning myself and young chums would play on it. Dad was an officer so they let us be lol.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Very cool!

I love the video and want to say thanks to cap as I have bin settings up all my controls and it's only took me around 4 hrs to do that and will be starting my first mission

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Thx Darren

+1 for KSP mention!

The SA-5 was built to operate in a network with the existing SA-2, SA-3, and occasionally the SA-4. The SA-5 is a strategic SAM designed to either hit or force targets down to lower altitudes where (once in range) they would be engaged by SA-2s and if they got through those then finally SA-3s. Think of it like this SA-5= Long Range High altitude low Pk SA-2= medium range and altitude Medium Pk SA-3= Short range low-medium altitude high Pk At least that's how they were initially intended to be deployed. One more cool factoid one particular SA-5 missile (5V28) was sometimes equipped with a 25kT nuclear warhead

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Brilliant, thanks

@Ironwulf2000

2 жыл бұрын

SA-4 is an Army battlefield SAM, so that wouldnt be too likely unless it was coincidentally near the SAM site, but otherwise yes that's right.

Man Cortana really served up those SAMS

I think the Sa-5 S-200 is a welcome addition to DCS World. Good to learn the system of a SAM with still easy options to take it out (staying below 1000ft)

GR at its best. This was really good. I'm assuming the harms will be followed up? 👍👍👍

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

rgr

Good video, guys. Hi RC!

Theoretically nothing prevents SA-5 from firing missiles in salvos. Unlike earlier missiles like SA-2 and SA-3 which were "blind" and guided from the the ground, this is SARH, so it guides itself towards radar signal reflected from the target. I think the only reason not to fire multiple SA-5 missiles is huge cost of each :) This system modeled in SAM Simulator and it is a lot of fun to learn and "operate" it there.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx

@paristo

2 жыл бұрын

There is limitation. Each missile is tracked from launch to terminal phase. At the terminal phase the semi-active seeker is activated for terminal guidance. At the launch the radar doesn't change its modulation or frequency, why the target is not suppose to receive a launch warning and is required visually spot the missile launches. When the fire control radar system on the ground estimates the missiles are close enough, it will lock the target. At that moment the RWR starts screaming to the direction of the locking radar (that can be from about 40 km different location than the launch site). In that phase the pilot needs to visually acquire the incoming missile (if for some reason was blind for the launch, ahem the low visibility by the clouds, glare, time of day etc) to perform a proper maneuvers against it. In DCS none of the SAM systems has proper TWS / command-link guidance mode, and RWR will get a warning of launch and lock hundreds of kilometers distance when the missile is actually launched, giving multiple minutes time for pilot to do all the fancy job without any panic. It is enough just to turn away for a minute and you have just beaten the missile completely. Another thing that DCS doesn't simulate at all is the proper guidance laws for the missiles, as there are multiple ones against maneuvering targets and steady flying ones, to get the missile in the proper approach angles and avoid getting maneuvered easily off by just diving toward ground a like. And there is no notching maneuver to be performed, the way to get lock off is to either brake the lock with proper ECM utilization, hard maneuvers properly timed and combined with chaff (best choice) or get quickly under radar horizon. But at the moment the RWR starts screaming, it is seconds away (and not minutes) and to find the missile direction to perform proper high G maneuvers one needs to drop the ordinance and get eyes on the thing. The most missile systems has two guidance channels per target, earliest ones had just one channel per target, so pilots were required to find out who is the target as everyone likely got RWR scream as they were all in the beam when launch happened, and then that one pilot job was to survive from it who was getting shot at. Then became two channels where two missiles were possible be guided, so when first one was dropped then a another was possible be launched to keep just saturating the target. Now days it is multiple channels on multiple targets, and it is ECM + Chaff + Maneuvers in the end. If the DCS would get proper guidance systems simulated, even just few of them. Every SAM system would become extremely dangerous overnight. No more "dancing around lock range" or fly "over them" to get missiles self-destruct. And when we get proximity fuzes, the game changes again. As currently proximity fuzes are not simulated and the fragmentation. Meaning direct hits are required. And in these large SAM the warhead sizes are so huge that destruction distances at low are in 40-50 meters, while at altitude they can be 200-300 meters. You simply don't go just avoiding those missiles anymore so easily like now. And SAM systems usually have a warhead detonation in the miss situations, so there is a probability that you get damaged or even shot down by the SAM that just did miss you. And the missiles wouldn't anymore just fly and drop off but have proper self-destruct before their battery is completely dead (example AIM-7 has 75 seconds, R-27 has > 60 seconds, Super 530D has 45 seconds etc). It as well means that missiles don't get self-destructed because the system thinks that intercept point would be outside of the engagement envelopes, so they will chase you to the end.

