SA15 TOR

[Stingray66]

Alright; I thought so (to all above responses!). Thanks for the clarification. Still, I think we anyway meant pretty much the same. Thanks GGTharos for that clear statement.

 

Beaming is part of notching. Anyway the 3/9 line is involved. I suppose I just talked myself into that too much mixing the two terms.

 

Now comes the BUT: Although beaming helps with making the missile run out, I dont get the point in the A10. Once a missile is lauched for you, putting it on your 3/9 doesn't make that much of an effect in a plane moving with what? 300knots maximum! What am I missing? Of course it is better than flying straight into the missile, but ...ehm...I' rather be heading in the opposite direction putting that thing on my 6.

 

Yet, if I am anyway in the NEZ and I cannot outfly the missile, why dont do the beaming? As GGTharos stated: In the NEZ beaming doesnt do much for a kinematic escape. Of course, it is the NEZ. Then, I rather do the beaming than just to fly away. Why? Because as you said: 1) It brings me in a better position for my CM (chaffs...) and 2) I might have a chance to break the radar, no? Of course, modern SAM systems just laugh about point 2 but still I am just and only talking about SAM systems susceptible to such maneuvers...

 

 

And yet Eddie is correct: Doppler Notch manoeuvre is not the same as Beaming. In any event, I would have thought that Doppler Notch as regards A-10C vs SAM is about as uselessas a Condom in a Convent as what Ground Clutter returns is a SAM getting in any event painting an aircraft at Angels 12?

 

it is not about ground clutter as such. The Doppler effects filters depending on the parameters/configuration immobile objects. Flying perpendicular lets you appear as such. Definitely, aircraft radars are far more susceptible, but basically it works with any Doppler Radar - has to be because thats how the system works physically. There can be precautions against such maneuvers and that's why nowadays with modern radars it simply hollow go on the beam just because of the unlikely break of the radar lock. But as mentioned, there are also other important reasons to beam, see above.

 

As for clarification only: With keeping eyes on a target with the radar while beaming/ notching was not exact. Your radar typically has 60° (given that you have one), so you have to fly these 60°. Makes sense in BVR fights - not in the A10. Still, you are then in favourable position to escape or to turn back in....anyway this way off topic, I suppose.

 

Why should a SAM shoot before the NEZ. Let me think. Because maybe the SAM would be then in your NEZ as well ;) The SAM could shoot you to avoid destruction. Once a missile on the way to you, you usually do not fly straight towards the SAM to destroy it. Mission accomplished. The enemy is warned about you, you have to re-prepare for the ingress and it will not be a warm welcome. This applies of course only if you already know that there is a SAM. If you are blind, well, then, good luck Sir :)

Edited July 22, 2011 by Stingray66

[PhoenixBvo]

OK, thanks for your insightful answers. So, is this directional ECM signal strength modelled in the sim?

 

Trying to find that out at the moment, honestly haven't thought about it before.

 

Uhm, Eddie don't forget about finding out about this question, OK? :)

[159th_Viper]

Uhm, Eddie don't forget about finding out about this question, OK? :)

 

No - directional ECM signal strength is not modelled. ECM has 360 degree coverage.

 

 

Why should a SAM shoot before the NEZ. Let me think. Because maybe the SAM would be then in your NEZ as well ;)

 

The SAM is always in your NEZ.......There are no SHORAD currently modelled that can escape a Mav launched from 16km and at the same time still be a threat to the A10-C. If they launch from beyond their NEZ they're dead and I do not even have to waste a chaff bundle to evade. This again leads to one of the better 'exploits' where SAM's are just bled dry and then tagged - just not cricket :disgust:

 

This has thankfully been rectified to a greater extent insofar as the Gauntlet is concerned - as it stands at present, 80% of the time if he's launched, you're dead! Working on getting that figure closer to 99% and I'll be happy :D

[Eddie]

Uhm, Eddie don't forget about finding out about this question, OK? :)

 

Well reminded that man. No it would seem these limitations are not modelled at present, ECM is effective in all directions for the time being in DCS.

[nomdeplume]

Beaming the missile is usually combined with vertical maneuvers - not violent ones (which'd just rob you off your speed) but enough to make the missile have to continuously correct its course. Since it's aiming to intercept you, beaming it is I think the second-best way of maximising the size of the missile's corrections. The best way would be to fly straight at the missile, but that has its own drawbacks which generally outweigh that benefit.

 

If you're flying directly away then the change in the intercept point for a given pitch change is minimal, when compared to flying toward or perpendicular to the missile. Beaming it is therefore a compromise position which gives you good benefits without many drawbacks.

