Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16872
    Points : 17480
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:08 am

    The curved canopy of the Hind was not bullet proof but the flat front windshield was able to stop 23mm cannon rounds.

    The all round protection on the Mi-28 is a response to fighting in Afghanistan with riflemen firing from the side from mountains with simple rifles, or indeed heavy calibre 12.7mm HMG calibre rifles supplied by the CIA.

    Knowing how thin the canopies are on the Apache even an SVD will do.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:30 am

    Knowing how thin the canopies are on the Apache even an SVD will do.

    A screw driver will do for the canopy sides and for the front side you will need more like a pistol maybe a M4.
    avatar
    marcinko

    Posts : 42
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-11-22

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  marcinko on Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:The curved canopy of the Hind was not bullet proof but the flat front windshield was able to stop 23mm cannon rounds.

    The all round protection on the Mi-28 is a response to fighting in Afghanistan with riflemen firing from the side from mountains with simple rifles, or indeed heavy calibre 12.7mm HMG calibre rifles supplied by the CIA.

    Knowing how thin the canopies are on the Apache even an SVD will do.

    Regarding the Apache, if I remember correctly I think some of them were badly shot with ak-47, like gunner hit in the leg

    Maybe it was described in Lions of kandahar by Bradley
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Attack helicopters vs MANPADS/SHORADS

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:28 pm

    Even a screwdriver will do for the side windshields, the front will be penetrated by any rifle cartridge.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:27 am

    The Longbow radar.

    http://www.file-upload.net/download-11318323/LongbowProgrammAH64AtoD.pdf.html

    B. IMPACT OF CLUTTER ON SENSOR PRFORMANCE IN LAND COMBAT
    The Longbow program was further along than any others; the Longbow approach
    used information provided by its high range resolution radar return from the stationary
    target as opposed to a Doppler-shifted return from a moving target.
    As a follow-on to the work modeling radar clutter for engagement of air targets,
    STD got a study from the Army’s Model Improvement and Simulation Management
    Agency to look at how clutter affected engagement of stationary ground targets. The
    Longbow program was at that time further along than any other at trying to exploit highrange-
    resolution radar signals to do detection and identification of stationary targets. It
    was selected as the technology development on which to focus.
    Tactical radars have low resolution in azimuth and elevation, limited by antenna
    size. The resolution in range is limited by bandwidth and can be much higher. “High
    5
    range resolution” means that the radar “pixel” size (in the downrange direction) is small
    compared with targets of interest. For a Longbow-sized antenna operating in K-Band,
    with a 1 GHz bandwidth, the radar could distinguish “spots” on the ground about 100 m
    wide and 15 cm deep. Typically, one would group these range cells, looking for “hot
    spots,” then process the individual cells. A ground patch of about 30 range resolution
    cells (even numbered cells in blue, odd numbered clear) with a tank in the middle might
    map like:


    The task for the clutter-suppression algorithm is to use the 30 or so returns, called
    a “range profile,” from the wide, thin ground patches to determine whether a target of
    interest is present. This is very challenging for a number of reasons:
    • Each range cell has much more nontarget area than target area. Therefore, the
    return may not be dominated by the target.
    • The target may overlap adjacent patches, either in range or in cross range.
    • The target orientation is unknown.
    • For a turreted vehicle, the turret chassis angle will be unknown.
    • The returns will vary rapidly with viewing angle. For example, there is no
    reason to believe there will be any similarities in target returns between the
    situation below and the one above.

    Note that in the application of the high-range resolution technique to the air-to-air
    environment, all these challenges are substantially mitigated or nonexistent.

