Koral land-based EW system vs S-400

[SQ8]

Could a system such as Koral be made more 'compact' - i.e. small enough to easily truck around along with an armoured formation? I'm thinking, with its range it could be useful in messing up enemy SHORAD, thereby giving our own CAS assets (e.g. helicopters) some room to operate over enemy tanks. Though 100km is pretty good range, should offer enough of a buffer between it and a tank battle.

Depends on the compactness of the power system and electronics. Moreover, the bigger the aperture.. the better it catches the signals. The F-22 is possibly the best RWR system in the world because its entire body is essentially a RWR system.

KORAL effective range is 150KM
S-400 is 250KM to 400KM


while no plane or missile can get close to S-400 I would bet a Su-24/30/34 with KH-31P would get close enough to KORAL to destroy it

That is factually and scientifically impossible if the S-400 is on its own. As a standalone system the S-400 is pretty easy to kill due to basic geography and effects of it on electromagnetic waves by simply flying nap of the earth and killing it.. and it is these tactics of PAF pilots that prompted the Indians to add the Aerostat radars to monitor those below their surface radar coverage.

As part of a IADS however, it is a deadly system

 

[Quwa]

Depends on the compactness of the power system and electronics. Moreover, the bigger the aperture.. the better it catches the signals. The F-22 is possibly the best RWR system in the world because its entire body is essentially a RWR system.



That is factually and scientifically impossible if the S-400 is on its own. As a standalone system the S-400 is pretty easy to kill due to basic geography and effects of it on electromagnetic waves by simply flying nap of the earth and killing it.. and it is these tactics of PAF pilots that prompted the Indians to add the Aerostat radars to monitor those below their surface radar coverage.

As part of a IADS however, it is a deadly system

The Barak-derived short and medium-range systems are going to be a real pain in the butt for the PAF at low-altitude. Neutralizing the S-400 is more like deconstructing India's IADS, which is a strategic objective in its own right! How many assets can we realistically spare to address this when in reality we are going to be put up against the IAF's fighter fleet?

 

[SQ8]

The Barak-derived short and medium-range systems are going to be a real pain in the butt for the PAF at low-altitude. Neutralizing the S-400 is more like deconstructing India's IADS, which is a strategic objective in its own right! How many assets can be realistically spare to address this when in reality we are going to be put up against the IAF's fighter fleet?

It will depend upon the target and then the package to go with it. The Block-52s will need the least amount of support as their on board gizmos are pretty adept at keeping the S-400 at bay and to an extent the F-16AM/BM when carrying more than one ALQ-211 pod per package.

Its the JF-17s (in their current state), Mirages and F-7s that will have a bad time.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

The Koral is more like a fire radar locator than anything else. What it can do is pinpoint such systems for stand off systems or allow for such radar systems to be targeted by dedicated SEAD packages.

I think you're over simplifying Turkish capabilities. Off course Turkish folks are just scratching the surface, but the best minds are working on defense projects. After all science and mathematics don't change, and as you look harder into a problem with faith and sincerity the more ideas come to your mind. Since thesse projects are usually well funded with ample access of devices, hardware and software from the USA/Europe, it's easier to climb the learning curves by putting the ideas into practice. Moreover, R&D test beds are usually well built in line with NATO/USA standard. Manufacturing capabilities are enhanced with expensive purchases. Overall, the trend line has a positive slope with no dearth of top notch fresh grads with motivation. As for me, I backed off and moved to the USA...

 

[Quwa]

It will depend upon the target and then the package to go with it. The Block-52s will need the least amount of support as their on board gizmos are pretty adept at keeping the S-400 at bay and to an extent the F-16AM/BM when carrying more than one ALQ-211 pod per package.

Its the JF-17s (in their current state), Mirages and F-7s that will have a bad time.

Are there not any COTS ECM solutions for the JF-17? I know we played around with Indra's gear a while back (and Jane's even claims we integrated the Indra ECM solution onto Block-II). Could we not tap into Aselsan's expertise to develop a decent enough ECM kit?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Man why are you under the impression that "Pakistan was going to invade India and now it can't"? Pakistani defense posture has always been "DEFENSIVE". With India Acquiring S-400, Pakistan now has a reason to acquire/build it's own long range SAM's and they will pose similar threats to India----If you doubt that Pakistan wouldn't do this then you really don't know Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

I think you're over simplifying Turkish capabilities. .

Not at all, I am only simplifying the Koral.

Are there not any COTS ECM solutions for the JF-17? I know we played around with Indra's gear a while back (and Jane's even claims we integrated the Indra ECM solution onto Block-II). Could we not tap into Aselsan's expertise to develop a decent enough ECM kit?

