Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues

Russian Radar systems559

    Russian Radar systems

    Share

    Stealthflanker
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 512
    Points: 578
    Join date: 2009-08-04
    Age: 27
    Location: Indonesia

    Russian Radar systems

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:48 pm

    Greetings Very Happy

    well i think it's already clear from the title that i'm asking about the status of N001 PERO PESA RADAR , made by GRPZ "Ryazan", which said will be a "radical" upgrade to N001 family, by replacing the early 1,075m Twist Cassergainian Antenna with a reflective phased array..like this



    well as far as i heard.. from ausairpower and Overscan's Russian avionics guide on secret projects forum, 2 prototypes were built and one is sent to China for evaluation .. However after that..the project seems to be "gone" without a clue .

    So anybody know the status of the program now ? is it cancelled ? or perhaps it's made it to production , as an upgrade pack for N001 RADAR ?

    Err and another question but related.. is N001VEP on Su-30MK2 uses the PERO antenna or it's still use twist cassergain like its sibling the N001VE ?

    well thanks in advance for answer

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 5288
    Points: 5490
    Join date: 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  TR1 on Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:35 pm

    N-001VEP uses old antenna, not Pero.

    No production Pero has been retrofitted to Flankers.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 1966
    Points: 2035
    Join date: 2010-10-24
    Location: Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:39 pm

    What radar antenna use new build Su-27SM3? Pero antenna or older cassegrain antenna?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 5288
    Points: 5490
    Join date: 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  TR1 on Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:40 pm

    Older.
    What upgrades the radar has is unclear as well, if it is just N-001V or something better.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 11746
    Points: 12378
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:06 am

    It will likely have upgrades to use new weapons like the R-77 ARH AAM and like anti radiation missiles too at the very least.

    dino00
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts: 118
    Points: 162
    Join date: 2012-10-12
    Location: portugal

    Almaz-Antei to Showcase New Battlefield Radars

    Post  dino00 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:17 pm


    MOSCOW, February 15 (RIA Novosti) - Russia’s air-defense systems manufacturer Almaz-Antei will for the first time show mockup models of advanced battlefield surveillance radar systems at the IDEX-2013 international arms exhibition in Abu Dhabi, the company said on Friday.
    Almaz-Antei will display models of FARA-PV, a modernized, portable short-range battlefield surveillance radar with a panoramic display, and Project 1L277, a short-range solid-state ground surveillance radar.
    The radars are designed for day/night and all-weather location of moving targets (personnel and vehicles) and stationary objects. They feature automatic transmission of data to the user and can be used to adjust artillery fire.
    Project 1L277 can track up to 20 targets and is capable of automatic moving target recognition.
    Representatives of nine defense firms affiliated with Almaz-Antei will take part in the exhibition. IDEX-2013 will run from February 17-22.

    http://en.rian.ru/world/20130215/179490092.html

    nemrod
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 520
    Points: 911
    Join date: 2012-09-11

    Wild Weasel/SEAD against soviet/russian 's sam S300/400/500

    Post  nemrod on Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:21 pm

    I have a question, does it exist a radar that can evade, or successfully fight the US' Wild Weasel/SEAD ?
    In the history, is there a war, or example that sam successefully fight against Wild Weasel/SEAD ?
    If you have competence's team in S300/400/5000, has she any chance to neutralize US Wild Weasel/SEAD, and the new JSF F35 ?

    I suspect it must be exist something, because for example an old libyan Sam 5 Gammon downed a F-15

    an old iraqian Sam 6 downed an f-16

    or here by serbian'sam
    here is I suspect this f-16 might be a wild weasel.
    Can you confirm me if a wild weasel could be successfully tracked by a radar, and shot down next.

    Thanks for any response.


    PS: Please do not mock me, Iam not a specialist, Iam not soldier, Iam here just for learn.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4621
    Points: 5150
    Join date: 2009-08-25
    Age: 34
    Location: Croatia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Viktor on Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:17 pm

    nemrod wrote:I have a question, does it exist a radar that can evade, or successfully fight the US' Wild Weasel/SEAD ?

    Actually there are whole range of such radar. Every tactic has its counter. US developed Wild Weasel and Russia developed

    wide range of counters.

    nemrod wrote:In the history, is there a war, or example that sam successefully fight against Wild Weasel/SEAD ?

    Israel-Arab wars/ Vietnam war.

    That tactics was developed because earlier air defense systems where not able to shoot down low flying targets very good and

    on the other hand it was very unsafe to do hi-flying missions.


    nemrod wrote:If you have competence's team in S300/400/5000, has she any chance to neutralize US Wild Weasel/SEAD, and the new JSF F35 ?

