Stingers vs Bombs

[major_sam47]

Originally posted by mysterious@Jan 18 2006, 06:00 AM
AWACs can't have a scaled down version for UAV. Its just impossible. AWACs is not just a radar, but also a war room for planning, detecting, and sending out information. Even if a UAV can have strong radar to detect multiple targets, how is the data going to respond to the ground base. In AWAC it is all about time and how fast they provide information to the friendly aircraft about the incoming enemy's aircraft. If the information to provide is slow, there will be no purpose that AWAC will serve. Besides i dont think UAV will have enough strong radar to act as a AWAC maybe mini AWAC but that too is really advanced.

Currently the Su-30MKI has a mini AWAC supported by BARS and other western tech, while performing long range missions, and getting edge in the warfare.

[post=5456]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes I see what you're saying. The funny thing is cruise missiles, even stealth, aren't invisible and they should be detectable by visual means at the very least. Why couldn't a small UAV be developed to visually detect a cruise missile within a 40-50 km radius ? I have a hard time believing that something as big as an AWAC is what is needed, or even a mini-AWAC, if we're talking about defending a specific target, versus an entire airspace. Once the UAV is able to visually discriminate the cruise missile coming in to the specific ground target, a MANPAD on the ground could get the data and be fired from the to intercept it.

Also, what do you say about visual radar. I know there are different types of radar like active, semi-active, passive, IR, contrast, but in the end visual should have the highest chance of success over a smaller radius, wouldn't you say ? The only thing that could disrupt it is weather I would guess. THe UAV would just need to see it and discern it at the edge of its range, and immediately transmit to a MANPAD standing by. This would be to protect a specific ground target.

WS,

major_sam47

 

[Zeeshan S.]

Visual means lol thats true, but it also depends on what kind of position your on. I totally agree on you regarding the UAV detecting it some where around 40-50 km, and then sending the data to MANPAD on the ground.

For saving a specific ground target. Well it should be easier as long as it is not really BIG, like for example a house. For protecting a tower i guess it will work, actually you know what, i can't really tell unless i know what kind of position you want to gaurd, its really confusing when you dont have any idea what do we need to protect or your mission is. You know what i mean. :wink:

 

[major_sam47]

Originally posted by mysterious@Jan 19 2006, 04:04 AM
Visual means lol thats true, but it also depends on what kind of position your on. I totally agree on you regarding the UAV detecting it some where around 40-50 km, and then sending the data to MANPAD on the ground.

For saving a specific ground target. Well it should be easier as long as it is not really BIG, like for example a house. For protecting a tower i guess it will work, actually you know what, i can't really tell unless i know what kind of position you want to gaurd, its really confusing when you dont have any idea what do we need to protect or your mission is. You know what i mean. :wink:

[post=5494]Quoted post[/post]​

Hmm...I was thinking something the size of a large school. Was also going to propose having 2 - 3 MANPAD missiles available for firing at one cruise missile. These MANPAD missiles would need to move at Mach 4 (like the Thales Starstreak - can Anza be re-engineered ?). Several two person MANPAD units would be deployed around the defended target at different points.

One cruise missile might be USD 1 million, where as a MANPAD missile, maybe USD 40,000 or more - but considerably less I would imagine.

A 40-50 km visual radar range was just a number I started with. What current technologies are out there and what kind of coverage is available, do you know ?

 

[Sharjeel]

Anza is not a stinger. anza is a completely difrent missile as we can see from the range, speed and reaction time etc.

in regards to mini radars. yes.

i suppose we can fit grifo7 radars on UAVs but they wont be man portable.

also it depends on how much we know about the grifo 7. do we have the complete blueprint or do we just manufacture it?

we can also improve the synthetic aparature radar we have used on the baburs to congur up a anti armour radar system...like the one on the apache...

the problem with the missiles is not there speed. we can reach that speed. but it takes too long to lock onto the target....if we can decrease the reaction time of anza series to less then .1 seconds. then we stand a chance on firing the missile towards the oncoming missile. thus we doent need speed. as a matter of fact the slower it is the better.

but because of the time taken to lock on...by the time the missile is out of the tube the brahmus is already passed the anza thus the anza will have to catch up to it....

this is my favruite option

http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/u...y80100_0146.jpg

we can hook it up to the c41 (hooking up a manpad is far harder) and wala...

it is a land based CIWS

 

[major_sam47]