Aselsan is getting good and they know it. Which is why they charge money which we dont have.

 

[Quwa]

Not at all, I am only simplifying the Koral.



Aselsan is getting good and they know it. Which is why they charge money which we dont have.

What margin of additional availability would we need in order to get to Aselsan? 20% above what we have now? 30%? Money is such a depressing conversation.

 

[Djinn]

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Not at all, I am only simplifying the Koral.



Aselsan is getting good and they know it. Which is why they charge money which we dont have.

What margin of additional availability would we need in order to get to Aselsan? 20% above what we have now? 30%? Money is such a depressing conversation.

You're right. I think money shouldn't be an issue, specially in the matter of defense, b/w Pak and Turkey.

 

[NKVD]

Russian BS


In the end they are using electromagnetic spectrum, or have the russian outher space technology? VHF band are used to detect stealth fighters, but they are not so accurate and they are using big mast as you can see in the picture. And it is not AESA radar first of all, wher are the thousand transmitters? Thats why russians are making it a legend with a lot of bs.

Every radar system in the world is open to be jammed.

Its expected for PDF fanboys to jump the gun
Did you read My post thoroughly VHF Frequency Band Used By Soviets Since Late 80's in 2D Radars Now it will Be used is 3D AESA Radar
The fact that some stealth configurations may be much less effective against very-high-frequency (VHF) radars than against higher-frequency systems is a matter of electromagnetic physics. A declassified 1985 CIA report correctly predicted that the Soviet Union’s first major counterstealth effort would be to develop new VHF radars that would reduce the disadvantages of long wavelengths: lack of mobility, poor resolution and susceptibility to clutter. Despite the breakup of the Soviet Union, the 55Zh6UE Nebo-U, designed by the Nizhny-Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT), entered service in the 1990s as the first three-dimensional Russian VHF radar. NNIRT subsequently prototyped the first VHF active electronically scanned array (AESA) systems.

VHF AESA technology has entered production as part of the 55Zh6M Nebo-M multiband radar complex, which passed State tests in 2011 and is in production for Russian air defense forces against a 100-system order. The Nebo-M includes three truck-mounted radar systems, all of them -AESAs: the VHF RLM-M, the RLM-D in L-band (UHF) and the S/X-band RLM-S. (Russian documentation describes them as metric, decimetric and centimetric—that is, each differs from the next by an order of magnitude in frequency.) Each of the radars is equipped with the Orientir location system, comprising three Glonass satellite navigation receivers on a fixed frame, and they are connected via wireless or cable datalink to a ground control vehicle.

One of the classic drawbacks of VHF is slow scan rate. But With the RLM-M, electronic scanning is superimposed on mechanical scanning. The radar can scan a 120-deg. sector mechanically, maintaining continuous track through all but the outer 15-deg. sectors. Within the scan area, the scan is virtually instantaneous, allowing energy to be focused on any possible target. It retains the basic advantages of VHF: NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.

The principle behind Nebo-M is the fusion of data from the three radars to create a robust kill chain. The VHF system performs initial detection and cues the UHF radar, which in turn can cue the X-band RLM-S. The Orientir system provides accurate azimuth data (which Glonass/GPS on its own does not support), and makes it possible for the three signals to be combined into a single target picture.

1. Russians are Using three Different Types Band Of AESA,Unlike Chinese Who Still Make Claims But have Nothing to Show,But the Russians Always Opened To Scrutiny 1L119 Nebo SVU 3D AESA radar.the new Nebo SVU AESA is an improved new technology derivative of the baseline 1L13 Nebo SV / Box Spring series of VHF radars. It has an array of 84 (14 x 6) vertically polarised VHF Yagis, unlike the 72 elements in the 1L13, each with a 3/8 folded dipole and director element. Unlike the 1L13 carried by a Ural 4320 6x6 truck, the larger Nebo SV is a semi-trailer arrangement towed by a Ural 4320 tractor.
2. The fully digital Nebo SVU is a solid state VHF band surveillance radar intended for the detection of airborne and ballistic targets. These include tactical and bomber aircraft, and low altitude and stealth aircraft targets. Capabilities include an integrated IFF array and the ability to track airborne noise jammers. Key features include:
   1. Active phased array antenna (AESA) design with a Transmit Receive Modules integrated with each of the antenna elements, analogue-to-digital conversion of each channel, with the option of digital beamforming in the vertical plane for ABM operating modes.
   2. Fully digital signal processing.
   3. Adaptive automatic operation to handle countermeasures and antenna element failures.
   4. Digital processing designed to handle adverse weather and intensive chaff bombing.
   5. Adaptive sidelobe cancellation.
   6. Heightfinding capability.
      