 

Obviously if you're at the edge of the missile's range, just turning around and letting it run out of steam is the safest option. But really, SAMs shouldn't be wasting missiles like that (especially in a 'total war' scenario like we have in the game), and often if you do have a missile coming your way you're too close for running away to help at all.

[badger]

who is currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces who has dealt with this first-hand and who has confirmed (without getting into specifics for obvious reasons) that you need to be at the very least 36 000ft+ ASL if you want to tangle with a Gauntlet.

 

US got at least 1 TOR, so it is quite obvious where from this specific comes :)

[GGTharos]

You're probably busy with things other than that SAM. There's really no reason for you to know that this SAM is in fact there at all until it opens fire. And if it does open fire, it may as well be a one-shot-one-kill deal, so it'll do so when you're in parameters to be in much trouble.

 

You'll see some interesting SAM behavior after 1.1.0.9, assuming mission creators take advantage of it. No more sitting around waiting for the radar ping and knowing where the SAM is ... nope ... he'll turn the radar on to shoot you down when you're inside the NEZ.

 

He might not be traveling inside the column you're looking at either and ... he might have friends.

 

Why should a SAM shoot before the NEZ. Let me think. Because maybe the SAM would be then in your NEZ as well ;) The SAM could shoot you to avoid destruction. Once a missile on the way to you, you usually do not fly straight towards the SAM to destroy it. Mission accomplished. The enemy is warned about you, you have to re-prepare for the ingress and it will not be a warm welcome. This applies of course only if you already know that there is a SAM. If you are blind, well, then, good luck Sir :)

[GGTharos]

It came from TOR manuals that are available to some of us.

 

US got at least 1 TOR, so it is quite obvious where from this specific comes :)

[159th_Viper]

:megalol:

 

.....he'll turn the radar on to shoot you down......he might have friends....

 

You're scaring the new Guys!

 

:D

[Stingray66]

The SAM is always in your NEZ.......

 

....SA-10s are implemented in the sim. I sternly doubt your statement. For other SAMs I buy it although I think the SA-2 will be hard to take from that range as well considering the "speed" of the A10.

 

If they launch from beyond their NEZ they're dead and I do not even have to waste a chaff bundle to evade.

 

Again, depends on the SAM systems and its range. For smaller SAMs might be true. And it depends on the pilot. You have to lock the SAM radar from that range - sometimes not so easy; theoretically possible.

 

This has thankfully been rectified to a greater extent insofar as the Gauntlet is concerned - as it stands at present, 80% of the time if he's launched, you're dead! Working on getting that figure closer to 99% and I'll be happy :D

 

just :D

 

 

You'll see some interesting SAM behavior after 1.1.0.9, assuming mission creators take advantage of it. No more sitting around waiting for the radar ping and knowing where the SAM is ... nope ... he'll turn the radar on to shoot you down when you're inside the NEZ.

 

 

becoming interesting

Edited July 22, 2011 by Stingray66

[Eddie]

....SA-10s are implemented in the sim. I sternly doubt your statement.

 

They are, but they are not SHORAD which is the subject of the thread, and what Viper was reffering to.

[GGTharos]

Is there's an SA-10 in the area, you don't go there ... if there's an SA-10 in the area without MEDRAD and SHORAD, your mission designer wanted to give you the thrill of flying really low to kill it, but it isn't terribly realistic.

[badger]

It came from TOR manuals that are available to some of us.

 

I glad to hear you have such manuals, but I doubt that 159th_Viper by "who is currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces who has dealt with this first-hand" meant just reading manuals... But anyway, i don't care much if it is just so :)

[159th_Falcon]

I glad to hear you have such manuals, but I doubt that 159th_Viper by "who is currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces who has dealt with this first-hand" meant just reading manuals... But anyway, i don't care much if it is just so :)

Actually, Viper made a post in which he said 159th Spetz dealt whit it first hand.:book:

[badger]

Actually, Viper made a post in which he said 159th Spetz dealt whit it first hand.:book:

 

Thank you Captain!

 

Did i say anywhere it wasn't Spetz who dealt with it first hand ? My comment cncerned how, not who...

Edited July 22, 2011 by badger

[Fish]

And we haven't even mentioned the 'All weather optical tracking system' on later versions of the tor.

 

'Upgrades have continued over the lifetime of the system, with developer Almaz Antey unveiling the newest incarnation of the Tor missile system, the Tor-M2E,[6] at the MAKS Airshow in 2007. The latest variant features improved fire control radar coverage, and four guidance channels, allowing up to four missiles to be guided at any one time. The Tor-M2E also offers the option of a wheeled chassis, as well as a new digital computer system and all weather optical tracking system'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system

[159th_Viper]

^^^^^

Indeed!

