Jump to content

High Digit SAMs - A community asset pack for DCS World


Auranis

Recommended Posts

On 5/28/2021 at 9:07 AM, LetMePickThat said:

 

Thanks for the new tracks, I'll take a look at them. However, before even doing so, I find it peculiar that you "saw is that all these systems are only firing below 100km, whatever the aspect angle or altitude or type of the target". See the image below, from previous testing, which shows an AWACS engaged at various ranges by the different systems. You might have ran into an interesting edge case (that, or you're expecting the S-300 to overperform. If your target was barely above 3000fts, a 40km shot would be stellar).

 

 

300ranges.png

 

Anyway, I'll look at what you sent and report.

 


EDIT: I can't open the track and miz files because I'm lacking a bunch of mods. Can you rerun your test without them?

 

Sorry for the mission file, I just forgot that i had put 1 aircraft from another mod, so now the mission contain only the mod we are talking about....

 

I have take a look at the picture above, and that's right, multiple shhoting range, on a slow moving target...an can you confirm that the missile hit the target ? I experienced some aborting shots with missiles exploding just few seconds after departures (3 minutes after start in the new track file)

 

you said that I was expecting the S300 to overperform on a slow moving bomber (B52) flying at 3000ft straight in direct to the S300 MPU2 at 40 km......over water....with a missile that can shoot a target at 200km.....by the way I was not able to reproduce the same situation on this new track / miz file....(If you can download the "Military aircraft mod" you may be able see what I mean with my previous miz file)

 

on the other hand, this new mission file is interresting, the fast moving targets have been shoot down like expected, but maybe "I think" to much near from the differents sites, like I said earlier with missiles able to shoot targets from 200 to 250 km (S300 MPU2 et S300VM). But two aircraft, 1 B1B et 1 B52 were able to approche these site below 50 km....for the B1B, maybe because it's a fast moving bomber, but not so good at manouvering...and the B52 finaly shot down at about 50 km, just look at the mission file...

 

It's just a hyphothesis, but I think maybe all the differents sites have limited fire control radar performance...I just discover that there are some big differences between the radar performance of the 1L13 EWR and  55G6 EWR and the data descriptions in the encyplopadia.... In the game the two radar cannot detect anything above 100 km whatever the type of the target (fighter, bomber, transport aircraft...), or in the encyclopedia these two radar are far better than this, it's "SKYNET" that let me discover this. I made some tests, and every time the target must be within 100km of these radar in order to be "detected" in Skynet process...If  you use an S300 SR to act like an EW radar, then the range is far higher....

 

Let me know if i miss something else in my tests....

mission_Test_SAM_S300_SKYNET-3.trk SU27_CAUCASE_ESSAI-3.miz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, flag02004 said:

 

I have take a look at the picture above, and that's right, multiple shhoting range, on a slow moving target...an can you confirm that the missile hit the target ? I experienced some aborting shots with missiles exploding just few seconds after departures (3 minutes after start in the new track file)

 

 

 

Yes, they all detonated.

 

7 hours ago, flag02004 said:

 

you said that I was expecting the S300 to overperform on a slow moving bomber (B52) flying at 3000ft straight in direct to the S300 MPU2 at 40 km......over water....with a missile that can shoot a target at 200km.....by the way I was not able to reproduce the same situation on this new track / miz file....(If you can download the "Military aircraft mod" you may be able see what I mean with my previous miz file)

 

on the other hand, this new mission file is interresting, the fast moving targets have been shoot down like expected, but maybe "I think" to much near from the differents sites, like I said earlier with missiles able to shoot targets from 200 to 250 km (S300 MPU2 et S300VM). But two aircraft, 1 B1B et 1 B52 were able to approche these site below 50 km....for the B1B, maybe because it's a fast moving bomber, but not so good at manouvering...and the B52 finaly shot down at about 50 km, just look at the mission file...

 

Yes, further digging made is clear that there is a performance issue against non-maneuvering targets at long range. I think I know why. I'll make a experimental build, try it and report.

