Why even waste your time, they don’t care about what is realistic. They only care about what will grant them money.
They constantly lie and have double standards.
9 Likes
Does this work?
Per the document it states that impacts were attainable in tests with the GTV-2 test design against targets operating at up to 400 knots, maneuvering at 6Gs, at slant ranges between 2000 and 4100 meters, and up to a altitude of 9000 feet.
4 Likes
Extremely well explained counterclaim with excellent supporting evidence! Bravo! This is exactly the type of discussion the Forum needs, not “Russian Bias!!!1!”
3 Likes
If he asks for maths then give him maths, not some more pictures…
He literally asks for a mathematical proof on the implications of PiD controled fins/flight on
lateral acceleration. And that is a nail in the coffin
Thats quite some math right here :/
If this isn’t correct then either:
A) Being a faster missile than Igla makes it possible for it to pull harder (But somewhere near ingame mistral probably)
(using the mach 2.2 - this makes the stinger 23,5% faster than Igla(745m/s V 570m/s)
(What is the actuall speed of the FIM92? In game its mach ~1.95(670m/s) while sources frequently state mach 2.2 and even mach 2.6 being possible on certain flight trajectories[found one stating mach 1.95])
B) The canards can do some whooping AoA values
C) Stinger can’t pull that hard
1 Like
Do we know that aerodynamics are what limits the Igla to 10g? There are plenty of missiles (Firestreak, Red Top, Sparrow, etc.) where the autopilot artificially limits the missile to pulling less g than it is aerodynamically capable of. If the autopilot is the limiting factor for Igla then that could explain why it apparently pulls significantly less than Stinger, despite their similarities.
12 Likes
Unless the devs don’t belive that the fins can be in a position different than than the two outermost, which defeats the whole purpose of PiD…
In the case of the Redeye components I’ve already posted, the missile was able to obtain a peak velocity of mach 1.7 in 5.8 seconds while being able to engage a target maneuvering at 6Gs. The stinger is known to have both superior control surfaces and a more potent boost sustain motor.
Even without those features the missile would still be underperforming compared to it’s inferior predecessor if kept at the same velocity as the Redeye in game.
There is no math needed to confirm this as this is the performance of the Redeye as it’s performance metrics are stated by the “Historical Division, US Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama”. You cant really get more first party than the literal arsenal that worked with convair to design and test the weapon aside from White Sands.
Also another prop nav cutout mention for the Redeye
Here is also a side by side of the Redeye and Redeye II (aka the XFIM-92A the first Stinger)
Its quite obvious that the Stinger sports a vastly elongated motor section and a completely new kick motor, while the overall design of the seeker section, bar internal changes, remains largely the same.
8 Likes
Or the servos were weak and could only deflect so much at the speeds…
Or there was a electronic used that could not handle higher g loads…
I don’t need no confirmation that the Stinger is a vastly superior missile over the Redeye and that it can outpull any defensive manouver but it is clear (and it was long time before) that common sense and reasoining sadly don’t work here for the most part, hence the “quick maths” are needed
I was acquainted with their logic(or the lack of it) with the AGM65 when we tried to prove that a 51kg explosive remains a 51kg explosive even when you make it as a HEAT warhead and that it doesn’t matter if its 51kg HE warhead or 51kg HEAT one - it will obliterate anything if it hits directly…
But gaijin is like
HE= aha!good, big boom!;
HEAT= bad, something something, HEAT ate HE no boom
(especially since Russia has no counterpart ingame)
So no matter how obvious something is, it won’t do without sikrit documents
…or maths apparently
(sometimes even then it won’t be implemented if they don’t want to)
9 Likes
Do you have any docs on the igla-s?
Unfortunately not
1 Like
I think the developers are seriously overthinking things. All available information points to 20-22G overload and capable of intercepting a target maneuvering at 7G’s and 170-310 m/s speeds. Currently it can do none of these things in-game.
Whether they think the G overload is less than 20-22 is irrelevant, it still can’t meet the design REQUIREMENT to RELIABLY hit a target at 310 m/s and 7G’s overload. Actually, it can’t hit a target at half that speed and 6G’s.
15 Likes
Is it possible that the stingers thruster can also be thrust vectoring?
It’s not.
Its possible, but I doubt it. MANPADs are typically designed to be as cheap as possible (so you can have a lot more). If I were to put money on it. I’d guess it was either:
- Different guidance method
- Better build quality in the stingers
- Different design requirements/doctrines (Maybe the soviets simply didnt have the same 3x target G)
- Overall technology level (Electronics, materials, motors, etc)
- Budget. (Plain and simple, maybe IGLAs were simply designed to be a lot cheaper)
1 Like
Its still hilarious to me that gaijin still bases all other MANPADS off of the inferior Igla when the west was already producing superior quality examples of MANPADS before the Igla even came to be. The fact that the FIM-43’s performance is still vastly superior to that of the Igla, a full 20 years before it came to be in almost every regard is just comical.
