Old paper: Album of designs CKB "Almaz" 1947-1977 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Triode -> Old paper: Album of designs CKB "Almaz" 1947-1977 (4/18/2015 3:48:20 AM)

let me introduce to you " Album of designs CKB "Almaz" 1947-1977"

https://disk.yandex.ru/public/?hash=UUIwuhhbzmfLt98qooezwUrlhRexYTKQP%2BhnOGCiLDs%3D

Really good thing, all missile systems came from "Almaz" up to S-300P with all internal characteristics
(S-25,S-75,S-125,S-200,ABM system S-225,S-300P,S-200D),energy potential of radars of this systems,jamming protection value for this systems ( directly from internal papers of developers!),characteristics of cruise missiles
(AS-1/Kometa,AS-2/K-10,AS-3/K-20,AS-4/K-22/Kh-22,AS-16/Kh-15, SS-N-2 Styx/P-15) with range,speed,flight profile,carriers (10 Kh-15 on Tu-22M OMG!) etc.
Also LASER AAD system "Omega-2" (range 18 km) and airborn LASER programm "Dreif" (aka A-60 )

28 pages of pure gold, only one problem all this in russian

Few citation :

page 15
Characteristics of jamming protection for AAD systems

suppression by passive interference dB
S-25 16
S-75 20
S-125 30
S-200 70
S-300 48


suppression by active jamming with density W/MHz
S-25 2
S-75 10
S-125 100
S-200 400
S-300 500

So for P-19 (S-125) this is 100kW jammer directly above radar, for 5N69 (S-200) this is ~800kW jammer directly above radar, for 36D6 (S-300P) this is ~1500kW jammer directly above radar

also there is thing that helps big Radars to be more protected against jammers , this thing is phisics or more precisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

this thing weakens radar and jamming power with distance but ground based radars and AWACS generally speaking have more power, than tactical jamming systems (AN/ALQ-99 jammer has a maximum power output of 10.8 kW , 36D6 from S-300P 1.23 MW signal strength)

So all in all, I find in game situation when sinle F/A-18G Grouler fly above S-300 and jamm it completely unrealistic, this is work for heavy jamming systems not tactical, degradation characteristics of the signal at the far edge of detection field is whole separate and more complex topic


Also on page 28 there is characteristics for OKR "Dreif" (later rename in A-60)
[image]http://cdn.aviaforum.ru/images/2012/12/566589_aac44fbdb2119403c21208ba3c4c663d.jpg[/image]

So, early A-60 :
have radar and laser location station with range of detection/range of targeting 70/50 km
the time of continuous fire with laser system 50 sec
range of fire against aerdynamic targets 40 km
can destroy in one flight 4-25 targets ( so I guess this 50 sec = 25 shot)

Keep in mind this is info from 1977 , not current stats for this system [:)]










Dimitris -> RE: Old paper: Album of designs CKB "Almaz" 1947-1977 (4/18/2015 6:00:39 AM)

Thanks! Some interesting background on our known systems there.

Have a soft spot for S-225...



Dimitris -> RE: Old paper: Album of designs CKB "Almaz" 1947-1977 (4/18/2015 6:04:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Triode
So all in all, I find in game situation when sinle F/A-18G Grouler fly above S-300 and jamm it completely unrealistic, this is work for heavy jamming systems not tactical, degradation characteristics of the signal at the far edge of detection field is whole separate and more complex topic


It would be interesting to hear the side of an EW expert on this [:)]

AFAIK the inverse square-law favors the jammer in most cases, because the jamming signal only has to travel one-way (jammer to target emitter) whereas the genuine radar signal has to make a two-way trip. So in order to burn-through, the radar has to be orders of magnitude more powerful (or be really close to the target).



Triode -> RE: Old paper: Album of designs CKB "Almaz" 1947-1977 (4/18/2015 11:06:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn


It would be interesting to hear the side of an EW expert on this [:)]

AFAIK the inverse square-law favors the jammer in most cases, because the jamming signal only has to travel one-way (jammer to target emitter) whereas the genuine radar signal has to make a two-way trip. So in order to burn-through, the radar has to be orders of magnitude more powerful (or be really close to the target).



Well I stop to be expert in anything Anti-Air Defence related a long time ago,and even in those days I was not in the ranks of the best,

1." inverse square-law favors the jammer in most cases, because the jamming signal only has to travel one-way (jammer to target emitter) whereas the genuine radar signal has to make a two-way trip."

you right but this is not that simple, let as example look at three situation:

our radar illuminates target and reflected signal go to us , target switch on jamming station and try to jamm
our reflected signal (since we simulate this situation "in a vacuum" lets ignore modulation of the signal and other complicated things like ability of jamming station adjusted to this signal),

a) if reflected signal < jamming station station signal our radar is jammed
if we have ELINT station with us we can try to find source of jamm and fire our missiles, it will be good if our missiles have HOJ capabilitys or ARH head ,better both of course

b) if reflected signal = jamming station station signal (with something like ± 10%) we have flickering contact
since we have general direction to target we can now atempt to "burn-through" ,see the target and fire our missiles

c) if reflected signal > jamming station station signal we see the target clearly and fire our missiles

so as you can see it is not important how weak our signal returned to us ( of course if we still capable to detect it), what important is that reflected signal should be more powerful than jamming signal ( or have recognizable differences,polarisation etc,but as I said lets not go in detail)

power of reflected signal dependent from target RCS, so if we have jamming station on F/A-18 this is one thing ,if the same station installed on boeing 767 this is another story

2."So in order to burn-through, the radar has to be orders of magnitude more powerful (or be really close to the target)"

well I gave the example above AN/ALQ-99 ( 10.8 kW ) and 36D6 ( 1.23 MW signal strength)
and EA-18G with AN/ALQ-99 in game flying directly above 36D6 positions undetected is unrealistic




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625