 

8 hours ago, flag02004 said:

It's just a hyphothesis, but I think maybe all the differents sites have limited fire control radar performance...I just discover that there are some big differences between the radar performance of the 1L13 EWR and  55G6 EWR and the data descriptions in the encyplopadia.... In the game the two radar cannot detect anything above 100 km whatever the type of the target (fighter, bomber, transport aircraft...), or in the encyclopedia these two radar are far better than this, it's "SKYNET" that let me discover this. I made some tests, and every time the target must be within 100km of these radar in order to be "detected" in Skynet process...If  you use an S300 SR to act like an EW radar, then the range is far higher....

 

That's not where the problem lies I reckon. Organic sensors on the 300s should allow for a max range shot.

I think the problem has to do with the geometry of the allowed engagement window, defined by the maximum kinematic range, maximum launch range at low altitude and maximum interception altitude.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so here I was happens. 

The 5V55R in the mod is depicted as having a max kinematic range of 75km, and a max range for low altitude shots of 27km. This is more or less in line with what's known of the S-300PS system (note that what a low altitude launch is in DCS isn't clear the max range fot the . Now, this works for the S-300PS because the SA-10B is kinematically limited, not radar limited, meaning that the missile is the bottlneck in the system. This is seen by the fact that the LZ's max range is bound by target altitude. 

 

image.png

 

 

Here, the ratio between the max absolute range (75km) and max range at low altitude (25) is 3. The ratio we used for the 48N6 is lower than that, at 150/30=5. Same for the 48N6E2 (200/33=6). The problem this creates is that it makes the missiles highly dependant on target altitude for launch, as if the limit of the systems was the kinematics of the missiles themselves. This problem is compounded by the fact that both the 48N6 and 48N6E2 have a very high ceiling, meaning that the line from [max low alt range,min alt] to [max range, max alt] is very steep.

Since the real S-300PMU1 and PMU2 are radar-limited and not missile-limited, the range limit for engagement against low targets is basically defined by radar horizon rather than missile performance. 

 

image.png

image.png

 

Instead of having maxrange/maxlowaltrange ratios of 5-6, they should be around 1 or 1.1, meaning that the target altitude at max range is less of an issue than maneuverability. I will try to implement these changes and see if it creates any unwanted effect.

 

 


Edited by LetMePickThat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 9:41 AM, Evo said:

Hi, should the S-20A give an RWR warning when it targets and fires a missile? 

 

Yes it should.  These radars switch to specific waveform for guidance; although it is possible for the radar to direct the missile towards the target in mid-course without specifically going into the guidance waveform yet, but it will have to eventually in order to increase the tracking accuracy.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Yes it should.  These radars switch to specific waveform for guidance; although it is possible for the radar to direct the missile towards the target in mid-course without specifically going into the guidance waveform yet, but it will have to eventually in order to increase the tracking accuracy.

 

That's how they work in the mod. You will get a lock warning, but no launch warning.

Non-locked guidance isn't implemented though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LetMePickThat said:

That's how they work in the mod. You will get a lock warning, but no launch warning.

Non-locked guidance isn't implemented though.

 

Yes, that really isn't there for DCS other than if using TWS, there's no real provision for managing the radar signal.

 

If the mod doesn't give a launch tone I'd call that 'wrong', at least within DCSW.   There are many reasons for this, but it's basically not correct behavior IMHO.

 

Can this be changed or, well, is there a willingness to change it?


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Yes, that really isn't there for DCS other than if using TWS, there's no real provision for managing the radar signal.

 

If the mod doesn't give a launch tone I'd call that 'wrong', at least within DCSW.   There are many reasons for this, but it's basically not correct behavior IMHO.

 

Well, there seems to be no consensus on that. I have found conflicting information about how RWRs issue a launch warning for SAM sites. According to you, the launch alert is issued because it switches to a "specific waveform for guidance". This, to me, is what triggers the lock warning, not the launch one, much like switching to STT on a fighter doesn't trigger a launch warning even though a engagement-quality track is obtained. One could imagine a hard-lock on a target by a Flap Lid without subsequent shot. Similarly, you can perfectly guide a round through mid-course using a TWS-like or another "soft" lock mode, only to actually lock the target for guidance at the end.