    IV. SUMMARY
    Experienced analysts with a strong technical background were able to intuit, on
    first hearing a description of the Longbow program, that performance against stationary
    targets would be its Achilles heel (1987). This was identified as a research area that STD
    successfully pursued as part of its sensors and target acquisition focus. The research on
    the Longbow algorithms revealed the approach to be incapable of delivering needed
    operational performance (1992). This was stated publicly as part of the Bottom-up
    Review (1993), as was the fact that a forward-looking infrared could provide adequate
    target location for the RF missile, thus providing stationary target capability through a
    different approach. In 1995 the IOT&E revealed the difficulties with detection and
    classification in a formal test with publicized results. As late as the summer of 2000 we
    were still discovering the shortcomings of those tests.
    In 2003 as part of Iraqi freedom, Apache operators found:
    • The system was effective against moving targets and in bad weather.
    • False alarms were excessive, especially for stationary targets.
    • Most operators lacked confidence in the fire control radar for target location
    accuracy
    • The forward-looking infrared was the primary target acquisition sensor for
    the RF Hellfire
    • There were too many false SA-8 declarations.
    To close:
    How do we avoid spending money and delaying programs by pursuing features
    that will not be achieved with the current approach, but are achievable in other ways?
    How can we ensure that future operators are not surprised during an operation by
    what had been intuited 16 years earlier, known with certainty 10 years earlier, and
    revealed in tests 8 years earlier?

    The Longbow Ka-band (MMW) for ground targets covers 90° in azimuth and quite narrow angle in elevation. The coverage of tank sized and combat relevant RCS signatures on battlefield does not exceed 8km under optimal conditions. Thus we calculate the field of coverage of ground targets by determining the area of sector it covers. 90° / 360 * pi*radius 8² = 50.27km², not counting in blind spot of 500-1000m right infront of the helicopter, depending on its altitude the blindspot is eleminated or extended.

    The Longbow does feature air-to-air mode which was unsatisfactory (AH-64D Block2) not known in Block3, but the E suffix was given after the Longbow problems have been reduced/eleminated or at least decreased to some closer satisfactory level to come closer to specifications of the Longbow programm that were pursued.

    Arbalet K,Ka-band (MMW broad) covers under optimal conditions 8 up 12km, while it is usually always closer to 8km rather then 12km. The azimuth is slightly higher with 120° and elevation is also higher since the Arbalet antenna can move in 2D inside the nose dome.
    The Arbalet covers between 67km²(8km range) to 150km². The problems of this come similiar to that of Longbow in clutter distorting the recieved data to process a clear picture of the situation especially for stationary targets without distingtive RCS not to mention what mess it would be on a battlefield were tons of ammunition is fired into the field and remains of ammunition is increasing steadily the clutter the radars recieve.

    Most of the time FLIR and intel from observering/commanding helicopters is more useful than using MMW radar.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Cyrus the great on Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:23 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The Longbow radar.

    http://www.file-upload.net/download-11318323/LongbowProgrammAH64AtoD.pdf.html

    B. IMPACT OF CLUTTER ON SENSOR PRFORMANCE IN LAND COMBAT
    The Longbow program was further along than any others; the Longbow approach
    used information provided by its high range resolution radar return from the stationary
    target as opposed to a Doppler-shifted return from a moving target.
    As a follow-on to the work modeling radar clutter for engagement of air targets,
    STD got a study from the Army’s Model Improvement and Simulation Management
    Agency to look at how clutter affected engagement of stationary ground targets. The
    Longbow program was at that time further along than any other at trying to exploit highrange-
    resolution radar signals to do detection and identification of stationary targets. It
    was selected as the technology development on which to focus.
    Tactical radars have low resolution in azimuth and elevation, limited by antenna
    size. The resolution in range is limited by bandwidth and can be much higher. “High
    5
    range resolution” means that the radar “pixel” size (in the downrange direction) is small
    compared with targets of interest. For a Longbow-sized antenna operating in K-Band,
    with a 1 GHz bandwidth, the radar could distinguish “spots” on the ground about 100 m
    wide and 15 cm deep. Typically, one would group these range cells, looking for “hot
    spots,” then process the individual cells. A ground patch of about 30 range resolution
    cells (even numbered cells in blue, odd numbered clear) with a tank in the middle might
    map like:


    The task for the clutter-suppression algorithm is to use the 30 or so returns, called
    a “range profile,” from the wide, thin ground patches to determine whether a target of
    interest is present. This is very challenging for a number of reasons:
    • Each range cell has much more nontarget area than target area. Therefore, the
    return may not be dominated by the target.
    • The target may overlap adjacent patches, either in range or in cross range.
    • The target orientation is unknown.
    • For a turreted vehicle, the turret chassis angle will be unknown.
    • The returns will vary rapidly with viewing angle. For example, there is no
    reason to believe there will be any similarities in target returns between the
    situation below and the one above.