Originally posted by Yahya@Jan 25 2006, 02:23 AM
Anza is not a stinger. anza is a completely difrent missile as we can see from the range, speed and reaction time etc.

in regards to mini radars. yes.

i suppose we can fit grifo7 radars on UAVs but they wont be man portable.

also it depends on how much we know about the grifo 7. do we have the complete blueprint or do we just manufacture it?

we can also improve the synthetic aparature radar we have used on the baburs to congur up a anti armour radar system...like the one on the apache...

the problem with the missiles is not there speed. we can reach that speed. but it takes too long to lock onto the target....if we can decrease the reaction time of anza series to less then .1 seconds. then we stand a chance on firing the missile towards the oncoming missile. thus we doent need speed. as a matter of fact the slower it is the better.

but because of the time taken to lock on...by the time the missile is out of the tube the brahmus is already passed the anza thus the anza will have to catch up to it....

this is my favruite option

http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/u...y80100_0146.jpg

we can hook it up to the c41 (hooking up a manpad is far harder) and wala...

it is a land based CIWS

[post=5621]Quoted post[/post]​

Hi Yahya,

Yes the kind of equipment you've referred to in that link would be awesome, and I hope PK is making progress on acquiring more of it.

The advantages of such systems would include wider area coverage for early warning, as well as capacity to engage multiple targets.

Disadvantages include it being more easily picked up by the enemy due to its size, and being more suspectible to anti-radiation missile attack. Less mobility, higher maintenance, and higher loss if taken out, wouldn't you agree on all of these points. It would be great though if PK had many of these deployed to handle an initial attack wave. But what happens if and when those units are taken out ?

Thats where these two man tactical UAV recon and MANPAD support units could come in as a rapidly deployable response to possible cruise missile attacks.

I totally see your point about reaction time and lock on capabilities being impacted in the negative by human operators, which is why these need to be automated in such a set-up. The UAV needs to use some advanced, lightweight radar technology to detect the incoming subsonic to Mach 3 or 4 low flying, terrain following, zigzagging, cruising missile, 20 km out, and pass this information on immediately to one of several MANPAD stations on the ground which operate autonomously with human supervision and override capability.

For man-portability, I'm not sure about Grifo 7 if it could be scaled down, and used to detect cruise missiles in look down. Can the current Grifo-7 being manufactured at Kamra detect cruise missiles if in an FC-1 ? Do you know of any radar that could achieve the objectives stated, and still enable the UAV platform to be man-portable ? Can't find a spec sheet on Grifo 7. I also read on wikipedia that one of the versions of ANZA has a 15 km range, but I also can't find a detailed spec sheet on any ANZA version (I know its different from Stinger; I used Stinger as an example to due to easier availability of its specs).

The question is can the target locking be automated enough, to a sufficient degree, to enable that 0.1 second response time ? If a 20 km range UAV radar detects a Mach 3 missile (which is approx 1 km/s) 20 km ahead of a MANPAD defending a final target, that gives 20 seconds to transfer the information for an intercept algorithm for the MANPAD missile, and fire it to intercept. 20 seconds is alot of time.

In terms of of the type of lock, assume the cruise missile has reduced signatures for both IR and UV, so some other method, preferably visual, to overcome stealth signature reduction methods, would be advisable for the ANZA. Do you know of a viable method in this regard ? Could a contrast seeker work ?

WS,

major_sam47

 

[Sharjeel]

Originally posted by major_sam47@Jan 26 2006, 03:10 AM
Hi Yahya,

Yes the kind of equipment you've referred to in that link would be awesome, and I hope PK is making progress on acquiring more of it.

The advantages of such systems would include wider area coverage for early warning, as well as capacity to engage multiple targets.

Disadvantages include it being more easily picked up by the enemy due to its size, and being more suspectible to anti-radiation missile attack. Less mobility, higher maintenance, and higher loss if taken out, wouldn't you agree on all of these points. It would be great though if PK had many of these deployed to handle an initial attack wave. But what happens if and when those units are taken out ?

Thats where these two man tactical UAV recon and MANPAD support units could come in as a rapidly deployable response to possible cruise missile attacks.

I totally see your point about reaction time and lock on capabilities being impacted in the negative by human operators, which is why these need to be automated in such a set-up. The UAV needs to use some advanced, lightweight radar technology to detect the incoming subsonic to Mach 3 or 4 low flying, terrain following, zigzagging, cruising missile, 20 km out, and pass this information on immediately to one of several MANPAD stations on the ground which operate autonomously with human supervision and override capability.