   7. Very high 500 hour MTBF compared to legacy VHF radars, as a result of the AESA technology used.
   A key consideration when assessing the Nebo SVU is its greater mobility compared to other VHF radars. The Ural 4320 towed trailer arrangement has similar cross country and road mobility to the KrAZ-260 towed variants of the S-300PMU/S-400 TEL. More importantly, the ~20 minute deployment and stow times are much improved over earlier VHF radars in this class, more than twofold compared to the P-18 Spoon Rest or Nebo SV, and threefold over the legacy S-300PMU acquisition radar, the 36D6 Tin Shield. Currently the most mobile Russian acquisition radar is the 64N6E/91N6E series ESA, towed by a MAZ-543 derived tractor, and capable of "shoot and scoot" operations with times of minutes.
   
3. 

2. 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-DE L-Band Radar System

the Nebo M RLM-DE L-Band component is also largely consistent with earlier disclosures, although this is the first image showing the antenna frame fully populated with TR-modules and radiating elements. The general arrangement is similar to the Thales Groundmaster GM-400 series and Gamma S1E AESA designs, with TR-module enclosures mounted on the rear face of the antenna frame.

Radiating elements are arranged in quad blocks, with four dipoles per block. There are 38 columns and 48 rows of elements, for a total of 1824 elements, with a 4:5 aspect ratio slightly favouring heightfinding performance. This number of elements would allow for very low sidelobe performance should a suitable taper function be employed.

The antenna folds in a manner similar to the 64N6E PESA, with outer segments hinged along vertical lines, the whole assembly stowing horizontally under a pair of clamshell doors.

3. 59N6E Protivnik GE 3D Surveillance Radar

A self propelled reduced aperture solid state AESA variant of the Protivnik GE has been developed as part of the new NNIIRT Nebo M Mobile Multiband Radar System, it is claimed to be equipped with a more advanced hydraulic stow/deploy mechanism intended to emulate the "shoot and scoot" capabilities of the 64N6E/91N6E series. Significantly, this new variant is an AESA design and will therefore provide agile beam steering and tracking capabilities absent in the original Protivnik GE, bringing it up to the technological standard and reliability of the competing VNIIRT Gamma DE series.

4. 96L6E 3D Acquisition Radar

Gamma S1/S1E on the BAZ-64022 chassis, the RLM-S X/S Band AESA will be a similar configuration (Said Aminov Vestnik-PVO).

the Nebo-M system is clearly designed to hunt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The VHF-Band component of the system provides sector search and track functions, with the X-Band and L-Band components providing a fine track capability. By good placement of the radars relative to the threat axis, the L-Band and X-Band components illuminate the incoming target from angles where the target RCS is suboptimal. Attempts to jam the Nebo-M will be problematic, since all of these radars have a passive angle track capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits passive triangulation of the target using three angle track outputs. The RLM-S and RLM-D have better elevation tracking accuracy than the RLM-M, and therefore the Nebo M should be capable of producing high quality tracks suitable for midcourse guidance of modern SAMs and full trajectory guidance of legacy SAMs.

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin your valubale input will be highly appreciated

First of all, an EW system's primary role would be to detect and identify radar emissions, and locate their source (ESM). Suitable 'hard' countermeasures may then be initiated if need be, including air strike, long range artillery rocket, conventional artillery etc. (This is assuming, of course, ground based radar emittors are the target. These may include artillery locating radar, air defence radar, ground surveillance radar etc. Target emittors may however also be airborne e.g. active radar homing missiles, missiles equipped with a radar altimeter, aircraft using their radar, which would of course lead to different hard kill measures). Alternatively, jamming would be a 'soft' countermeasure. And one can imagine the range of different systems (and bands).

I wonder why it is assumed here that a jammer would be used to deal with S-400 but if so, what would/could the jammer be jamming? Surveillance radar (91N6E)? Engagement radar (92N6E) and/or 96L6E/96L6E2 all altitude acquisition radar (40N6, 48N6E2, and 48N6DM/48N6E3 missiles are semi-active radar homing missiles)? Missile emissions (9M96 / 9M96E and 9M96E2 are active radar homing)? Radio communications / data linking between units? Communications / data exchange with A-50/A-50U AEW aircraft?

While 91N6E is claimed to have protection against jamming, that doesn't necessarily mean it is immune, or that other S-400 system components are so protected. Of course, jamming interferece only with the actively emitting elements of the system. Any passive elements would remain unaffected.

