Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Radar systems

    Share

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2833
    Points : 2935
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    New recce vehicle?

    Post  medo on Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:30 am





    I find pictures of this new recce vehicle equipped with with one of Credo type radar and EO system. Is there any more informationsabout this vehicle? It have army license plates, so this one is from army units.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 14482
    Points : 15209
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:00 am

    Looks like the base vehicle is the same as used for transportation of the Tochka tactical ballistic missiles (9P129).

    Its internal capacity to store ballistic missiles should make plenty of room for the folding arm.

    The basic vehicle should have rather good cross country performance and be fully amphibious, but otherwise I know little about this new application for the vehicle.

    The Credo-1E system has a rather different appearance and is a radar system while this system seems to have an optical ball turret.
    The Credo system has variants mounted on modified BTR chassis and MT-LB chassis but I have never seen it on the 9P129 before.

    The large square box below the ball turret probably contains mechanical stabilisation equipment and probably a gyro and likely does not contain a radar, so I would think this is not a Credo system at all... in the sense that Credo is a radar system, like Fara.

    The recon model of the BMP-1 and the BMD-1 has optics and a radar mounted in the turret... perhaps this is part of the replacement for those vehicles with the optic component likely radically improved.

    Just looking at the vehicle itself I was going to suggest the possibility of it having two arms one with optics and one with radar, but looking at the size of the folding arm at max extension in the top photo I rather doubt there is room. With a top quality thermal imager like Thales Catherine sight it is likely this system has a similar detection range to the Credo radar against some targets. If it contains a quality digital TV camera with high zoom it should offer excellent performance. Park it in the middle of a forest and poke the sensor ball above the tree line... any threat and you can drop the arm and move... artillery fire is much less effective within a forest as the trees absorb fragments and reduce blast effect.

    The vehicles that normally carry Credo are used for spotting enemy artillery and calculating the origin of fire for counter-battery "attention". This vehicle could perhaps perform the mission based on the visible signature of a launch/attack, but maybe it will operate with a radar vehicle too.

    I am guessing.

    Interesting photos though. Thanks.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2833
    Points : 2935
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:41 pm



    Here is a picture of Credo-1E radar. it is difficult to say, if if the thinner box in front is Credo-1E radar antenna. Also it is difficult to say, if antenna could also rotate as EO ball on the pictures. But combination of both, Credo radar and EO system is good combination for battlefield surveillance and directing of artilery fire.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 14482
    Points : 15209
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:09 pm

    Develop tools and artillery reconnaissance. Currently set up new means of radar (radar Credo-1C "," Aistenok "," Zoo-1M), audio (ACP-7M), opto-electronic (PDP-4A) and air artillery reconnaissance (reconnaissance complex " fescue), which for several years comes to the troops.

    From:

    http://vpk.name/news/46729_Bog_voinyi_v_novyih_dospehah.html

    So perhaps this is PDP-4A?

    Presumably they are all based on the same vehicle with different packages at the end of the arms and different electronics in the vehicles.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2165
    Points : 3075
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:35 pm

    I don't find that to be a very sensible recon asset. It was designed to pull up well behind the front line and launch missiles, not go behind enemy lines and scout. That ZIL chassis is know for its lack of off-road mobility.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 14482
    Points : 15209
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:36 pm

    I guess if they plan to operate it down roads in forests or amongst buildings or thick bush then you have a recon sensor popping up from nowhere with little chance of engaging the actual vehicle.

    The radar models would be used to detect and track incoming artillery fire and determine their source. I expect the electro optics model will be used for passive detection of things like helos and low flying aircraft without a huge risk that the vehicle could be attacked except from directly above.

    I would think a UAV might be better but from the information I posted below these vehicles are for air artillery. Would that mean air defence artillery?
    The mention of audio recon I suppose could allow the vehicle to detect a tank division by its engine noise or aircraft.

    Maybe they improved the vehicles cross country performance, but with road mobile units I think working in pairs will be needed in some areas just to ensure you have a vehicle to help you out of deep mud or deep snow if you get stuck.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2833
    Points : 2935
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:01 pm

    I find some info about this recce vehicle. It is artillery recce vehicle Kredo-1S 1L269 for ground and low flying target recce and artillery fire directing.

    Link: http://komandos.start.bg/article.php?aid=14618

    Unfortunately it's in Russian, but this source write, it have Kredo-1 radar with range of 35 km to detecting tanks and 15 km to detecting man and EO complex with TI, TV and laser range finder. It was accepted in army in 2007.

