SAM/A2A CCS tech levels/reaction times

[Horchata]

I just can't believe that a PAC-1 has a reaction time of 6 seconds but that the S300V4, S300PM2 (in game as export PMU-2, Buk-M2, Buk-M3 etc have an absolutely massive reaction time of 36 seconds and are listed as having analog computers. This goes also for their naval versions, with an Admiral Grigorovich's semi-modern mid 2000's digital CCS listed as early 1980's/36 seconds with an average crew.

How are S300V/S300PM capable of achieving that level of performance with an analog computer let alone the S300V4 with its modern MFD's, fully automatic operation and ability to shoot down hypersonic missiles?

I am unable to find any information to prove this and thus haven't made a bug report yet, but it just makes zero sense that something with high performance PESA radars from the mid 1980s is ran by an analog computer when they were already manufacturing digital combat computers for almost a decade, or that a PAC-1 has the same reaction time as a PAC-3.

Propose adding multiple new heavy SAM digital CCS computing tech levels with reduced reaction times:
Digital/Analog Mix - Eg: Buk-M1 (TEL's are analog, Radar/Command Center are digital with the MiG-31 computer Argon-15)
Early Digital - Eg: Patriot PAC-1, S300PM, S300V, Buk M1-2
Mid Digital - Eg: Patriot PAC-2
Modern Digital (already exists) - Eg: S400, S300V4, TOR-M2, Patriot PAC-3 (with new radar/command center)
Future Digital - S500, 22350M, Future US Destroyer

Reaction time for aircraft also must be made more complex with more tech level sliders, the MiG-31 with its all-digital radar and combat avionics shouldn't have the same reaction time as a MiG-21 just because the pilot on the unmodernized versions lacks a glass cockpit.
"Cockpit"
with a new tech level option
"Combat Avionics"

Thoughts?

[TempestII]

I can't say for certain if the specific Soviet systems listed had access to similarly complex computers as the West had in the 1980s, but it doesn't seem particularly likely when one considers how far behind the USSR was. And the 1990s and early 2000s didn't really help Russia much either, with its military being left to rot during that time period.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History ... viet_Union

https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-C ... Arms-Race/

[thewood1]

That might be a little over-generalization. The Soviets focused almost their entire electronic industry development on air defense with the S-300 development in early 70s being the initial focus. Digital capabilities based on early semiconductor development was what led to the S-300 in the first place. Osprey's S-300/400 book lays that out pretty clearly as a source. Now the Soviets did have severe gaps in digital capabilities, but for the S-300 to have the same reaction time as the SA-2 does seem a little off.

[Horchata]

More problems: naval variants lack the reaction time of their land counterparts.
Land SA-15 is 6 seconds
its naval counterpart the SA-N-9 is 36 seconds due to its host platforms reaction time on Udaloy I, despite the naval version being made to be significantly better - its computer takes up an entire room instead of just a small part of the TLAR.
Other SA-N-9 equipped ships have it far lower if their CCS is considered newer like the Udaloy II which makes zero sense because the system has its own computer and the main CCS thus has no effect on its performance.

I can't say for certain if the specific Soviet systems listed had access to similarly complex computers as the West had in the 1980s, but it doesn't seem particularly likely when one considers how far behind the USSR was. And the 1990s and early 2000s didn't really help Russia much either, with its military being left to rot during that time period.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History ... viet_Union

https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-C ... Arms-Race/

That only applied to the the civilian world and is what the articles are about, the military computing, radars, missiles etc were very good and in many cases better.
Design of systems didn't stop during robber baron period of the 1990s and early 2000s, the issue was that they didn't have the money to actually make them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
First soviet digital combat computer started production in 1974.

