Command guidance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

greycat -> Command guidance (11/26/2016 10:59:06 AM)

I've noticed that missiles which used command guidance (such as Nike Hercules, SA-1, SA-2) are described in the DB as having semi-active radar homing (SARH). Is this because Command does not model command guidance or is there some other reason?



Cik -> RE: Command guidance (11/26/2016 3:01:44 PM)

my knowledge of the entire thing is a tad limited, but most of the early SAMs used command guidance, but also used a SARH homing method (sort of)

IE, the SA-2 fan song FCR illuminates a target and gets a relatively stable bearing/speed/altitude/heading
the command van tells the FCR transporter-erector-launcher unit to fire a missile
the TEL launches
the SA-2 fan song/command van/something else establishes a radio link to the inflight missile via a secure(?) radio link
the SA2 fan song/command van/something gives steering commands to the missile based on the information received via the SAM rings radar tracking

as far as i know, there is little "effective" difference between the two: the SARH guides on reflected radar energy and the command guidance missile uses radio steering commands from the FCR/command suite of the ring

so i guess there are a few possibilities:

1. it doesn't model it because they are not significantly different
2. it does model it and the missile is command guidance and then uses SARH terminal tracking (i know several missiles do this, but not entirely sure if SA-2 ever did it in it's lifetime)
3. it does model it and it's a DB mistake

i'm unsure if you knew all that stuff so i just threw it out there. don't take this as a condescending post or anything.



greycat -> RE: Command guidance (11/27/2016 7:52:30 AM)

[8D]Thanks for all the information. I would have thought that a system which relies on a radio link to the missile is inherently more vulnerable to jamming and therefore should be worth modelling (if possible).



PN79 -> RE: Command guidance (11/27/2016 2:03:14 PM)

I don't remember details but I think that there was a period of time in Vietnam war when the US has figured out how to distrupt command link for SA-2 missilies (11D) with electronic jamming so any launched missile was lost immediatelly after launch. The vietnamse operators then had to check if command link is jammed before launch and if yes then they cannot fight. But soon new version of missiles has come from the USSR (11DM) with jamming resistant command link.

I am not aware of any other case of succesfull command link jamming. Clearly it was not possible to distrupt SA-3 command link in 1999 despite availability of that system to the US.

(SA-1, SA-2, SA-3, SA-4 and SA-8 have pure command guided missiles).



Cik -> RE: Command guidance (11/27/2016 2:11:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: greycat

[8D]Thanks for all the information. I would have thought that a system which relies on a radio link to the missile is inherently more vulnerable to jamming and therefore should be worth modelling (if possible).


ah, good point.



VIF2NE -> RE: Command guidance (11/27/2016 2:42:22 PM)

Command - the most resistant to disturbances. But there is no greater accuracy if the distance of 50 km.



Gneckes -> RE: Command guidance (11/27/2016 3:11:22 PM)

Iirc there was indeed a period during the Vietnam War where USAF B-52s carried jammers for disrupting the command link of SA-2 units. They did this by noise-jamming the frequency of the missile transponders. Thus, the guidance system lost track of the position of the missile and was incapable of giving accurate guidance commands.
Soon however, the USSR adapted to this by simply building missiles with 4 transponders instead of one, and that kind of jamming became completely ineffective.
Unfortunately, the USAF never got that particular memo, so they continued dedicating EW capabilities to those frequencies.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125