    It is also mentioned in this article.

    http://vpk.name/news/46729_Bog_voinyi_v_novyih_dospehah.html

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2165
    Points : 3075
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:59 pm

    Unfortunately that radar has a hard time distinguishing men from vegetation.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:38 am

    Radio engineering troops will get new radar
    http://vpk.name/news/47560_radiotehnicheskie_voiska_poluchat_novyie_radiolokacionnyie_stancii.html

    Поставка новых радаров будет осуществляться в рамках госпрограммы вооружений на 2011-2020 годы. До 2020 года планируется переоснащение Радиотехнических войск на 70 процентов "современными и перспективными образцами радиоэлектронного вооружения". В числе новой техники войска получат радиолокационные станции дежурного и боевого режимов типа "Каста", "Гамма", "Небо" и "Рудиолуч". Также будет проводится модернизация уже принятых на вооружение систем.

    Vlad or any body can identify these new radars ?

    I have identified two based on some discussion.

    Gamma-S1Ye --> http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/71/Gamma-S1Ye-MAKS-2007.jpg
    Protivnik-GE ---> http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/80/Protivnik-GE.JPG
    http://pvo.guns.ru/rtv/protivnik.htm

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Pervius on Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:40 pm

    Kurile and Iturup Islands build up will likely expand Russia's western radar. Maybe S-400's as well going there?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:36 am

    Seems like a new Mobile UHF Phased array radar from Russia

    http://www.vniirt.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=22

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2833
    Points : 2935
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:08 pm

    Seems like a new Mobile UHF Phased array radar from Russia

    http://www.vniirt.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=22
    [quote]

    Maybe this could be a battery radar for Pantsir-S1. It's placed on the same Kamaz truck and is in desert colors, what make good association, because Pantsir is always showed in desert color.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:13 pm

    I had sent those pictures and link to Dr Carlo Kopp from APA and this is what he has mentioned to me in an email

    ####
    I have seen a picture before but not the description. It is the L-band acquisition radar for standalone batteries of the Pantsir S1 / SA-22 - yes it is a proper full AESA design using technology from the VNIIRT Gamma DE series C
    ####

    This is clarify what those radars are for.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 14482
    Points : 15209
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:52 am

    Nice find Austin.

    They seem to be expanding the number of radars in the L band range... I suspect that with the use of L band wing mounted radar in T-50 and Su-35 and perhaps Mig-35, (though I have not got confirmation of the latter I suspect they could use it too), that the Russians believe it might be useful... at least against LO fighters like Rafale and Typhoon, and also perhaps the F-35 and even F-22.

    This makes ground based mobile radars as this very interesting... especially with Pantsir-S1s operational ceiling variably described as 10,000m and 15,000m, as the latter would probably mean that for normal operations the F-35 will not be able to fly over a Pantsir battery.

    This anti stealth role is also useful for Pantsir as it does not rely on radar guidance or terminal homing, and has not forward facing optical ports so DIRCMs on the target will have a hard time stopping the missiles.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2833
    Points : 2935
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:21 pm

    I wonder if those first Russian Pantsir-S1 batteries have those battery radars or only command posts. I think this AESA radar will be very hard to jam and even if it is jammed, CP could share picture with other radars from IADS and deliver targets to Pantsirs. Pantsirs could work all the time passively. With guns, they are impossible to jam. For missiles, they could jam only guidance signals, what is very hard, because target is not between missile and launcher and guidance signal have very thin angle and very high power so it practically could not be jammed.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 14482
    Points : 15209
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:39 pm

    I wonder if those first Russian Pantsir-S1 batteries have those battery radars or only command posts.

    I would expect that only batteries operating on their own would use this sort of radar, though it might be included as part of an anti stealth addition for use with older S-300 systems.

    I would think the very first Pantsir batteries were deployed with S-400 batteries but I would expect production of Pantsir will be rather faster than production of S-400 so I would think the extra batteries will be deployed to S-300 batteries to replace systems like the SA-3 that are widely used to help defend such systems.
    I would think the radars supporting the S-400 would offer pretty good coverage and that these new radars might be more use in Pantsir batteries supporting older SAM systems and also for Pantsir batteries operating alone... say defending a small airfield or something.

    I think this AESA radar will be very hard to jam and even if it is
    jammed, CP could share picture with other radars from IADS and deliver
    targets to Pantsirs.

