hornetfinn wrote:Those are acquisition box accuracies, but that's not the same as the target search/acquisition box for the missile. That acquisition box is just measurement accucary in each detection but target search box for the missile is significantly larger. There are several reasons for this:
1. Data update interval is 5-20 seconds with those VHF and UHF radars. So the target data is always somewhat old when targets are not flying totally straight and level with constant speed.
That is a good point, thanks.
I was trying to find more details about the data update interval time, do you know why they are so long? I can understand this as a result of the antenna turning at 12 rpm (5 s min update time results), but when the radar is switched to sector scanning mode the beam could be kept on the acquired target for a shorter update interval couldn't it?
Using both high and low frequency radars helps if all those radars can detect and track the target. However if those high frequency radars are incapable of detecting and tracking the stealth target, then it doesn't really help much. Of course there is higher chance of detecting and tracking something when using multiple different sensors.
That seems at least the approach they are using and I guess anybody would do the same. Apart from the much improved detection conditions once the lower frequencies radars are cueing the higher frequencies ones, the idea apparently is also to play with the distribution of the different radars regarding the attack vectors, so that aspects suboptimal from RCS management point of view are exposed, allowing reduced detection distances. Inside an IADS this is possible even with relatively remote radars, so it is indeed many times more powerful than considering isolated batteries. Apart from that, increasing power of the arrays (500 kW peak for L-band Protivnik-GE) and improving their processing is a relatively accessible strategy to ensure better detection ranges.
Sure, AESA seekers will have big advantages when they become operational. Switching seeker on late is good when the target track data is of very high quality meaning the search box is small. If the search box is large, then the missile can easily get in situation where it can possibly detect and track the target but is too close to maneuver against it.
Sure, and low RCS gives a very small window to achieve a hit, that may be a good reason for mating low and high freq. radars, so that the missile is already in as good a path as possible when it activates the seeker.
Another AESA seeker that appeared some time ago, also with mechanical steering for increased FoV
That was good example how AD unit can avoid destruction and be somewhat effective in the process. Of course that was 20 years ago and SEAD technology and other air to ground systems and weapons have improved tremendously since then.
Sure things have changed quite a bit. The idea was only to illustrate that even when plans are carefully prepared and means more than enough for the mission, competent enemies can still make a big difference and that surprises happen, so IMHO better to keep triumphalism and 200% certainties far away from anything related to military planning, I really don't think that is the way true professionals work.
garrya wrote:Instrumented range of a radar system, is the maximum that the system will process and display.
Low frequency radars have long pulse width and very low PRF so their instrumentral range are always long
Yes, I was not making any detection range claim vs. a given RCS target, but just show the rough power / performance level of the radar. In general instrumentation limit has to make ultimately sense for the kind of performance of the equipment. Detection range of 650 km against 0.1 sqm RCS fits IMHO well with 1800 km instrumental range.
BTW, as update to the data I posted:
Nebo-SVU from Rossoboronexport
Target positioning accuracy:
range, m - 100
azimuth, ang.min. - 20
elevation (for angles exceeding 5 deg), deg - 1,5
(limitation in altitude accuracy forced by the reduced number of vertical elements, this parameter is much improved in other VHF radars but they are less mobile)
APA also produced some estimates for RLM-M VHF component of Nebo-M
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Nebo-SVU-Analysis.html