Reapers the SA 5 radar system is designed to look up and shoot down aircraft. It’s not designed to look down and shoot down, because at the time of service when SA5 systems were activated, land based radar was not capable of looking down. In current times radar is starting to look down and some Doppler radar systems can look down but it’s slaved to look at weather patterns, but in theory if Doppler radar could be adapted to SAMs systems there could be the chance it could shoot down low level flying aircraft.

Omg, who else thought when Cap said "Cortana" was thinking about Windows 10 Cortana AI voice? Until @7:00 i realized it was actually a person lol. Nice video though :) good to see the params in game.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

lol

The min engament altitude will change with range? The further away you are, the further ypu can drop below the horizon

There's no notch. The radar doesnt have to differentiate between the target and the ground as the ground is not moving relative to the radar, so there is no notch filter.

Love your voice RC

The SA-5 Gammon was designed to go after specific targets. It was focused on high altitude bombers and aircraft like the U-2. It would also be quite good going against AWACS or refuelers that get too close to the front lines. There is a history of the SA-5 being used to attempt the shootdown of an SR-71 during the Yom Kippur war. But they couldn't even fire a missile in time before it was well past the battery.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx

Glass cannon? They're not designed to be used alone. Most installations have at least 2 (most in Syria have 3 or 4) track radars - meaning up to 4 missiles can be in the air. They are designed to be used in conjunction with SA-3 and SA-6/11 covering low level and close in.

@TP-ie3hj

2 жыл бұрын

While its an old video and I like some of their large scale battle videos, a lot of these comparos are simply DCS. The DCS s200. That being said they forget to add the dcs. Its kinda like walking into a mechanics garage and picking up a hammer to try and remove a cars flat tire! Yes that tool is not for that job. A garage comes with many tools working together.

Probably the best and easiest way to take it out would be with a SLAM-ER. Provided there aren't any SA-15s or SA-10s around.

Ah yes the SA-5 SAM I think I remember having to take one out during a mission in “Janes IAF”.

Can't wait

Cap: " Missiles hate turning, they're not that good at it " Aim 9x and New Sea RAM ( with thrust vectoring ) : enters the room

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

lol

@CMDRSweeper

2 жыл бұрын

Well they still hate doing it, they just can, but when they do, they slice their ranges quite drastically too.

As an aside, can you take off and land a Mosquito from a Nimitz class? Or Mosquito on one carrier and a B-25 on another. They fight it out with their noses. But to win you have to land safely after the kill.

@timothybayliss6680

2 жыл бұрын

I am waiting for someone to model a B25G+ that has the M4 cannon. It was the Bo Jackson of ground attack in the WWII meta.

I would love if you made a follow up video on this system. My country (Poland) still uses it and while against a fighters it isn't very good, it is good enough that you can't ignore it. You could try to have a tanker flying outside the range and do air refuel and fly low to it, but it was rarely if ever deployed alone. Initially it had S-25 paired with it and a lot of other CIWS/SHORAD and then S-300 after a while. Of course the production was small enough that USSR could only put it in defenses of some cities, so for SR-71 it wasn't hard to fly inside USSR if US Intelligence knew where sites were. And from old maps I did found out that they mostly knew. Of course initially it had shorter range, though it's longest range that you see here is often mistakenly only attributed to "Dubna" version from late 80's. What people forget is that "Dubna" was the new version of the system and it's rockets were developed before the system was produced and older "Wega/Vega" model that was armed with them had this range (300+ km on test ranges/161 nm). However Export versions were based on the same rocket "Dubna" used, but with range limited to "Wega/Vega" range. Which was 240 (255) km (130 nm) - that is the only "mistake" that I find with SAMSim - though to be fair, where and how many of better rockets were used in "Wega/Vega" systems isn't fully known and their presence wasn't super official - we only know it because of some tests that were conducted. Heh, I could write about this system all day, but I don't want to bore you. I would love to see some further exploration of S-200 system. There is a lot that you can find about how different countries were/are using them and with what systems. Though only Iran uses 1 radar per site. Normal number was 2 for a normal unit and some countries use even 4. Which gives them ability to shoot down 4 targets at the same time. If you have good crew, next target can be tracked within seconds of destroying first one (or losing lock or something else). Sorry for the long comment.

confirming the around 1000 ft lowest altitude the missile can track: Effective altitude is 300 m (980 ft) to 20,000 m (66,000 ft) for early models and up to 35,000 m (115,000 ft) for later models (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_(missile)).