    Note that in the application of the high-range resolution technique to the air-to-air
    environment, all these challenges are substantially mitigated or nonexistent.

    IV. SUMMARY
    Experienced analysts with a strong technical background were able to intuit, on
    first hearing a description of the Longbow program, that performance against stationary
    targets would be its Achilles heel (1987). This was identified as a research area that STD
    successfully pursued as part of its sensors and target acquisition focus. The research on
    the Longbow algorithms revealed the approach to be incapable of delivering needed
    operational performance (1992). This was stated publicly as part of the Bottom-up
    Review (1993), as was the fact that a forward-looking infrared could provide adequate
    target location for the RF missile, thus providing stationary target capability through a
    different approach. In 1995 the IOT&E revealed the difficulties with detection and
    classification in a formal test with publicized results. As late as the summer of 2000 we
    were still discovering the shortcomings of those tests.
    In 2003 as part of Iraqi freedom, Apache operators found:
    • The system was effective against moving targets and in bad weather.
    • False alarms were excessive, especially for stationary targets.
    • Most operators lacked confidence in the fire control radar for target location
    accuracy
    • The forward-looking infrared was the primary target acquisition sensor for
    the RF Hellfire
    • There were too many false SA-8 declarations.
    To close:
    How do we avoid spending money and delaying programs by pursuing features
    that will not be achieved with the current approach, but are achievable in other ways?
    How can we ensure that future operators are not surprised during an operation by
    what had been intuited 16 years earlier, known with certainty 10 years earlier, and
    revealed in tests 8 years earlier?

    The Longbow Ka-band (MMW) for ground targets covers 90° in azimuth and quite narrow angle in elevation. The coverage of tank sized and combat relevant RCS signatures on battlefield does not exceed 8km under optimal conditions. Thus we calculate the field of coverage of ground targets by determining the area of sector it covers. 90° / 360 * pi*radius 8² = 50.27km², not counting in blind spot of 500-1000m right infront of the helicopter, depending on its altitude the blindspot is eleminated or extended.

    The Longbow does feature air-to-air mode which was unsatisfactory (AH-64D Block2) not known in Block3, but the E suffix was given after the Longbow problems have been reduced/eleminated or at least decreased to some closer satisfactory level to come closer to specifications of the Longbow programm that were pursued.

    Arbalet K,Ka-band (MMW broad) covers under optimal conditions 8 up 12km, while it is usually always closer to 8km rather then 12km. The azimuth is slightly higher with 120° and elevation is also higher since the Arbalet antenna can move in 2D inside the nose dome.
    The Arbalet covers between 67km²(8km range) to 150km². The problems of this come similiar to that of Longbow in clutter distorting the recieved data to process a clear picture of the situation especially for stationary targets without distingtive RCS not to mention what mess it would be on a battlefield were tons of ammunition is fired into the field and remains of ammunition is increasing steadily the clutter the radars recieve.

    Most of the time FLIR and intel from observering/commanding helicopters is more useful than using MMW radar.


    Wow, this is all very revealing information. The Eurocopter Tiger does not use a radar because the designers argue that electro-optical systems are superior.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:43 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Wow, this is all very revealing information. The Eurocopter Tiger does not use a radar because the designers argue that electro-optical systems are superior.

    For most situations and work and requirements of battlefield today they are superior and almost exclusivley the only tool to observe and target objects on the battlefield, however the necessity for attack helicopters to have a big picture of the battlefield ahead of them is key to maximizing effeciency and minimizing risk weights almost only on intel and means of data they can recieve.

    TBH, sooner or later i expect one seat helicopters with direct aided link of weapon and navigation/communication system via datalink controlled by 1-2 persons that are on the ground, remotley controling weapons and targeting systems aswell aiding information to the pilot.

    IRST sensor is a much better means of air coverage which was first seen on Ka-52 prototype when arbalet radar wasn't ready to be installed on mast when it was in the requirements and later changed to nose mounted radar.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:13 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Wow, this is all very revealing information. The Eurocopter Tiger does not use a radar because the designers argue that electro-optical systems are superior.