For man-portability, I'm not sure about Grifo 7 if it could be scaled down, and used to detect cruise missiles in look down. Can the current Grifo-7 being manufactured at Kamra detect cruise missiles if in an FC-1 ? Do you know of any radar that could achieve the objectives stated, and still enable the UAV platform to be man-portable ? Can't find a spec sheet on Grifo 7. I also read on wikipedia that one of the versions of ANZA has a 15 km range, but I also can't find a detailed spec sheet on any ANZA version (I know its different from Stinger; I used Stinger as an example to due to easier availability of its specs).

The question is can the target locking be automated enough, to a sufficient degree, to enable that 0.1 second response time ? If a 20 km range UAV radar detects a Mach 3 missile (which is approx 1 km/s) 20 km ahead of a MANPAD defending a final target, that gives 20 seconds to transfer the information for an intercept algorithm for the MANPAD missile, and fire it to intercept. 20 seconds is alot of time.

In terms of of the type of lock, assume the cruise missile has reduced signatures for both IR and UV, so some other method, preferably visual, to overcome stealth signature reduction methods, would be advisable for the ANZA. Do you know of a viable method in this regard ? Could a contrast seeker work ?

WS,

major_sam47

[post=5646]Quoted post[/post]​

the cost would be better as the enemy would not waste precius missiles at these drones....thats if we have a lot of them and more valueble targets for them to hit....

also by not man portable i meant truck portable...man portable is when you have a uav size of a palm and you fly it in battle to detect enemy... some special forces use this such as the green berrets, seals, SAS, Marines, Royal marines... etc


the cost of such system would be astonishingly small...

but it can not be used to detect missiles. we will simply need to many and it will be too big a bourden on logistics side. any awacs can do this....far easier as awacs covers bigger area.

also the brahmos is detectable by our ground based radars thus the brahmos is already visible on the c41 and yes the data is LIVE.!!! and passed on instantiniusly to all the recieving nodes.

the problem is the these missiles are not remote controled. their IR trackers take that much time to lock on not the human...

the missiles has to guide itself to the target and it is very very expensive and hard to integrate its tracking of targets to the c41 thats why the bullets are better because they do not need guidance and the gun is onboard a truck thus is easier to network.


the grifo 7 has indeed got look down shoot down capability....but why do you want to shrink it?

we should just use as it is to detect enemy tanks etc...it wont be very effective against air borne targets but lethel against ground ones...

 

[major_sam47]

Originally posted by Yahya@Jan 26 2006, 04:54 PM
the cost would be better as the enemy would not waste precius missiles at these drones....thats if we have a lot of them and more valueble targets for them to hit....

also by not man portable i meant truck portable...man portable is when you have a uav size of a palm and you fly it in battle to detect enemy... some special forces use this such as the green berrets, seals, SAS, Marines, Royal marines... etc
the cost of such system would be astonishingly small...

but it can not be used to detect missiles. we will simply need to many and it will be too big a bourden on logistics side. any awacs can do this....far easier as awacs covers bigger area.

also the brahmos is detectable by our ground based radars thus the brahmos is already visible on the c41 and yes the data is LIVE.!!! and passed on instantiniusly to all the recieving nodes.

the problem is the these missiles are not remote controled. their IR trackers take that much time to lock on not the human...

the missiles has to guide itself to the target and it is very very expensive and hard to integrate its tracking of targets to the c41 thats why the bullets are better because they do not need guidance and the gun is onboard a truck thus is easier to network.
the grifo 7 has indeed got look down shoot down capability....but why do you want to shrink it?

we should just use as it is to detect enemy tanks etc...it wont be very effective against air borne targets but lethel against ground ones...

[post=5650]Quoted post[/post]​

Yahya,

In your opinion, what could be the worst case scenario for PK Air Defence, if an agressor successfully carried out high intensity airstrikes to take out all PK radars and SA missile batteries ?

In such a scenario, how would the country defend itself from air attacks ? What could infantry due in such a situation ? (lessons from Iraq)

Just curious to know your viewpoint if such a scenario took place.

Regards,

major_sam47

 

[Sharjeel]

Originally posted by major_sam47@Jan 27 2006, 02:30 AM
Yahya,

In your opinion, what could be the worst case scenario for PK Air Defence, if an agressor successfully carried out high intensity airstrikes to take out all PK radars and SA missile batteries ?