All vehicles of the Buk-M1 (Buk-M1-2) missile system use an Argon-15A computer, as does the Zaslon radar (the first Soviet-made airborne digital computer, designed in 1972 by the Soviet Research Institute of Computer Engineering (NICEVT, currently NII Argon)

S300V was the worlds first fully mobile, datalink equipped, PESA SAM system, capable of shooting down a Pershing when the Patriot was semi-static, unable to manage a Scud and with significantly less range. I just can't believe the computer on a PAC-1 is the same as a PAC-3 or more advanced than the one on the S300V - and if the Buk-M1 uses a digital computer I see no reason why the more advanced/expensive S300V wouldn't.
The S300V command center has CRT MFD's, uses tracks instead of blips, can datalink to other systems and has multiple operator consoles - how could this be done with an analog computer?
The S300V4 is a brand new system with modern MFD's and a custom linux operating system, however the database has it listed as using an analog computer - how would they even make those in 2023?

[Faceplate]

With a good case and evidence about the Combat System generation, the DB team (https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... sts/issues) may adjust it to reflect your concerns. The same goes for any other DB entry's combat system. If memory serves, there was a cursory, possibly automatic, adjustment to them when the feature was introduced, so manual corrections are very useful.

[BDukes]

S300V was the worlds first fully mobile, datalink equipped, PESA SAM system, capable of shooting down a Pershing when the Patriot was semi-static, unable to manage a Scud and with significantly less range. I just can't believe the computer on a PAC-1 is the same as a PAC-3 or more advanced than the one on the S300V - and if the Buk-M1 uses a digital computer I see no reason why the more advanced/expensive S300V wouldn't.
The S300V command center has CRT MFD's, uses tracks instead of blips, can datalink to other systems and has multiple operator consoles - how could this be done with an analog computer?
The S300V4 is a brand new system with modern MFD's and a custom linux operating system, however the database has it listed as using an analog computer - how would they even make those in 2023?

You'd be really surprised what's still in and operates stuff largely because it's easily serviceable and works. This being said this seems like a reasonable research project and probably worth chasing. I'll do it.

Mike

[thewood1]

Not much research needed. The S-300 was developed specifically to take advantage of early digital electronics.

The Russian S-300 and S-400 Missile Systems (New Vanguard, 315)...its discussed through out the lifecycle of the S-300 and its upgrades. It doesn't detail the actual systems, but makes considerable reference to the initial semiconductor development for the original S-300 and the advancements in electronics and digital scanning being the drive behind upgrades.

[BDukes]

Not much research needed. The S-300 was developed specifically to take advantage of early digital electronics.

The Russian S-300 and S-400 Missile Systems (New Vanguard, 315)...its discussed through out the lifecycle of the S-300 and its upgrades. It doesn't detail the actual systems, but makes considerable reference to the initial semiconductor development for the original S-300 and the advancements in electronics and digital scanning being the drive behind upgrades.

So should I submit or do you got this?

Mike

[thewood1]

You can do it and submit the reference. I steer clear of the obsessiveness of the github site.

[BDukes]

You can do it and submit the reference. I steer clear of the obsessiveness of the github site.

Ok no problem. I got it.

Mike

[Horchata]

You'd be really surprised what's still in and operates stuff largely because it's easily serviceable and works. This being said this seems like a reasonable research project and probably worth chasing. I'll do it.

All the new stuff uses a Russian designed/made CPU arch called "Elbrus", the older "2C2T" dual core/dual thread version because they can't yet make the latest 8 and 16 core stuff without Taiwanese fabs.
Plus the usual DSP's, FPGA's and ASIC's.

Not much research needed. The S-300 was developed specifically to take advantage of early digital electronics.

The Russian S-300 and S-400 Missile Systems (New Vanguard, 315)...its discussed through out the lifecycle of the S-300 and its upgrades. It doesn't detail the actual systems, but makes considerable reference to the initial semiconductor development for the original S-300 and the advancements in electronics and digital scanning being the drive behind upgrades.

So should I submit or do you got this?

Mike

Thanks

Throw in the Buk's and their naval variants too if you can, they're also listed as analog. Buk-M1 is a digital/analog hybrid (TELAR's analog, PESA radar and command center digital with Argon-15 CCS) the newer stuff is all digital with improved reaction time each generation.
There are a lot of naval platforms that have the same problem/are listed as analog with absurd reaction times.

All also need their real life NCTR abilities, which are very hush hush and hard to find actual information about. I have a bunch of screenshots of the GUI's with little icons for different types of incoming/outgoing targets. I don't know if that would suffice the devs.