I would think the curvature of the earth would prohibit low level tracking depending on the altitude of the aircraft till it crosses the radars horizon. Since you have the radar at sea level the curvature of the earth will hide the aircraft until about 20 miles at 4 thousand feet. Just a rough guess.

@llamallama1509

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's this. For example when you're 200km away you're below the earth's curvature when you're below 10,000 ft. The earth's curvature is a very real obstacle for very long range radars and missiles. It even becomes a problem at relatively short distances if you can get low enough. Flying at 100ft you're below the earth's curvature beyond 23km

Perhaps a fun challenge for the Reapers would be to divide in teams (maybe 8 per team, more if needed) and be the first to take out a SAM array of the S-200, S-300, and some short range SAM system together.

I beat the sa 5 last night with a harm... I was in a f16 at 42k ft at mach 1.1 and used pos-pb and had to A/C pull up to just get in range and I got the kill. Did it agian with a s300 added to it, just spammed 4 harms and it worked, all on max level and red alarm state.

One of these got launched from Damascus at an Israeli jet and after flying a ballistic path it landed in Cyprus a few years back.

Yay RC!!

That’s actually how the Russians do their SAM’s; pairing longer range and medium range sams like S300 and S200 with SHORAD like Pansir or Tunguska, and for the really important sites, anti-ballistic missile platforms like S400.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx

@trolleriffic

2 жыл бұрын

That high/low combination was used to lethal effect over Vietnam where the threat from the SA-2 meant that missions were often forced to be conducted at much lower altitude where they suffered huge losses to AAA and which accounted for the majority of combat losses of US aircraft.

Range is going to differ greatly depending on target aspect. If it is not headed directly at the launch site at high speed the firing range will be much shorter.

RC is back in his true calling. getting shot at. in a bog.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Poor RC... bless

As you get closer, the minimum altitude gets lower because of the curvature of the earth blocking the radar signal.

@paristo

2 жыл бұрын

AFAIK DCS maps doesn't model earth curvature, but it is simulated in the radars LOS and the lock is lost when target range and altitude match the parameters that earth curvature would have.

So above 1000ft S-200, below it SA-7 Strela, and in the 1960s/70s, plenty of SA-2s to keep yer low, then the Ruski’s AAA, which they had lots of, get to play!

Hi Cap i'm guessing the HARM's are a bit bugged? just took out the Su-25t and launched 2 Kh-58U (fire 1 circle fire 2) at a similar site had to do evasive maneuver all the time after launch but the radars were destroyed oh Kortana plays KSP...cool =)

@OliverMiles98

2 жыл бұрын

Did you destroy the TRs? (AN/MPQ-46 HPIR)

@Mojje42

2 жыл бұрын

@@OliverMiles98 Yes... but only because i was using the same setup as Cap my first missile hit 1 of the radars and as they were so close to each other took both out and even damaged a couple of launchers.... not sure what the 2nd missile hit as i was busy dodging

Do they launch only 1 missile or launch a salvo for high altitude intercept ?

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

This site can only handle one missile in the air at once by looks of things.

Surely the flight floor is directly proportional to the range fired? The horizon is modelled correct?

@Aardvark892

2 жыл бұрын

DCS has flat maps. No horizon or globe. I think.

@Uselessnoobcow

2 жыл бұрын

@@Aardvark892 yeah but Cap has mentioned in the past that the horizon is modelled in every way other than visually

@Aardvark892

2 жыл бұрын

@@Uselessnoobcow That I did not know! Thanks, hw-with-really-long-name!

Aaah, gotta love the S-200, glad it was added at last. It should help a lot with the realism of your recent conflict recreations, as these are all over Syria. Even though the missile is rather obsolete, you've got to appreciate its uniqueness, with side-mounted solid rocket boosters and a (very toxic) liquid-fueled core like an orbital launcher, giving it such a range. Is it possible (yet) to hook it up to more modern fire control systems? There has been debate on whether Russia did hook Syrian S-200 to theirs in Syria, obviously a hot diplomatic potato.