In such a scenario, how would the country defend itself from air attacks ? What could infantry due in such a situation ? (lessons from Iraq)

Just curious to know your viewpoint if such a scenario took place.

Regards,

major_sam47

[post=5662]Quoted post[/post]​

since you assume it will be the indians lets assume nukes will not be used...

if india does accomplish this task it woild make it easier for their cold start doctrine..

they will use blitzkrieg tactics and try to wipe pakistan of the maps (the nazis in india...eg the BJP and VHP etc)

pakistan should strike back by propogating juicy gossip to the difrent factions inside india for example the workers thing they got going on and all sorts of seperatists...and feed them with weopens.. this way their army will loose morale..crumble to some extent, be left with more fronts..so they have to spready out thinner. deploy more UAVs to increase the intelegence factor and start detroying their armour.

to protect air we should develope a anza 4 with a even longer range then anza 3 would have (15km)

we can purchase them land mobile ciws thingi bobs. and deploy them on strategic locations.

manufacture big numbers of Baburs and special disguised vehicles for them...so we can continue the strike role...

teach the locals the uses and ways of producing Thermite!....

and a thousand other things i cba transferring trhough my hands to the computer...there should be a connection with brain ...


snap and its all transferred lol...

 

[major_sam47]

Originally posted by Yahya@Jan 27 2006, 03:36 AM
since you assume it will be the indians lets assume nukes will not be used...

if india does accomplish this task it woild make it easier for their cold start doctrine..

they will use blitzkrieg tactics and try to wipe pakistan of the maps (the nazis in india...eg the BJP and VHP etc)

pakistan should strike back by propogating juicy gossip to the difrent factions inside india for example the workers thing they got going on and all sorts of seperatists...and feed them with weopens.. this way their army will loose morale..crumble to some extent, be left with more fronts..so they have to spready out thinner. deploy more UAVs to increase the intelegence factor and start detroying their armour.

to protect air we should develope a anza 4 with a even longer range then anza 3 would have (15km)

we can purchase them land mobile ciws thingi bobs. and deploy them on strategic locations.

manufacture big numbers of Baburs and special disguised vehicles for them...so we can continue the strike role...

teach the locals the uses and ways of producing Thermite!....

and a thousand other things i cba transferring trhough my hands to the computer...there should be a connection with brain ...
snap and its all transferred lol...

[post=5665]Quoted post[/post]​

Yahya,

Getting back to cruise missile defense strategies, you had indicated PK radar can pick Brahmos cruise missiles, live. I am surprised that PK has got this capability for its ground based systems. Even the US is challenged right now in terms of ground based radar being able to pick low altitude stealth cruise missiles. How is this accomplished ?

Also, when the US fired Tomahawks at targets in Afghanistan a few years ago, these had crossed PK airspace. Were they detected by PK ground based radar ?

Why wouldn't Grifo radar be suitable for detection of airborne targets ? What are its limitations ? Do you know if a spec sheet is available ?

How big does an airborne radar have to be in order to reliably detect cruise missiles in look down mode, when they are in flight during night hours versus day ?

Also on your earlier comment that everything should be tracked by C4I, why is this necessary ? I mean it would nice, but in a scenario where these assets have been taken out, by India or whatever country, there would be no C4I. If infantry units were still left on the ground, they could communicate one to one. ANZA's currently deployed by PK are not integrated into C4I as far as I know, so they still have their role to play independently of that system. The same thing with this hypothetical man-portable cruise missile interception system we have been discussing.

I was using man-portable in the sense of a lightweight UAV between 1 and 2 meters in width and length, being assembled in modules, and packed on the backs of infantry, with additional radar payload modules (like a lighter weight version of Grifo 7), being carried separately by other infantry. I'm assuming a scenario where trucks would be in limited supply.

Please seriously consider all of these points in your reply.

Regards,

major_sam47

 

[Zeeshan S.]

Yahya the Anzas are for destroying aircarfts who will ground support the IA troops. That means after the wipe of PAF, which will be most likely the situation currently looking at our inventory. It will be the Anzas who will be saving our ***, they will surely be effective against those aircrafts who would be bombing our tanks out.

Believing that we have a tactic of doing a battle inside the enemy's territory, i wonder how will it be accomplished without a strong air force. There will be a need for a huge portable defence for PA so when they enter in the enemy's territory and defend there the portable defence systems can also get their to avoid the bombing by the Indian bombers which are being ordered and also heavy huge asses like Su-30 for example.

