SAM sites setup

[GGTharos]

No, it would not be. 1km maybe, but usually they won't be that far. Maybe a few hundred meters.

[twistking]

ok. thanks:)

[Flagrum]

No, it would not be. 1km maybe, but usually they won't be that far. Maybe a few hundred meters.

What is the limiting factor here? Cable length between the different units, I assume?

[VTJS17_Fire]

IIRC, the Hawk uses wires for communication between Radar and launcher. So technically, it should be possible.

 

But I don't know, how DCS handles the communication between these units.

[VTJS17_Fire]

I found a good source on how to set up a real HAWK SAM site. It's the homepage of a former german HAWK squadron. There, you will get your correct answer, IMO.

 

https://www.hawkies.de/stellungserfordernisse.html

[Grimes]

But I don't know, how DCS handles the communication between these units.

 

For ground sams of the same type the units in the same group are connected. There are requirements of different components like search radars, tracking radars, fire control, or other to be present within the group for the site to engage targets. To my knowledge there is no max distance the units can be placed apart from another, that is if you don't take radar and missile range into account.

[VTJS17_Fire]

For ground sams of the same type the units in the same group are connected. There are requirements of different components like search radars, tracking radars, fire control, or other to be present within the group for the site to engage targets. To my knowledge there is no max distance the units can be placed apart from another, that is if you don't take radar and missile range into account.

Ok, but do they have to have line of sight?

[twistking]

I found a good source on how to set up a real HAWK SAM site. It's the homepage of a former german HAWK squadron. There, you will get your correct answer, IMO.

 

https://www.hawkies.de/stellungserfordernisse.html

 

interesting.

the site states, that one full battery (1 cwar, 2 hpir, 2 pcp, 6 launchers) could be split into two units (afu), which could operate independently and give overwatch to each other when relocating.

but that would mean, that one afu would have no cwar on their own and would have to rely on the hpir for target accqusition (probably with IR, like the russian buk does...), or that there was indeed a way to wirelessly share accquisition data between the two PCP of each afu. hpir was probably always wired, since it probably had much greater data throughput.

 

any ideas on that?

Edited May 4, 2017 by twistking

[twistking]

update:

if split, the newly formed afu, would receive an additional cwar.

 

https://books.google.de/books?id=MAAT_POu4t4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=US+Army+air+defense+artillery+employment,+Hawk&hl=de&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=US%20Army%20air%20defense%20artillery%20employment%2C%20Hawk&f=false

[Flagrum]

I found a good source on how to set up a real HAWK SAM site. It's the homepage of a former german HAWK squadron. There, you will get your correct answer, IMO.

 

https://www.hawkies.de/stellungserfordernisse.html

Training films of the Bundeswehr: relocating a Hawk site, including recon / gathering intel about the new site and the actual Hawk site setup. warning: those BW training films of the 70s/80s are all a bit cheesy ... ;-)

 

[Veritech]

What we are missing is an Army level SAM like the S-300V (Sa-12 Gladiator), plus the older S-500 and S-75 por V-PVO Strategic air defence.

Why the S-300V is missing? The current S-300 (P or PMU, can’t remember the precise designation) are for V-PVO and not Army level formation (there are not mobile enough).

[Bacab]

What we are missing is an Army level SAM like the S-300V (Sa-12 Gladiator), plus the older S-500 and S-75 por V-PVO Strategic air defence.

Why the S-300V is missing? The current S-300 (P or PMU, can’t remember the precise designation) are for V-PVO and not Army level formation (there are not mobile enough).

I'd rather have a Sa-4 over a Sa-12. The thing with modern systems is that you only have numbers from actual users and the designers to build the model and I trust none to give accurate and pertinent informations.

[Veritech]

The S-300V (Sa-12) is actually dated and in service with many countries around the world. It shouldn’t be more difficult thatn getting info on the 300P, simulated in DCS.

 

On the other hand, I’d love to have the SA-4!

[Silver_Dragon]

S-300V (Sa-12) Was present on LOMAC but 3D model was depleted waiting to new vehicle and missiles 3D models.