    Jamming an L band radar would be difficult... for the same reason it is rather hard to jam datalinks... many of which operate in the L band.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:47 am

    I think in an intense jamming environment with liberal use of Anti-Radiation Missiles these AESA radar would be eventually jammed with different jamming options like DRFM Jamming to Brute force options.

    It would be wise move to invest in non-RF mode of such system like Pantsir ,BUK ,S-300/400 and every other system out there , invest in advanced EO, IIR Tracking and guidance , multichannel IR tracking and it should be part of any system main Tracking and Guidance radar.

    As all the wars of past and libya operation shows all form of RF radar are the first target of NATO/US forces and are taken out with precision , it would be wise to invest in capable and advanced passive mode of tracking and guidance as with AESA system.

    Not to say that NATO/US will fight Russia but more to improve Russian Defence and export potential of AD system and give it a cutting edge.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:51 am

    Can any one explain what advantage or disadvantage does SARH have over command guidance missile ?

    I was looking at Indian Akash missile which is a command guidance missile and comparing to BUK missile which is SARH , I think both guidance mode is limited to LOS of its main tracking and FC radar ?

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 26
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:49 pm

    Austin wrote:Can any one explain what advantage or disadvantage does SARH have over command guidance missile ?

    I was looking at Indian Akash missile which is a command guidance missile and comparing to BUK missile which is SARH , I think both guidance mode is limited to LOS of its main tracking and FC radar ?
    Austin are you referring to BUK 9М38 missile its semi-active radar homing & not SARH

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 14482
    Points : 15209
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:47 am

    I think in an intense jamming environment with liberal use of
    Anti-Radiation Missiles these AESA radar would be eventually jammed with
    different jamming options like DRFM Jamming to Brute force options.

    The power of a jamming signal diminishes at an increasing rate with distance... this intense jamming environment you talk about will be difficult to achieve... for power you need big aircraft and to be effective you need them to be as close as you can possibly get to the radar being jammed. Remember also that all the AESA elements on any AESA radar both transmit and receive, so say an S-400 battery just arrives at a location and sets up... it has emitted nothing regarding electronic transmissions so far so the first thing the battery does is it will start listening with its radar and look at the radar picture and compare that with radar information from other platforms that could possibly see the threat situation above the S-400 site from a distance. The first things the batteries radars will detect is the jamming sources and with a clear powerful signal from them they can direct a chirp of radar energy at them to determine range or simply use the signals from widely spaced radars to triangulate range and fire an S-400 missile at the emitting threat. Once the Pantsir vehicles have set up a perimeter and started scanning for targets in IR and MMW and CM wave radar the other radars can start scanning too... the sudden rush of information on local threats will go through the command module and targets will be prioritised and rapidly engaged and destroyed.

    The problem with jamming AESA is that by design AESA emits a lot less than non ESA radars. A conventional radar will continually scan to find and keep track of targets. An ESA radar... including PESA BTW, will electronically scan in a fraction of a second and then listen. Any targets that are detected will then intermittently get pulses to make sure they are where they were or where the radar expects them to be, or to find their new course/speed/height etc etc. Because of this jamming is much more difficult... and more often than not counter productive.

    It would be wise move to invest in non-RF mode of such system like
    Pantsir ,BUK ,S-300/400 and every other system out there , invest in
    advanced EO, IIR Tracking and guidance , multichannel IR tracking and it
    should be part of any system main Tracking and Guidance radar.

    Nothing has the range or all weather capability of Radar, but as you point out EO, IIR, even just some guys with a radar and a pair of binoculars and their sense of hearing can give warning... and of course there are satellite sensors too. The point is that as you mention most Russian SAMs have the alternatives you mention and the Russians are certainly not putting all their eggs in one basket.

    Of course having said that... the purpose of early warning radar is to give early warning so you can put your forces on alert and be prepared so there is less chance of a surprise attack... the sudden widespread jamming of your radars will likely put your forces on alert and make them prepare for something anyway...

    As all the wars of past and libya operation shows all form of RF radar
    are the first target of NATO/US forces and are taken out with precision ,
    it would be wise to invest in capable and advanced passive mode of
    tracking and guidance as with AESA system.

    The nuclear capability of Russia would make that scenario (ie Libya type action) rather unlikely. Any NATO bases used to mount an attack from would come under serious attack... obviously an option for Russia but not Libya... or Serbia... or Iraq et al.

    Not to say that NATO/US will fight Russia but more to improve Russian
    Defence and export potential of AD system and give it a cutting edge.

