The Indo-Israel Phalcon Radar System Deal: Pakistan's Likely Response

[ironman]

International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Chengdu J-10 Fighters for Iran
by Richard Fisher, Jr.
Published on October 28th, 2007

China may also sell Iran additional “Chinese” air defense assets like the YJ-91, which Asian sources have told the author combines an Israeli technology anti-radiation seeker with the motor of the Russian Zvezda Kh-31 ramjet powered attack missile. The YJ-91 would prove ideal for attacking AWACS aircraft

Kh-31 basically designed as an air launched cruise missile aimed at ground deployed radar stations or ships. If the YJ-91 using the same propulsion based on Kh-31, for air to air work you need much more G capability than it can produce.

 

[wangrong]

Kh-31 basically designed as an air launched cruise missile aimed at ground deployed radar stations or ships. If the YJ-91 using the same propulsion based on Kh-31, for air to air work you need much more G capability than it can produce.

J8 use YJ-91

 

[gambit]

Here is a diagram of the top view of the arrays encased in the radome.

X represents the length of the array, d is the diameter of the imaginary smaller circle within the radome that passes through the points of intersection of the arrays. Assuming that the dia of the radome of the Indian Phalcons is 11m and a clearance of about 0.2m is required between the array intersections and the radome (since there are no moving parts, a clearance of 0.2m is sufficient), d=11-(0.2*2) =10.6m. We can calculate the length of the array ‘X’ from the sine law-
d/2/sin30 = X/sin120. Thus, the length of the array comes out to be, d*sin120 = 10.6*0.866025404 = 9.18m

Now read this...

Ares Homepage

...one disadvantage of electronically scanned radars is that their effective aperture and performance declines at the edges of the scan volume.

As the main beam is move towards an edge, on either side, the main beam will begin to compress the many smaller lobes as they have nowhere to go. Here is a good illustration of this physical limit...

RADAR *RESOLUTION

In addition to the main beam, antennas produce rays of energy called sidelobes, which surround the main beam (primary lobe) like haloes (fig. 2-12). Sidelobes extend outward only a short distance from the radar and contain very low power densities. However, even though they are weak, sidelobes can detect strong non-meteorological targets near the radar and are also disturbed by nearby g-round reflections. This leads to confusion in interpreting close targets because sidelobe targets are displayed along with the main beam targets.

Main beam performance remain valid within 120deg of scan angle, meaning target information that is detected by the main beam are clearly resolved to the system's best parameters. Outside of that 120deg and the wave superposition principle begins to have a negative effect on that performance. The sidelobes have nowhere to go but into the main beam. So if you wish, for the benefit of interested readers, from the center of each array, draw a 120deg corner to illustrate this scan limit. Then draw and overlay another corner with 140deg to illustrate the maximum limits where target ambiguity begin to induce serious doubts for the system.

Personally, 0.2 meter clearance is too little for the array from the radome. Wings under aerodynamic forces can flex to around a meter, or more for the B-52's wing span. The radome will not flex but it will have some movement as well as vibration.

 

[sathruvinasakh]

damn!i guess we pakistanis should lay down our weapons don't u think!!!!! LOOK your phalcon might be whatever you want it to be! even if it tracks us no problem! we can blow up all ur ground installed radars in a SEAD operation....so yes AWAC lets you track us just like our EREIYE lets us track your moves....

and if your AWAC flies 100 kms away from the border it will be in for an attack no matter what you say we won't mind losing 6 fighters to bring down the beast if it is that close to the border with escorts in a war situation!

IMO,you gotta have to be thinking a bit realistically.
An AWACS is a high value target and is hard to loose .IAF might even consider to loose couple of fighters while defending the AWACS, but it wont give you a chance to enter even 15 km into indian air space.