 

I had some discussions with Chizh back in the days, and to ED the launch warning is triggered upon interception by the RWR of missile guidance datalink commands. On top of that, LPIRs make detecting changes in the scan pattern less likely, not to mention the fact that a change in the emission pattern could just mean the activation of LPI protocols, and not a lock/launch.

At the moment, this is how DCS issues launch warnings, as far as I can tell.

 

Additionnal bits of info can be found in the thesis "Detection and jamming  of low protabilty of intercept (LPI) radars" written by Aytug Denk at the Naval Postgraduate School. Discussing LPIRs and TVM engagement (the case of the S-300P), he states that:

 

"Unlike an active radar homing missile, the missile does not alert the target to the fact that it is homing in on it by illuminating it with radio waves. Typically, the target will be aware that it is being illuminated by the SAM radar, but it will not know for certain if it has been engaged. Modern phased-array radars, by virtue of their thin beams and low sidelobes make detection by the aircraft even more difficult. [...] Some receivers using conventional interception techniques can not efficiently detect and identify LPI radars. Mismatched waveforms used by LPI radar cause RWRs and conventional ES systems to detect the LPI radar at very short ranges, if at all. In these cases the RWR/ES system’s detection range is much shorter than the operational range of the LPI radar, providing a detection disadvantage for the RWR/ES systems and a lethal advantage for the radar versus a potential target platform. An increasing number of LPI radars are incorporated into integrated air defense systems (IADS) and modern platforms and weapons, such as anti-ship missiles, and littoral weapon systems. These LPI radars create a requirement for modern armed forces to develop new techniques, strategies, and equipment to counter them."

 

Of course, if you have any sources about how RWRs deal with LPIRs, I'm super interested.

 

 

11 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Can this be changed or, well, is there a willingness to change it?

 

There's also a gameplay component to it. DCS doesn't allow us to have a launch warning past the mid-guidance phase, the only options we have (for now, at least) are to either have a launch warning as soon as the missile leaves the tube, or no launch warning at all. The problerm is that for long-range missile with a three or four minutes-long flight, having a launch warning right off the bat makes defeating the system very easy.

 

9 hours ago, flag02004 said:

 

Hello, yes I get time for some testing, what kind of specific "test" do you request ?

 

I have made various changes to the kinematics of the PMU2, V and VM rounds. The idea would be to test the new missiles at the edge of the engagement enveloppe and tell me if the results match what you're expecting.


Edited by LetMePickThat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

According to you, the launch alert is issued because it switches to a "specific waveform for guidance". This, to me, is what triggers the lock warning, not the launch one, much like switching to STT on a fighter doesn't trigger a launch warning even though a engagement-quality track is obtained.

 

A signal is injected for guidance of SARH missiles; we have found this in actual descriptions for the AIM-7, R-27, and written information about PATRIOT and S300.   There are specific details about each system that are different, and some systems still use separate radars (eg AEGIS).  What I'm saying is not random.  STT is not the same as STT + Launch, at launch the DL or homing signal is inserted.

 

4 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

One could imagine a hard-lock on a target by a Flap Lid without subsequent shot. Similarly, you can perfectly guide a round through mid-course using a TWS-like or another "soft" lock mode, only to actually lock the target for guidance at the end.

 

There's no 'soft lock' with PESA/AESA, but I get your meaning.   There are differences in the signal and probably in the target revisit rate.  Yes it could be delayed (AEGIS is a perfect, simple example because the different radars make it obvious).

 

 

4 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

I had some discussions with Chizh back in the days, and to ED the launch warning is triggered upon interception by the RWR of missile guidance datalink commands. On top of that, LPIRs make detecting changes in the scan pattern less likely, not to mention the fact that a change in the emission pattern could just mean the activation of LPI protocols, and not a lock/launch.

 

There's no LPI involved here; you're dealing with PESA and it's less capable in that respect.  And yes, warning is issued on the basis of STT + DL or STT + Homing ... they go in the same time-slot for the actual physical signal, and it is what differentiates them from STT itself.   The PESA radars used for this by these SAMs are certainly more complex or if you prefer interesting, but they are subject to the same rules.

