CoP -?
CoG – ?

Cop- Center of pressure or aerodynamic center
CoG- Center of gravity.

Looks to me like IFF just above that is the EO tracker.

Any one knows how EO Tracker works in BUK , Just incase the radars are jammed the EO can track and guide the missile ?

Well 2 possible options i think.

1.The radar is slaved to the EOTS. We know that Buk use SARH to guide missile..In event of ECM the EO will track the target and then send tracking data to radar, which will now serve only as SARH illuminator.

2.Same as no 1 However if the M3 use Active radar homing missile, the radar will only serve as command link antenna to transmit mid course to missile before switching to its own guidance.

Yep.. rocket design textbook will give you what you need. Specific missile design textbook can give better insight like Eugene Fleeman’s Tactical Missile Design.

The ballpark figure however is about 250-270 seconds for solid propellant. While liquid can be higher. Ramjet powered can score about 1000-2000 seconds of ISp depending on flight condition.

Turbojet or turbofan powered missile can have 4000-5000 seconds of ISp

Digital processing cannot and will not solve the main problem of low frequency, which is very wide beam width
. This has to do with physics, the only way to reduce beam width at very low frequency is getting an enormous aperture, which can easily be detect on SAR mode of APG-81, EOTS or satellite picture

Is that even a problem ? That doesn’t stop the creation of Vostok, Nebo, etc.. Which can stow and go in 5-30 minutes. One exception is Nebo UE tho which need a day to pack.

Plus.. just how “wide” is this beamwidth.. Not every radar need high gain pencil beamwidth.. Pencil beamwidth is good for firecontrol But bad for search as the beam covers only small area Thus a scan need to be actually slowed down.

For early warning context, Fan beam is more desirable as it can quickly cover the required search area.

Wide beamwidth yes maybe.. but Digital processing and recent adoption of Active array technology solves many problem of older VHF radar types to the point that sufficient accuracy and reduced error box is available Thus allows cueing of other asset.

Regarding survivability that’s a whole concept of its own and will be too large to discuss. One thing for sure is that VHF band is immune to anti radiation missile.

And when you go to lower frequency , RCS isnt the only thing that increase , your beam width will increase too ( aka your gain reduce )

Which is why our VHF Radar have large antenna. Unlike airborne based antennas. These VHF radars have space and have no weight restriction to have big antenna so they can have narrow beamwidth thus enough gain to be viable.

This passage by Sean O’Conner always tickles me:

You know how i miss him dude..? in forum and in my emailbox.

This may be a respected textbook, but I’d question the validity of that table, given that it contains radar-parameter data that in some cases (such as sidelobe info) will be classified. I suspect that many of the cited ‘values’ are guesstimates.

Yeah the author already stated. Based on Janes, and his own observation on airshows. So It’s very likely some values are guesstimates.

So yeah, validity can be questioned. Nonetheless i think it’s very good at starting point.