Let me put the situation in a more realistic perspective whether one agrees or not.
Either you consider the present day assets (S-300PMU,Akash,Pechora,Barak,Spider,.....) or include the future ones{PAD(120km range and 80km altitude),AAD(70km range and 50km altitude),PDV(~200km range and 120km altitude),AAD1/AAD2(50-80km altitude and ~120km range),Barak-LRSAM,BarakNG,......)
Indian AD will be multi tier including the 10km altitude quick reaction missile system to take on targets in less than a fraction of millisec after detection to the high altitude and long range ABM cum anti-aircraft and anti cruise missile defence.
And it will be no wonder if the western block will be made a highly fortified fortress with all types of SAM`s and ABM`s.
Apart from the long range and high speed intercepting missiles,you gotta have to look at the current radars held for tracking and detection of aircrafts and cruise/ballistic missiles.Currently LRTR having a range of >600km can track a .001 sqm target at a distance of >200km and a .01sqm target at a range of >>400km and so on.
This radar is only meant for PAD and AAD.While a derivative of the same with further advancements is being developed for PDV and AAD1/2 with ranges of over 800km.

Since India wont be taking the position of aggressor as like in the past,its pure defence posture is meant to fortify its whole land and sea mass.It will more likely be an defencive-offence.
And on top of these ground based tracking radars,AWACS like Phalcons and other blimp based sensors together mated with radar sats will leave no inch for the enemy to enter the main land.I am not exaggerating ,but projecting the situation ahead in approx 4 years ,since everything as is is undergoing.

And like as you said that sending 6 fighters or so in suicidal mission to kill an AWACS is more sounding like stupidity.
The future will belongs to the one who can jam both the ground based and air based radars simultaneously.And judge yourself is pakistan has the technology to do so?

 

[hj786]

Kh-31 basically designed as an air launched cruise missile aimed at ground deployed radar stations or ships. If the YJ-91 using the same propulsion based on Kh-31, for air to air work you need much more G capability than it can produce.

It says YJ-91 uses Israeli seeker and Russian ramjet motor. Where does it say YJ-91 is a Kh-31 with new seeker? The author specifically mentions anti-AWACS capability also.

IMO,you gotta have to be thinking a bit realistically.

If you're thinking realistically, why do you choose to ignore the precision guided stand-off weaponry manufactured in Pakistan based on South African and Chinese technology: glide bombs with stated range of 60 km to 120 km and infra-red imaging seekers; air launched cruise missiles with stated range of 350 km. Plus access to Chinese/Brazilian anti-radiation missiles.

iceman its up to the PAF if they can afford to lose 6 fighters to kill one AWACS, I think they'd rather use a few ramjet-powered missiles with anti-radiation seekers to do the job.

 

[PakShaheen79]

IMO,you gotta have to be thinking a bit realistically.
An AWACS is a high value target and is hard to loose .IAF might even consider to loose couple of fighters while defending the AWACS, but it wont give you a chance to enter even 15 km into indian air space.

Let me put the situation in a more realistic perspective whether one agrees or not.
Either you consider the present day assets (S-300PMU,Akash,Pechora,Barak,Spider,.....) or include the future ones{PAD(120km range and 80km altitude),AAD(70km range and 50km altitude),PDV(~200km range and 120km altitude),AAD1/AAD2(50-80km altitude and ~120km range),Barak-LRSAM,BarakNG,......)
Indian AD will be multi tier including the 10km altitude quick reaction missile system to take on targets in less than a fraction of millisec after detection to the high altitude and long range ABM cum anti-aircraft and anti cruise missile defence.
And it will be no wonder if the western block will be made a highly fortified fortress with all types of SAM`s and ABM`s.
Apart from the long range and high speed intercepting missiles,you gotta have to look at the current radars held for tracking and detection of aircrafts and cruise/ballistic missiles.Currently LRTR having a range of >600km can track a .001 sqm target at a distance of >200km and a .01sqm target at a range of >>400km and so on.
This radar is only meant for PAD and AAD.While a derivative of the same with further advancements is being developed for PDV and AAD1/2 with ranges of over 800km.