 

 

4 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

Of course, if you have any sources about how RWRs deal with LPIRs, I'm super interested.

 

I don't, but it isn't necessary.  We know that F-16s with their 'old' RWRs could deal with SA-10+.

 

So yes, I acknowledge that certain nuances are simply not available to DCS, in this case specifically mid-course vs terminal for this type of radar but no warning at all IMHO is simply not appropriate.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

So yes, I acknowledge that certain nuances are simply not available to DCS, in this case specifically mid-course vs terminal for this type of radar but no warning at all IMHO is simply not appropriate.

 

You should get warning in the terminal phase when radar locks and starts emitting final guidance for missile. No launch warning given as missile is feed the target data for mid-way and the missile seeker can be even disabled until it is either activated by timer or by a special code that is sent if wanted to change target.

 

If the pilot is blind and unaware of launch visually, they can fly to last seconds before radar lock is made and missile about hitting.

 

As well missiles can be launched without any radar emissions, it is just one switch that is kept Off and guidance is done visually acquired target, missile again flies precalculated point for seeker activation or even using just scrambled guidance commands all the way in if target is non-manueverable.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

A signal is injected for guidance of SARH missiles; we have found this in actual descriptions for the AIM-7, R-27, and written information about PATRIOT and S300.   There are specific details about each system that are different, and some systems still use separate radars (eg AEGIS).  What I'm saying is not random.  STT is not the same as STT + Launch, at launch the DL or homing signal is inserted.

 

Yes, but this assumes that your RWR is detecting the (relatively narrow) missile datalink, even when superposed with the main radar "ping" (sorry, my technical english isn't on point), that would not be a given.

 

50 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

There's no 'soft lock' with PESA/AESA, but I get your meaning.   There are differences in the signal and probably in the target revisit rate.  Yes it could be delayed (AEGIS is a perfect, simple example because the different radars make it obvious).

 

I know, that's why I used quotation marks. 🙂

 

50 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

We know that F-16s with their 'old' RWRs could deal with SA-10+.

 

I don't, that's kind of the point. While I have an idea of how they would fare against an old SA-10A/B, I have no clue about how it would perform versus, say, a 92H6E2 using automatic frequency hopping and pseudo-random pattern modulation.

 

50 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

So yes, I acknowledge that certain nuances are simply not available to DCS, in this case specifically mid-course vs terminal for this type of radar but no warning at all IMHO is simply not appropriate.

 

It's either a launch warning as soon as the missile leaves the tube, i.e while you're still hundreds of kiometers away, or no launch warning but a lock alert.

Assume that if you get a lock warning, you're pretty much screwed. This plus the tac page on modern airframes (16C, 18C) should give you quite a good SA.

 

 

Again, I'm not against restauring launch warning for the 300s, but I'd need to see sources substantiating the claim that an ALR-56M would indeed detect, at least in the vast majority of cases), a 48N6 launch. Also, while I can get behind the idea that the 30N6/92N6 design is inherently more prone to launch alerts because of the need to emit the guidance waveform using the main array, this doesn't hold when speaking of the SA-12/23, where dedicated antennas on the 9S32 are used for missile datalink with no impact on the main radar's emission pattern.
 
Finally, I think you're a little optimistic if you think that a 10 seconds-before-impact (or so) launch alert once the 30N6 switches to endgame guidance would allow you to perform any maneuver short of punching out. 🙂

Edited by LetMePickThat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

Yes, but this assumes that your RWR is detecting the (relatively narrow) missile datalink, even when superposed with the main radar "ping" (sorry, my technical english isn't on point), that would not be a given.

 

Your english is very good, don't worry about it.

 

Quote

I don't, that's kind of the point. While I have an idea of how they would fare against an old SA-10A/B, I have no clue about how it would perform versus, say, a 92H6E2 using automatic frequency hopping and pseudo-random pattern modulation.

