Jump to content
tanknet.org

Lockheed's New "falcon" Air Defense System


Recommended Posts

According to Jane's:

 

A medium-range variant of the IRIS-T-SL short-range imaging IR-guided SAM - itself a derivative of the IRIS-T air-to-air missile - the IRIS-T-SLM interceptor is an all-weather, IR terminal homing effector. The interceptor is equipped with data link that transmits target information from the ground radar to the missile, and a high-explosive fragmentation warhead with an impact/active radar proximity fuze detonation system.

 

So, possibly a larger (or modified grain) motor?

Edited by Dawes
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about modern ground to air systems, so could someone just explain 1/ Do all modern systems comprise of multiple parts(vehicles) 2/ If you take out one of the parts does it make the rest redundant? I'm assuming that each vehicle has a different radar type and perhaps one that just analyse and durect. Bit dim sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about modern ground to air systems, so could someone just explain 1/ Do all modern systems comprise of multiple parts(vehicles) 2/ If you take out one of the parts does it make the rest redundant? I'm assuming that each vehicle has a different radar type and perhaps one that just analyse and durect. Bit dim sorry

 

It depends.

 

Shorter range systems have it all on the one vehicle/platform - examples, Pantsir, 2S6, Stormer-Starstreak, Roland, Crotale etc.

 

Longer range systems tend to have a separate search radar from the launcher vehicles and in older systems, separate illuminators and possibly a height finder too, but there are hybrids where the individual vehicle may have an illuminator radar and can engage autonomously to a limited extent itself.

 

However, there is now a trend toward sensor agnostic systems where the launcher is networked, not necessarily to a dedicated local air search/track radar, but also to a network so that any asset (ground air search radar, ship, AWACS, fighter etc.) can provide the necessary targeting. One example of this is the UK's CAMM-L / Land-cepter (cringe!) system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, that's excellent thank you. Having looked at the Russian systems some of them seem to have 6+ sub-systems. If one falls down does the whole system fall. Although thinking about it if the network part failed if assume that the units dedicated radar would still work. If they use them in a battery, that is a lot of vehicles to hide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, that's excellent thank you. Having looked at the Russian systems some of them seem to have 6+ sub-systems. If one falls down does the whole system fall. Although thinking about it if the network part failed if assume that the units dedicated radar would still work. If they use them in a battery, that is a lot of vehicles to hide.

Usually systems have some level of efficiency even with crippled set, esp russian ones. For example Tor have everything it needs on each vehicle, so killing one will proportionally lower efficiency, but will not stop operating. Buk-M2/3 have two radars in set, one for main search and FCS solution and second for low alt interception, both can work as main FCS feed, plus simpler radar on each vehicle providing poorer but still ecxstant standalone performance(this smol radar is there on any Buk since basic version).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gargean thank you as well

Edited by Ifor
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

MH17 said to be downed by a standalone, limited range, limited capabilities radar-equipped Buk TEL, without help from a dedicated radar.

True, but it wasn't exactly a challenging target :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Radar tech is part of the problem. Guidance is another.

You need to search for targets.
You need to track targets.
You need to guide the missile.
You need to defeat Jamming.

Hawk in one of it's phases had this configuration.

HAWK_MIM-23_launcher_unit_LCHR_M-192_low

The HIPAR's illuminate the target and bounced radar energy off of it which is what guided the missile to the target. Each target needed to have a HIPAR focused on it. The CW and Pulse search radars were used to find targets. The difference in modes is for defeating Jamming methods. I have in my back yard an AN/MPQ 51 Range only radar set that was part of the earlier Hawk system. That was introduced I think to augment the earlier CW search radar allowing for a pulse based range only scan of the target to defeat a number of jamming or deception modes that aggressor aircraft can have (Range Gate Stealing if I recall correctly).

Like this:



Electronically steered radars give you the ability to nest functions within the same emitter, but I think you have a limitation on how much of an arc you can adequately scan with the phased planar Antennas. The AEGIS system on the Burkes and Ticos works like this in that the 4 phased antennas can search and track and data link with the outbound missiles by splitting some of their energy from the hundreds (or is it thousands) of small electrically steered antennas on the planar antenna array.

image1311.gif


In general, the nature of the networked information on threats, depending on if you do it by way of wireless or wired (fiber) connections means that you can get information from other emitters or even airborne emitters in order to get necessary sensor take to shoot at targets without your own local emitters searching for them. Depending on the type of guidance, you'll need to emit something so as to guide the missile towards the moving target, even if it's a lower power data link aimed with a precise directional antenna. Getting down link from the missile when it goes pitbull (active) would be an added data set for your networked information.

The key thing being able to use more advanced computers to take all the various information sources, collate the data and make it coherent for operators to manage. More advanced signal processing makes this more possible and more reasonable to do in real time.


As tech gets more advanced, look for the missiles themselves to be able to get the data take direct from an AWACS for example and even shift targets if they're flying towards a group of foes and be controlled. If that's not already happening that is...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

S-300/400 can still operate if the acquisition radar is jammed or destroyed, as the engagement radar has some search capability, or in the best case there is networking with a higher lever search radar that can locate targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

If you run your radar station in isolation from other networked points that might inform you "hey, that bird you're about to shoot is friendly....you might want to hold off." There are situations where a low observable aircraft MIGHT not want to transmit a ping when you get pinged by radar. Because that indicates where you are.

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...