    For most situations and work and requirements of battlefield today they are superior and almost exclusivley the only tool to observe and target objects on the battlefield, however the necessity for attack helicopters to have a big picture of the battlefield ahead of them is key to maximizing effeciency and minimizing risk weights almost only on intel and means of data they can recieve.

    TBH, sooner or later i expect one seat helicopters with direct aided link of weapon and navigation/communication system via datalink controlled by 1-2 persons that are on the ground, remotley controling weapons and targeting systems aswell aiding information to the pilot.

    IRST sensor is a much better means of air coverage which was first seen on Ka-52 prototype when arbalet radar wasn't ready to be installed on mast when it was in the requirements and later changed to nose mounted radar.

    Agreed, it's always great to have multiple targeting methods. I don't know about reducing the crew of the helicopter and putting reliance on data-links that can be hacked -- data links directly tied to the helicopter. I'm not versed in this field, and so I don't know if my fears are justified to any degree. We saw how easily a supposedly advanced American drone was hacked by Iran. Question: How does IRST compare to AESA radar in air to air detection? How does SAR and GMTI radars compare to MMW radar in ground detection?

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:36 pm



    It's just dawned on me that I haven't really thanked all the posters that have gone to the trouble of retrieving all those mounds of incredibly informative pieces of information. Thanks, mates.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:00 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Agreed, it's always great to have multiple targeting methods. I don't know about reducing the crew of the helicopter and putting reliance on data-links that can be hacked -- data links directly tied to the helicopter. I'm not versed in this field, and so I don't know if my fears are justified to any degree. We saw how easily a supposedly advanced American drone was hacked by Iran. Question: How does IRST compare to AESA radar in air to air detection? How does SAR and GMTI radars compare to MMW radar in ground detection?

    Datalink and technologies to aid plattforms with a huge load of data information is always risky but due to the nature of Attack Helicopters being very fragile to ground fire but can outweight any artillery in firepower, accuracy and overall combat effeciency against various types of threats up different formations and fortifications which can be out of reach of most common artillery and MRLS they are and will be the backbone of "low cost" means of psychological warfare aswell accuratley destroying crucial and vital points of enemy formations and fortifications where artillery and sometimes even jets will not come as easily or at least as close to mobile or hidden targets.

    Most of the time even advanced countries like US and Russia will not rely on such features even if they would have standardized such technologies, one of the reasons is also not to expose to much information which might be picked upon by enemy intel/EW units.

    IRST compared to AESA radar will obviously be worse in range and resolution depending on weather and the IR "clutter" coming from surface at low altitude flight but it is a great subsidude to have an entirely passive optical "radar" with much better accuracy which does not give away its position. The IRST on russian jets was always one of the things that NATO feared or at least had respect for having capability to fly without radar but not flying blind in BVR range of up to 90km.

    SAR is great for ground mapping but hardly useful for the military specified requirements of its different modes, of moving targets, friend and foe, automatic flight supporting systems like terrain avoidance might be good enough for it but SAR radars are specified for ground mapping from above, not so sure how they will perform in very low altitude flight (5-30m) if they can be even used for terrain avoidance, i don't know.

    GMTI are the opposite, they are designed to pick up moving objects and are filtering every static object and suppressing clutter. The MMW radars already had/have for quite some time problems with static targets to keep them accuratley tracked or even pick them up and not filter them as "clutter" and GMTI will hardly be better, i would say worse for this requirement.

    We use for ground targets MMW because so far they are the best bandwith for the job they are supposed to do. We will see MMW/IRST supliment at most, i doubt they will go for different solutions in bandwidth, the bandwidth is quite narrow for this job.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16872
    Points : 17480
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:52 am

    That on the mast was meant for detecting air treats, covering 360° and have range around 5 km.

    To be clear a MMW radar is only good for close range... 10km or much less most of the time in a small antenna. the advantage is that it creates a very clear detailed view at that short range, but obviously the volume of information means range is generally limited by data volume rather than resolution.

    Equally MMW radar detects weather too so heavy weather limits range too, though of course it can see through radar better than optics can.