    Russian AD assets are the best in the world. They have the attributes of performance and mobility that make them effective in their role of deterring aggression. I am pretty sure that if Gaddafi had gone on a spending spree 5 or 10 years ago and bought Yakhont and Pantsir and S-300 that there would not be a no fly/drive/Gaddafi zone over Libya right now.

    Can any one explain what advantage or disadvantage does SARH have over command guidance missile ?

    SARH uses the radar system of the launch platform to illuminate the target so there is a problem of distance where the radar has to maintain illumination of the target despite the fact that both platforms will likely be manouvering. An advantage on paper is that at any stage the launch aircraft can break off the engagement by stopping from illuminating the target... perhaps if after launch the target is confirmed friendly or goes from confirmed bad guy to unknown. Another advantage is that the power and performance of the radar on the aircraft is generally better than that which can be fitted into a missile... for example the big PESA radar in the Mig-31 would be better able to track low flying cruise missile targets than the radars of AAMs because of the relatively small RCS of the target. Also the ECCM performance of a fighters radar will be better... a good example is the 2Kw of the radar in the Foxbat... which is actually comparable to the radars used by the US to detect Soviet missiles going over the north pole.
    The disadvantage of SARH is that the target needs to be illuminated to impact which means the illuminating aircraft needs to keep closing with the target which might bring it within range of the enemies missiles.
    One target can be engaged at a time with SARH.
    The target can detect being illuminated with SARH and might try things to break the lock.

    Command guidance uses cheaper simpler missiles, and depending on the guidance method often needs to track both the target and the missile in some way.
    Both can be automated with auto trackers for command guidance.
    Command guidance can be interfered with depending on the method.

    I was looking at Indian Akash missile which is a command guidance
    missile and comparing to BUK missile which is SARH , I think both
    guidance mode is limited to LOS of its main tracking and FC radar ?

    BUK has backup command guidance using an optical auto tracking system in heavy ECM environments.

    The BUK has its tracking radar on its TEL. It was one of the lessons learned with the KUB in combat where the search and tracking vehicle in a KUB battery could be taken out with ARMs leaving the missiles on the launchers unable to be guided to targets so the TELs carrying missiles could be mopped up as they were very vulnerable. A BUK battery would still be able to launch missiles at aerial and ground targets after the radar vehicles are knocked out. Of course BUK is able to engage ARMs which further increases its own defences from being attacked.

    Austin are you referring to BUK 9М38 missile its Semi-Active Radar Homing & not SARH

    Smile

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:29 am

    GarryB wrote:The power of a jamming signal diminishes at an increasing rate with distance... this intense jamming environment you talk about will be difficult to achieve... for power you need big aircraft and to be effective you need them to be as close as you can possibly get to the radar being jammed..................
    The problem with jamming AESA is that by design AESA emits a lot less than non ESA radars. A conventional radar will continually scan to find and keep track of targets. An ESA radar... including PESA BTW, will electronically scan in a fraction of a second and then listen. Any targets that are detected will then intermittently get pulses to make sure they are where they were or where the radar expects them to be, or to find their new course/speed/height etc etc. Because of this jamming is much more difficult... and more often than not counter productive

    What you say apply to Brute for Jamming something that might need big platforms but even a fighter these days become smarter and are occupied with very capable jamming systems , case to point is F-18 Growler which the US says can jam both S-300 and 400 radar using sophisticated jamming methods , they even claim it can penetrate enemy network using AESA of Growler

    AESA certainly has vey low side lobes compared to PESA or Conventional radar that can reduce the chance of jamming or ARM attack with smart energy management AESA would be a challange to Jam , even if they get jammed they do no just go down in one go but degrade gracefully.

    Russia had complained to US that they used EMP weapon on Cruise Missle to take down radar sites of serbs during its nato campaign , so the use of EMP weapon to provide a stand off capability to destroy radar and sensitive electronic chips must be taken into account.

    Nothing has the range or all weather capability of Radar, but as you point out EO, IIR, even just some guys with a radar and a pair of binoculars and their sense of hearing can give warning... and of course there are satellite sensors too. The point is that as you mention most Russian SAMs have the alternatives you mention and the Russians are certainly not putting all their eggs in one basket.

    Yes Radar still remains the primary sensor for all thing and no non-active system has the same capability as Radar can deliver.

    Having said that i was emphasizing on the point that they need to invest as heavily on passive methods as they do on new radar , an EO system is good but its quite limited to weather and channel of guidance.

