Have anyone here seen this:
Active Means of Air Defense and a few others) 75T6 ‘Igarka’; henceforth 75T6 Igarka or ‘Igarka’ SAM.
Translation: Close-in surface-to-air missile system ‘Igarka'(75T6). Preliminary project. Chief Designers – B. Bunkin, P. Grushin.75T6 ‘Igarka’ Close-in SAM System
The system is designed to defeat the enemy tactical aviation, cruise missiles, ARMs, UAVs on low and extremely low altitudes and en masse.Basic tactical & technical specifications:
Two fully independent target detection, identification, tracking, engagement and fire-control channels: radar and laser; w/ capability to synthesize a combo-channel on demand.
Missile guidance – semi-active radar/laser homing, probably radio command guidance;
Min. distance – 1.5-2 km;
Min. altitude – 10 m;
Max. distance at 4-12 kilometers altitude – 13.5 km;
Max. distance at 10 meters altitude – 11.5 km;
Max. altitude – 9-10 km;Composition of SAM Battalion:
1x Command Post;
2x Double-channel Engagement and Target Illumination Radar;
4x TEL, 8x 45N6-T surface-to-air missiles each;– Power generators;
– Technical support;
In order to give the SAM the ability of identification and selection of aerodynamic targets, it is proposed to use the method of sonar. The studies performed as the result of experiments in mil. unit #29139 showed that there is a possibility to get additional information about the time of tracked target and its behavior via analysis of the spectrum of reflected signal in acoustic range. It was shown that the nature of the components of reflected signal which are conditional to the operation of on-board machinery and specific features in design of the aircraft(missiles, rockets, etc) is deterministic; and by displaying the distinctive features of a type of target they create a portrait of this target. When moved to the acoustic range, acoustic image that is appropriate to the spectrum of reflected signal sounds like the usual acoustic noise that is familiar to human being.Stability of the distinctive traits of a target in reflected signal allows to identify the class and type of a target that is being tracked by the radar, and also keep an eye on changes of the operation mode of target’s engines.
In this connection, it becomes possible to utilize the acoustic analyzers and indicators to perform identification of the group targets (QQ. i.e. groups of aerial targets), the types of targets(QQ: presumably, identification of the types of individual aircraft in a group of targets), timely detection of the moment of the beginning of maneuver, or the moment of dispersion of the group of targets, which in combination with the use of the second channel* in the SAM system will dramatically improve the effectiveness of defense. Besides, the availability of acoustic indicators would allow to establish the effective control over the results of missile attacks and will allow to identify the high-speed low-altitude aerial targets against the local objects on the background. Also, acoustic indication will allow to identify the classes of the tracked targets(e.g. jet fighter, jet bomber, turbofan plane, cruise missile, helicopter, etc).
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/leo1s-russian-military-news-pictures-thread.243988/page-318#post-40965052
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ggWLxaF77bhYAMh6doZYCHscfzhww1fG/view
By: stealthflanker - 1st December 2017 at 00:03
NCTR is already known by Soviet and US when they start using CW radars. There was already S-200 and HAWK that capable of NCTR.
It’s manual tho where target doppler return is displayed.
By: Arabella-Cox - 30th November 2017 at 20:38
Actually, I think they are proposing that the spectrum of the target RF return be transformed into an acoustic signal which the operators can listen to for additional analysis of target characteristics (primarily identification of target type)? I can see how that would help distinguish helicopters from other target types for example, where the rotor blade returns would probably be readily recognizable – think NCTR by jet engine modulation, but with a human rather than silicon signal processor 🙂
EDIT: The proposal apparently dates from early 1976 – that fits my interpretation too. Soviet digital electronics at the time would probably have been hard pressed to perform that kind of signal analysis. Still a fascinating confirmation that the basic concept of this NCTR technique was known to them back then already.
By: stealthflanker - 30th November 2017 at 09:42
for short range application, you can put the acoustic sensor ahead of the site. Then coordinate with the SAM with datalink or cable network.
The sonar might be a mistranslation of passive acoustic sensor, similar as anti helicopter mine.
This prob how Soviet will handle “Assault Breaker” program.
By: Blue Apple - 30th November 2017 at 09:41
Target detection & identification using acoustic footprint is not unheard of (pun intended).
Sonar in this case refers to passive sonar, i.e. microphone arrays analyzing noise emitted by the target (and its reflections), not an active sonar mounted on a seeker (that would be useless given that the missile travels faster than the speed of sound…)
By: mig-31bm - 30th November 2017 at 09:14
In air sound only travel slightly faster than cruising speed of aircraft and much slower than missiles so I think it is rather useless for air defense
Sign In
November 30, 2017 at 6:40 am
