Russian Iskanders Pointed at BMD Sites

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting, I wonder what new reasons the west can come up with this time to justify the need for a 360 degrees radar coverage as it is more expenive to build 1.

actually, an omnidirectional radar system is cheaper to build than a directional.

there are different power and effectiveness issues. a very very rough analogy is when comparing a planar array for a wireless modem as opposed to a broomstick antenna.

I'm curious as to your source for a 360degree radar being more expensive.

 

[nevidimka]

You'd have to read back posts.

 

[Feanor]

It was a statement by a Russian general.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You'd have to read back posts.

what previously is relevant? - look at my prev response. it's a technical fact re omnidirectional systems compared to directional steered systems.

Feanor, you would well know that at a pure technical level that comment (if cited correctly) is borderline "rubbish"

 

[Feanor]

I actually didn't know that. Thanks for the correction. Can you explain in more detail why that is?

 

[citicrab]

C'mon Feanor. Georgia is way above any post-SU nation (outside the Baltics) as rated by Transparency International and other well-established groups (look it up), on corruption and openness. Not even close. As for the Ukraine, you are right, it's a sad reality that the country is split down the middle. They will just have to come to a reasonable accommodation for now, and, as old folks in East die out, it will join EU and NATO. There's just nowhere else to go - Europe's beckoning.

 

[SkolZkiy]

This talks about Georgia seems like a phrase of one US official in the middle of 20th century
"Yes, he is a bad guy, he is OUR bad guy"
The quote is not correct but the meaning is right and I think you this quote.

 

[Feanor]

C'mon Feanor. Georgia is way above any post-SU nation (outside the Baltics) as rated by Transparency International and other well-established groups (look it up), on corruption and openness.

You're assuming that those organizations are unbiased and accurate. Don't forget last time the Georgian opposition managed to stage a serious protest, it was broken up with tear gas and anti-riot police. TV stations were shut down.

Not even close. As for the Ukraine, you are right, it's a sad reality that the country is split down the middle. They will just have to come to a reasonable accommodation for now, and, as old folks in East die out, it will join EU and NATO. There's just nowhere else to go - Europe's beckoning.

The country is split down the middle not due to old folks in the Est but due to the fact that eastern Ukraine and Crime are essentially more Russian then Ukranian ethnically and culturally. I'm half Russian half Ukranian myself, and my fathers family is from western Ukraine. So I speak from personal experience when I say that the difference between Russia and Ukraine in terms of culture and ethnic identity is marginal. I seriously doubt that Ukraine will choose integration with EU and NATO over integration with Russia. At least not if the population has a say in it.

 

[nevidimka]

Hmmm, I see, so its more expensive to build an omnidrectional radar compared to a full radius coverage.

And regarding Radar's, aren't ground based EWR all phased array radars? At such, I've seen pictures of those EWR from Russia and US which are fixed onto position on a pyramid like structure with the top cut off. The radar arrays face the 4 corners of the sky, just like those Aegis radar planes on the warships. Always facing 4 corners.
I'm assuming from what you say that these radars are not built in such a way that 2 corners can be left clear and just have a limited coverage of the sky?

 

[Firehorse]

Perhaps the new radars are of different type. Objectively speaking, even if it's true that the new proposed ones are more costly, by investing more you get 360 degree coverage that may come handy.


Admin: text deleted. what does any of that link have to do with BMD's, Iskanders and or radar systems?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmmm, I see, so its more expensive to build an omnidrectional radar compared to a full radius coverage.

Omnidirectional is full radius coverage

 

[gf0012-aust]

Perhaps the new radars are of different type. Objectively speaking, even if it's true that the new proposed ones are more costly, by investing more you get 360 degree coverage that may come handy.

See previous post.

Omnidirectional is 360degree coverage.

Perhaps it would be useful to understand existing technical concepts before passing comment on the future?

 

[gf0012-aust]

And regarding Radar's, aren't ground based EWR all phased array radars? At such, I've seen pictures of those EWR from Russia and US which are fixed onto position on a pyramid like structure with the top cut off. The radar arrays face the 4 corners of the sky, just like those Aegis radar planes on the warships. Always facing 4 corners.

No. Just because a system is a billboard array does not mean that it's phased array.

examples being artillery spotters, or even USS Enterprise (original fitout)

it's the same issue for wireless detectors, aerials are ominidirectional, planars are directional.

 

[drandul]

No. Just because a system is a billboard array does not mean that it's phased array.

examples being artillery spotters, or even USS Enterprise (original fitout)

it's the same issue for wireless detectors, aerials are ominidirectional, planars are directional.

I'm sorry I can't keep reading I need correct you- I little bit disagreed with you about this "radar price" topic. You messed up some basic but important points.
Major point of any kind of Radar is to aquire direction to some space point and distance to that point- so "omnidirectional" radar is nonsense. There are such "concepts" as radar "solid angle" , "search angle" and "angle of field of view".. so basically "360 deg" coverage means that in one observation cycle radar spots all N "search angles" by it’s «Angle of field of view" and covers 2Pi^2 stRad of surrounded space or hemisphere. - not in one acquisition but by series of N "shots". So to achieve "360 deg" coverage you have to either change the azimuth of radar's normal direction(in case of planar array , billboard array or whatever direction steering concept you have ) - because planar arrays have physical limitations on angle of field of view, have several arrays- radars with limited coverage or have spatially distributed array of x-sivers which anyway much more complicated and more expansive in terms of computational and engineering efforts to approximate precision with planar arrays. Especially if we are talking not about some general "movement radio sensor" but such accurate measurement tool as ABM EWR. That X- band radar suppose not only "warn" some other systems but guide "antirockets" and highlight targets as well - and that was major concern why US specialists dismissed Russians offer with Gabala EWR.
so 360 azimutal degrees coverage radar is more expansive than directional radar. otherwise why not produce chiper "omnidirectional" radars and cover all space around??