    Its a game of numbers (on each side), terrain, type of radar systems, competence teams, integration, etc. In case of Russia

    deploying such tactics or any other tactic that does not include simultaneous attack on few fronts with full blow attack with massive

    amounts of planes and all the other assets stands no chance.

    nemrod wrote:Can you confirm me if a wild weasel could be successfully tracked by a radar, and shot down next.

    Depend on what country we are talking about. Most of the countries don`t have capable air defense and those can be either easily

    penetrated because of lack of radar coverage, inadequate radar systems, prone to saturation (very inadequate number of air defense and

    fighter assets) etc ... there are wide range of problems.


    Last edited by Viktor on Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:18 am; edited 1 time in total

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 5288
    Points: 5490
    Join date: 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  TR1 on Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:12 am

    Was Tor (among others) not designed with ARMs in mind?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 11746
    Points: 12378
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:51 am

    Think of it in terms of measure and countermeasure.

    SAMs must have been effective or perceived as being effective enough to warrant the cost and effort of developing aircraft with the dedicated role of defeating air defence forces that the US calls wild weasels.

    Of course the makers of SAMs have not been asleep either and they have developed features for their systems to reduce their vulnerability to SEAD and DEAD aircraft types.

    In the conflicts with Israel and the Arabs it was found that systems like the SA-6 were very capable but had distinct features that could become vulnerabilities. When first revealed the SA-6 was very effective because no existing countermeasures worked.
    The first tactic was because of the shallow climb of the missile a roll over and dive could evade the missile but brought the fighter down to a lower level where other systems like MANPADS and ZSU-23-4 systems could then engage the aircraft. The use of decoy UAVs got the SA-6 operators to turn on their radars which were then engaged from standoff ranges with ARMs. Once the radar vehicle of an SA-6 unit was destroyed then the missile vehicles were vulnerable because they could not guide their missiles without radar and were sitting ducks even to fighter bombers with dumb bombs.

    The immediate solution was an upgrade to add optical guidance, but that was just a patch, the real solution came with BUK (SA-6 is KUB), which has a guidance radar on each launch vehicle so you can't take out the whole unit by destroying its radar vehicle.

    Also the SA-11 and later model versions (SA-17 etc) have the ability to engage incoming ARMs so taking a BUK battery out with HARMS would actually be rather difficult. The newer missiles also have longer range which makes engagement from standoff distances much more difficult.

    Other vehicles like TOR and Pantsir-S1 are also designed to defend larger SAMs from anti radiation missiles and bombs and other weapons used by SEAD and DEAD aircraft and can even engage targets while moving.

    To penetrate Russian airspace you would need hundreds of dedicated SEAD aircraft and like the NATO attack on Kosovo even after months of conflict there is no guarantee that on the last day the airspace would be any safer for aircraft than the first day.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 520
    Points: 911
    Join date: 2012-09-11

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  nemrod on Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:32 pm

    At first thx for your responses.

    GarryB wrote:
    To penetrate Russian airspace you would need hundreds of dedicated SEAD aircraft and like the NATO attack on Kosovo even after months of conflict there is no guarantee that on the last day the airspace would be any safer for aircraft than the first day.

    No use to talk about war with Russia.
    The last example was a little shit named Mr Cheney in 2008 with Georgia, I think he -and his lackey Saakatchvilli- understood very well, what is Russia.
    No country in the world, now could wage a war against Russia. This topic in fact could be moved in other parts in the forum. Simply because Russia is a superpower, and need not any air defense, as it has the best of best aircrafts, and very well educated military staff. Moreover Russia has the best nuclear arsenal, and no one could match, hence Russia does not fear any country in the world. If war trigger now, this next war could concern USA, and maybe Iran.

    Viktor wrote:
    Depend on what country we are talking about. Most of the countries don`t have capable air defense and those can be either easily

    penetrated because of lack of radar coverage, inadequate radar systems, prone to saturation (very inadequate number of air defense and

    fighter assets) etc ... there are wide range of problems.


    USA is more interrested by wars against weaker -but rich- countries as Iran, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Algeria, Libya, Lebananon. Their air defense are often old, outdated, old fashionned, if it merely does not exist.



    The immediate solution was an upgrade to add optical guidance.

    Does optical guidance be jammed ?
    Why cannot we use laser to guide missile ? Is it fiseable ? Is it to expensive ?
    As Stalin said,
    the gun is war's king
    , I have more confidence with gun, instead of missile.

    Why instead of developping Sam 10, Sam 12 -now codenamed S300, S400, ...- Russia did not develop a special anti aircraft laser gun ?
    I mean a more sophistaced Oerlikon.
    Can a laser be jammed too, or mislead by decoys ?