@imjashingyou3461

Жыл бұрын

I know one SA-5 missile landed in Cyprus after continuing balletically being shot near Damascus at an Israeli jet.

@nagantm441

Жыл бұрын

newer S-200 rockets had solid fuel motors instead of liquid.

Test this maybe?: build a region of "unbeatable" SAMs. Mix and match for every variation and see who can get past or HARM it.

@KortanaDCS

2 жыл бұрын

"Unbeatable" is definitely a relative term. I'll fly against it either way though, lol

@Aardvark892

2 жыл бұрын

@@KortanaDCS Thanks for the reply, Kortana! Big fan!

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

wilco

+GrimReapersAtomic *The S-200 SAM system has a long minimum arming radius and the handicap of a ground targeting radar insufficient to the task of guiding multiple missiles.* The S-75 SAM system is designed around command guidance, meaning that operator training is critical for getting direct hits or near enough misses to proximity-fuze the warhead.

@paristo

2 жыл бұрын

The command guidance doesn't mean the missile is MCLOS or SACLOS, it only means that the missile flies where the radar station is commanding it to fly, and that is automatic based to not just radar lock, but as well external target position information (GCI network, so other radars, fighters, AWACS and so on) but as well the TV/FLIR optical guidance to avoid ECM and chaff interference. These are all utilized via various mathematical algorithms to give the missile best guidance laws decided to get missile near the target. The direct hit is not really wanted, but getting missile just 50-150 meters of the target is enough to make it go boom from either shock wave or from the shrapnels. The crew training is critical so they know what they are targeting at, where is the target located, where it is going on, and then they can select proper times to launch the missiles as well decide when manual override to guidance logic or going active is required. This is all required to be done by looking various tiny screens with nothing than frequency scale and "falling waterfall" effect and making all decisions based numeric range, angle, speed etc values when they can't get a TV/FLIR screen in use. The modern SAM systems are mostly automatic, example Pantsir, S-400 and S-500 systems are in automatic mode, where the system does everything except decide launch or not.

I'm 99.83% sure those missiles are not supposed to fly and guide like that. Furthermore, Mr. Wagner needs to add some lead to his shots.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Seems very WiP at moment. Still impressive.

Try max range against different sized RCS targets....see if its 160nm against fighter sized targets. Please of course

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

rgr

Most long range have SM-6 with 370 km range and 460km newest version , and SM-3 Standard Block IIA with record of 2500km max range .

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Those distances are getting stupid. Why bother even taking off???

@four-dimensionalperson

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers SM-6 replace SM-2 on ships , also army is working on a ground launched version if the navy's SM-6 missile (SM-6 have same seeker like AIM-120 ) Sm-3 it's compatible with AEGIS and can be launch from ships , also have ground variant . SM-3 it's a 3 stage missile (in 2008 she hit a sattelite on orbit ) On youtube it's video of launches SM-6 , she can pull 360 degrees maneuveres , Can make more insane maneuvers then Python-5 in DCS )

Hey Cap, you can beat a SA-10 by flying in low (around 50ft) and pop up at about 6 NM and kill the four radars with GBU-38 JDAMs. So according your research in this video , a combination of both SAMs and a Tor could still be beaten .

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Will investigate

Hi CAP. You are testing nearly everything in DCS, so why not make a test of the driveable vehicles - driveability, terrain going capability, fire power etc.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Have considered Cam, just waayyyy down my priority list. Also would need an "expert" to help. As usual I know nothing of ground vics.

@cmibm6022

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers Fair enough. And IL2 IS better for that - but still... And you have (had?) a tank expert giving a lesson in CA.

The best and most common defense against a HARM is to shutoff the radar...so continuing to attack it would keep it radiating so that the HARMs can get it.

@Rokaize

2 жыл бұрын

Well not really a defense. If the air defense shuts off it’s radar, then the objective of the HARM equipped aircraft is basically complete.

@whousley

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rokaize ...until the HARM missile attack ends and they flip the switch back on again. Shutting it off with high explosives is a more...enduring...way to stop it from functioning. ;-)

Have you taken the curvature of earth in to account while doing the floor part , cap ?