    That is why the use of cm wave radar is so important... and the CM wave radar could detect a stinger missile from 5km... ie an end on circle about 75mm across. Against other aerial targets the range of detection and tracking would be much better... but at the end of the day who needs a helo that has 360 degree air detection coverage?

    Helos can't fight fixed wing aircraft... they lack speed, range and altitude and their weapons are for air to ground use so covering them with AAMs is a waste.

    Having said that the Mi-28MN will likely have the full air to air radar in a mast mount.


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:15 pm

    Helos can't fight fixed wing aircraft... they lack speed, range and altitude and their weapons are for air to ground use so covering them with AAMs is a waste.

    Having said that the Mi-28MN will likely have the full air to air radar in a mast mount.

    We had this discussion before iirc, it is not as defensless as most people believe. In tests of USAF they tested cobras vs F-4 and more modern fighters were fighters had lot of trouble even acquiring helicopters as targets due the nature of helicopters flying relative low and the visual overloaded surface distracts pilots aswell radar/IRST from acquiring quickly the helicopters as a target. They had to maneuver and make several strafes just to acquire them as a target, while helicopters due to their maneuverability, when having defensive means against air targets like ATAM's had scored hits against their predators.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:51 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    Datalink and technologies to aid plattforms with a huge load of data information is always risky but due to the nature of Attack Helicopters being very fragile to ground fire but can outweight any artillery in firepower, accuracy and overall combat effeciency against various types of threats up different formations and fortifications which can be out of reach of most common artillery and MRLS they are and will be the backbone of "low cost" means of psychological warfare aswell accuratley destroying crucial and vital points of enemy formations and fortifications where artillery and sometimes even jets will not come as easily or at least as close to mobile or hidden targets.

    Most of the time even advanced countries like US and Russia will not rely on such features even if they would have standardized such technologies, one of the reasons is also not to expose to much information which might be picked upon by enemy intel/EW units.

    IRST compared to AESA radar will obviously be worse in range and resolution depending on weather and the IR "clutter" coming from surface at low altitude flight but it is a great subsidude to have an entirely passive optical "radar" with much better accuracy which does not give away its position. The IRST on russian jets was always one of the things that NATO feared or at least had respect for having capability to fly without radar but not flying blind in BVR range of up to 90km.

    SAR is great for ground mapping but hardly useful for the military specified requirements of its different modes, of moving targets, friend and foe, automatic flight supporting systems like terrain avoidance might be good enough for it but SAR radars are specified for ground mapping from above, not so sure how they will perform in very low altitude flight (5-30m) if they can be even used for terrain avoidance, i don't know.

    GMTI are the opposite, they are designed to pick up moving objects and are filtering every static object and suppressing clutter. The MMW radars already had/have for quite some time problems with static targets to keep them accuratley tracked or even pick them up and not filter them as "clutter" and GMTI will hardly be better, i would say worse for this requirement.

    We use for ground targets MMW because so far they are the best bandwith for the job they are supposed to do. We will see MMW/IRST supliment at most, i doubt they will go for different solutions in bandwidth, the bandwidth is quite narrow for this job.

    Thanks, Werewolf.


    I definitely get your point: There are live risks for every platform and technology but that shouldn't completely restrict its use, especially when it's so effective on the modern battlefield. I really like the idea of using passive radar whenever the circumstances and weather conditions permit, so I think that IRST has a place on the modern attack helicopter.

    I like the idea of using a multi-functioning AESA radar for both air-to-air coverage and ground coverage because it doubles the detection range without easily giving away its position and the fact that it can be used as a form of electronic attack. The Americans have apparently doubled the range of the Longbow radar to 16 km for tank detection, and so an AESA radar should be able to detect a tank as far as 32 km. Now I understand that an MMW radar may be better at ground mapping than the AESA radar, but that's where I think a complimentary SAR radar comes in.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:30 pm

    Never heared of Longbow being upgraded or anything to achieve 16km for tank sized targets. Arbalet is already superior and detects metal grid bridges at 15km distance aswell buildings, but not tank sized targets.

    Could you please put a link to where you got that from?