    Thx for all friends.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts: 787
    Points: 913
    Join date: 2012-08-05
    Age: 17
    Location: Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:46 pm

    The main problem with autocannons and lasers is range but the Russian army already has very capable cannon AA vehicles like the pantsir. however wouldnt it be better to have some kind of laserpoint defence gun that almost never missies rather than a gatling gun that sprays hundreds of bullts with very little chance to hit?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 11746
    Points: 12378
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:45 am

    No use to talk about war with Russia.

    When talking about US air forces and wild weasels you are talking about money and attack. Such things work very well against third world countries because such countries don't have the money or the resources to fully develop a capable integrated air defence network and also have an airforce and army and navy to protect that network.

    I mention Russia because it is one of the few countries that has actually spend money at a comparable rate (note I said comparable... not equivalent) so that their defences can more properly be compared with the US attack forces capability.

    I am not suggesting the US will attack Russia... such an attack would be suicide for both sides.

    In comparison we can look at Libya that was defeated largely with about 120 cruise missiles because its old SAM network could not handle multiple low flying targets at one time... launch three cruise missiles at a large SAM site at one time and odds are at least two of those missiles will hit it and take out its primary radars leaving it vulnerable to conventional air attack. Once all the large SAM sites are taken down you hit comms sites and command sites and the defence structure falls to pieces and then you can send in groups of fighters and bombers with Wild Weasel escort to deal with any remaining air defence systems which will be much less effective working on their own.

    Mobility, and the sheer number of operational systems in Russia make that very unlikely to be successful... especially taking into account that the comms centres and HQs and major SAM sites in Russia are defended by systems that can defeat ARMs and are likely to be much more difficult to defeat.

    hence Russia does not fear any country in the world.

    Russias nuclear weapons only makes it safe from rational opponents... an aggressive collapsing west might not be that rational... Razz

    Remember everyone was rational and sensible just before being dragged in to WWI because of binding defence agreements and a fool with a pistol.

    Does optical guidance be jammed ?

    In this case the missiles don't have optical seekers, it is a way for missiles to be guided without using standard radar systems on the vehicles that would otherwise be jammed. Optical guidance can be jammed in the sense that optical guidance uses optics for tracking the target but the system still needs to transmit course corrections to the missile to make it hit the target being tracked by optics.

    It doesn't make a SAM unjammable, but it greatly complicates the job of the Wild Weasel aircraft as there is rather less warning of an engagement as the SAM site can use radar information from other sites to locate the targets and then use optics to track so the first warning of an attack will be guidance commands from the SAM site to the missile launched at the aircraft...

    Why cannot we use laser to guide missile ? Is it fiseable ? Is it to expensive ?

    Lasers, like optics are limited in range and weather, so they are generally used for short range missiles or in the case of optics as a backup guidance option.

    , I have more confidence with gun, instead of missile.

    Both have good features and problems. Missiles are expensive, but they have much better range features and also higher kill probability per shot.

    Why instead of developping Sam 10, Sam 12 -now codenamed S300, S400, ...- Russia did not develop a special anti aircraft laser gun ?

    Lasers are of relatively low power and enormously expensive per shot... now and in the near future. Missiles are much cheaper. Russia has developed anti aircraft lasers... and anti missile lasers.

    The President-M system fitted to Ka-52 helos has laser dazzler turrets near the main undercarriage to defeat IR and optical and laser guided anti aircraft missiles.

    I mean a more sophistaced Oerlikon.

    57mm S-60 was replaced by OSA (SA-Cool many years ago, and will in turn be replaced by the TOR as they enter service.

    The Russians have never abandoned guns and 23mm Shilka and 30mm Tunguska have been in continuous service and likely the new large calibre IFV gun for the new BMP vehicles will most likely have laser guided shells to make it an ideal replacement for Tunguska... in 45mm or 57mm calibre.

    A laser as a weapon would need some sort of search and tracking system to find and follow its targets so the laser can be directed at them, which would most likely be radar based for best all weather and long range capability. Wild Weasels would be as effective against such radar as with a missile based systems radars.

    The laser would need to be very powerful and therefore would be very expensive and have a limited number of "shots".

    Right now missiles are cheaper and easier and much "cleaner". (lots of toxic chemicals involved in lasers).

    however wouldnt it be better to have some kind of laserpoint defence gun that almost never missies rather than a gatling gun that sprays hundreds of bullts with very little chance to hit?

    The problem is that for each accurate laser shot you are likely spending 20 million dollars, while a burst of cannon shells might cost a few grand.

