SA-5/S200 range is way to short.

[norman99]

Simple mission. SA-5 vs 1 B52, SA-5 won't shoot until within 30nm.

Square Pair TR has an in-game indicated range of ~220nm. The missile (V-860PV/5V21P) itself has an indicated range of ~140nm. The incorrectly used Tin Shield SR has a range of 80nm (nerfing performance further). And finally the system won't fire until 30nm.

In general, the state of this system is a bit of a dogs breakfast.

 

SA-5 v B52.trk

[Exorcet]

Was the B-52 jamming?

[norman99]

No.

Also changing the SR to the SA-2/3/5 P19 Flat Face (still incorrect for this system) increases firing range to ~55nm. Still no where near the ~150nm rage the system should have against a non manoeuvring, large RCS target.

[MARLAN_]

I've noticed S/A in general seems to have a very short range lately, maybe something to do with recent radar changes? Maybe they affected all radar in the game drastically reducing performance across the board? Just speculating.

[Northstar98]

Hmm, I can reproduce your results with your track, but in my own testing I see different results.

For both the P-19 and ST-68U, the FCR acquires the target at 115 nmi (curiously beyond the range of either search RADAR), with the missile erecting and firing at around 70 nmi.

This is still way below the 5V28's real maximum engagement range of ~130 nmi, and the FCR should have an instrumented range of 220-270 nmi, but I'm guessing it's the (incorrect) search RADARs we have available that's the problem.

And on that note yes, neither RADAR is accurate for any variant of the S-200 (AFAIK we have the S-200V/VE 'Vega'/'Vega-E' [SA-5b Gammon]). IRL the Tin Shield is associated with the S-300 system or is used as a general-purpose EWR and the P-19 is most associated with the SA-3 (though I think has also seen use as a general-purpose EWR.

If anyone wants more information on what the S-200 should have available see here, here and here.

5 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Was the B-52 jamming?

Shouldn't matter, DCS only emulates noise jamming (-ish) for AI and the 5V28 missile is HOJ capable (though don't think it is in DCS).

S-200_B-52H_P-19.trk S-200_B-52H_Tin_Shield.trk

Edited May 9, 2022 by Northstar98

[Zergburger]

AFAIK The P-35 (NATO name "Barlock") was the most common search radar for the SA-5 in later years, with acquisitions in the range of 350-400km for bomber sized targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-35_radar

The P-14 "Tall King" was used in the earlier years, sometimes with a height finding radar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-14_radar

Issues with the SA-5 (and SA-2) stem--in part--from a lack of 2 major components missing from the sim:

1. Multiple guidance algorithms: The SA-5 and SA-2 both have an array of trajectories based on the: altitude, range at launch, elevation in degrees from the track radar, and anticipated maneuverability of the target, among other things.

2. Multiple Thrust programs: SA-5 would exceed design limits (read: spontaneously self-disassemble) if launched on the maximum thrust profile at a low altitude target, there were subsequently limited thrust programs to slow the missile down in the thicker air, as well as extend the on-motor time (where the missile is most agile). SA-2 allegedly also had multiple thrust programs, however i have been unable to find any evidence.

null

"If the target is closer than 80km, the missile will fly a proportional guidance profile from
launch, using a low thrust program to accelerate to supersonic speeds (above Mach 3).
This conserves fuel, and reduces heating caused by the friction in the dense atmosphere.
If the target is further than 80km, the missile will fly combined guidance profile.
After launch, it will climb at a constant 48° in elevation for 30s, to get out of the dense
atmosphere, and then it will arch over, and accelerate to hypersonic speed (above Mach
6) with a maximum thrust program. This way it will collect enough momentum for the
long, unpowered descent towards the target after the fuel exhausted. During this phase it
uses the proportional guidance method."  --translation of http://historykpvo.narod2.ru/

Учебник ЗРК С-200.Состав,принципы действия и боевые возможности - учебник по с200 , page 238
 

[Frederf]

Can you extend the range of the S200 by placing the search unit closer to the target?

[MARLAN_]

Did a couple tests vs. the SA-5 system (x1 Gammon, x1 Tin Shield, x1 Square Pair)

F/A-18C 35,000' Mach 0.9 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 89 NM, Missile Intercept @ 70 NM / 1800 KTS

F/A-18C 35,000' Mach 0.9 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 89 NM, Missile Intercept @ 70 NM / 1800 KTS

KC-135 35,000' Mach 0.81 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 88 NM, Missile Intercept @ 71 NM / 1800 KTS

KC-135 35,000' Mach 0.81 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 88 NM, Missile Intercept @ 71 NM / 1800 KTS

I also tried moving a second search radar closer but it had no effect (perhaps because there is a limitation for how far away a group member can be?) but in either case, you would think the RCS difference between the F/A-18C and the KC-135 would have changed the launch range if the bottle neck was the radar.

It appears that the bottle neck is when the system thinks it is has a valid shot, but considering in all tests the missile intercepted at 1800 KTS / Mach 3.1 perhaps the issue is with the defined DLZ for the S/A systems? The group was set to launch at 100% range. I'm not sure what specifically is defined as an acceptable intercept speed for an Rmax shot, but I would imagine Mach 3 is well above that, perhaps something closer to >= Mach 1 to be considered a valid Rmax shot. Does anyone here know how Rmax is defined?

Edit: Did some reading, gets a bit confusing but essentially R_aero is actually "R_max" as in, the range where the % chance the missile successfully hits is >0%,  what we typically refer to as "R_max" is actually known as R_max2 on the back end, additionally it can be defined as percentages of expected Pk, e.g. R_max,90% or R_max,70%. So long story short, it's based on percent of expected Pk based on various parameters (e.g. R_ne / R_tr assumes the target maneuvers 180 degrees away and descends). All that said, whatever the DLZ is based on currently in DCS seems to be undertuned because if a missile is intercepting at Mach 3.1 it still has plenty of energy to intercept at a further range. (P.S. could certainly have misunderstood what I read if anyone knows better, was skimming a lot of complex papers late at night)

Edited May 17, 2022 by MARLAN_

[Northstar98]

21 hours ago, Zergburger said:

AFAIK The P-35 (NATO name "Barlock") was the most common search radar for the SA-5 in later years, with acquisitions in the range of 350-400km for bomber sized targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-35_radar

The P-14 "Tall King" was used in the earlier years, sometimes with a height finding radar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-14_radar

Our SA-5, according to a newsletter, is supposed to be based off of Syrian S-200VE systems, and IRL, all but 1 (though the one that doesn't certainly did historically) has a 5N84AE (P-14F) located either on-site, or very close (see this post for links to satellite imagery).

AFAIK a couple of Warsaw Pact nations also used P-14s with their SA-5s (Czechoslovakia and the GDR certainly did at least).

[norman99]

Still only managing a 70-80nm range against a large, non manoeuvring target at 25K. Can anyone from ED confirm this is the desired implementation. If not, can we expect either:

a) changes to the current SA-5 equipment (P19/Square Pair) to enable the correct range, or

b) the addition of real life equipment, such as the P35/P14, therefore enabling the correct range?