It seems to me that the sight calculator is not working correctly for ARAK.

[Naquaii]

17 hours ago, Mosencev said:

@Naquaii @TOViper

But wait, its not logic.

Rocket is unguided AND dot of aim not start moove when we start shoot (so we not change pitch axis after start fire). So all rocket in GROPP have one calculating. So rockets spread its not a part of program, it is random.  

And computer  can not know where will be center of the salvo.  

 

It calculates how the rockets will fall if you follow the launch indications. So yes, it does know where the center of the salvo is supposed to be if the pilot follows the indications.

[Mosencev]

It seems to me that the trajectories of 1...n missiles in a salvo differ only in the distance and time of approach to the target. The fact that all the missiles will not fall at the same point is due to the instability of the aircraft and random scatter. It is impossible to calculate the instability of the aircraft and random scatter. If so, how does the calculation differ for the first, second, third and fourth missiles? I understand that each subsequent missile starts closer to the target, but we compensate for this by diving so as not to deviate from the previous trajectory.

"HUD is for the 4th rocket in the salvo" - it is documentation?

null

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th rocket from 4 blocks. One fire click.

Edited October 28, 2024 by Mosencev

[Naquaii]

19 minutes ago, Mosencev said:

It seems to me that the trajectories of 1...n missiles in a salvo differ only in the distance and time of approach to the target. The fact that all the missiles will not fall at the same point is due to the instability of the aircraft and random scatter. It is impossible to calculate the instability of the aircraft and random scatter. If so, how does the calculation differ for the first, second, third and fourth missiles? I understand that each subsequent missile starts closer to the target, but we compensate for this by diving so as not to deviate from the previous trajectory.

"HUD is for the 4th rocket in the salvo" - it is documentation?

null

What you're describing is just general inaccuracy, this isn't what we're talking about.

The sight in the Viggen isn't a CCIP sight, the aiming dot shows where to aim if fired at the correct time. It's more akin to a ccrp mode where you fly into the correct place to employ the weapons. If you fire too early or too late you will miss, the aiming point of the dot isn't valid unless you fire at the indicated time.

And as mentioned previously the computer only has the capability to calculate correctly for the normal "everything at once" mode, firing rockets manually will not produce a valid solution.

[TOViper]

Thanks Naquaii for coming in on this. Despite the fact that ENKEL seems not to give satisfactory solutions, at least I am personally happy about two things:
I basically remembered correctly most of the story (it was 2018 when we discussed this and that), and - much more important - I had a beautiful dinner.
Both saved my day

[Mosencev]

1 час назад, Naquaii сказал:

What you're describing is just general inaccuracy, this isn't what we're talking about.

The sight in the Viggen isn't a CCIP sight, the aiming dot shows where to aim if fired at the correct time. It's more akin to a ccrp mode where you fly into the correct place to employ the weapons. If you fire too early or too late you will miss, the aiming point of the dot isn't valid unless you fire at the indicated time.

And as mentioned previously the computer only has the capability to calculate correctly for the normal "everything at once" mode, firing rockets manually will not produce a valid solution.

Thank you. This is interesting.

I Did I understand correctly that the computer does not try to fit all the missiles into one circle? Does it deliberately stretch the area of destruction in length? Or are such nuances unknown?

[Naquaii]

2 minutes ago, Mosencev said:

Thank you. This is interesting.

I Did I understand correctly that the computer does not try to fit all the missiles into one circle? Does it deliberately stretch the area of destruction in length? Or are such nuances unknown?

Afaik there's some intentional spread yeah. But it depends very much on the angle of attack, a more shallow attack dive will give a greater dispersion.

[Sideburns]

The natural dispersion does work quite well against lightly armoured or unarmoured targets, if you get the right attack path onto a target, practice a slight pull up manoeuvre while firing you can have spectacular effects against convoys throwing the rockets across their entire line formation.