S-400 Uses Nebo -M AESA in VHF

A variety of other systems may be hooked in, including older S-300 and S-200 substysems. That doesn't means they are considered part of the S-400. Clearly jamming could degrade (aspects of) the S-400 system. Jamming using a ground based jammer would not be the only thing used agains an s-400 system. There are a variety of airborne jammers, decoys etc. that would be employed.

The communication/data exchange element that is essential to network may be targeted, making 'triangulation' more difficult if not impossible.

 

[C130]

Its expected for PDF fanboys to jump the gun
Did you read My post thoroughly VHF Frequency Band Used By Soviets Since Late 80's in 2D Radars Now it will Be used is 3D AESA Radar
The fact that some stealth configurations may be much less effective against very-high-frequency (VHF) radars than against higher-frequency systems is a matter of electromagnetic physics. A declassified 1985 CIA report correctly predicted that the Soviet Union’s first major counterstealth effort would be to develop new VHF radars that would reduce the disadvantages of long wavelengths: lack of mobility, poor resolution and susceptibility to clutter. Despite the breakup of the Soviet Union, the 55Zh6UE Nebo-U, designed by the Nizhny-Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT), entered service in the 1990s as the first three-dimensional Russian VHF radar. NNIRT subsequently prototyped the first VHF active electronically scanned array (AESA) systems.

VHF AESA technology has entered production as part of the 55Zh6M Nebo-M multiband radar complex, which passed State tests in 2011 and is in production for Russian air defense forces against a 100-system order. The Nebo-M includes three truck-mounted radar systems, all of them -AESAs: the VHF RLM-M, the RLM-D in L-band (UHF) and the S/X-band RLM-S. (Russian documentation describes them as metric, decimetric and centimetric—that is, each differs from the next by an order of magnitude in frequency.) Each of the radars is equipped with the Orientir location system, comprising three Glonass satellite navigation receivers on a fixed frame, and they are connected via wireless or cable datalink to a ground control vehicle.

One of the classic drawbacks of VHF is slow scan rate. But With the RLM-M, electronic scanning is superimposed on mechanical scanning. The radar can scan a 120-deg. sector mechanically, maintaining continuous track through all but the outer 15-deg. sectors. Within the scan area, the scan is virtually instantaneous, allowing energy to be focused on any possible target. It retains the basic advantages of VHF: NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.

The principle behind Nebo-M is the fusion of data from the three radars to create a robust kill chain. The VHF system performs initial detection and cues the UHF radar, which in turn can cue the X-band RLM-S. The Orientir system provides accurate azimuth data (which Glonass/GPS on its own does not support), and makes it possible for the three signals to be combined into a single target picture.

1. Russians are Using three Different Types Band Of AESA,Unlike Chinese Who Still Make Claims But have Nothing to Show,But the Russians Always Opened To Scrutiny 1L119 Nebo SVU 3D AESA radar.the new Nebo SVU AESA is an improved new technology derivative of the baseline 1L13 Nebo SV / Box Spring series of VHF radars. It has an array of 84 (14 x 6) vertically polarised VHF Yagis, unlike the 72 elements in the 1L13, each with a 3/8 folded dipole and director element. Unlike the 1L13 carried by a Ural 4320 6x6 truck, the larger Nebo SV is a semi-trailer arrangement towed by a Ural 4320 tractor.
2. The fully digital Nebo SVU is a solid state VHF band surveillance radar intended for the detection of airborne and ballistic targets. These include tactical and bomber aircraft, and low altitude and stealth aircraft targets. Capabilities include an integrated IFF array and the ability to track airborne noise jammers. Key features include:
   1. Active phased array antenna (AESA) design with a Transmit Receive Modules integrated with each of the antenna elements, analogue-to-digital conversion of each channel, with the option of digital beamforming in the vertical plane for ABM operating modes.
   2. Fully digital signal processing.
   3. Adaptive automatic operation to handle countermeasures and antenna element failures.
   4. Digital processing designed to handle adverse weather and intensive chaff bombing.
   5. Adaptive sidelobe cancellation.
   6. Heightfinding capability.
      
   7. Very high 500 hour MTBF compared to legacy VHF radars, as a result of the AESA technology used.
   A key consideration when assessing the Nebo SVU is its greater mobility compared to other VHF radars. The Ural 4320 towed trailer arrangement has similar cross country and road mobility to the KrAZ-260 towed variants of the S-300PMU/S-400 TEL. More importantly, the ~20 minute deployment and stow times are much improved over earlier VHF radars in this class, more than twofold compared to the P-18 Spoon Rest or Nebo SV, and threefold over the legacy S-300PMU acquisition radar, the 36D6 Tin Shield. Currently the most mobile Russian acquisition radar is the 64N6E/91N6E series ESA, towed by a MAZ-543 derived tractor, and capable of "shoot and scoot" operations with times of minutes.
   
