Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Radar systems

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6084
    Points : 6490
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    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 ?
    avatar
    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 536
    Points : 652
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    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
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    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 : 6084
    Points : 6490
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    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.

    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    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.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    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 : 6084
    Points : 6490
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    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;
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:20 am

    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.

    A ghost target does not hide the fact that there is a threat. A Pantsir system located with the S-300/400 battery will look for targets using a range of sensors and its IIR channel will not detect the ghost targets.

    The jamming sets used with large SAMs are designed to attract missiles away from the actual radars of the SAM battery. They operate on the same frequencies and give off many of the same signals so a Home on Jam weapon will most likely home in and hit them... but as they are small armoured little boxes with a few strongly built structures that act as antennas even a direct hit will mean it is doing its job of keeping the primary radars safe.

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

    The source location of the aircraft with the jammers and the source of the cruise missiles can be determined and those assets targeted by all sorts of weapons the Russians have, so I think even if it is successful in defeating one or two SAM sites that the destruction of the air bases or naval platforms, not to mention retaliation against any aircraft that are caught in Russian airspace will likely render such an attack counter productive.

    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.

    Because US air defence systems are a joke because they are in the control of the USAF and the USAF expects to have air control. The Russian air defence forces were a branch of the Russian AF, but didn't expect to have total air control. They therefore co-locate systems like Pantsir and also jammer and decoy units to help defend their SAM sites from direct attack.

    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.

    Radars that are listening are by definition not prone to HARM attack. Radars that are emitting will detect HARMs at long range and will likely initiate a SAM launch to deal with said HARM.

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

    More like they had started a moral war and civilian casualties would be counter productive so they were using as many non lethal weapons as they could because bad publicity might stop the entire intervention.

    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 think there are enough currently in service to act as a deterrent. I think that once they have perfected and started production of QWIP chips that IIR sensors will become cheap and easy to mass produce and every EO sensor can have the benefits of long, medium, and short wave IIR as well as digital TV and partial UV spectrum visibility in a mass producible form that is as cheap as a CCD chip for a camera.
    In fact missiles with IIR seekers will become cheap enough to mass produce once QWIP chips are mass producible so missiles from Verba to 9m100 can be produced in large numbers cheaply.
    Missiles that would benefit from this sort of tech include missiles like Kh-29, Kh-25, Kh-38, HERMES, Verba, 9M100, IR versions of R-27, R-77, even retro fitted to older missiles like R-60 and R-3.

    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 tracking and command guidance channels for Tunguska and Pantsir are in the MMW range.
    You don't think a CM wave radar can detect a target 8km away at 10m altitude do you?

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

    The problem is command guidance covers a range of guidance principles.
    From wire guided ATGMs like Milan and TOW, to laser beam riding missiles like Kornet, to radio command guided like ATAKA. Then you have a mix with Krisantema that can use SARH in MMW radar, or command guidance with laser beam riding... perhaps that is a hint. Krisantema is SARH against tanks and other metalic distinct targets, but for use against log bunkers or buildings or anything the radar can't get a clear lock on there is command guidance using laser beam riding.
    Of course when the command guidance uses an auto tracker there doesn't need to be operator input in the guidance, and SARH generally doesn't have continuous operator input either.

    Really it is two different ways of doing the same thing.

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

    The use of coded beams would be normal so that several platforms can fire several missiles at once... imagine a flight of Havocs all armed with ATAKAs but only able to fire one missile at a time because the guidance signals from one helo was making all the other missiles launched crash into the ground.
    Laser beam riding missiles also look back at the launch platform so I really don't know how the target could interfere with that.
    The Tunguska uses a narrow beam signal directed at the outgoing missile with a coded beam to transmit flight commands... not sure the target could do much about that either.

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

    You mean like on Javelin, or Kh-29T? DIRCMs seem only to be expanding in application, and a system designed to defeat an IR guided missile should defeat an IR SAM.

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

    Well if we break it down... a multi dimensional digital 3D frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing... it is talking about processing data taking into account the fact that the space being scanned is 3 dimensions but also allowing for the different results the different signal frequencies should be producing and separating out the difference in performance to see if something is hiding in the airspace.

    Sounds like they are looking for stealth objects, or objects in extreme jamming environments.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:34 pm

    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.

    All Russian SAMs have EO system as back up, Tor-M2 ans Pantsir S1 have a kind of multi EO sensor with TI.


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


    How? It is possible if target is between missile and SAM launcher which send radio signals, because missile looks back to SAM launcher and not to target. Also radio guidance signal have very thin angle like 1° and very high energy, so jammer must be extremly powerful to jam that signal.