Since India wont be taking the position of aggressor as like in the past,its pure defence posture is meant to fortify its whole land and sea mass.It will more likely be an defencive-offence.
And on top of these ground based tracking radars,AWACS like Phalcons and other blimp based sensors together mated with radar sats will leave no inch for the enemy to enter the main land.I am not exaggerating ,but projecting the situation ahead in approx 4 years ,since everything as is is undergoing.

And like as you said that sending 6 fighters or so in suicidal mission to kill an AWACS is more sounding like stupidity.
The future will belongs to the one who can jam both the ground based and air based radars simultaneously.And judge yourself is pakistan has the technology to do so?

Nopes I think special ops with small missiles (Range of 1-5 km max.) behind the enemy lines will be real threat to ground based radars... and particularly big ones like Green pine(India) and YLC-6 (PAK). As both country already have operatives on each other's ground so minor ops before big battles will be of immense importance.

 

[raveolution]

It says YJ-91 uses Israeli seeker and Russian ramjet motor. Where does it say YJ-91 is a Kh-31 with new seeker? The author specifically mentions anti-AWACS capability also.


If you're thinking realistically, why do you choose to ignore the precision guided stand-off weaponry manufactured in Pakistan based on South African and Chinese technology: glide bombs with stated range of 60 km to 120 km and infra-red imaging seekers; air launched cruise missiles with stated range of 350 km. Plus access to Chinese/Brazilian anti-radiation missiles.

iceman its up to the PAF if they can afford to lose 6 fighters to kill one AWACS, I think they'd rather use a few ramjet-powered missiles with anti-radiation seekers to do the job.

HJ786,how will the PAF achieve this. To take an AWACS out, you need an Air to Air Missile while all the above mentioned are Air to Ground weapons including the Kh31 / YJ 91/ ALCM /Glide Bombs. Anti Radiation Seekers are used for Ground Radar Targets and not AWACS. The range of this Air to Air missile has to be between 300-400 km. The only missile which can do this is currently the KS172, in final stages of development.

 

[PakShaheen79]

HJ786,how will the PAF achieve this. To take an AWACS out, you need an Air to Air Missile while all the above mentioned are Air to Ground weapons including the Kh31 / YJ 91/ ALCM /Glide Bombs. Anti Radiation Seekers are used for Ground Radar Targets and not AWACS. The range of this Air to Air missile has to be between 300-400 km. The only missile which can do this is currently the KS172, in final stages of development.

Well, Who is developing it? I think Russian. Why you are talking about these things when you don't have them yet. China is also working on long range RAMJET powered AAM so what we must start bringing that into equation?No, I don't think it will be a good idea...so please talk about what you currently have.

 

[raveolution]

Well, Who is developing it? I think Russian. Why you are talking about these things when you don't have them yet. China is also working on long range RAMJET powered AAM so what we must start bringing that into equation?No, I don't think it will be a good idea...so please talk about what you currently have.

It is joint Indo-Russian development. The project was earlier shelved but revived by Indian investment and will see first operational use on the SU30 MKI. Noone is talking about it yet. If you see, my initial response was to someone who had enquired about the missile. The answer I had gotten to my post was these Air-to-ground weapons. I suggest you go back in the thread and read the reference to context.

The KS172 or Novator 100 has been displayed in various air shows/ has obtained IOC and is in final stages.

Can you give me a link regarding this Chinese Ramjet missile for my further reading... sounds interesting. Thanks in advance. I have attached a link to their entire missile inventory and don't see anything there.

Cheers

 

[ice_man]

And like as you said that sending 6 fighters or so in suicidal mission to kill an AWACS is more sounding like stupidity.
The future will belongs to the one who can jam both the ground based and air based radars simultaneously.And judge yourself is pakistan has the technology to do so?

