ChromGarryB, you are comparing theoretical figures to practical ones. Sure, they have interceptors and the mighty mighty S-300/Tor combination. But how are they located, what is the state of alert, how early can they aqcuire the target? My point: You cannot defend by SAM or interceptor! You can’t even stop bombers bombing your country (just increase the price tag).
Russia right now have over 1200 of S-300 SAM’s alone. Plus a a god knows how many S-125, S-200, Kub’s, Tunguska’s, Tor’s, and other SAM’s. SAM’s crews are by far most traned ones between all other military personal – in fact, they train 24 hours 365 days every year. In peacetime (e.g. now)useally every division have about 1/3 SAM’s sites on duty, 1/3 on repair or service maintainance, 1/3 on conservation. Technical service regiment constantly switch SAM’s on by one from duty to repair depot and back, and from conservation to repair depot and back. Even in worsest times (10 years ago) AD network didnt stopped its duties, and that ensures high-quality non-stop crew training. Every individual S-300 SAM site (useally 4-6 launchers + command post) have more firepower and much better radars battle damage resistance than AIEGIS crusier.
And yes, SAM’s can perfectly stop bombers. Of course, as with all other weapons, SAM’s should be of some generation as attacking aircrafts. Not something like ancient S-75 vs F-15E. Btw, last time when bombers encountered modern SAM’s defence was probably Israel 1973 war. It wasnt easy for Israel AF back then….
ChromAESA on the other hand can even more effectively do multiple engagements, because it is essentially hundreds (or 2000 in the case of APG-77) individual radars. They can individually lock onto different fighters. Therefore, that’s why its more effective in engaging multiple target.
Its common misconception. Theoreticaly, AESA can can lock they “individual radars” on multiple targets, but only at greatly reduced range. Lets make an example: say, AESA tracks 10 targets with, as you suggest, 10 “individual radars”. That will basicaly means what every “radar” emmits 1/10 of the normal host radar power, AND posses only 1/10 of the normal host radar reciving capability. Thats mean, 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100 recived power. Which basicaly means what for 1 m2 target radar will recive 0.01 m2 equivalent return. The tracking range and stability will be GREATLY reduced in such mode – by 3 times at very least. Its again an example of mixing different maximal numbers from different modes. It just dont work that way in technical world.
ChromYes, during Soviet times there wasn’t a welfare in Russia but you were worldwide military superpower. Now Russian Army is in shambles (its conventional might is virtually nonexistent) but Russian poverty, health care, birth rate, drunkenness are in much worse condtion than under Soviet rule…
So, watch carefully to avoid American Indians fate, buddy! 😀
Rokosowsky, you sound like polish nationalist. Well, you sound like a nationalist from many other eastern european countries (they are all alike) , but your board nick allow me to suspect your polish origin. Back to the subject… sure, Russia have many problems, but you make patient with a grippe appear like a patient with AIDS ill.
ChromWell, the countries that really have cash in their hands (US, UAE, Singapore, the countries forming the Eurofighter consortium, France, Sweden) appear to select AESA.
.
Hard to tell. They have no choice. Either NEW American AESA or 20 years OLD American slotted array. USA just dont have any new fighter radars except AESA radars. Its very possible what given a choice between new 80-mil AESA F-16 radar and also NEW 55 mil F-16 slotted array radar they would choose a cheaper but still capable slotted array radar. Countries which build aircraft by yourself choose whatever they can produce – e.g. Eurofighter have slotted arrays radar, Rafael have non-finished PESA at best, Grippen radar is also anything but AESA, Russia dont have anything new in service (only for export), allthought 30 years old Mig-31 PESA radar worth mentioning.
To make clear: i think AESA is most advanced concept and is a beacon of radars development. Still, for the next 20 year it might be more cost effective to use PESA instead of AESA – the difference in capabilities is not that great, but cost might be much lower for PESA. Of course, its also very possible what in 10 year AESA radar will cost less than PESA radar.
ChromI was always laughting how some peoples like to use “double thinking” about capability of cruise missiles VS SAM’s.
Round goes like this: Reader A says: 30 _subsonic_ cruise missiles will overhelm pretty capable MIG-31 + S-300 + Tor + Tunguska AD system. Next minute they talk how 30 _supersonic_ cruise missiles would not penetrate a AD system of an average carrier group – which, by the way, have MUCH weaker AD than an average army AD network. My opinion here is what 80x generation SAM’s have exellent chances to shot down subsonic cruise missiles IF warned in time. Fighters may have problems detect stealthy missiles at large range, SAM’s have a luxury to stand just near target to protect.
Chrom3) finnaly, if AESA are only marginally better than PESA, [B]why the f**k the Russians do never forget to mention that they will have a functional AESA some years from now, the Europeans work hard to AMSAR, the Israeli will have the Elta 2052 and even India and China are seriously investigating the concept?????
