Patriot downing KH58U

[maturin]

Best plane to clean a Patriot's clock is a P-51....nimble, agile and lethal. No need to bother with 58's or the like.

Do you often fly P-51s against AAA?

[159th_Viper]

Do you often fly P-51s against AAA?

 

Not as a general rule, no. That said, if it moves those 6 .50 cal's can kill it.

[lunaticfringe]

What!! Do you say me if the missile make such maneuver only affect the speed??!!

 

Yes, I do: because speed is the only thing that matters, for it is KINETIC energy, and not POTENTIAL. Speed begets potential range, and potential maneuverability. Attempting to apply either one in flight decreases the other.

 

No one in the industry talks about "how much fuel am I going to use", because the expenditure of fuel doesn't matter- once that engine is lit, it is a one trick pony. It's not your car- you can't put it in neutral and idle the motor. The fuel is not a renewable resource; you're not salvaging the cell from the interceptor and pouring the remains into the next weapon. That fuel is *gone*, and the only thing they care about is how *fast* it can get that weapon, as that is what determines the intercept geometry based on range and time.

 

The missile is *intercepting* the target; it's not "catching" the target; that's a distinction I don't think you as of yet really grasp, and one that I've not got the time to distill to you. I'd suggest reading up on the subject of missile and missile guidance design to grasp a useful understanding as to what actually matters, and lay off the videos, but you are of course welcome to do as you will and remain in the dark.

[pepin1234]

your reality differs from our reality.

 

Wait a minut. Why you say our?? You pretend be the spokerman of a group?? Which group is your?? of course I defence one side, then tell me what is my side...?

 

I'm a little tired of reading your post about your feelings must be truth in RL .

 

Upps... then you must training to find your fit... start here: http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=185

 

And if you believe all about youtube videos...

 

Sometime the people dont like believe, and some time they like. Is relative

 

And back on topic. Ussually I don't have any problem disabling a patriot site with a volley of two shoots, the first missile always get shootdown but the second one hit the site. Think that if you need to supress a target like a patriot or S-300 you need more aircrafts and more missiles, is not a job for a lone wolf.

 

Altitud? Speed? distance you shoot your first missile? Also happen to you the patriot hit your kh-58 at 4 km from patriot radar and the 58 at 2000 km/h speed?

[Speed]

What!! Do you say me if the missile make such maneuver only affect the speed??!!

 

affect negatively in all, specialy when the missile start with the inertia he must change the direction having decreased performance. Like you say is the speed affected but also the fuel, because is a curve with a longer trajectory and a decreased effective range. In case the missile lose speed but have enough fuel he could hit me when I lose speed in my maneuver. All have relation in this case.

 

Videos?? yes I like the videos. Take other one here, and hear what make you happy.

 

Your talk about fuel is completely senseless. The Patriot, and almost all missiles, are SOLID FUEL rockets. There is no throttling them down or changing their fuel consumption rate. The rate at which they consume "fuel" (I prefer propellant instead- as "fuel" has a slight association with liquid) is fixed. Thus, the Patriots, in the 3 seconds it takes to make this turn, consume NO LESS or NO MORE propellant than they would if they had just flown straight. So, it makes no sense to talk about "fuel" because "fuel" is a fixed thing that will be consumed regardless. All that matters is that you talk about lower speed/lower max range/etc.

 

Really, you should read up more on how missiles work. They don't need "fuel" to hit you, they only need velocity.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Speed

[maturin]

Pepin, when you shoot down an ARM, the interception takes place at a FRACTION of the missile's maximum range. The little bit of fuel the missile wastes turning around is absolutely meaningless, because only like 10% of the missile's range and kinetic energy will be needed.

 

And if you are right, and turning a missile around destroys its effectiveness, than the S-300 has big problems. Since they fire vertically, EVERY launch has to waste all its fuel on a 90 degree turn! Whereas a Patriot often doesn't have to turn at all. But you didn't think of that.

 

And your argument is irrelevant, since even if a turning missile magically became incapable of intercepting an ARM, a Patriot battery facing the right direction has nothing to worry about. So the ability modeled in the game is correct. Patriots can intercept Kh-58s. Period.

 

Furthermore, the turning rate of the Patriot launchers is modeled in the game. Once again, your objection is meaningless.

 

And finally, when is a Patriot launcher NOT going to be turned towards the threat the radar is painting? And once an ARM launch is detected, that Kh-58 will have to cover a hundred kilometers, giving the launcher plenty of time to rotate. Use your brain.