 

[Sharjeel]

Originally posted by major_sam47@Jan 28 2006, 12:57 AM
Yahya,

Getting back to cruise missile defense strategies, you had indicated PK radar can pick Brahmos cruise missiles, live. I am surprised that PK has got this capability for its ground based systems. Even the US is challenged right now in terms of ground based radar being able to pick low altitude stealth cruise missiles. How is this accomplished ?

Also, when the US fired Tomahawks at targets in Afghanistan a few years ago, these had crossed PK airspace. Were they detected by PK ground based radar ?

Why wouldn't Grifo radar be suitable for detection of airborne targets ? What are its limitations ? Do you know if a spec sheet is available ?

How big does an airborne radar have to be in order to reliably detect cruise missiles in look down mode, when they are in flight during night hours versus day ?

Also on your earlier comment that everything should be tracked by C4I, why is this necessary ? I mean it would nice, but in a scenario where these assets have been taken out, by India or whatever country, there would be no C4I. If infantry units were still left on the ground, they could communicate one to one. ANZA's currently deployed by PK are not integrated into C4I as far as I know, so they still have their role to play independently of that system. The same thing with this hypothetical man-portable cruise missile interception system we have been discussing.

I was using man-portable in the sense of a lightweight UAV between 1 and 2 meters in width and length, being assembled in modules, and packed on the backs of infantry, with additional radar payload modules (like a lighter weight version of Grifo 7), being carried separately by other infantry. I'm assuming a scenario where trucks would be in limited supply.

Please seriously consider all of these points in your reply.

Regards,

major_sam47

[post=5688]Quoted post[/post]​

C41 most probably Uses Mesh topology! it cant be taken out..just like the internet cant be taken out. also evrything IS tracked by C41.!!!! that capability we have already. what im saying is add more types of sensors etc to make it better.


the Brahmos is not stealth and is not a ground hugging missile like the Babur and the Tomahawk. the Brahmos has a Ballistic missile like flight trajectry and it rises to a sifficient altitude to be noticed by the ground radars.

the Grifo7 in order to be used as a Awacs is not feasable as you would need thousands of them to do the same task as 1 normal awacs....thus the load on the logistics side is HUGE.

it can be used as a battlefield UAV to detect and track enemy objects such as tanks etc etc.

the Anza can not be integrated into the C41 because it is awfully dificult and the extra wieght of the communication equipment onboard the missile (to link with the c41) would be too much and also because that link might be jammed because to put in more advanced equipment will cost even more wieght. thus the missile will not be able to go as far as it already can.


also it is not possible to make the UAVs backpack portable. may be in another 10 years we can make such UAVs which will have the same technology as todays UAV but even then the juice will not be worth the squeeze as the truck portabble ones would simply be far too advanced.

 

[Sharjeel]

Originally posted by mysterious@Jan 28 2006, 09:01 PM
Yahya the Anzas are for destroying aircarfts who will ground support the IA troops. That means after the wipe of PAF, which will be most likely the situation currently looking at our inventory. It will be the Anzas who will be saving our ***, they will surely be effective against those aircrafts who would be bombing our tanks out.

Believing that we have a tactic of doing a battle inside the enemy's territory, i wonder how will it be accomplished without a strong air force. There will be a need for a huge portable defence for PA so when they enter in the enemy's territory and defend there the portable defence systems can also get their to avoid the bombing by the Indian bombers which are being ordered and also heavy huge asses like Su-30 for example.

[post=5697]Quoted post[/post]​

this is not USA vs Iraq scenario

our airforce still hold valid detterence value in face of the IAF.

you and I both know how it goes inside our defence industrie..!!!

no one knew we had the bomb untill we needed to show them we do.

no one knew we had the babur untill we needed to show the indians we do (to detter any of their adventures)

and no one knew we have the knowgow of the AGOSTA 90Bs electronics.

nor did any one know of how advanced our home made avionics are untill we upgraded the F7 to PG (for example the software code for the HUD was written by the PAF staff who also helped the chinese in this regard)

we are not a sitting duck!