AESA , without a doubt, is a more advanced concept. BUT this fact dont contradict to “AESA are only marginally better than PESA”. Example: We all know what a Pentium 4 with SSE3 is only marginally better (if any) than Pentium 4 with just SSE2. Still Intel make from SSE3 technology a big marketing name and AMD is very happy to announce SSE3 support in they next processor.
ChromAnd how many transmitter has Bars? :p Check this article:
http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html There is only one TWT…The figure for APG 77 is 120 Nmiles for a 1 sqm target in LPI mode…
Althought i would agree about Bars, i must say what i just pointed to theoretical possibility to install several TWT modules. This technology can make pseudo-AESA as much cheaper solution… PESA is still not dead, and have some growing potencial left.
About 120 Nmiles in LPI mode… well, i just dont believe it. It may be true for a very special form of LPI mode, but certainly not for a common LPI conception of “many frequences, different phased signal”. Untill i see exact test conditions (like how many different frequences are used) i wouldnt believe it. USAF have a long history of “ommiting” exact test conditions what leads to false impression about true technical capablities.
ChromSpread spectrum transmission is not possible in PESA, because it has only one TWT (one transmiter)- it emmits at one frequency in a given moment.
Its not nessesary true. PESA also can have multiple transmitters – 2,3, or 10.
The spread spectrum mode is appliable at max. radar output. And yes, in a F 22 the “concept of making yourself cozy in the seat while observing enemies with AESA from 100+ Nm range while they have no clue about you” applies.
Its not. Allthought nominal emmiting power in LPI mode is indeed at maximum, the returning multi-frequence signal cant be recived by all modules as good as single phase – single frequence signal. Plus worse S/N ratio due to higher noise and small computing errors by combining all these signals to single picture.
Chrom3) An AESA design, again probably with Ukrainian tech.
Ukrainian dont have any advanced electronic industry to speak of. They can help with general design and experience left from USSR, but not with producing T/R modules. Anyway, Russia have much more experience, much better electronic industry, and probably 100 times more funds in that field last 15 years. So “AESA design with Ukrainian tech” is just as likely as “AESA design with Italian tech”.
ChromAbout detection, can the APG-80 detect more than 200 targets (of tactical significance) ?
Even 50x vintage radar would detect 200 target. It would also detect 2000 or 2000000000 targets without any problem. Showing all these contacts on display is easy. The trick is to TRACK all these targets (accurate speed, hight, alt update). This is a different matter alltogether.
ChromNow this requirement also debunks the notion that being able to use multiple frequencies, AESA is more immune to jamming. The only advantage in this regard would be that it is possible to create multiple beams each with a different frequency.
Althought this is true to some extent, still being able to detect a target from 40km is a way better than being totally jammed.
Chromeither going to be a US or Russian plane. ie. either a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-16 or MiG-35.
I very much doubt it would be an american plane. There are too much problems, political strings, and uncertainess around it. Real containders are Rafael and Mig-35.
ChromS/N ratio :confused: ……can you explain that please….i got the rest of the reply though…thanks 🙂
Signal-to-noise ratio.
Chromis there any differense between a active electronically phased array pulse doppler radar and a active electronically scanned array radar ?
There is. Main difference is what in passive ESA there is only 1 (or several) wave-generator. Throught diffent methods (e.g. waveguides) generated pulse is guided to T/R modules and transmitted throught them. Then T/R modules recive returning wave. In active ESA every T/R module generate pulse by itself, so essentially radar can generate several different wavelength impulses at once. This make it harder to jamm and, theoreticaly, allow better multi-tasking.
P.S. Oh… i readed orignal question wrong. “differense between a active electronically phased array pulse doppler radar and a active electronically scanned array radar”… dont know for sure, but i suspect its the same thing.
ChromBut you still have no height info from a target traveling with >15 km/min. Just a rough sector, which is in most cases is not enough for a successful interception.
By the way, it is not forbidden for a stealth-aircraft to foil the A band radar with simple chaff for example a.s.o.
A B-2 knows in advance the positions of those stations and related weapons to outsmart those.
B-2 is NOT MIG-21 – you can see it a LOONG away. Thus “rought sector” is more than enouth, especeally if you consider what EW radar can aslo see friendly fighters and compare on the radar screen they relative position with stealth bombers position. As i said, prior 80x most fighters didnt had BVR rockets anyway so it didnt matter for them stealth plane or not stealth plane. Shape and radar absorbent material just dont work well against A-band radar. Still, stealth planes could be usefull at night – it would be much harder to spot them. The only problem is they prohibitive huge cost. There was so few of them what Soviets could bring 100 Mig-23 for each B-2 in defence. Apparently, this was the one of the main reasons for IRST in next generation soviets avionic.
Sign In