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

    SARH homing heads could usually also work in passive mode in case of jamming, what mean they direct missile against the source of jamming. Combining with command guidance, it is very hard nut for enemy plane.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:56 am

    SARH homing heads could usually also work in passive mode in case of
    jamming, what mean they direct missile against the source of jamming.

    Another thing to keep in mind that a modern SARH with digital processors and improved electronics are not the same as the old SARH systems like SPARROW or old model R-27. A modern SARH missile can be a very capable missile, and a viable alternative to the much more expensive ARH missiles.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:51 pm

    I read, that Russian army will create arctic brigade. Do they also plan to build radar and air defense in arctic region or it will be in hands of AWACS planes and fighter planes like Mig-31?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6084
    Points : 6490
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:54 pm

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

    Well if we break it down... a multi dimensional digital 3D frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing... it is talking about processing data taking into account the fact that the space being scanned is 3 dimensions but also allowing for the different results the different signal frequencies should be producing and separating out the difference in performance to see if something is hiding in the airspace.

    Sounds like they are looking for stealth objects, or objects in extreme jamming environments.

    If what you say is true then its quite interesting I should say, Thanks for your analysis.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6084
    Points : 6490
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:57 pm

    medo wrote:I read, that Russian army will create arctic brigade. Do they also plan to build radar and air defense in arctic region or it will be in hands of AWACS planes and fighter planes like Mig-31?

    Putin and Medvedev has stated many times before that they want to resolve Arctic issue peacefully so I do not see any defense build up happening at Arctic and it doesnt make sense as well , there is enough out there to make every one happy and Russia side of arctic has huge gas reserves so there is nothing to gain as they have what they want.

    Most of the Arctic brigade are posturing and more like a quick reaction team to show russian presence.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:56 am

    I read, that Russian army will create arctic brigade. Do they also plan
    to build radar and air defense in arctic region or it will be in hands
    of AWACS planes and fighter planes like Mig-31?

    I think this will be much like their mountain brigades... these will simply be units that are specially trained for specific conditions of operations.

    The Russian forces have been split into 4 military districts... Western, Central, and Eastern districts have Arctic regions that will need Arctic trained brigades.
    These brigades will likely have their own organic air defence components, but the responsibility for air defence in Russia seems to be something new with a combination of the air defence forces of the Air Force (ie the PVO) together with the relatively new Space Forces, which operates and manages Russias satellites.
    I don't know whether this new air and space defence org will be split up and subordinated to the four military districts, but the description of being responsible for the air above Russia from ground level out into space to detect and track and deal with all threats... cruise missiles to ballistic missiles and everything in between seem to suggest the use of ground based radar, airborne assets like AWACS, and satellite based assets. Their job is to also deal with such threats using SAMs, interceptor aircraft (Mig-31s and Flankers) and presumably ABM systems like the Moscow system and soon the S-400/-500 combination. They will also likely share their information with air and ground and naval forces.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    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
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  medo on Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:47 pm

    http://npostrela.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&sectionid=2&catid=7&Itemid=13

    http://npostrela.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=61

    More informations about radar Credo-1E and other radars of that type.
    avatar
    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1931
    Points : 2096
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    New Short Range Radar

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:42 am

    New S-R Radar, possibly associated with the new gen. Vitjaz and Morfej SAM systems. In the pic below it's mounted on a PU-12M7 Air-Def command vehicle



    It operates in the S-band.

    It's referred to by the Russian acronym 'CAR' (Digital Phased Array)


    Specs from the pic

    Detection range:

    max horizontal: 160km vertical: 12km

    RCS of target

    0.01m2 - 16km
    1m2 - 50km
    2m2 - 60km (see the rest on the pic)


    Max target speed: 2500 m/s



    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    New S-R Radar, possibly associated with the new gen. Vitjaz and Morfej SAM systems. In the pic below it's mounted on a PU-12M7 Air-Def command vehicle

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:53 am

    Interesting.

    Looks a bit like the new search radar on Pantsir-S1 but not as deep.

    Also interesting that it seems to be attached to the turret of the BTR and that it is on an enlarged forward hull.

    It seems to be based on the GAZ-59039 which is used as an amphibious ambulance/medical vehicle with a tent attachment.

    I doubt this will include the tent.

    Clearly they wanted wheeled mobility for this radar as the MTLB would likely offer easier access and more volume capacity.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:49 am

    Older Buks with mechanical radar antenna could engage only one target, because radar antenna could look and lock on only in one target. Buk-M2 have radar with PESA antenna and could simultaneously engage 4 targets, be it with SARH missiles or with ARH missiles.

    Actually the old Kub only had one radar vehicle and was limited in engagements to one at a time.