3. 

2. 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-DE L-Band Radar System

the Nebo M RLM-DE L-Band component is also largely consistent with earlier disclosures, although this is the first image showing the antenna frame fully populated with TR-modules and radiating elements. The general arrangement is similar to the Thales Groundmaster GM-400 series and Gamma S1E AESA designs, with TR-module enclosures mounted on the rear face of the antenna frame.

Radiating elements are arranged in quad blocks, with four dipoles per block. There are 38 columns and 48 rows of elements, for a total of 1824 elements, with a 4:5 aspect ratio slightly favouring heightfinding performance. This number of elements would allow for very low sidelobe performance should a suitable taper function be employed.

The antenna folds in a manner similar to the 64N6E PESA, with outer segments hinged along vertical lines, the whole assembly stowing horizontally under a pair of clamshell doors.

3. 59N6E Protivnik GE 3D Surveillance Radar

A self propelled reduced aperture solid state AESA variant of the Protivnik GE has been developed as part of the new NNIIRT Nebo M Mobile Multiband Radar System, it is claimed to be equipped with a more advanced hydraulic stow/deploy mechanism intended to emulate the "shoot and scoot" capabilities of the 64N6E/91N6E series. Significantly, this new variant is an AESA design and will therefore provide agile beam steering and tracking capabilities absent in the original Protivnik GE, bringing it up to the technological standard and reliability of the competing VNIIRT Gamma DE series.

4. 96L6E 3D Acquisition Radar

Gamma S1/S1E on the BAZ-64022 chassis, the RLM-S X/S Band AESA will be a similar configuration (Said Aminov Vestnik-PVO).

the Nebo-M system is clearly designed to hunt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The VHF-Band component of the system provides sector search and track functions, with the X-Band and L-Band components providing a fine track capability. By good placement of the radars relative to the threat axis, the L-Band and X-Band components illuminate the incoming target from angles where the target RCS is suboptimal. Attempts to jam the Nebo-M will be problematic, since all of these radars have a passive angle track capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits passive triangulation of the target using three angle track outputs. The RLM-S and RLM-D have better elevation tracking accuracy than the RLM-M, and therefore the Nebo M should be capable of producing high quality tracks suitable for midcourse guidance of modern SAMs and full trajectory guidance of legacy SAMs.

problem I see with VHF is how large the antenna is and the amount of radiation it's putting out. wouldn't be hard to locate and terminate.

 

[NKVD]

problem I see with VHF is how large the antenna is and the amount of radiation it's putting out. wouldn't be hard to locate and terminate.

Well you See S-400 Network Uses VHF Just For Early Detection and cues the RLM-D in L-band (UHF) radar, which in turn can cue the S/X-band RLM-S

Attempts to jam the Nebo-M will be problematic, since all of these radars have a passive angle track capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits passive triangulation of the target using three angle track outputs. The RLM-S and RLM-D have better elevation tracking accuracy than the RLM-M, and therefore the Nebo M should be capable of producing high quality tracks suitable for midcourse guidance of modern SAMs and full trajectory guidance of legacy SAMs.



Only Way is Targeting the Command And Control of Network That Is Different Ball game

1. PS: India Uses Various AESA Including Elta Swordfish, 3D Multi Function Control AESA Radar,Including are Own Chain of UHF & H/S Band AESA's that will Used As Contemprory With Such Strategic Systems.
2. India Is Developing Three Tier Air Defense Coverage

 

[Oublious]

Well you See S-400 Network Uses VHF Just For Early Detection and cues the RLM-D in L-band (UHF) radar, which in turn can cue the S/X-band RLM-S

Attempts to jam the Nebo-M will be problematic, since all of these radars have a passive angle track capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits passive triangulation of the target using three angle track outputs. The RLM-S and RLM-D have better elevation tracking accuracy than the RLM-M, and therefore the Nebo M should be capable of producing high quality tracks suitable for midcourse guidance of modern SAMs and full trajectory guidance of legacy SAMs.



Only Way is Targeting the Command And Control of Network That Is Different Ball game

1. PS: India Uses Various AESA Including Elta Swordfish, 3D Multi Function Control AESA Radar,Including are Own Chain of UHF & H/S Band AESA's that will Used As Contemprory With Such Strategic Systems.
2. India Is Developing Three Tier Air Defense Coverage

Easy way to shoot a anti radiaton missiles.