@Freeflyer91

2 жыл бұрын

Is that modelled in DCS yet?

@doverdown8718

2 жыл бұрын

@@Freeflyer91 yes, best example is naval warfare. it is modeled

@getsideways7257

2 жыл бұрын

@@doverdown8718 The curvature itself isn't modeled as far as I know - only the effect of it on the radio horizon.

@OliverMiles98

2 жыл бұрын

@@getsideways7257 Yep, DCS uses a flat Earth model, but there's a workaround employed to simulate the RADAR horizon on a spherical Earth.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

I did BUT it still appears to coded as a basic 1000ft AGL for the cut off.

These missiles would probably be most useful against AWACS planes.

is sa4 any good?

The Harm test is kind of invalid that isnt how you wild weasel you have one or more aircraft distract the site the other fires on it. Plus the whole ECM and jamming that the EF-18g Growler does. I think they also usually carry bags to loiter. I'll have to look next time they fly over during training. The Navy has some trucks it places in the mountains here to train the Growlers.

Next time try it like flight of the intruder, how they did it in Vietnam

I read in a book about the SR71 by 2 of the pilots that when over Vietnam in early years of the war, the Soviets took the radar or homing bit off, this so the planes jammers could not work on them. and made it explode with a proximity fuse, or some thing like that, cant recaal for sure but they said no matter what height they went to, the missiles always went above them and this was over 50 years ago Out of the corner of my vision, I saw these totem pole things just coming up at us, we hit the throttles and got distance between us, we could,nt go any higher.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Amazing

Cap I'm intrigued. Could you potentially try making an unbeatable Sam site. Russian and Chinese only. A fun challenge I think.

@KortanaDCS

2 жыл бұрын

+1. Would fly against it.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Adding to TO DO list now :)

@paristo

2 жыл бұрын

It is easy to do. You take the realistic amount of the units, and you spread them to about 80 km wide area, have few dozen various radars going on-off at various times, have launchers all scattered all over that area, everything backed up from multiple directions and multiple layers, correspondingly placed by the terrain features. And this barrier becomes between the invader and the defended facility/city/area. Then you combine it with the short range fighters (MiG-29's and MiG-21's) that are about 40-50 km from the frontline, and long range fighters (Su-27) that are located 150-200 km from the front and patrolling the air space. Simply saying, a two fighter flight trying to invade to the defended area will have about 15 000 men, 6 long range SAM sites (each having 5-6 launch positions), 15 medium range missiles, 500 MANPADS and maybe 50 various AAA, and 30-40 fighters between them and the target that needs to be bombed... You can't fly high, medium or low altitudes without first performing huge work to get everything peeled off one by one, with huge efforts to ELINT missions to actually know what is where and when to engage them.

KSP meets DCS? Yeah! :)

@KortanaDCS

2 жыл бұрын

Right! I really need to find time for KSP again. I know it would be a pain to model the booster stages on these SAMs, but it would be so cool to see a Korolev cross in DCS :)

@wizard1701a

2 жыл бұрын

@@KortanaDCS Both games are great but both demand so much time. According to Steam, I've already spent 242 hours with KSP, but unfortunately it doesn't support VR, so DCS mostly wins at the moment.

@KortanaDCS

2 жыл бұрын

@@wizard1701a I get what you mean on the VR thing. I have just shy of 1000 hours in KSP, but I'm not sure how much more of it I'll do before KSP2 comes out. If you want to do VR rocketry, maybe give "Reentry - An Orbital Simulator" a try. I have been meaning to record some gameplay from that now that I'm getting the hang of it :)

@wizard1701a

2 жыл бұрын

@@KortanaDCS I had never heard of "Reentry - An Orbital Simulator". I'll have a look at it, thanks for the tip.

You can beat S-300 by beating the BB by going under 300 feet, that'll get you to into 30ish NM before the CS will spike you. If you are able to get under 80 feet, which is the tracking radar floor, you'll be able to get all the way there, if not popup for HARM and dive back down. You could also do it by out ranging the BB from very high, but you'll need a larger number of HARM's, because they'll be slower by the time they get to the target and the SAM site will have much longer time to acquire and engage them.

your engagement distance test was flawed as it did not take into account the curvature of the earth, better to use a helo and check at various distances.