 

 

GM7Ivfnumds

[159th_Viper]

Other footage:

 

RJmpMCSI1qU&NR=1

[winz]

it is not about ground clutter as such. The Doppler effects filters depending on the parameters/configuration immobile objects. Flying perpendicular lets you appear as such. Definitely, aircraft radars are far more susceptible, but basically it works with any Doppler Radar - has to be because thats how the system works physically. There can be precautions against such maneuvers and that's why nowadays with modern radars it simply hollow go on the beam just because of the unlikely break of the radar lock. But as mentioned, there are also other important reasons to beam, see above.

Well, there is no need to filter for immobile objects, when you are looking up in the sky, is it? So any strong radar return can be a valid target, no matter what the doppler shift on the returned waves is.

[Stingray66]

Well, there is no need to filter for immobile objects, when you are looking up in the sky, is it? So any strong radar return can be a valid target, no matter what the doppler shift on the returned waves is.

 

Indeed, a SAM would not have to filter. That is not what I meant. It is just the way a Doppler Radar works. It simply does not detect immobile objects, and flying at exactly 90° renders you as such. You do not have to stay there; forcing a break in the lock takes a few msecs.

 

The engineers know that as well and that is why modern SAM do not rely on a single Doppler Radar...they are way better.

 

Anyway, as intensely discussed, this is only applicable if a single eye looks for you -> once there are more, you can forget about it. And also confirmed, it works best against airborne radars - not because they would have a need to filter ground clutter, but because the radar is the same and once you have a Doppler Radar that is just the way it works. For airborne targets you can be rather sure that it is just a single radar that guides the missile -> higher chances.

 

 

BTW: ED Team: Did you implement the data link that far, that e.g. one plane hooks up a target and directs the missiles of the other planes in its flight? Dont know how the system is termed technically, but say Bat11 detects targets and Bat12 fires two missiles homed by the radar of Bat11? (in the A10 only for KI flights...) Nowadays, this is not a problem and with such a system you would run into problems as well.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Stingray66

[Fish]

..........It's impossible enough when SEAD doesn't do its job already, nevermind if air defense goes to school!..........

 

Well, if we had a flyable F16 or F18 in DCS, we could be sure of SEAD flights !. But that's for another thread :music_whistling:

[winz]

Indeed, a SAM would not have to filter. That is not what I meant. It is just the way a Doppler Radar works. It simply does not detect immobile objects, and flying at exactly 90° renders you as such. You do not have to stay there; forcing a break in the lock takes a few msecs.

 

The engineers know that as well and that is why modern SAM do not rely on a single Doppler Radar...they are way better.

 

 

 

My question is, why it shouldn't be able to detect aircraft with 0 closure rate flying up in the sky, where there is no background? The radar wave does reflect of the aircraft and does return to the radar. And the signal is good as any other. It is a pulse-doppler radar after all.

 

The doppler shift is only used for filtering when it is required. It is a feature, not a mandatory property. There doesn't have to be a doppler shift in the signal for the radar to process it if a frequency pass-through set on the expected fq is not enabled.

 

sure, it will show 0 closure rate, but is that a problem?

[pandawelch]

^^^^^

Indeed!

 

 

 

that video 1:05...

 

So many kills thanks to noob DCS pilots :smilewink:

[Stingray66]

It is a pulse-doppler radar after all.

 

The doppler shift is only used for filtering when it is required.

 

Exactly, you can turn it off. But that would imply switching the radar mode which comes usually hand in hand with a lost track - at least for a very short time. After all, that is what you want.

 

If you turn that off however, you have no exact measurement of the object's velocity. You can only interpolate between subsequent positions. That's the reason why people introduced the doppler pulse radars.

 

Yet again, I think this discussion is useless. By looking at many postings above everyone could appreciate that modern radars are no longer efficiently doped by beaming primarily because there is simply more than a single radar looking at you...:music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

Exactly, you can turn it off. But that would imply switching the radar mode which comes usually hand in hand with a lost track - at least for a very short time. After all, that is what you want.

 

Are we talking about a WW2 radar or something? ... modern radars don't lose track just because of a mode switch - not that removing the filter should have any effect on the track one way or the other to begin with.

 

If you turn that off however, you have no exact measurement of the object's velocity. You can only interpolate between subsequent positions. That's the reason why people introduced the doppler pulse radars.

 

Yes, you do. Just because you're not filtering it out doesn't mean you're not measuring the velocity. It's a pulse doppler radar and the information is right in there.

 

Yet again, I think this discussion is useless. By looking at many postings above everyone could appreciate that modern radars are no longer efficiently doped by beaming primarily because there is simply more than a single radar looking at you...:music_whistling:

 

If it's useless, why are you continuing to discuss it? ;)