Vikhr M rippling

[GGTharos]

However, I still think that the laser resetting system is poorly designed. Taking your explanation into consideration, I don't understand why the LA cue needs to be delayed for such a long time. To explain, surely the fire control computer must have a rough idea of a Vikhr's time to impact from the moment of its launch, otherwise how else would the FCC calculate a DLZ? Moreover, how would it know when to focus the laser beam? I suppose it could just be a matter of focussing the laser at some arbitrary point after 'capturing' the Vikhr, but that still doesn't address how the DLZ could be used to obtain a reasonably accurate TTI.

 

Yes, it has an idea, based on ideal conditions. If the conditions are not ideal, such as wind effects, moving targets, range measurement error, altitude measurement error, other meteorological issues, etc, it might take a few seconds longer for the missile to reach its target, and that's why you will normally see the laser firing for a longer time than when the missile impacts the target. In-game, you mostly have 'perfect physics laboratory' conditions.

 

Following this, there may be a requirements for laser cool-down.

[nscode]

Oh, how we need a real Shkval manual :)

[GGTharos]

I suspect a little more than that, possibly a serious maintenance manual :)

[Crescendo]

Yes, it has an idea, based on ideal conditions. If the conditions are not ideal, such as wind effects, moving targets, range measurement error, altitude measurement error, other meteorological issues, etc, it might take a few seconds longer for the missile to reach its target, and that's why you will normally see the laser firing for a longer time than when the missile impacts the target. In-game, you mostly have 'perfect physics laboratory' conditions.

 

Sure, I'm totally onboard with all this. Still, perhaps naively, I maintain that a ~12 second LA cue delay after the initial TTI is a excessive.

 

Imagine the following scenario (I know you understand all this stuff, but humour me): A Vikhr is fired at maximum range and the ideal TTI is X seconds. However, some of the effects you mentioned occur and the missile flight is extended by 4 seconds. That brings the actual TTI to X+4 seconds.

 

We know that the LA cue delay lasts for ~12 seconds after the ideal TTI, but the missile actually took an extra 4 seconds, so the amount of time 'wasted' by the LA cue delay is 8 seconds.

 

So, it seems to me that the LA cue delay could be cut in half to a convservative 6 seconds, and it would still allow for a buffer of 2 seconds in the above scenario and satisfy the majority of launches. (All this according to my fictional numbers and requirements of course, but you get the idea. :P)

 

Following this, there may be a requirements for laser cool-down.

 

OK, I can get onboard with this as well.

 

It's plausible that the 12 second LA cue delay after a Vikhr impact is the 'optimum' amount of time for the laser to cool, such that it will operate at peak performance the next time it is used. Alternatively, if the pilot chooses he can still manually reset the laser to quickly fire a second Vikhr, but he knows that this is not 'optimum' procedure and the laser may heat up faster and eventually take longer to cool.

 

My only issue with this is that I often fly multiple passes where I launch a second Vikhr by manually resetting the laser (sometimes even a third for laughs), but I have never noticed any overheating. That's not to say overheating doesn't exist when using Vikhrs, but I haven't seen it in the sim.

[Crescendo]

Oh, how we need a real Shkval manual :)

 

:thumbup:

[GGTharos]

So, it seems to me that the LA cue delay could be cut in half to a convservative 6 seconds, and it would still allow for a buffer of 2 seconds in the above scenario and satisfy the majority of launches. (All this according to my fictional numbers and requirements of course, but you get the idea. :P)

 

I don't recall well, but I believe that the laser fires for either TTI+6sec or TTI + some fixed number of seconds based on the distance or estimated TTI.

 

, but he knows that this is not 'optimum' procedure and the laser may heat up faster and eventually take longer to cool.

 

Actually you may outright cause the laser to fail this way, and this is something that you will definitely encounter in Ka-50 ... though which laser exactly it is, I forget. I know the ranging laser can be overheated to the point of failure, plus it has a limited number of uses before it requires servicing/repair (the number of uses goes down if you abuse it). I don't recall if the guidance laser is subject to similar constraints.

 

My only issue with this is that I often fly multiple passes where I launch a second Vikhr by manually resetting the laser (sometimes even a third for laughs), but I have never noticed any overheating. That's not to say overheating doesn't exist when using Vikhrs, but I haven't seen it in the sim.

 

There may also be other issues that we are not really aware of. It could also be a bug (with either the in-game OR the real aircraft! ;) ), it's impossible to tell without the operations manual.

[Crescendo]

I don't recall well, but I believe that the laser fires for either TTI+6sec or TTI + some fixed number of seconds based on the distance or estimated TTI.

 

I decided to see which method it was, so I made a test mission and flew it three times. I fired one Vikhr during each flight. The first Vikhr was fired at maximum range, the second Vikhr at medium range, and the third Vikhr at close range.

 

I recorded three variables: 'Shkval TTI', 'Laser Firing Duration' (measured with a stopwatch), and 'Actual TTI' (measured with a stopwatch).