 

[major_sam47]

Originally posted by Yahya@Jan 28 2006, 09:47 PM
this is not USA vs Iraq scenario

our airforce still hold valid detterence value in face of the IAF.

you and I both know how it goes inside our defence industrie..!!!

no one knew we had the bomb untill we needed to show them we do.

no one knew we had the babur untill we needed to show the indians we do (to detter any of their adventures)

and no one knew we have the knowgow of the AGOSTA 90Bs electronics.

nor did any one know of how advanced our home made avionics are untill we upgraded the F7 to PG (for example the software code for the HUD was written by the PAF staff who also helped the chinese in this regard)

we are not a sitting duck!

[post=5707]Quoted post[/post]​

Yahya, Mysterious

Would it not be reasonable to project the Indians as already having developed a ground hugging cruise missile through Russian assistance ? The Russians have an anti-ship cruise missile called Onyx, for which they should have developed a land attack version. This thing can move at Mach 2.9. Iran has Russian Sunburns moving at Mach 2.2. I would assume the Indians have been able to access this stuff.

It would be great if the Babur or Tomahawk could be reverse engineered to understand vulnerabilities and then exploit them in a defence system against cruise missiles.

From a development ability perspective PK has been impressive, and we should be proud of that. I didn't know those things about the avionics upgrades. What is PG ? Also the Agostas are supposed to be quieter and longer range, true ? But I'm not sure enough is being done to bolster specific kinds of defences against cruise missiles, launched from whatever country, India, or whoever.

Again, having ANZAs integrated into the C4I would be nice, but as you mentioned, there would be an unacceptable weight penalty on each missile. So for such a scheme C4I would not work.

C4I is supposed to be like the internet ? But would not the 'servers' needed to run it be located somewhere in PK, and could they not all be targeted somehow in an electronic attack or focused bombing campaign - leading edge campaign ? This is worse case scenario, but what if it happens ? I'm not sure what would be necessary to destroy a mesh topology, how does it work exactly ?

To detect a cruise missile like a Tomahawk, whatever radar is used it would need to detect a radar cross section (RCS) as small as 0.05 square meters. Thats how small a cruise missile's RCS would be. So there is a question of what can be developed to detect such an RCS, within in a given range, like 50 to 60 km, not country wide. Something that could protect certain areas. I would think the greater the radius sought for cruise missile detection, the bigger the system necessary, and there would be undesirable system performance trade-offs. Existing and available technology like the Grifo needs to be specifically adapted for cruise missiles. If any country, like India, or other countries, are going to try and attack PK, cruise missiles are going to be a good choice for a stand-off weapon.

Designing a system for truck portability would allow greater flexibility compared to a man-portable system, but like mysterious has mentioned, man-portability could be necessary in certain attack scenarios. Trucks may not make it across the border. Heck, if PK is attacked, and fuel is scare, the trucks won't run. Besides they are bigger than scattered infantry with distributed capabilities.

With a truck, link-up with C4I could be done. But the signature of a truck based system is bigger for enemy pick-up, compared to smaller systems, like man-portable systems.

So how could a Grifo be innovated for UAV man portability to fulfill such a role ? What are the limitations in terms of it not being possible, in specific technical terms ? Is it because its a synthetic aperture radar ? If adaptation was not possible with Grifo, for UAV man-portablility, what could be some other radar technologies worth looking at ?

I guess you think it is parronoid to worry about trucks not having fuel, or trucks not being able to survive enemy seek and destroy missions. Look at Iraq. A fuel rich country, but their infantry became ineffective due to the signatures of large objects like trucks. And I'm talking about defending PK against India or any country, I hope you know what I mean.

So what do you say ?

WS,

major_sam47

 

[major_sam47]

Gents,

Sandia National Laboratories in the US has come up with a mini-SAR, 15 km range. Check this link out:

http://www.sandia.gov/radar/images/SAND200...tp2-v4-redo.pdf

Only 27 lbs. In terms of adapting this to detect cruise missiles what would be needed ? Would also need radius coverage larger than 15 km.

Also seeking your viewpoints on ANZA and Stinger common features. Do you guys know if the ANZA has the following features:

Re-programmable Microprocessor (RMP)
Small Diameter Imaging Seeker (SDIS)

I can't find a spec sheet on ANZA, can you guys help ? Could cruise missiles with IR and UV signature masking technologies not be targetable by an ANZA in range ?

Also found some information on Chinese UAVs being equipped with SARs.

Looking forward to your feedback on this and my previous posts.

WS,

major_sam47

 

[Sharjeel]

Babur Uses SAR to navigate the terrain?

the Anza and Stinger can NOT BE MORE DIFRENT. Anza is a chinese missile stinger is a US missile.


