|
Ping Jockey -> SAM Guidance & ECCM Questions (7/25/2017 10:23:11 AM)
|
I am currently working on a list of recommended changes to the Cold War Database to more accurately model the Nike Hercules SAM system. I have a couple of questions about how ECCM is modeled in CMANO vis-a-vis Surface-to-Air Missile guidance.
Background:
The Basic Nike Hercules deployed in 1958 used command guidance. The missile itself did not have a sensor to help it find the target. Instead, a Target Tracking Radar (TTR) director on the ground fed range & bearing data to the Integrated Fire Control system, which transmitted continuous steering commands to the out-bound bird via the Missile Tracking Radar datalink.
My first question is this:
When the missile reaches its target and CMANO is calculating the final to-hit probability, is the ECCM being applied against the target’s ECM modeled as a function of the missile or of the ground-based TTR?
To put it another way, if you wanted to modify the database to improve the ECCM capability of Nike Hercules, would you change the missile record or the radar record?
Assuming it’s the radar…
In 1961 the Army introduced the Improved Nike Hercules system. Among other things, this upgrade package added a second fire control radar to existing facilities. This Target Ranging Radar (TRR) was slaved to the TTR. The tunable Ku-band TRR greatly augmented the ECCM capabilities of the X-band TTR.
Currently, CWDB 467 models the TTR & TRR as two separate sensors. My second question is:
Does adding this second FC sensor with a better ECCM value supersede the ECCM of the TTR, or do they add, or would having two radars locked-on mean that the target has to successfully break two locks to avoid getting hit?
Would you recommend modeling the TTR/TRR combination as a single sensor with a higher ECCM value?
|
|
|
|
