WIERD SA-10 BEHAVIOUR
-
Check out Sam simulator to get an idea of what it’s like operating one of these analog systems.
-
Is a yellow emitting target more difficult to be tracked by a HARM compared to a red aquiring or flashing red shooting target?
Or is it that its all the same to the HARM as long as the target is emitting?
-
Is a yellow emitting target more difficult to be tracked by a HARM compared to a red aquiring or flashing red shooting target?
Or is it that its all the same to the HARM as long as the target is emitting?
Forget about that. HTS/HAD is not something working like IRL. HTS/HAD in BMS is a sort super RWR, implementation is wrong.
-
However, is a shooting radar more easy to be tracked than a emitting radar?
-
However, is a shooting radar more easy to be tracked than a emitting radar?
I do not think so. It would not make sense. But IRL, it entirely depends on intel, libraries … frequencies, HARM sensor sensibility in different bands.
-
However, is a shooting radar more easy to be tracked than a emitting radar?
I do not even understand the meaning and difference between the “shooting radar” and “emitting radar”. Every radar emits radio waves.
-
The shooting radar is a radar that is guiding a missile towards you. A emitting radar is a radar that is emitting but not guiding anything.
-
The shooting radar is a radar that is guiding a missile towards you. A emitting radar is a radar that is emitting but not guiding anything.
In this case pls. use the following terms.
Target acquisition radar for ex.
P-18 for the SA-2E Volkhov-M (S-75M)
Bird 5N64K RLO (Big Bird)for S-300PT (SA-10A)Low level target acquisition for ex.
5N66 NVO (Clam Shell) for S-300PT (SA-10A)
HPIR (High Power Illuminator Doppler Radar) for the HAWK
(both are Continuous Wave radars)Fire control radar like for ex.
SNR-75E (Fan Song) for S-75M (SA-2E)
5N63 RPN (Flap Lid) for S-300PT (SA-10A)For latest SAMs your terms is simply cannot be interpreted because a single radar is used for both target acquisition and fire control for ARH guided missiles. These systems are for ex. NASAMS, SAMP/T or the Russian S-350 Vityaz.
You can read about SAMs here
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?32545-This-is-what-I-worked-in-the-last-2-3-years -
The shooting radar is a radar that is guiding a missile towards you. A emitting radar is a radar that is emitting but not guiding anything.
… a “shooting” radar (Fire Control Radar) is emitting also.
EDIT: May I suggest you : Electronic Warfare Fundamentals Wonderful easy reading document.
-
However, is a shooting radar more easy to be tracked than a emitting radar?
Every RADAR emits waves.
A search radar is usually easier to detect than a shooting radar (in real life) because:
1. Range: search radar can reach hundreds of miles with ease.
A shooting radar usually ranges in the tens, because of the high energy it uses.
2. Beam size: search radar’s beam is usually wide vertically and horizontally (up/ down and sideways) while the shooting radar is much more narrower (usually only several degrees).
Now…there are many kinds of radar and radar technology and then there’s also phased array radar which is a whole different ball game…but that’s the very simplified explanation.
As for BMS…I do not know if it’s the same as in RL but it should be… -
1. Range: search radar can reach hundreds of miles with ease.
But not only because of their power. The classical Soviet targ. aq./EW radars used dm or m wavelength while fire control radars are cm radars.
2. Beam size: search radar’s beam is usually wide vertically and horizontally (up/ down and sideways) while the shooting radar is much more narrower (usually only several degrees).
Not in every cases. In the age of P-12/P-18 in elevation the beam was wide.
The P-12/18 radars used Yagi type antennas. An average Yagi antenna emits 50x90 degree lobe. The P-18 antenna was build up from 8x2 Yagi elements which means in azimuth the lobe arc was 50/8 = 6.2 degrees,
in elevation 90/2 = 45 degrees, therefore emitted lobe was 6.2x45 degrees. This is the reason why could scan large airspace the P-18 but was impossible to measure target altitude.But for ex. Big Bird or ST-68U and every more advanced targ. aq. radar uses ESA for elevation scanning and antenna is rotated mechanically for azimuth scan. These radars using not so wide beam.
-
I think you guys misunderstood what I meant. By shooting and emitting radar, I refer to different states of the same radar.
For instance, when the FCR was not guiding any missiles, would it be more difficult to detect compared to it guiding a missile? I thought there could be such a possibility if there are changes to the radar’s intensity and refresh rate when it is guiding a missile compared to it not doing so. Or is it that there is no meaningful difference for the HARM?
-
I think you guys misunderstood what I meant. By shooting and emitting radar, I refer to different states of the same radar.
For instance, when the FCR was not guiding any missiles, would it be more difficult to detect compared to it guiding a missile? I thought there could be such a possibility if there are changes to the radar’s intensity and refresh rate when it is guiding a missile compared to it not doing so. Or is it that there is no meaningful difference for the HARM?