    In future any mobile system like Pantsir,BUG ,Tor etc must come with capable passive guidance system like IIR Search Track, EO multi sensor ball , I know this will make the system a bit more expensive but it would just make sure that system just do not go down in jamming or arm attack or just simply work in all passive mode without alerting the enemy.


    The nuclear capability of Russia would make that scenario (ie Libya type action) rather unlikely. Any NATO bases used to mount an attack from would come under serious attack... obviously an option for Russia but not Libya... or Serbia... or Iraq et al.

    Ofcourse i do agree but I think Russia should just excel in conventional fight and beat NATO in that game rather then hold nuclear card all the time.

    Russian AD assets are the best in the world. They have the attributes of performance and mobility that make them effective in their role of deterring aggression. I am pretty sure that if Gaddafi had gone on a spending spree 5 or 10 years ago and bought Yakhont and Pantsir and S-300 that there would not be a no fly/drive/Gaddafi zone over Libya right now.

    They had lot of plans to buy Russian and French system ( what an Irony here Neutral) but nothing materalised , Gaddafi never foresaw a big strike against him from NATO/US.



    SARH uses the radar system of the launch platform to illuminate the target so there is a problem of distance where the radar has to maintain illumination of the target despite the fact that both platforms will likely be manouvering.
    The disadvantage of SARH is that the target needs to be illuminated to impact which means the illuminating aircraft needs to keep closing with the target which might bring it within range of the enemies missiles.One target can be engaged at a time with SARH.The target can detect being illuminated with SARH and might try things to break the lock.

    Thanks for the explanation.

    Command guidance uses cheaper simpler missiles, and depending on the guidance method often needs to track both the target and the missile in some way.
    Both can be automated with auto trackers for command guidance.
    Command guidance can be interfered with depending on the method.

    I mean would a SARH system be more difficult to jam then a command guidance , is SARH more accurate when it come to atacking small target compared to CG ?

    BUK has backup command guidance using an optical auto tracking system in heavy ECM environments.

    The BUK has its tracking radar on its TEL. It was one of the lessons learned with the KUB in combat where the search and tracking vehicle in a KUB battery could be taken out with ARMs leaving the missiles on the launchers unable to be guided to targets so the TELs carrying missiles could be mopped up as they were very vulnerable. A BUK battery would still be able to launch missiles at aerial and ground targets after the radar vehicles are knocked out. Of course BUK is able to engage ARMs which further increases its own defences from being attacked.

    Yes thats one interesting aspect of BUK the TEL has its own radar and EO guidance , I think BUK-M3 will take this to the next level when they have their own ARH.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:08 am

    Some interesting comments from Sergei Boev, Designer General of the RTI Sistemy Consortium, designer general the missile attack warning system commercial-off-the-shelf radar

    http://www.4shared.com/document/E6cqFflq/START_III_AND_DEVELOPMENT_OF_M.html

    1. The Consortium developed the Voronezh and the Voronezh-DM COTS radar prototypes, operating in difference bandwidths. The Voronezh radar, deployed in Lekhtusi, has already undergone state tests,while the Voronezh-DM, deployed in Armavir, is currently undergoing factory tests. We expect the Voronezh-DM radar to complete the state tests this year and to be fielded with the Russian Space
    Forces.

    2. The Radio Engineering Institute named after A.L. Mints and the Scientific Research Institute for Long-Range Radio Communications have worked out proposals on future development of space and missile defence radars.
    The proposals have been submitted for consideration to be included in the draft state arms programme through to 2020 (SAP-2020). They include the following:

    First and foremost, establishment of a central radar system designed for acquisition and processing of data, fed by space-based components of the missile attack warning system, over-the-horizon radars,perimeter acquisition radars of the missile attack warning system, and central radar field surveillance radars (Don-2N general-purpose radar, the Dunai-3U surveillance radar, and COTS radars).

    It will:

    • increase reliability of evaluation of possible targeted facilities, the scale of an attack, and targets,attacking crucial facilities;
    • detect and track potential targets, including ballistic missiles with gliding warheads and hypersonic cruise missiles, throughout their flight trajectories;
    • engage non-strategic ballistic missiles and provide information support to combat employment of air
    defence and missile defence systems;
    • acquire accurate information on space-based targets;
    • considerably increase survivability of the strategic deterrence forces information support.