 

Yep, let's address some of this below 🙂

 

Quote

It's either a launch warning as soon as the missile leaves the tube, i.e while you're still hundreds of kiometers away, or no launch warning but a lock alert.

Assume that if you get a lock warning, you're pretty much screwed. This plus the tac page on modern airframes (16C, 18C) should give you quite a good SA.

 

Very true.  And anyway DCS only gives up two options ... warning or no warning without considering the missile flight stage for SARH.

 

Quote

Again, I'm not against restauring launch warning for the 300s, but I'd need to see sources substantiating the claim that an ALR-56M would indeed detect, at least in the vast majority of cases), a 48N6 launch. Also, while I can get behind the idea that the 30N6/92N6 design is inherently more prone to launch alerts because of the need to emit the guidance waveform using the main array, this doesn't hold when speaking of the SA-12/23, where dedicated antennas on the 9S32 are used for missile datalink with no impact on the main radar's emission pattern.

 

Ok, here's two takes on this, the non-theory-crafting one is this:  TVM and SAGG (the guidance method used by these SAMs) will inject a homing signal into the beam much like any SARH.   This is directed at your plane and doesn't have anything to do with the datalink in this instance as you correctly point out (whereas, say an R-27 puts the DL in the signal, then stops at some point in time and injects the homing signal in the same slot).   The PATRIOT does this too, it has a separate antenna for each datalink channel and for IFF (they're mounted on the same 'face' but physically separate antennas)

 

Now, yes, I can find you a quote that I have seen in documents but I don't have much hope for it right now, why ... because it's literally one part of a paragraph in a whole bunch of docs, some of which are not searchable 😞

It basically says that once the missile is launched (I think from a PATRIOT system, but I can probably find it for S300 as well), the guidance waveform is switched on.

 

Quote
Finally, I think you're a little optimistic if you think that a 10 seconds-before-impact (or so) launch alert once the 30N6 switches to endgame guidance would allow you to perform any maneuver short of punching out. 🙂

 

No, that's just part of doctrine - you're going to fly in a certain way to help you make better use of that warning (as opposed to most players who wait for a warning to do anything) - but I also think that assuming something as short as 10 sec is also optimistic. 🙂   There are many systems that will do this and there are IRL combat examples as far back as Vietnam/Korea but typically the targets have to be somewhat cooperative in order for short illumination time to work well, IMHO.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

 

I have made various changes to the kinematics of the PMU2, V and VM rounds. The idea would be to test the new missiles at the edge of the engagement enveloppe and tell me if the results match what you're expecting.

 

Where can I download this new version of the mod ? I checked this address "https://github.com/Auranis/HighDigitSAMs" but there seems to be no changed at all of the actual version of the mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 9:07 AM, LetMePickThat said:

 

I'll send you a private message.

HI LMPT,

 

ok, i've tested your new mod's version, as you can see in the different tracks, the behaviors of the SA20 and SA20B are far better, shooting fighters approaching head on at medium and high altitude  between 180 and 160 km....as intended from my point of view. But this time no reaction from the SA23...strange, even for targets below 50 km...same for SA10, SA10B et SA12....the only reaction was from the SA10B shooting at Harm missiles....but that's the only reaction.
And like the previous version, the big low moving targets managed to stay alived far longer than the fighters....and approaching the SAM sites far nearer than the fighters, big mention for the E-3A avoiding lots of missiles by descending every time below 30 meters in order to make the SA20  radar loosing his target...

SU27_CAUCASE_ESSAI-4.miz mission_Test_SA300_10-06-2021.log mission_Test-bis_SA300_10-06-2021.log mission_Test-ter_SA300_10-06-2021.log mission_Test_SAM_S300_SKYNET-4.trk mission_Test_SAM_S300_SKYNET-4bis.trk mission_Test_SAM_S300_SKYNET-4Ter.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Coollimes said:

Thanks for making this amazing MOD! I have an issue though - I receive no RWR warning for a lock or launch of the SA-20B. Can you explain why please? I'm flying the F/A-18.

 

Coollimes

The latest release of the mod should give you a lock warning. Which version are your running ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...