With regular radar technology a “shooting” radar is just that.
It is active mainly when locked on target and till the end of the interception.
With phased array technology, which I think the HARMs can’t detect, the radar emits all the time randomly till it finds something and then targets its emission towards it.But…l think you better read some about SA technology through the link given to you above…
It will help you find and understand different tactics that can be used and which are more useful against different kinds of SA. -
With phased array technology, which I think the HARMs can’t detect, the radar emits all the time randomly till it finds something and then targets its emission towards it.
- Your assumption is wrong. The first phased array fire control radar reached IOC in 1978 (S-300PT) and since is used the HARM and other ARMs either. In fact today every advanced fire control or multi-functional radars (Sentinel for NASAMS, radar of the Vityaz, etc) using ESA for elevation scan and ARMs are still used. Fire control radars of every advanced SAM is today PESA or AESA and ARMs are still widely used and more advanced are in development such as AARGM.
- Just because you can form and emit very quickly lobes with totally free azimuth and elevation parameters it does not mean they cannot be detected because every lobe has sidelobe and backlobe.
- None one of radars emits randomly because you do not waste resources and put yourself in danger just emitting randomly. Fire control radars scan around the detected and tracked target to keep the track and detect ARM launches or in case of emergency it can do sector scan. Pls. read the linked material about the S-300 family what I made. I have posted the link.
- During the whole Allied Force was assumed that Seriba maybe received the S-300PMU1 and Tor-M1s. If you check operations of AF you can see every time if was possible two F-16 SEAD flight approached a detected SAM site with about 110 degree direction offset. Why? Because as long as one of the flight was tracked even by an S-300PMU1 the other was outside of the scan zone of the fire control radar (pls. forget the dumb shooting radar term). With HTS pod much more detection and range estimation is possible with only HARM in HAS (HARM As Sensor) mode. With this AGM-88 can be sent close to the location of the radar and from close it can lock on sidelobe of the radar.
- A Hornet launched a HARM against a Bulgarian S-300PMU which was enough dumb to use their fire control radar tracking the events of of AF. The S-300PMU was above a top of a hill, After the FCR was shut down the missile flew above the hill and splashed on a house behind the hill. It is quite a good example how far can glide the AGM-88 in case of high alt launch. Because radars are static targets the engagement range with same size is much higher comparing to an AAM vs fighter. Following the HARM launch F-18 performed a beaming turn.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/30/richardnortontaylor.kateconnolly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/331127.stm
Hpasp created (the creator of the SAM simulator) this image about the event based on released material and with GE.
But…l think you better read some about SA technology through the link given to you above…
I also recommend to ask and read a lot considering how inaccurate is your post by any measure.
-
-
I also recommend to ask and read a lot considering how inaccurate is your post by any measure.
I’ll try to read it just after I forget all the actual professional system manuals and not internet links.
Now, if you wish to show you’re smart it’s your own business and psychological problem.
If you wish to help the OP then please do with educating that person (and not by preaching others…).And…oops…someone forgot something so it seems… “The trick to education is to teach in such a way when people only find out they are learning when it’s too late.”
-
-
I’ll try to read it just after I forget all the actual professional system manuals and not internet links.
Now, if you wish to show you’re smart it’s your own business and psychological problem.
If you wish to help the OP then please do with educating that person (and not by preaching others…).And…oops…someone forgot something so it seems… “The trick to education is to teach in such a way when people only find out they are learning when it’s too late.”
About 40 years are phased array radars and ARMs still in service. How could you get such conclusion that ARMs cannot detect them…?
Why would have anti-ARM capability of the S-300, Tor-M1, Patriot, etc. if they are immune by ARMs…? -
About 40 years are phased array radars and ARMs still in service. How could you get such conclusion that ARMs cannot detect them…?
Why would have anti-ARM capability of the S-300, Tor-M1, Patriot, etc. if they are immune by ARMs…?My wording regarding HARM is very specific and intended as such: “which I think the HARMs can’t detect”.
It means I do not know as a matter of fact but I think so (which might also be wrong).
I love to learn what I do not know for for me it’s a joy to enrich my own knowledge or to help others with what I do know, written in a very simplified manner when and if needed. -
No, sometimes they stop shooting but their FCRs remain on…
Isn’t that counter-productive?
tactics upgraded in 3 to 4 weeks
-
So it is something that can be improved then?:D
I’m glad to see this SAM behaviour improving. Baiting the SAMs on is going to be more challenging then before!
-
So it is something that can be improved then?:D
I’m glad to see this SAM behaviour improving. Baiting the SAMs on is going to be more challenging then before!
everything can be improved
the only question is
- does it worth it ?
- who has the knowledge to do it ?
- who has the tiem t do it ?
- who wants to do it ?