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:04 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Never heared of Longbow being upgraded or anything to achieve 16km for tank sized targets. Arbalet is already superior and detects metal grid bridges at 15km distance aswell buildings, but not tank sized targets.

    Could you please put a link to where you got that from?

    I came across a source that mentioned that the radar had its range extended to 16 km, but I can now only find two sources that speak about the radar of the AH-64E being twice of the block II Apache but I admittedly can't find anything about this radar specifically detecting a tank at 16 km.



    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/apache-to-benefit-from-comanche-178618/

    http://www.airvectors.net/avah64.html

    http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Boeing_AH-64_Apache

    The last source does speak about a 16 km range for the Block III Apache but it is less than reputable.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:02 pm

    Looks like copy pasta, will need to look up for more specific information with sources that hold credibility.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:28 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Looks like copy pasta, will need to look up for more specific information with sources that hold credibility.

    I agree, because I had to scour the internet for those sources and only one is even remotely credible. If the Americans truly did double the range of the radar, it would be everywhere on the net. We would never hear the end of it from the ever more arrogant Americans. Until a more reputable source can corroborate the specs of that sole source, the Longbow only has a range of 8 km in comparison to the Arbalet's 12 km. The Arbalet has a clear range advantage over the Longbow in both air-to-air coverage and ground coverage.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16872
    Points : 17480
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:03 pm

    We had this discussion before iirc, it is not as defensless as most people believe. In tests of USAF they tested cobras vs F-4 and more modern fighters were fighters had lot of trouble even acquiring helicopters as targets due the nature of helicopters flying relative low and the visual overloaded surface distracts pilots aswell radar/IRST from acquiring quickly the helicopters as a target. They had to maneuver and make several strafes just to acquire them as a target, while helicopters due to their maneuverability, when having defensive means against air targets like ATAM's had scored hits against their predators.

    But fighter aircraft technology is moving forward and no matter how you cut it a helo is a slow, not very manouverable aircraft with poor radar and poor AAM capability that usually flys low and slow.

    Sure, some helos are equipped to defend themselves but there are no helos designed to perform an air defence mission like a MiG-21 would perform.

    At the end of the day even a cheap old generation fighter has a huge height and speed advantage, not to mention much more appropriate weapons and sensors.

    Even armed the same a helo with Sidewinders and a MiG-21 with R-3s the huge advantage is with the MiG and it gets rather worse when you upgrade to a MiG-29 which can easily detect helicopters at very long range and hit them at long range with BVR missiles using IR or SARH seekers.

    Until a more reputable source can corroborate the specs of that sole source, the Longbow only has a range of 8 km in comparison to the Arbalet's 12 km. The Arbalet has a clear range advantage over the Longbow in both air-to-air coverage and ground coverage.

    Another aspect is that Longbow is expensive and most US Apaches don't even have the radar system fitted.


    _________________
    “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

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    AH-64 Longbow Radar

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:58 pm



    Garry B wrote:Another aspect is that Longbow is expensive and most US Apaches don't even have the radar system fitted.

    Exactly. The Apaches without the Longbow radar will have to rely on those that do via data-link. The Longbow is also very heavy.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    AH-64 Longbow Radar

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:08 am

    I'm following that bitchfest too. Very Happy

    Can you enlighten me what is with Longbow Radar in helos ? Is it some sort of silver spoon to avoid Helos from threats ?
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Zivo on Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:53 am

    max steel wrote:I'm following that bitchfest too. Very Happy

    Can you enlighten me what is with Longbow Radar in helos ? Is it some sort of silver spoon to avoid Helos from threats ?

    There was some discussion not too far back, I think it's in the last few pages of the Ka-52 thread.

    Anyways, longbow is the mast mounted radar on the Ah-64. In theory, it allows it the hide behind a treeline and look over top for tanks and whatnot, without exposing the gunship itself. The Soviets had really good SHORAD; shilka, Tunguska, etc. Conventional strafing or circling like you see in Iraq and Syria, would have be suicide on the battlefield the Ah-64 was designed to fight on.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:35 am

    max steel wrote:I'm following that bitchfest too. Very Happy

    Can you enlighten me what is with Longbow Radar in helos ? Is it some sort of silver spoon to avoid Helos from threats ?