    Secondly, development and production of new-generation re-deployable COTS radars designed to:
    • boost information support capabilities of space, missile, and air defence systems, operating in sectors posing increased threat;
    • establish remote radar stations;
    • monitor missile defence component tests at field ranges of foreign states.
    Thirdly, new radar development technologies, actively researched by the Consortium:
    • based on built-in dual-band automated phased arrays with an overall adaptive signal processing
    and control;
    • multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;
    • flexible adaptive control over power, hardware, and software resources, multi-level
    troubleshooting and backup of general-purpose radars;
    • mutual synchronisation, reception, and processing of signals, emitted by other radars, and multi-positioning within a group of space and missile defence information assets.



    Any idea what is he talking in point 2 ,3 ,4 under new radar development technologies ? I can understand the dual band radar its some one similar to SPY-3 AESA operating in 2 bands.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2833
    Points : 2935
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:15 am

    I would expect that only batteries operating on their own would use this sort of radar, though it might be included as part of an anti stealth addition for use with older S-300 systems.

    I would think the very first Pantsir batteries were deployed with S-400 batteries but I would expect production of Pantsir will be rather faster than production of S-400 so I would think the extra batteries will be deployed to S-300 batteries to replace systems like the SA-3 that are widely used to help defend such systems.
    I would think the radars supporting the S-400 would offer pretty good coverage and that these new radars might be more use in Pantsir batteries supporting older SAM systems and also for Pantsir batteries operating alone... say defending a small airfield or something.

    [quote]

    Every Pantsir battery must be equipped with battery radar and it doesn't meter if they work alone or with S-300/400. If they work integrated, radar is off, when anything happened, battery work with their own battery radar and Pantsirs could be still passive and moving.


    What you say apply to Brute for Jamming something that might need big platforms but even a fighter these days become smarter and are occupied with very capable jamming systems , case to point is F-18 Growler which the US says can jam both S-300 and 400 radar using sophisticated jamming methods , they even claim it can penetrate enemy network using AESA of Growler

    Up to now, we do not know a lot about F-18 Growler capabilities and also not about capabilities of S-300/400 radars against jamming. One thing is known, that late models of S-300 and S-400 could work passively with outside source of targets info and that radar like Nebo-SVU could give enough small cell to S-400, that it could launch ARH missile against target without using its own radars. Capable IADS connected with optical cables is very difficult to jam, specially if it use excellent visual observation posts network. In that case it is almost immune to jamming.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 14482
    Points : 15209
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:49 am

    they even claim it can penetrate enemy network using AESA of Growler

    They also talk about AESA radars using their raw power as a jammer... which do you think would win such a contest... a truck mounted radar slightly bigger than an AEGIS radar, or a radar fitted to a fighter aircraft?

    BTW do you mean jam or fool?

    Jam would mean the radar doesn't work at tracking aerial targets any more.

    Fool means it can't see the aircraft that is carrying the ESM equipment.

    AESA certainly has vey low side lobes compared to PESA or Conventional
    radar that can reduce the chance of jamming or ARM attack with smart
    energy management AESA would be a challange to Jam , even if they get
    jammed they do no just go down in one go but degrade gracefully.

    As I said before... any sort of jamming requires energy emission, so with one radar operating and lots of others listening... the jammer can be detected and dealt with.

    Russia had complained to US that they used EMP weapon on Cruise Missle
    to take down radar sites of serbs during its nato campaign , so the use
    of EMP weapon to provide a stand off capability to destroy radar and
    sensitive electronic chips must be taken into account.

    And the Russians don't know how to EMP harden their equipment and don't have EMP weapons of their own...

    Having said that i was emphasizing on the point that they need to invest
    as heavily on passive methods as they do on new radar , an EO system is
    good but its quite limited to weather and channel of guidance.

    I would suggest that they are taking such things quite seriously and ground based EO plus space based EO just leaves the space inside the cloud band that can't be seen... and some IR frequencies can penetrate that band too.

    In future any mobile system like Pantsir,BUG ,Tor etc must come with
    capable passive guidance system like IIR Search Track, EO multi sensor
    ball , I know this will make the system a bit more expensive but it
    would just make sure that system just do not go down in jamming or arm
    attack or just simply work in all passive mode without alerting the
    enemy.

    I would suggest they almost certainly will, though MMW radar is almost impossible to jam and ARMs have not been developed that can defeat it yet. AFAIK.

    Ofcourse i do agree but I think Russia should just excel in conventional
    fight and beat NATO in that game rather then hold nuclear card all the
    time.

    The thing is that Russia simply doesn't have the economy to match NATO and China on equal military terms except nuclear.
    I am all for a small but efficient, mobile, professional, and effective military force... especially one that gets over petty rivalries and can work together well with unified missiles and guns and sensors et al for a unified goal of being an effective and capable force.