Hi Cap. As I understand it, notching means setting your closure rate (via maneuvering) with the radar to some value that the radar thinks is "bad" and ignores. This means it can no longer illuminate your aircraft for the seeker head of the missile to track. In this instance, Kortana seems to be notching the missile and not the radar station. If you knew where the radar station was, couldn't you just notch that?

@TheFanatical1

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe I don't understand how notching missiles vs. notching radars work but I thought the point was to get the radar to stop tracking you by entering into the notch of the radar itself. This seems much easier to find(because you know roughly where the radar is) than the missile-notch (presumably the missile also filters out "bad" returns and that's what you are doing here) because you don't know where the missile is

@KortanaDCS

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheFanatical1 So, in this instance, I was definitely trying to notch the track radar on the ground. Because the objective is to neither be moving toward the radar or away from it, you end up flying a wide orbit in the process (perhaps giving the impression the I was trying to notch the missile as it arced toward me). There were a few times where I just couldn't get the notch, so I started beaming the missile in preparation for trying to beat it by draining its kinetic energy (which turned out to not be very difficult).

@TheFanatical1

2 жыл бұрын

@@KortanaDCS Thanks for the explanation!

@OliverMiles98

2 жыл бұрын

It's not that the 5N62 filters out targets with a low closure rate, it's a CW RADAR, which relies on the doppler effect to detect targets, which means that targets with a low closure rate will be invisible to the RADAR.

@TheFanatical1

2 жыл бұрын

​@@OliverMiles98 It relies on the doppler effect to detect targets, or the doppler effect to distinguish targets from the ground?

The S200 officially has 400m minimum engegament altitude so around 1100 feet I guess. Since I don't do Imperial.

Cortana also knows a lot about space. Oooohhh, does she have a channel?

@KortanaDCS

2 жыл бұрын

Yep :)

@AndrewTubbiolo

2 жыл бұрын

@@KortanaDCS Subbing.

Anyone knows whats the difference btwn green status and red status in ground units?

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Reaction time I believe.

@OliverMiles98

2 жыл бұрын

Think of green as a standby mode and red as a ready to fire mode, practically speaking red will have a faster reaction time.

By bobbing up and down you are wild weaseling it and burning up missiles.

just gonna point out that in the kinematic section kortana went below 1000 feet atleast twice and it lost lock you cant notch sams because they arent doppler radars they cant be notched

How does a notch work against a sam? It's looking up so there isn't any ground clutter.

@harrychacksfield9527

2 жыл бұрын

Radar works by detecting if something is moving relative to it. If you can make your speed relative to a track radar 0 (i.e. be in a 90 degree notch,) it should lose you.

@georud54

2 жыл бұрын

@@harrychacksfield9527 That's how a doppler radar works. A pulse radar just looks for reflections, which don't care about relative speed, and should show a plane against the sky. I don't know if an SA-5 has a radar that is effectively both. I also did a search after posting my comment and at least someone though that ground base radars get a lot of noise as they're obviously close to the ground and radars don't make perfect beams, so a pulse radar might not work very well. No idea if that's true or not.