Anza is a dirivitive of the HN-5 which is derived from the SA-7 (Ruski shoulder fired sam)

Anza Specs.

Specifications
Date of Introduction 1972
Proliferation Worldwide
Crew 1
Launcher Name 9P54M
Length (m) 1.47
Diameter (mm) 70
Weight (kg) 4.71
Reaction Time  5-10 seconds (acquisition to fire)
Time Between Launches (sec) INA
Reload Time (sec) 6-10
Missile Name 9M32M
Max. Range 5,500 meters
Min. Range 500 meters
Max. Altitude 4,500 meters
Min. Altitude 18 meters
Length (m) 1.40
Diameter (mm) 70
Weight (kg) 9.97
Missile Speed (m/s) 580
Propulsion Solid fuel booster and solid fuel sustainer rocket motor.
Guidance Passive IR homing device (operating in the medium IR range)
Seeker Field of View 1.9°
Tracking Rate 6°/sec
Warhead Type HE
Warhead Weight (kg) 1.15
Fuze Type Contact (flush or grazing)
Self-Destruct (sec) 15
FIRE CONTROL Launcher has sighting device and a target acquisitionindicator.
The gunner visually identifies and acquires the target.
Gunner Field of View INA
Acquisition Range (m) INA
VARIANTS SA-N-5 Naval version
HN-5A Chinese version
Strela 2M/A Yugoslavian upgrade
Sakr Eye Egyptian upgrade
Mounted in several types of vehicles in four, six, and eight-tube launcher varieties.
Can be mounted on several helicopters (Mi-24, S-342 Gazelle) 


ANZA MK-1 Specifications
 
Type  2-stage, low altitude 
Length  (missile, with retracted tail fins) 1.44 m 
Weight  (total launch assembly in firing condition)
15 Kg (Missile at launch) 9.8 Kg 
Propulsion  solid fuel booster and solid fuel sustainer rocket motor 
Guidance  uncooled Pbs passive infrared homing seeker 
Warhead  HE fragmentation (containing 0.37 Kg HE) with contact
and graze fuzing 
Average missile cruise speed  500 m/s 
Max missile manoeuvring  6 g 
Self destruction time  14-17 s 
Max target speed  (receding target) 260 m/s 
Max effective slant range  4,200 m 
Min effective slant range  1,200 m 
Max effective altitude  50 m 
Weapon reaction time  less than 5 s 
Time from march to ready  less than 10 s
for operation 
Battery operation time  more than 40 s 

Stinger Specs

Specifications
Primary function To provide close-in, surface-to-air weapons for the defense of forward combat areas, vital areas and installations against low altitude air attacks. 
Manufacturer Prime - Hughes Missile System Company
Missile - General Dynamics /Raytheon Corporation 
Propulsion Dual thrust solid fuel rocket motor 
Length 5 feet (1.5 meters) 
Width 5.5 inches (13.96 centimeters) 
Weight 12.5 pounds (5.68 kilograms) 
Weight fully armed 34.5 pounds (15.66 kg) 
Maximum system span 3.6 inches (9.14 cm) 
Range 1 to 8 kilometers 
Sight ring 10 mils 
Fuzing Penetration, impact, self destruct 
Ceiling 10,000 feet (3.046 kilometers) 
Speed Supersonic in flight 
USMC Units Low-Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Battalions: 3 active duty, 2 reserve 
Crew 2 enlisted 
Guidance system Fire-and-forget passive infrared seeker 
Warheads

Anza mk2 (QW1 chinese designation):

ANZA MK-II Specifications

L Type 2-stage, low altitude
Length
(missile, with booster motor) 1.447 m
Weight 16.5 kg
(total launch assembly in
firing condition)
(missile at launch) 10.68 kg
Propulsion solid fuel booster and solid fuel sustainer rocket motor
Guidance cooled InSb passive infra-red homing seeker
Warhead HE fragmentation (containing 0.55 Kg HE) with contact and
graze fuzing
Average missile cruise speed 600 m/s
Max missile manoeuvring 16 g
Self destruction time 14-18 s
Max effective slant range 5,000 m
Min effective slant range 500 m
Max effective altitude 4000 m
Min effective altitude 30 m
Weapon reaction time less than 3.5 s
Time from march to ready less than 10 s
for operation
Battery operation time more than 50 s