    The BUK has a tracking and engagement radar on each TEL and so with 6 vehicles per unit that means 6 targets can be engaged with the older missiles. The BUK is compatible with KUB so old SA-6 missiles could be used with a BUK battery too.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia develops new long-range mobile radar

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:41 pm

    Russia develops new long-range mobile radar

    Russian scientists have developed and tested a new mobile radar which will soon become part of the country’s aerospace defenses.

    The new radar, dubbed 55Zh6ME, is capable of detecting targets at the distance of up to 1,800 kilometers and an altitude of up to 1,200 km.

    “The radar has been developed for the Russian Armed Forces, especially for aerospace defenses,” a spokesman for the Nizhniy Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT) said on Monday.

    “The deliveries of the first batch of new radars to the [Russian] military are expected soon,” the official said, adding that the product has strong export potential.

    Russia is planning to set up a unified strategic aerospace defense command that would integrate existing air defense and missile defense networks, early warning systems and aerospace monitoring systems.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111017/167774318.html

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6084
    Points : 6490
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:21 am

    Here is Almaz-Antey press on it

    http://www.almaz-antey.ru/about/press/news/789.html

    ###

    Completed testing multi-radar complex of new generation. In the Russian army enters a highly effective means of reliable control of air-space with a detection range of aerodynamic and ballistic objects up to 1,800 km and a height of 1200 km. The innovative design of the Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (JSC "FSPC" NNIIRT ") is characterized by high mobility and their capacity is capable of replacing the whole radio engineering division. The complex has no domestic analogues.
    Press-service of "FSPC" NNIIRT "
    ###


    So this system has 3 types of radar a metric radar (VHF ), a decimetric radar ( L band ) and Centimetric Radar ( X band AESA ) , All looking at the target in unision and the data is fused from all 3 radar to give a single picture.

    This will be very effective in dealing with LO targets at long range , the only thing they need to add is a Bi-Static Radar like Barrier-E , Passive Radar Detection Kit and Passive EO system.

    I am just wondering if Russia managed to detect a B-2 aircraft so far ?

    Mindstorm , Garry any thing on this ?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 am

    This will be very effective in dealing with LO targets at long range , the only thing they need to add is a Bi-Static Radar like Barrier-E , Passive Radar Detection Kit and Passive EO system.

    Technically any radar system can simply listen and be used in the passive radar mode.

    The system would need to operate with other similar systems so one radar emits radar waves scanning for targets while the other radars simply listen... tricky to do without a C4IR system.

    This way the radars will act as passive radars and also as bi static radars.

    I am just wondering if Russia managed to detect a B-2 aircraft so far ?

    Do you think the US would fly their B-2s close to Russia to let them test their radar equipment against them?

    Would the Russians reveal that they could detect a B-2 if they did?

    A British team detected a B-2 at the Farnborough Airshow with EO/Thermal equipment for the Rapier 2000 system, and the Aussies claim to have detected a B-2 with their OTH-B radar at Jindalee.

    I don't think everyone but the Russians will be detecting B-2s...
    avatar
    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1931
    Points : 2096
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:41 am

    Offcourse they can detect it...question is at what range.


    Zoltan Dani's crew claim they could detect the B-2 with their modified P-18 radar. In the book about the war he says it left a similar signal on the radar screen as the F-117 (very faint and different from regular aircraft) but it was clear that it was a much larger aircraft.

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:25 am

    Yes, detection with longer wave radars is one thing, but most engagement and tracking radars use higher frequencies that these stealth aircraft are less visible to.

    A bit like the Early 1960s with the U-2... detecting it is not enough, you need something that can go up and kill it too to be a proper air defence.

    Certainly even an Su-25 could be used to intercept either the B-2 or F-117 let alone a real fighter, but the problem is what if it turns out to be an F-22?

    The solution is obviously coming with the S-400, Su-35S, and PAK FA.

    This radar however is an important piece in that finding the target and following its movements and passing that info to S-400 batteries and flights of Flankers and PAK FAs is the first part of a successful interception.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6084
    Points : 6490
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:18 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:Offcourse they can detect it...question is at what range.


    Zoltan Dani's crew claim they could detect the B-2 with their modified P-18 radar. In the book about the war he says it left a similar signal on the radar screen as the F-117 (very faint and different from regular aircraft) but it was clear that it was a much larger aircraft.


    That would be very interesting if he truly managed to detect the presense of B-2 , most certainly he managed to track and beat a F-117.

    But i was more keen to see how the radars like EW radars , OTH radars and VHF radars are effective against B-2 type target , B-2 is the golden bird in Stealth so far there is nothing in US inventory that we know off including F-22/JSF that can beat a B-2 in stealth.

    I am sure the Russians are not dumb and they must be worked out or atleast tried to work out tactics to detect a B-2 as they represent a real threat to them.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Radar systems

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:04 am