@mortlet5180

2 жыл бұрын

For old, simplistic radars, the 'notch' refers to an actual electronic notch filter placed in the received signal path to filter out all returns with a frequency close to the transmitting frequency, i.e. returns with a small doppler shift (this can also be done by using a "High-Pass Filter" after demodulation), which means the radar doesn't see the aircraft at all (it doesn't need to get 'lost' in the ground returns, because they are also filtered out and invisible). As for the more modern radars (think mid 80's to early 90's; basically anything using solid state electronics, except for the high power "transmitting tube" / TWT), excluding AESA radars since they can never be in the game, they can easily implement more 'intelligent' and programmable features to better analyze the returned signal and separate valid returns from the clutter. For example, one of the easiest and earliest checks was to check for ground continuity. Basically, since the FCR continuously predicts where the target will be (the radar obviously knows your position and velocity once it has locked you), then if, at the predicted next contact location, the aircraft has suddenly 'vanished' leaving only a 'stationary' ground return in its place, the computer will then check to see if it's actually connected to the ground, or just weirdly 'hanging' in the air. If it's not connected to the ground, the FCR can fairly safely assume either notching or chaff was used and enter a specific scanning subroutine to keep tracking the target (the radar still knows the distance and altitude to the target, and once it knows the target is notching, it can simply convert the observed bearing rate into an equivalent tangential velocity at that distance). Other techniques involve looking at the radar return's 'strength' as the target goes into the notch (all aircraft, except for some stealth aircraft, have a maximum 'spike' in their RCS down the 3-9 line; basically they give a much stronger radar return when the radar looks at them from the sides, down one of the wings) and comparing that with the relatively static, and less reflective, ground returns. Again, the FCR can keep following the aircraft's bearing and altitude, even in a look-down notching aspect, and since it knows the aircraft's velocity has to be in the tangential direction to be notching, it can also keep lock by simply nullifying the bearing rate as seen by the radar dish. Finally, one more computationally inexpensive (IRL) technique that could be used by that era of SAM's FCR, involves signal analysis. The easiest way to explain this is to imagine that your eyes could 'see' in the microwave region and that you are illuminating a target with the microwave equivalent of a flashlight. Just like you are able to see objects in front of other things, even when considering that you only have access to a single wavelength of light (i.e. walking through a dark room illuminated only by a green LED or, more accurately, a green laser pointer), a real FCR can look at both the spectral and temporal information contained within the radar returns. Specifically, one of the biggest differences is in the *phase* of the reflected waves, because the metal skin of an aircraft has a *much* higher conductivity and permeability than both the ground/sea and other common building materials (this is similar to the difference you can see in the 'reflection' of a transverse wave in a slinky when it reaches the end in the case that the slinky's end is rigidly affixed vs. compliantly allowed to move). Obviously, none of this is modeled in DCS, instead we just have a simple check: IF radial_velocity

@gort8203

2 жыл бұрын

@@mortlet5180 Thanks for that. Seeing a comments like this occasionally is the only reason I even come to this channel. Since you are obviously knowledgeable, could I ask you to elaborate on whether going to the notch is effective against real world SAM tracking and guidance radars? And no I don’t mean kinetically, but in breaking the radar lock. Do most of these radars use pulse doppler? What about the difference between older command guidance and more modern semi-active homing SAMs? I guess some of modern SAMs now have active terminal guidance, which I’m guessing would be pulse doppler since it is even more likely to be looking down at the target during the active phase of the engagement?

@josephmagana6235

2 жыл бұрын

@@mortlet5180 In fairness to Eagle Dynamics, at the end of the day DCS is still just a game and it probably doesn't make much commercial sense for them to make ray tracing an actual hardware requirement. It they were ever to do that it would be with their professional software that they sell to actual militaries first.

You just go right,left,right,left,right,left where between SR blackbird and SA-5 S-200

Harms missed because he pulled the radar too far to the right (Over 40-50 degrees by looks of it) so it stopped illuminating in the direction of the HARM's and they lost track. This is assuming he fired at the Track radar of course.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx

When Cortana was commenting on the missile elevating to launch mode I was hoping to hear "We have an erection!"

They remind me of Bloodhounds - I wonder if they were similar era.

@trolleriffic

2 жыл бұрын

They were similar era although the Bloodhound had a ramjet sustainer rather than a rocket. Sea Dart was an evolution of the Bloodhound concept, switching to a single engine inside the airframe rather than mounted externally and with a single booster rather than a cluster of four.

@tomriley5790

2 жыл бұрын

@@trolleriffic Interesting I didn't realise that Sea Dart was based on Bloodhoud - although it does make complete sense. Although CAMM looks like a good system as does the RN's Aster, I must admit that I think the lack of a good medium/long range SAM system is a gap in the UK's air defence. A version of Meteor adapted similar to AMRAAM/NASAAMs would seem to have been an easy win (and complementary to CAMM) but there doesn't seem to be any political will or interest in building it.

Can you use JSOW:s?

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

I guess so but you'd have to know exactly where the SAM was??

@leopoldsteneras8949

2 жыл бұрын

Can't you spot the SAM with the Targeting Pod? The HMD RWR-indicator can act as guidence. :)

SA-5 optimized for high speed tgts from 5000m to 40000m

@eccmo

2 жыл бұрын

And it has home on jam capability

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

RC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😁

In reality, this thing was designed to shoot down heavy bombers at distance, so it is not very useful against fighter size and type targets. As it was shown in US attack on Libya when they S-200 failed to hit anything.

SR-71 VS SLOWEST TO FASTEST ANTI AIR MISSILE TO SEE WHICH ONE CAN SWISS CHEESE IT

Is that rocket engine reigniting?