[pepin1234]

Yes, I do: because speed is the only thing that matters, for it is KINETIC energy, and not POTENTIAL. Speed begets potential range, and potential maneuverability. Attempting to apply either one in flight decreases the other. .

 

then make a test... take the same missile with a 75 % of fuel and fill it the other empty part with something to match the weigh of the original missile. then take the original missile with 100 % of fuel. launch then and tell me if only the Kinetic and the speed is the most important to get the best performance. With only 10 m away from the fuze activation distance you get a miss.

 

Anyway this only one of the importants things to reach the succes. with solid fuel you get others result.

Edited March 19, 2013 by pepin1234

[GGTharos]

If you shoot the missile from high altitude and speed, it will be detected earlier.

 

If you shoot it from low altitude and speed, you may cause problems - but the problem for you is that in order to do this, you have to approach unseen. I don't know about the S300, but as far as PATRIOT goes, even helicopters have trouble attacking it - the ability of a missile to hit a low flying aircraft has been worked on since the 50's.

 

Missile systems are most effective against the threat type and altitude/speed that they were designed for, so a PATRIOT or S300 is not the best platform against low flying targets for example (or especially, low and slow) - this is why you see layered defenses with HIRAD, MERAD and SHORAD. So, if you want to think of it in terms of systems, it's like S300, SA-6/11, SA-8/15/MANPADS.

 

That doesn't mean that those high altitude systems can't be very deadly against low flying aircraft, and it doesn't mean they can't intercept ARMs.

 

In a perfect world, all weapon systems would work prerfectly, and then the only thing you could do is bring more toys than the other guy.

 

In the real world, 'things happen', like people not being on the ball, systems failing, etc - so things get through.

 

I still don't get where you get the idea that PATRIOT can't intercept ARMs - the operators of the system have said it can, and it will.

 

Your argument that you 'have to turn the launcher' is an exercise in naive thinking. You don't need to turn the launcher, the missile will turn. The missile has 10+ seconds of fuel, if it takes 2sec to turn, sure, it will have a lower maximum range, but who cares? It will still intercept the incoming threat.

 

Think of R-73 and AIM-9X. They are vectored thrust missiles. They turn really hard, wasting some of their fuel in that turn, ie. they have a shorter max range. Do you care? Why would you care when this turn means they can hit a target that missiles without TVC cannot?

 

Same thing with SAMs. PATRIOT already has very big range, so it can turn as much as it needs to intercept an incoming ARM. Yes, it will be close to the SAM ... so what? That is the nature of this type of combat.

 

Look at ships - they have gone from CIWS to SeaRAM. Why? Because CIWS destroys a supersonic anti-ship missile so close to the ship that the missile may still fly into the ship. SeaRAM will destroy it at much greater range (say about 3km instead of 0.5km), and the missile will most likely fall into the water instead.

 

Russian ships have similar defense layouts - this is why 'Kashtan' is used for example, although the US doesn't use supersonic anti-ship missiles, so guns are still effective.

 

Altitud? Speed? distance you shoot your first missile? Also happen to you the patriot hit your kh-58 at 4 km from patriot radar and the 58 at 2000 km/h speed?

[GGTharos]

Why would you fill the empty part? Other than that, your test is correct - the missile will less fuel will get a smaller max speed, and travel a shorter distance getting there, thus it will get a shorter max range.

 

But then you insert this stuff about fuzes - what's the point? If your missile has shorter range for ANY REASON, you shoot it when the target is closer, and there is no miss.

 

then make a test... take the same missile with a 75 % of fuel and fill it the other empty part with something to match the weigh of the original missile. then take the original missile with 100 % of fuel. launch then and tell me if only the Kinetic and the speed is the most important to get the best performance. With only 10 m away from the fuze activation distance you get a miss.

 

Anyway this only one of the importants things to reach the succes. with solid fuel you get others result.

[159th_Falcon]

FYI, the S300 side can be deployed whit a variety of Radars.

Some good for high flying targets, others specifically designed to detect and track low flying target.

 

So the capability of the S300 to destroy incoming missiles/planes/helicopters

will most likely depend on the side's layout.

[GGTharos]

The real problem is that there are also many versions of the S300, some with more capability and some with less.

 

Even if your radar can track low flying objects you can't always successfuly engage them for a variety of reasons, some of them physical (obstructions), some of them missile design (fuzes etc), so you get a bit of a mix of stuff that may prevent you from making things happen where a cursory glance would make you think that this is possible.