    No. It allows the helicopters to spot the enemy from a ways away and allows the helicopter to track a target and use the Hellfire AGM-114L to a designated target. Problem is, it has 8km range and a shorad such as pantsir or latest variants of Strela-10 would be able to also detect it within range. Pantsir and Tunguska would see it even farther away and be able to take the helicopter down from that far. While it is a good system, it doesn't actually protect the helicopter from the enemy at such distances if the enemy has a half decent shorad. While Vikhr can operate at same range as hellfire or even greater (10km), it still falls within same ranges of the shorads. Now the issue is that the person thinks that the helicopter can fire and just flee. But I don't believe that is entirely true as it may need to still gain the info from the longbow radar (someone please correct me). And against the targets in question, both Ataka, AGM-114 and Vikhr works perfect, with the Vikhr and Ataka costing not nearly as much as the expensive AGM-114. But they require the helicopter to be tracking the targets with its laser system. Mind you, the helicopters such as Mi-28nm and Ka-52 carry radar so theoretically I imagine they could use 9M123 and operate similar. I am also not sure of this though.

    The whole discussion was really sad. This Scar guy was getting extremely defensive and didn't provide any actual information to back up his claims but was quick to call others people claims drivel but not actually properly argue it or explain in detail.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16872
    Points : 17480
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:53 am

    Hermes is supposed to be related to the Pantsir-S missile and will be ground, air, and sea based with a precision delivered payload of about 30kgs... it should be rather potent.

    It would be interesting in the sense that the Pantsir-S is inertially guided and then command guided for the terminal phase but these missiles are inertially guided and then terminally guided.

    One would suspect they could still be used against an aircraft, so that means any nearby Hermes artillery batteries could be used to support a Pantsir-S battery against a heavy air attack... perhaps with laser homing or MMW radar or IIR seekers in a fire and forget mode.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:44 pm

    The point is that no one there is entirely correct. At some points they are correct but the deeper the discussion goes the more they show halftruths, lot of myths and missconceptions aswell not a single person there even understands or appears to have not read any manuals of any army how they are operating and the factual reality of engagement procedures and ranges. Maximum weapons range is all fine and dendy, but Apaches could not even come above 5km maximum Hellfire range in a plain, desert with almost no cover for iraqi tanks and they still had an average engagement range of 3.2km. Now imagine the very same scenario in a urban/rural battlefield in europe. Helicopters would enter effective and lethal zones of even the weakest 14.5mm KPVT machineguns and militaries tend to have something bigger for everything that flies where it shouldn't.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:34 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The point is that no one there is entirely correct. At some points they are correct but the deeper the discussion goes the more they show halftruths, lot of myths and missconceptions aswell not a single person there even understands or appears to have not read any manuals of any army how they are operating and the factual reality of engagement procedures and ranges. Maximum weapons range is all fine and dendy, but Apaches could not even come above 5km maximum Hellfire range in a plain, desert with almost no cover for iraqi tanks and they still had an average engagement range of 3.2km. Now imagine the very same scenario in a urban/rural battlefield in europe. Helicopters would enter effective and lethal zones of even the weakest 14.5mm KPVT machineguns and militaries tend to have something bigger for everything that flies where it shouldn't.

    Especially important point, considering that the Apache's cockpit glass isn't even rated to defeat 7.62x39mm/AKM fire let alone 14.5x114mm, 23x115mm or even 30x165mm caliber rounds fired from a Tunguska/Panstir.

    Also I don't know why people keep talking about the ability for helicopters to hide behind tree-lines as being touted as some kind of major advantage, when SHORAD can hide behind tree-lines even easier than helicopter could, and with the additional advantage of electro-magnetic spectrum camouflage. What's also interesting is that Russia has developed and putting in to service ground surveillance radars capable of differentiation of objects needing only 5 cm of separation, which are also capable of differentiation between blades of grass and vegetation, trees, animals, human figures....so recognizing an helicopters blades would be child's play for those radars.

    Sponsored content

    Re: AH-64 Longbow Radar vs SAM threats

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:26 pm