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm sorry I can't keep reading I need correct you- I little bit disagreed with you about this "radar price" topic. You messed up some basic but important points.
Major point of any kind of Radar is to aquire direction to some space point and distance to that point- so "omnidirectional" radar is nonsense. There are such "concepts" as radar "solid angle" , "search angle" and "angle of field of view".. so basically "360 deg" coverage means that in one observation cycle radar spots all N "search angles" by it’s «Angle of field of view" and covers 2Pi^2 stRad of surrounded space or hemisphere. - not in one acquisition but by series of N "shots". So to achieve "360 deg" coverage you have to either change the azimuth of radar's normal direction(in case of planar array , billboard array or whatever direction steering concept you have ) - because planar arrays have physical limitations on angle of field of view, have several arrays- radars with limited coverage or have spatially distributed array of x-sivers which anyway much more complicated and more expansive in terms of computational and engineering efforts to approximate precision with planar arrays. Especially if we are talking not about some general "movement radio sensor" but such accurate measurement tool as ABM EWR. That X- band radar suppose not only "warn" some other systems but guide "antirockets" and highlight targets as well - and that was major concern why US specialists dismissed Russians offer with Gabala EWR.
so 360 azimutal degrees coverage radar is more expansive than directional radar. otherwise why not produce chiper "omnidirectional" radars and cover all space around??

No it's not. To get the same effective "reach and coverage" out of an omnidirectional (ie 360degree) radar system to a dedicated billboard will require more power.

omni's have their advantages for broad area management - but they are an easier solution to develop. For a given power output (at range) it's much cheaper to build a focused array.

I'm talking about effective comparative reach system to system.

you're talking about building equivalency in coverage by using a series of planar arrays to "compete" with an omini - in the first instance it's not what they're designed to do - in the second - each system has specific tactical requirements.

eg, if you tried to build an omni system that could match JORN, or NOSTRADAMUS or VERA in reach it would be enormously expensive - it could not be done effectively and efficiently.

if you want to however manage theatre space in an omniscient fashion - then planars are not the solution. they're aimed and steered for a reason.

again, at comparitive reach and effectiveness, an omni cannot compete against planars at a given output and range. It's why they exist in the first place.

I think there is some confusion as to technical need, tactical requirement and functionality.

 

[drandul]

eg, if you tried to build an omni system that could match JORN, or NOSTRADAMUS or VERA in reach it would be enormously expensive - it could not be done effectively and efficiently.

if you want to however manage theatre space in an omniscient fashion - then planars are not the solution. they're aimed and steered for a reason.

Exactly!- I see your point about energy efficiency and now I understand that you mean by "omnidirectional" - it's transmitter only. , but that particular radar have to have accuracy and efficiency much better than JORN or NOSTRADAMUS or VERA to achieve it's goals- and that is major concern. It is not just only EWR- that was declared. That is also "360" deg guiding radar.

 

[Feanor]

Here's another excellent article from MDB, this time on the Iskander system.

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/4-2008/item1/article1/

The article claims that the Iskander-K variant is planned for production starting next year, which would give the Rocket-Artillery forces a non-ballistic missile.

The R-500 cruise missile guidance system has an inertial unit, a GPS/GLONASS satellite navigation system, and a terminal guidance electro-optical correlation seeker with digital target area data or active radar seeker. Testing of the R-500 cruise missile was completed at Kapustin Yar in 2007, and it was announced that the missile would be passed into service as part of the Iskander system in 2009. The Iskander missile system with the R-500 cruise missile is designated Iskander-K. Six R-500 cruise missiles with vertical launch canisters can be installed in place of the two ballistic missiles on a standard 9P78 TEL vehicle.

How does this change the ability of the Patriot batteries that are planned for deployment in Poland to protect the GBI installations from a Russian missile strike if the 152nd Brigade in Kaliningrad receives the Iskander-K as well as Iskander-M in 2011?

 

[Viktor]

Yes .. I would question Patriots ability to detect low flying object as we have seen from first gulf war.

The article claims that the Iskander-K variant is planned for production starting next year, which would give the Rocket-Artillery forces a non-ballistic missile.

Althrow Iskander (original ) does not need to follow typical ballistic path.

 

[S400]

Yes .. I would question Patriots ability to detect low flying object as we have seen from first gulf war.





Althrow Iskander (original ) does not need to follow typical ballistic path.

First Gulf was was a long time ago. Detection/tracking now is not comparable to what it was nearly 20 years ago.

 

[Viktor]

First Gulf was was a long time ago. Detection/tracking now is not comparable to what it was nearly 20 years ago.

Than perhaps you can explain in what way did they improved low lvl detection?