Jump to content

blahdy

Members
  • Posts

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by blahdy

  1. Typical fire unit consists of 6 to 8 LSes; it also depends on which configuration of Patriot you're trying to model. RS is typically stationed behind the LSes. If you are modeling configuration-3, LS is remote-launch capable up to some 16-20km and does not have to be located in the same fire unit area (but does need to be assigned to an FU, data-link wise). If you are going after the latest PDB 7+ configuration, LS and RS can be located anywhere and no longer needs to be tied to any particular fire unit (sensor and shooter are both on the IFCnet).
  2. I think the first and the simplest thing we need is IADS data-link between SAM fire units. That would at least provide more cohesion and improve firepower between multiple SAM sites. Right now, if you put down 6 SA-10 or Patriot fire units spread out 10-20km across the theater, all of them will engage the same target.
  3. Yup. 110 degrees is a huge search volume, it's surprising to see how much stuff falls inside the radar search fan and that's probably the behavior you noticed. Not sure how the AI interacts with more than 1 radar running in game, but in real life doctrine side of things, you have more than one fire unit defending an area. Each fire unit radar is assigned to cover a sector and designated search pattern. (i.e. radar #1 running TBM search, radar #2 in ABT search, radars #3-4 doing same in different azimuth; or radar #1 doing TBM search and other radars in EMCON silent, etc.) So in a typical Patriot deployment scenario, you would have pretty much all azimuth sectors covered as you need; that, and Patriot missiles can turn backwards/maneuver accordingly after launch if the launcher was oriented in the wrong position.
  4. Both are correct. The in-game Patriot radar will only track/search in 110 degrees as noted; however, the game AI actually queues the Patriot radar to turn the other way around, if there is an enemy coming in the other direction, allowing the radar to acquire & track that target by slewing its turret. Likewise, if you have two enemies coming in, each from different direction outside of 110 deg field of view, then Patriot will only engage the first target, while the other one would not be detected until the first target has been prosecuted.
  5. Hey all, I can't seem to enable pilot draw in cockpit in DCS World -- Shift-P does not work anymore? Tried in F-15C, no pilot visible while in cockpit, tried searching for key mappings and can't find an option for it either.
  6. Let me re-phase it for you. You have no data. This whole notion of 'omg! AIM-120 can't maneuver because of puny fins!' is stupid. A check with physics course will allow you to discover that fin sizes alone don't make or break a missile's ability to maneuver.
  7. Both ARMs will get intercepted. As GGTharos said, these systems are designed to handle saturation attacks. If you launch several missiles at them, for as long as they have ammo and guidance channels available, they'll fire back on every one of them. ARMs are well within Patriot target capabilities (as far as success rate, that I don't know). The notion that Patriot cannot engage or much less even detect Kh-25MP (common ARM threat set against Patriot and Hawk sites during late 80's) is just bs. Patriot consistently engages and destroys PAAT targets that are smaller than ballistic missiles and travels at Mach 4+ in non-ballistic, maneuvering SSM profiles. Since we're reviving the old thread, regarding a previous post about clock drift causing Patriot to miss targets during GW1 -- this is actually incorrect. Clock drift had nothing to do with the way TVM functioned. The clock drift was related to placement of range gate while tracking the incoming hostile target (in this instance, a ballistic missile). Having a faulty time while analyzing return pulse will result in the target track being placed out of the range gate, thereby resulting in track being dropped and interception not even being attempted in the first place. This is what happened in Dharan incident in GW1. As for Patriots actually missing the targets during GW1, that was guidance and fusing issue related to a high speed ballistic target where hits were ineffective. (and also remember that MIM-104D PAC-2 developed during late 80's were programmed to fuse primarily against Soviet Tochka TBMs which were widely placed all over Europe -- those missiles travel slower at Mach 5; Scud comes down much quicker -- upwards of Mach 7) During GW2, PAC-2 GEMs and PAC-3s had perfect engagement-to-intercept ratios. Improvements made to GEM seeker head, including low noise seeker and fusing improvements paid off dividends in 2003. PAC-3 ERINT on the other hand was used in only 1 ballistic missile engagement (the other was friendly fire against TACAIR) and it intercepted its target, still giving it 100% success rate to date (as there has not been any further combat firing of pac-3 to date).
  8. pepin: Please note that in real-life missiles do not behave like CoD:MW or Battlefield 3. 120C is not Mach 4 right out of the rail -- that answers your question wrt maneuverability at close range.
  9. Speaking of Missile Dynamics, though somewhat unrelated.. I noticed that AGM-114 Hellfire in DCS has motor burn time of 5 seconds, but in reality, it only burns for 3 seconds. Source: - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/docs/1helfire.pdf - count the burn time yourself here:
  10. urmmm... shouldn't cbu-87 like... decimate the whole group of tanks ?
  11. yup... learned that the hard way, lol.
  12. Part of the issue is that MWS alerts you of both friendly and enemy launches, so when operating close with friendlies launching missiles, it's full of false positives, and therefore lazy people like me just end up ignoring it altogether XD
  13. Correct, Chaparral is visually/optically spotted and targeted. You'll probably want to engage them with Kh-25ML or Vikhr PGMs.