 

Consider a 'weakness' in PATRIOT for example: You can set it to TBM mode, and that will set ABT space scans to low priority. So your PATRIOT is looking high for TBMs coming in, but it can't see the planes flying around at 20k (as an example - it might still see them, but its ability to detect them in a timely manner may be compromized)

 

Typically, the S300 would suffer from very similar problems, so one solution is to deploy another system to guard the ABT space.

 

Or, you can use link-16 to hook up a PATRIOT to a TPY-2 which will search for TBMs while the PATRIOT searches the ABT space and gets cued to TBMs as needed by the TPY-2.

 

The S300 brings a variety of radars as well, but the trick here is also logistics - there are probably not a set of each radar for each S300 system.

[pepin1234]

Why would you fill the empty part? Other than that, your test is correct - the missile will less fuel will get a smaller max speed, and travel a shorter distance getting there, thus it will get a shorter max range.

 

But then you insert this stuff about fuzes

 

 

About the fuel was only a example. I just amswer to a guy that say that the most important is the Kinetic and the Speed, but I say all have relation, Only that.

 

anyway the main direcction here is the poor succes have sometimes the Kh-58 agains the Patriot. The succes depend of course of the altitud, distance... and a very very important thing is what say Falcon above the layout of the terrain

Edited March 19, 2013 by pepin1234

[GGTharos]

He didn't say anything about the layout of the terrain; he means the air defense layout.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter - right now SEAD isn't very well modeled, and discussions about launchers turning are not very useful; it has no bearing on shooting missiles down.

[lunaticfringe]

Wait a minut. Why you say our?? You pretend be the spokerman of a group?? Which group is your?? of course I defence one side, then tell me what is my side...?

 

The side that doesn't have a clue as to what it's talking about, yet continues to blabber on at length.

 

then make a test... take the same missile with a 75 % of fuel and fill it the other empty part with something to match the weigh of the original missile. then take the original missile with 100 % of fuel. launch then and tell me if only the Kinetic and the speed is the most important to get the best performance. With only 10 m away from the fuze activation distance you get a miss.

 

Your "test" assumes that the missile guidance logic would not be altered for such an event to take place; that its impact on the variables would not recognized prior to the setup.

 

That, essentially, the rest of the world is as functionally naive as you are. Anybody with a clue setting up that test would call for an altering of the fire control logic to compensate for the smaller impulse, thereby directing the weapon to either be:

 

a) fired later, or

b) increase the intercept lead calculation.

 

It has those choices based on target range, target speed, and crossing angle. And it's simple- most anyone can calculate this in thirty seconds with a slide rule.

 

Anyway this only one of the importants things to reach the succes. with solid fuel you get others result.

 

Actually, no- you don't get "others result"; that's one of the beautiful aspects of solid fuel- the kinetic impulse output per gram is not a variable, but a known constant. It gets this because it brings its own oxidizer along for the ride.

 

(You do know what an oxidizer is, correct?)

 

Barring ignition or component failure in the propulsion section, the weapon will *always* generate the same amount of energy. Sea level, 30k, troposphere, or in an absolute vacuum, that missile is making a set amount of power.

 

Hence the *DUH* factor of your test- of course a lower net impulse with intercept logic looking for more going to miss; anyone with a second grade education can grasp that concept. But what you don't grasp is that because the impulse is known, the weapons net range at altitude is also known, and the drag effect based on a prospective turn by the interceptor can be calculated and there by deducted from the range, allowing for an intercept profile to be generated.

 

What you also apparently fail to grasp is that the Patriot (and S-300s) FCS is smart enough to do this math prior to launch, and select an appropriate LM to release an interceptor from, *already knowing* that the missile will have the range and speed required to make the intercept given the track's current speed, range, and angle away from the launcher, based on the weapon having to MAKE THE INITIAL LEAD TURN, at whatever angle it decided was necessary.

 

Only someone clearly lacking in an understanding of missile guidance and propulsion would think that an end-of-discussion "gotcha" exists in changing the available fuel.

 

Seriously- stop typing. All you're succeeding in doing is reiterating over and over again that you have no concept as to what it is you're talking about.