Its the same issue with integrated crew protection in modern AFVs with Russia only learning recently what crew protection is while, modern western equipment have had it standardized into the primary arrays for years now.
Prop nav in MANPADS and crew protection are truly unknown technology to the Russian MOD.
3 Likes
Something as well that I would say is rather important to the Stinger’s performance itself is also the fact that it seems that the rosette seeker that defined it’s improved IRCM performance over it’s contemporaries was able to be fitted into the Block III guidance section of the FIM-43C without modifications and was successful at downing target aircraft with proper lead bias.
At the same time, the subsequent motor section improvements pushed the system up to being able to engage test targets moving in excess of 600 knots, far superior to the preceding FIM-43C capabilities, and even the Igla’s current performance. Rather interesting too that the system achieved full all aspect capacities with it’s initial seeker against even small head on targets with it’s rosette, with the Igla only achieving limited true all aspect performance with the second iteration of the Igla.
8 Likes
As far as I am aware, the Redeye to stinger series has the most effective history of all known MANPADS in the hands of the insurgent groups in the middle east against Russian equipment. Russia MANAPADS are prolific indeed, but have not really had as large of a effect on any ongoing conflicts, EG their involvement in desert storm is considered a footnote at best, with a extremely limited number of aircraft actually being successfully shot down by MANPADS, meanwhile the Redeye and Stinger successfully forced Russia to Re-evaluate their entire helicopter operation doctrine … which they subsequently forgot about in the most recent conflict and the stingers continue to thrash their rotary wing assets.
8 Likes
This is a complete baseless claim. Most available videos of shotdowns were done by saclos missiles or excessive bullet impact damage. There are multiple videos of the dircm working
The direction of the Stinger’s flight is determined by the phase of the wing movements
with respect to the missile roll position.38 To guide the missile effectively, the guidance
system needs to know where in its roll the missile is. The guidance system may want to
steer the missile ‘up,’ but, given the rapid roll, the way that it must angle the canards to
accomplish this changes many times a second. The principle rolling airframe-related
improvement over Redeye introduced with Stinger Basic was a better servomechanism to
drive these canards.39 The servomechanism was developed by General Dynamics.40
CTE 7
While the missile rolls, the seeker platform is maintained in a fixed relation to the ground
by spinning mass gyroscopes on gimbals. These are coupled electrically to the rest of the
missile body through a set of induction coils. The electrical induction signals from these
35 Robert Little, interview with authors, Huntsville, AL, 14 September 2005. 36 R.G. Lee et al, Guided Weapons (New York: Brassey’s Defence Publishers, 1988), 97-98. 37 The thrust of launch imparts a stabilizing 10-20 Hz roll to the airframe. The rolling airframe has the
advantage needing fewer moveable control surfaces. The idea of a stabilizing roll came from industry,
where General Dynamics obtained a patent. David Curry, interview with authors, Huntsville, AL, 14
September 2005. 38 Raytheon Stinger/MANPADS Briefing. 39 Hardesty, telephone interview with authors, 7 March 2006. 40 Hardesty, email to authors, 26 April 2006.
12
coils depend on the geometric overlap. The signals are then used to calculate the
instructions to the mechanical motors controlling the orientation of the missile’s
components. For earlier versions of the Stinger, the coil signals were also used to
determine the rate of roll, a necessary piece of information to control the position of the
canards to steer the missile. The latest version of the Stinger—Block I—has a roll
frequency sensor that uses laser ring gyros to measure the roll rate. The missile’s
orientation to true vertical is set before firing and is then used to compute the relative
position of the missile body at every instant in time. This information is used to
synchronize control instructions from the guidance unit. The roll frequency sensor was
developed in a collaborative effort between the PM, Raytheon, and Honeywell. The effort
began around 1990 and cost a total of about $8 million.41
CTE 8
One further guidance wrinkle is introduced at the final stage of the missile’s flight. The
missile makes an adjustment in the last moments before it impacts the target, turning
from the focus on the high-temperature plume of the target aircraft to the airframe itself.
This is done using a Target Adaptive Guidance (TAG) circuit. The TAG introduces bias
to the signal sent from the seeker to the guidance system, causing it to steer the missile
towards the vulnerable part of the aircraft a few feet forward of the exhaust plume.42 This
concept was perfected for the Stinger by a collaborative effort between the contractor and
MRDEC.43
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA130027.pdf
here is 1983 Stinger POST hybrid simulation report
The Stinger POST hybrid simulation provides a high-fidelity, real-time
simulation of the missile system. It can be used to predict test flight
performance and analyze the flight afterwards. A variety of targets can be
modelled with flares included. The simulation can also be used to evaluate
the contributions of individual parameters or to generate engagement boundaries for the composite system.
diagrams and math quite a lot
btw, why not ask the manufacturer “how much G can handle stinger”?
8 Likes