    The laser has a huge advantage of speed as the amount of time the laser beam takes to get from the laser to the target is so short the target will not have moved very far at all so a slight aiming off should ensure a hit. With cannon shells that travel orders of magnitude slower and actually get slower as they move through the air the problem is that the time from launch to impact is much longer so the target has more time to move or speed up or slow down or turn or even stop in some cases. This means that a burst of shells covering an area allows for minor changes in speed and direction by the target between the time when the shells are fired and when the impact the interception area. A spread of shells from a gatling gun is actually a good thing and makes a hit on target more likely rather than less likely.

    Just like using a shotgun against small fast moving targets improves your chances of a hit. A super accurate rifle is much less useful against small fast moving targets because there is only one chance for a hit.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 5288
    Points: 5490
    Join date: 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:01 am

    This was brought up in the ABM thread -

    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-604.html

    The ultimate anti-missile gun system. 80 barrels throwing up a metal storm.

    gaurav
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts: 253
    Points: 253
    Join date: 2013-02-19
    Age: 35
    Location: Blr

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  gaurav on Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:31 am

    nemrod wrote:Why instead of developping Sam 10, Sam 12 -now codenamed S300, S400, ...- Russia did not develop a special anti aircraft laser gun ?
    I mean a more sophistaced Oerlikon.
    Can a laser be jammed too, or mislead by decoys ?
    @nemrod..
    My two cents on this ..

    The recent Israeli 12-24 F-16 blk52 sudden attack with atleast 5-10 PGM on Sria military facilities was done by hiding in a mountainous ranges.

    The jets went slow behind the set of mountain ranges and then when they cleared the mountaines they made their attack on (Syria building) Although dont know what those building s were.. (they were inside syria for only short time, dont know exact time though..may be 10-20 minutes.. at dawn..)
    It is the concept of very low flyng jets that make missiles the best option to tackle air threats from unknown and terrible mountanous terrain.. which the Israeli jets always take advantage off ..
    but yes they have to be detected and tracked first..
    by radar.. or air based assets.. and then only they can be engaged with missiles..

    nemrod wrote: Does optical guidance be jammed ?
    Why cannot we use laser to guide missile ? Is it fiseable ? Is it to expensive ?
    As Stalin said,
    laser guided missiles round are used all over Russia . I mean all missiles fired from T-90 initial version are laser guided.
    They can target air based threats also.
    Mostly they are used against ground targets. Smile
    Laser guided shells one example krasnopol-M again only for ground targets.. Razz Remember they are NON line of sight and they can be engaged through mountainous terrains etc..

    laser guided anti-aircraft gun rounds come into focus in more plainer terrain where low observable targets(maneuvering can be engaged with a laser guided round from 30mm , 45 mm gun etc. This is line of sight hitting . This is really deadly.This part of technology is lead by Russia of course.Technology is comparably better than that Gatling guns of Tunguska ,pantsir etc.But I would not like to comment on its effectiveness .).I am also a beginner. Cool

    Now coming to the laser guns..As you yourself said it is special.. so this technology is not mature and neither it is effective because..
    The laser shots (plasma rounds ) ,I think this is what it is called in Russia) but they cannot fire in salvo and also they cannot compare against very high rate of fire Gatling guns .These guns( really create a horror(psychological) impact at start of conflict against enemy air squadrons ) this cannot be matched with laser ,in no way .. and finally I would say this laser gun this technology is simply not developed..

    As for pantsir I dont have a link.. Their guns can destroy any target within Line of sight to 1-2 km and can deter any target from 4-5 kms with rain(or burst) of fire..(even if Israeli jets are not hit .. they better get a taste of their medicine of they venture anytime close to syrian , Iranian airspace).

    Now for the effectiveness of pantsir..
    No wonder after 3-4 years of dense middle east conflicts not a single U.S UAV,ucav has even vetured into syrian airspace and also all the frustration of Hague(warcriminal) and netanhyu etc etc is day by day increasing because they FULLY UNDERSTAND AND THEY know what they will be faced with if they enter into Syrian and Iranian air space with 100 of F-16's or even 1000's of F-16..
    I think that is definitely the best option as as huge armada type attacks enemy are slso met
    with approx same rate of fire for air defense..
    So the important part of pantsir becomes a very high rate of fire Gatling guns(whatevr).. (which is the most critised .. but often the most imp .. Cool )that is deterrence aspect as much as destruction aspect of Pantsir..

    One last point .. the height of small Very Happy radar of S-400 is increased from a crane to almost 50 metres.. .. pirat Razz .. it is huge height ..need to check the actual figures..

      Current date/time is Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:00 am