    Just look at the changes to the Navy with standard sub hull design, and standard ship propulsion/sensors/weapons etc. The unification of land and sea based SAMs etc.
    The use of nuclear and conventional long range cruise missiles in the navy USUK launchers means that pretty much all their ship launched land attack and anti ship missiles and anti sub ASROC type missiles will be fired from a unified launcher that can be fitted to all their surface vessels from patrol boats to cruisers.

    They had lot of plans to buy Russian and French system ( what an Irony here Neutral) but nothing materalised , Gaddafi never foresaw a big strike against him from NATO/US.

    Neither did Saddam, and lets face it Saddam did more to provoke the US than Gaddafi did.

    I mean would a SARH system be more difficult to jam then a command
    guidance , is SARH more accurate when it come to atacking small target
    compared to CG ?

    SARH uses a pencil beam to mark the target... to protect yourself you need to present multiple targets to the tracking radar and confuse it as to which target you are... or you can use the extended warning of the attack (SARH means you get warning as soon as you are illuminated that an attack is on), to out manouver the missile.
    Regarding accuracy about 30 years ago I would say there was a difference... now with auto tracking software it is no longer up to a human to keep the missile on target.

    Imagine using an ATGM like Milan. You put the crosshair on the target and fire the trigger. With a moving target you adjust the crosshair to keep it on target to impact. Not to hard for a tank, though a pain if the target moves behind cover and stays there. With an aircraft however it can move in three dimensions but you only care about two. The Blowpipe is probably the most famous SAM that uses manual command guidance and while very difficult to jam, it was also very difficult to guide against a manouvering target.
    TOR, Pantsir, Tunguska, BUK, and several other Russian/Soviet missiles have command guidance either as a primary guidance method or as a backup in case of heavy jamming.
    (The fact that BUK has a backup command guidance using optical missile and target tracking suggests that SARH can be jammed though I think it might have been included to allow the interception of LO or even stealthy targets that are optically visible.)
    The modern missiles however use an autotracker to keep the cross hair on target at all times.

    SARH with backup command guidance is probably more capable, but I suspect not hugely more capable.
    It all depends on how it is implimented. Command guidance in the form of the Blowpipe would not really be acceptable. Command guidance in the form of TOR or Pantsir would be fine.

    Capable IADS connected with optical cables is very difficult to jam,
    specially if it use excellent visual observation posts network. In that
    case it is almost immune to jamming.

    Not to mention an S-400 battery does not exist in a vacuum, any object getting near an S-400 battery would likely have to penetrate Russian air space, and the space defence forces unifying with air defence with enormous ground and also space based sensors are likely to track aircraft just fine.

    A Growler aircraft can detect a radar and jam it, but its jamming signal will be detected by all other radars of the same type that are listening rather than emitting.

    • multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;
    • flexible adaptive control over power, hardware, and software resources, multi-level
    troubleshooting and backup of general-purpose radars;

    mutual synchronisation, reception, and processing of signals, emitted
    by other radars, and multi-positioning within a group of space and
    missile defence information assets.

    Not sure about the first stuff, but the third means timing all your radars so that they all receive the radar emissions that each of them has sent out, so they can process the data as if they sent the pulse themselves.

    If you could do that with a single Pantsir battery that means if you are defending a single airfield you can position your battery radar on any land high point within 5-10km of the airfield and place your 6 Pantsir vehicles around the airfield. With the radars synchronised one radar can do a complete 360 degree scan and then process all the targets it finds and catalogue them and share the data with the other vehicles in the unit. All the other vehicles with radars including the battery radar can also receive the radar blip sent out by the scanning radar and examine the returns themselves and process the data and transmit it to other vehicles in the unit.

    Imagine a stealthy cruise missile is coming in and it is just too far away at the moment to be detectible in IR... suddenly the battery radar does a scan but the missile is heading directly at the battery radar so the battery radar gets the smallest radar return as the radar energy is absorbed and some is deflected.
    If some of that radar energy is deflected in the direction of one of the vehicles in the battery then it can use that target data with the target data received and processed by the other radars in the unit and detect the stealth target at much longer range than if all the radars were scanning themselves. If they were all scanning themselves they would only receive and process radar energy they sent themselves and ignore any emissions from similar radars around them as noise.

    Now scale this out to hundreds of radars and add IR and optical sources and the air defence becomes pretty strong.