[Kaktus29]

a see the thread wandering away from the main title.. the question was very simple.. patriot downing KH-58U .. and in quick succession and 100% .. while S-300 not even close to this excellent performance.. if this is true.. we have a problem.. simple as that.. UNLESS some arguing here want to say patriot is sooo advanced it can take 100% all incoming ARMs but S-300 at best 1 or 2.. ??

 

so, what is the truth, game wise.. is S-300 worthless and Patriot a killer? ..if so why?..

[maturin]

Every one of those topics was already conclusively addressed, kaktus. Read the thread.

[Angel101]

The side that doesn't have a clue as to what it's talking about, yet continues to blabber on at length

 

+1. Peppin, in my country (Spain if you ask) we call your behaviour trolling. I like tech from US and RU... each country has is own good things and bad things and any time that appear one US tech being superior to his Ru counterpart you jump here saying that in RL is different... what RL??? Just re-read again your firts answer here.

 

a see the thread wandering away from the main title.. the question was very simple.. patriot downing KH-58U .. and in quick succession and 100% .. while S-300 not even close to this excellent performance.. if this is true.. we have a problem.. simple as that.. UNLESS some arguing here want to say patriot is sooo advanced it can take 100% all incoming ARMs but S-300 at best 1 or 2.. ??

 

so, what is the truth, game wise.. is S-300 worthless and Patriot a killer? ..if so why?..

 

I can provide a track if necessary, same game played 3 times with same result I shooted two HARMS whit Su-25T with about 2-3 seconds spacing and first HARM get destroyed but the second always hit, so from my perspective Patriot has a 50% chance to intercep a HARM. Why other people get diferents stadistics? Maybe they are using only one missile at time... stadistics are quite easy to manipulate.

[Dusty Rhodes]

You fired a HARM from an SU-25T? Really!?

[BRooDJeRo]

[Angel101]

ARM's writing error. Apologies.

[Darkwolf]

 

 

[volk]

Многое из того, что написано на предыдущих 5 страницах, неправильно.

Даже ЗРК С-75 "Волга" и С-125 "Печора" могут обнаруживать и обстреливать цели, такие как AGM-62 Walleye и Walleye II с вероятностью поражения 0,35-0,66 одной ракетой, и вероятностью 0,55-0,92 двумя ракетами, как можно увидеть ниже.

Из документа:

 

 

 

I don't know which exact S-300 version the developers are modeling

В игре моделируется модификация С-300 - С-300ПС с ракетой 5В55, принятая на вооружение в 1982 г. В 1989 г. был принят на вооружение ЗРК С-300ПМ (ПМУ) с ракетой 48Н6Е, этот комплекс не моделируется. Почему - я не знаю.

Также не моделируется комплекс С-300В с ракетами 9М82 и 9М83. С-300В обеспечивает перехват баллистических ракет, по крайней мере класса MGM-31A Pershing IA и аэробаллистических ракет AGM-69 SRAM.

[GGTharos]

No surprises there, but those are not ARMs; ARMs are smaller and faster.

 

In this case - AGM-62 is big and slow (about as big as a big ARM, possibly) and both MGM-31 and AGM-69 also big missiles, with long lead-time. In some cases AGM-69 could be 'like a big ARM'.

[volk]

No surprises there, but those are not ARMs; ARMs are smaller and faster.

Это хорошо, что без сюрпризов. Пока это единственный документ в данной теме.

С-300 - тоже не С-75 :). Faster - это вообще не проблема. Типовой мишенью для ЗРК СССР/России является например 9М316М1 "Вираж", максимальная скорость которой равна 1200 м/с.

Что касается ЭПР - то С-300 ПМУ и С-300В могут стрелять по цели с ЭПР 0,02 кв. м. Если Patriot может перехватывать БР и ПРР, то почему их не может перехватывать С-300?

In this case - AGM-62 is big and slow (about as big as a big ARM, possibly) and both MGM-31 and AGM-69 also big missiles, with long lead-time. In some cases AGM-69 could be 'like a big ARM'.

Ну так 8К14, известная на Западе как SCUD, тоже немалая ракета - длина 11,1 м, диаметр 0,88 м.

Короче, или оба ЗРК - С-300 и Patriot должны обстреливать ПРР, или оба не должны. Если кто-то пытается доказать обратное, доказывайте цифрами и документами.

Edited March 20, 2013 by volk

[GGTharos]

I did not completely understand, but I believe we agree. Typical test target for PATRIOT is ... PATRIOT.

 

We also know that PATRIOT was hit by AGM-88, so we know that ARMs are not useless even if the system can shoot them down.