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

yes

@whousley

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers ouch. Shouldn't that make the missile a little harder to notch?

"Let's see is we can beat it kinematically" **notches it** FUCKS SAKE CAP

Radar power falls off at the square of the distance, Radar returns fall off at the 4th power.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx that means you need HUGE power output right? To get long range.

@AndrewTubbiolo

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers Yes, and/or very very sensitive receivers with excellent signal processing on the back end. DSP (Digital Signal Processing) was developed for just this reason during the US SAFEGUARD program back in the late 60's/early 70's for ABM purposes. It was a $10 Billion project then. The computational difficulties of doing data massage on RADAR returns on a timely basis, was one of the reasons the world took note of the MiG-31's phased array radar in the early 80's. Up until then you needed a building or a ship to house, power, and compute for them.

At this point I'm starting to believe that ED drop a new system and then let the community solidify its opinions on how it *should* perform over the course of next two years or so... Then they add adjustments and watch for the community to react.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

You and I both know that is exactly how it works. Question is, is that a bad thing? One thing I learned quickly in GR is there is more knowledge in cleverer viewers than I will ever have.

@getsideways7257

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers While I partially agree with you on that, I'd really prefer them to expedite the process. Pretty much everyone agrees that their F-16 wasn't exactly the top sustained turn rate performer upon release, and even now it doesn't quite look as it's there yet. The Tomcat - although not ED's module - was the opposite, and again - it still needs work (and don't get me started on the Hornet). It's taking ED forever to sort out thing like this. But while they are at that, "the most realistic" part might as well go to War Thunder until further notice. Maybe the future of flight simming (including combat flight) lies in the open source territory after all? That way auditing the code becomes as easy as reading the actual code and data. I'm starting to get tired of all the disappointment - it's making me feel old. Hopefully, the Apache will prove ED/Belsimtek being "great again". But considering they haven't fixed the Hind's "strafing" problem... Well, at least the systems are going to be fun (and glitchy?)

I think In Falcon 4.0 these missiles are kinda bad

Hey, I saw an A10 in the thumbnail dammit!

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

sorry...

I'm pretty sure the real SA-5 is limited to 6 missile launchers.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx

*sneeze* All the valued viewers: "RONAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"

How to beat the Russian stacked SAM site capability? SR-71s flying SEAD, of course. Retrofit them with a s-load of updated GBU-12s and have at it. Hell, at your speed and altitude, you wouldn't even need to stand-off with HARMs. Pricey, but effective, I would think. Sounds like a mission GR to me. You just need to figure how to get the Blackbird mod A/G capable.

@trolleriffic

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately Blackbirds can't dodge to save their lives and unless their ECM managed to neutralise the threat they would be at serious risk of being shot down by an S200. Plus they'd need to be heavily modified to carry weapons and targeting systems which is a lot of effort considering you could do the job with SDB glide bombs dropped by normal multirole aircraft.

@tombeers3489

2 жыл бұрын

@@trolleriffic Well, I guess if on GR you can take the Blackbird to about 20k feet above its best rated altitude and use it to face-plant carrier groups anything is possible. Just a fun -and admittedly over-the-top (pun intended) - scenario that GR could play with. (If they could get the payload.) Traditionally, SR-71 never dodged anything...they outran them at an insane altitude. No notching for them.

@trolleriffic

2 жыл бұрын

@@tombeers3489 That's a fair point. The SR-71 mod doesn't exactly behave like an actual Blackbird so it might not be so limited outside its normal mission parameters. With a 170 nautical mile turning circle the real aircraft had no other options than to keep flying high and fast and hope their sophisticated ECM system and speed would keep them safe.

@tombeers3489

2 жыл бұрын

@@trolleriffic I had heard that it was somewhat stealthy, as well.

30 ARMED ANTI SHIP SR-71S VS ANY AND ALL CARRIER GROUPS TO SEE IF THEY CAN GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO POP THEIR DEFENSIVE BUBBLES AND SINK OR KAMIKAZE, ALSO SEE HOW LOW YOU CAN GO I HEARD THE SR-71 IS SUPER STABLE AT 8-15 FEET

@trolleriffic

2 жыл бұрын

The SR-71 is bad at low altitudes. It's highly optimised for its mission and pretty rubbish at everything else.