 

One strange behaviour that I noticed is that the Shkval display TTI 'recomputes' itself immediately upon firing a missile. For example, if I launch a Vikhr when the Shkval display TTI is X, the Shkval display TTI very rapidly increases and then rapidly decreases to a 'correct' TTI of X-Y. This rapid increase and subsequent correction takes place in the fraction of second, after which time the corrected TTI counts down as per normal. As a consequence, I decided to record a fourth variable: 'Corrected Shkval TTI' (this variable was noted by slowing down time during track playback).

 

Here are the results:

Flight 1

 

Shkval TTI:

17.9

Corrected Shkval TTI:

12.4

Laser Firing Duration:

24

Actual TTI:

12

 

Flight 2

 

Shkval TTI:

10.4

Corrected Shkval TTI:

7.3

Laser Firing Duration:

16

Actual TTI:

7

 

Flight 3

 

Shkval TTI:

6.1

Corrected Shkval TTI:

4.1

Laser Firing Duration:

12

Actual TTI:

4

---

 

Some conclusions:

1. 'Laser Firing Duration' is indeed

Shkval TTI + 6s

.

Your first recollection was correct.

 

2. 'Corrected Shkval TTI' is 70% of 'Shkval TTI'. This 70% figure was consistent over all three tests (taking into account stopwatch error), so for some unkown reason, the Shkval TTI is artificially increased prior to launching a Vikhr.

 

3. 'Corrected Shkval TTI' is equal to 'Actual TTI'. Therefore, 'Corrected Shkval TTI', as calculated by the Shkval system after launch, is a pretty accurate approximation of actual time of flight. It seems to me that 'Corrected Shkval TTI' should replace 'Shkval TTI' in the 'Laser firing duration' calculation.

 

4. If 'Corrected Shkval TTI' was used in the 'Laser firing duration' calculation, the time savings in each of the three flights would be

6s

,

3s

, and

2s

. Naturally there are diminishing returns at close range, but at long range the saving of 6s could make a big difference to the pilot.

 

5. The purpose of 'Shkval TTI' remains unclear. It's only effect seems to be to increase 'Laser Firing Duration'. If that's the intended purpose, then it doesn't make much sense for two reasons: firstly, 'Corrected Shkval TTI' is seemingly accurate enough to reliably shorten 'Laser Firing Duration' with no ill effect; and secondly, if the goal is to increase 'Laser Firing Duration', it would be more logical to simply increase the

'+ 6s'

variable to

'+ 10s'

(or whatever). Right now I can't think of any good reason for 'Shkval TTI' to exist, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

There may also be other issues that we are not really aware of. It could also be a bug (with either the in-game OR the real aircraft! ), it's impossible to tell without the operations manual.

We really need that manual.

[Gisen]

Actually you may outright cause the laser to fail this way, and this is something that you will definitely encounter in Ka-50 ... though which laser exactly it is, I forget. I know the ranging laser can be overheated to the point of failure, plus it has a limited number of uses before it requires servicing/repair (the number of uses goes down if you abuse it). I don't recall if the guidance laser is subject to similar constraints.

 

 

Fine... in a training scenario. In War scenario - like 99% of the missions we fly, surely the ability to kill twice as much armour would outweigh the cost of buying some new lasers? I seriously doubt a laser costs as much as a MBT.

[GGTharos]

You have things reversed here. It's the Russians who had the horde of tanks .

In a war-time scenario back in the day, you probably wouldn't have been able to get enough of these lasers to just keep replacing them, and a slightly faster fire rate probably wouldn't have made as much of a difference as the total number of missile launches, which you'd slash by a good amount by burning up the laser. In other words, you'll be killing LESS armor because at some point you'll run out of lasers.

Today, that heli would probably have never reached the front lines as it is.

 

In any case, if you have an emergency, you burn up the equipment, sure, but that's an emergency, not normal operation.

[Gisen]

You have things reversed here. It's the Russians who had the horde of tanks .

NATO had quite a few tanks as well old son.

In a war-time scenario back in the day, you probably wouldn't have been able to get enough of these lasers to just keep replacing them,

I guarantee it's easier to get replacement lasers than replacement tanks = they would use the lasers if it meant even SLIGHTLY more tank kills.

I'm not fixating on cold war scenario either, not sure why you think that.

 

and a slightly faster fire rate probably wouldn't have made as much of a difference as the total number of missile launches, which you'd slash by a good amount by burning up the laser. In other words, you'll be killing LESS armor because at some point you'll run out of lasers.

Less runs attacking armour in war scenario = less aircraft shot down. Aircraft are even MORE expensive than tanks.

 

If you are talking about cold war heating up scenario then they'd be trying to stop an armoured wave so the initial strike needs to be as devastating as possible.

 

Today, that heli would probably have never reached the front lines as it is.

 

In any case, if you have an emergency, you burn up the equipment, sure, but that's an emergency, not normal operation.

 

 

This thread is mainly about the su25t but either of them apply.

War flying is more like emergency flying than routine training ops, and I stand by my assertion that if there were even a small advantage to using the laser more then that would be done.

[159th_Falcon]

Its not that time again is it?

 

 

Oh well........