  14. Just separate out airbases by 120km and put S-300 and Patriot on each sides, lol.
  15. MW Mod 3.1 Version 3.1 is now released. Major New Changes: - MQ-9 Reaper UAV - Kh-25ML and Kh-25MP missiles for Su-25. - Patriot SAM now ripples missile launches by 2 seconds apart, rather than firing 2 in near-simultaneous salvo all the time. - T-80U more accurate etc Link to News and Download: http://www.moddb.com/mods/wicmw/news/modern-warfare-mod-31-released YouTube vids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zFhnvMFXA
  16. Thanks 159th_Viper. Iron Hand: Yup... The loft trajectory is a logarithmic function of distance to the target, so that explains the near-flat trajectory. I fired that Kh-58 at pretty close distance (I can't remember exactly, but probably like less than 30km? give or take) and at low altitude. If you watch in full screen, you can see that it's Kh-58 / AS-11 KILTER by the red label.
  17. See video here: Kh-58 misses the target radar, then does a circular loop-around to go at it again and then gets intercepted by FIM-92 Stinger. lol. Do ARM passive seekers have unlimited FOV in the sim? If it misses past the target, it should just dive to ground, no? (even if INS kicks in again though I doubt it, and the missile somehow manages to loop like that, Patriot radar isn't radiating directly above)
  18. Sure, it does keep it in the LOS (offset by a guidance gain K), as otherwise it wouldn't be able to track the missile anyway. You won't see a CLOS missile flying on a perfect beam line between launcher and the target though. :pilotfly: If the target dives into the ground, missile should dive with the target, as long as it stays in the LOS. You probably remember the "half-lead, elevated by constant" fix on SA-2 to 'mitigate' (but not eliminate) this problem. :-P Apologies if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth, bad choice of words there. But anyway IMO, the simplest way to solve this in game would be to just use two-step PN with variable navigation constant, rather than switching to CLOS. If the target track is aircraft, simply reduce constant (half-lead / pure-pursuit style) until missile approaches lesser than 1km, then switch to PN as it is in terminal flight stage. PAC-2 in RL is observed flying pure-pursuit style path during mid-course, until it goes lead during TVM/terminal stage. Switching to pure-pursuit style trajectory during mid-flight phase is the simplest way to mitigate terrain clearance problems xD If the target track is PGM or CM (i.e. HARM), just go full constant right off the start.
  19. CLOS really isn't going to solve the 'dive to the ground' problem you're mentioning. I've watched the video. That is not CLOS trajectory, nor is it PN trajectory. That's simply command-guided trajectory forming maneuver being directed by Tor's missile guidance computer, to align the missile onto intercept path. You can think of it similar to AIM-120 and Hellfire "lofting" upward for long range shot; or PAC-3 doing "dog leg" maneuver during mid-course stage. Neither PN nor CLOS is going to help the Tor missile clear the terrain on a low-altitude target, so the guidance computer performs trajectory shaping maneuver to get the missile onto an intercept route. I think you're confusing trajectory shaping maneuver with CLOS guidance. I'm also not sure where you're getting the notion that CLOS is superior to PN -- realistically speaking, CLOS is not necessarily any better than PN. In many respects, it performs worse than PN and loads more acceleration demand on the interceptor. CLOS is generally popular for short-range command guided SAMs due to the sake of simplicity in implementation than COLOS setup. Moreover, because CLOS' acceleration command is derived from CRE (cross range error) from guidance radar's point of view, rather than the actual LOS rate, it becomes increasingly inaccurate as the engagement distance becomes longer. PN is more effective in this instance. Bottom line is that, neither PN nor CLOS has much to do with terrain avoidance problem. Any missile that leads a target is going to have a problem. Terrain avoidance is more of a command/navigation issue, rather than actual guidance issue, imo.
  20. You're confusing variable inputs generated by CLOS acceleration demands and rocket kinematics variance with Vikhr-style single axis roll. 9M330 has full axis controls. Those are missile tracking radars. There's a difference between missile tracking and guidance.
  21. You can throw in an initial 'lead bias' when you maintain your cursor on the target, then as missile gets closer, make the cursor follow the target. Should give you decent chance at intercepting moving helicopter with manual guidance :P (too much fun trying to kill helis in BF3 with TOW)
  22. 9M330/331/332 for Tor is not single axis controlled. It does not roll on its axis. OSA is a single-channeled CLOS command guidance system. Only Tor M1 (not original Tor) has two command/tracking channels. And you're wrong about "no other system can do that". S-300 can have dozens of missiles up in the air and simultaneously illuminate 6 tracks during terminal stage. Patriot can do that against 9 tracks simultaneously during terminal stage and flood the sky with PAC-2 spam. For short range systems, every modern SHORAD has multi-target / multi-channel capability. With that said, ED had previously stated that player-level control of Tor in CA is currently limited right now as its still under development. So you're limited to visual range engagements for now, but it'll be improved in the future.
  23. Yep.. I think in Kosovo, a practical way used to spoof AGM-88C (with INS) was two radars blinking on and off. Once missile is fired on radar #1, shut it off and let HARM continue to guide with INS. Wait a bit, and then fire up radar #2, to force it to go elsewhere, then turn off radar #2, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...