    BTW I should add that it was the ABM treaty that limited space looking radars to the borders of the country... US radars in the UK and Greenland of course violations of the ABM treaty that were simply ignored by the US at the time of course. But now they can put space and early warning radars all over Russian territory and use them as battle management centres.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5696
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 39
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:15 am

    GarryB wrote:They also talk about AESA radars using their raw power as a jammer... which do you think would win such a contest... a truck mounted radar slightly bigger than an AEGIS radar, or a radar fitted to a fighter aircraft?

    BTW do you mean jam or fool?

    Jam would mean the radar doesn't work at tracking aerial targets any more.

    Fool means it can't see the aircraft that is carrying the ESM equipment.

    Raw power jamming would be difficult but smart jamming is possible , one possible scenerio I could think of is cruise missile equipped with DRFM jammers , while the S-300/400 batteries gets confused and tracks a ghost target , these cruise missile with small warhead and go and attack the main radar or simply use LOJ incase it gets jammed.

    I mean Jam and Fool both a combination of both tactics would wreck any AD.

    I recollect watching a Russian manufacture of DRFM pod jammers trying to jam a Patriot batteries while at the same time they fool the battery with ghost target and patriot fires at the ghost target , the DRFM pod based aircraft which was a Mig-29 fires HARM at the battery radar , see no reason why cant you try similar tactics at S-300/400 batteries.

    As I said before... any sort of jamming requires energy emission, so with one radar operating and lots of others listening... the jammer can be detected and dealt with.

    Yes the jammers would make their presense felt , but it would depend on the kind of jamming it is doing and making sure the listening radar are prone to HARM attack.

    And the Russians don't know how to EMP harden their equipment and don't have EMP weapons of their own...

    Ofcourse they can , I was just trying to point out alternatives way of hitting a target , something NATO tried in 99

    I would suggest that they are taking such things quite seriously and ground based EO plus space based EO just leaves the space inside the cloud band that can't be seen... and some IR frequencies can penetrate that band too.

    I think they need to further add IRST and Multiball sensor besides the radar and EO, they already the technology they need to just refine ,integrate and add those.

    I would suggest they almost certainly will, though MMW radar is almost impossible to jam and ARMs have not been developed that can defeat it yet.

    Which SAM missile carries MMW radar ? MMW is certainly the most difficult band to jam , but also have limited potential in the way you can use it.

    The thing is that Russia simply doesn't have the economy to match NATO and China on equal military terms except nuclear.
    I am all for a small but efficient, mobile, professional, and effective military force... especially one that gets over petty rivalries and can work together well with unified missiles and guns and sensors et al for a unified goal of being an effective and capable force.

    I certainly think Russia economy is in a much better shape and certainly in the future it will be better then most NATO country.

    Defense spending is a question of Budget Deficit , which is income vs expenditure and Russian economy is in a much better shape there then economy of many high growing developing countries.

    Neither did Saddam, and lets face it Saddam did more to provoke the US than Gaddafi did.

    I am certainly not a great supporter of NATO bombing not that I support what Gadhafi did to his own people , but two wrongs dont make one right.

    SARH uses a pencil beam to mark the target... to protect yourself you need to present multiple targets to the tracking radar and confuse it as to which target you are... or you can use the extended warning of the attack

    I think I am looking more that why SARH guidance is better or worse then Command Guidance , considering both system works on LOS principle.


    TOR, Pantsir, Tunguska, BUK, and several other Russian/Soviet missiles have command guidance either as a primary guidance method or as a backup in case of heavy jamming.
    (The fact that BUK has a backup command guidance using optical missile and target tracking suggests that SARH can be jammed though I think it might have been included to allow the interception of LO or even stealthy targets that are optically visible.)
    The modern missiles however use an autotracker to keep the cross hair on target at all times.

    What if the enemy jams the command guidance between Radar and Missile ?

    Probably a combination of IIR seeker , IRST/EO guidance would be the best bet

    If some of that radar energy is deflected in the direction of one of the vehicles in the battery then it can use that target data with the target data received and processed by the other radars in the unit and detect the stealth target at much longer range than if all the radars were scanning themselves. If they were all scanning themselves they would only receive and process radar energy they sent themselves and ignore any emissions from similar radars around them as noise.

    Indeed very interesting concept , Thanks.

    This is still a mystery and quite interesting , Do you know any Radar expert who can decipher it ?

    multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:01 pm


      Current date/time is Thu May 05, 2016 8:01 pm