Ok you completely ignored the part i said about WHEN will we send in 6 fighters.....

first you need to do a SEAD operation...that stands for SUPPRESION OF ENEMY AIR DEFENCE operation. so instead of going for your AWACS right from the beginning we will go for the ground based radars. after all your SAMs are also connected to a mobile radar unit aren't they? once the radar comes online it can be tracked and destroyed.

Either with our RAAD cruise missile or actually to be more realistic the new MAR-1 medium-range missiles made by the Brazilian firm Mectron.....

now consider in the first salvo we make ourselves that little dent in your radar tracking capability or lets say tickle your defences followed by a couple more salvos of cruise missiles aimed at your runways....hence pushing your fighters further inland....simultaneously launching more of the Anti Radiation missiles blowing up a massive chunk of your defence shield as well as pushing your fighters back to let's say atleast AGRA....

after all this is achieved & the SAM missile shield along with all the ground radars on your western front are down we can send in 6 fighters on a suicide mission!

ofcourse realistically you won't be sitting idle either and doing exactly the same to us blowing up all our ground controlled radar units on our eastern border....but like i said it CAN be done not will be done!

 

[dbc]

Main beam performance remain valid within 120deg of scan angle, meaning target information that is detected by the main beam are clearly resolved to the system's best parameters. Outside of that 120deg and the wave superposition principle begins to have a negative effect on that performance. The sidelobes have nowhere to go but into the main beam. So if you wish, for the benefit of interested readers, from the center of each array, draw a 120deg corner to illustrate this scan limit. Then draw and overlay another corner with 140deg to illustrate the maximum limits where target ambiguity begin to induce serious doubts for the system.

Yes, but this is not unique to the Phalcon. I think of it as peripheral vision, if you notice something in the corner of your eye you simply turn to get a better look. On the Phalcon due to the triangular array setup the turn needed will be smaller; on the Erieye it will be larger.

 

[gambit]

Yes, but this is not unique to the Phalcon. I think of it as peripheral vision, if you notice something in the corner of your eye you simply turn to get a better look. On the Phalcon due to the triangular array setup the turn needed will be smaller; on the Erieye it will be larger.

True, it is not...However, regardless of type, classical concave dish, slotted array or ESA, antenna dimension is proportionate to power and inverse to beam width.

RADAR BEAM CHARACTERISTICS

Beamwidth varies directly with wavelength and inversely with antenna size. Radar systems that produce relatively small beam widths generally provide greater target resolution.

So if the Erieye has individual arrays that are physically larger than the Phalcon's, the Erieye will produce superior target resolutions as well having longer effective reach -- per array. Both AWACS and other airborne objects are not static and their flight paths will not keep the targets in the AWACS's 'dark zones' for long. We learn quickest thru visual means and I think the readership would benefit best if better graphics artistes than I provide those visuals.

 

[sathruvinasakh]

It says YJ-91 uses Israeli seeker and Russian ramjet motor. Where does it say YJ-91 is a Kh-31 with new seeker? The author specifically mentions anti-AWACS capability also.


If you're thinking realistically, why do you choose to ignore the precision guided stand-off weaponry manufactured in Pakistan based on South African and Chinese technology: glide bombs with stated range of 60 km to 120 km and infra-red imaging seekers; air launched cruise missiles with stated range of 350 km. Plus access to Chinese/Brazilian anti-radiation missiles.

iceman its up to the PAF if they can afford to lose 6 fighters to kill one AWACS, I think they'd rather use a few ramjet-powered missiles with anti-radiation seekers to do the job.

LOL....... why do you think the air defences are for?
For PGM`s and others there were short range air defence systems.And India is testing its modified KALI for the purpose of air defence against multiple threats.

Its a beam weapon injecting giga watts of microwaves on a specific target for fraction of seconds to cripple the whole system and make it render for no use.
This is the last and ultimate sort of air defence in the Indian context anyways.
This system will be inducted starting 2012.After all IAF/IA/IN no holds their hands on atleast 5 tiered .Starts from low range and quick action to high altitude and long range.In 5 more years Indian land mass will be impossible to penetrate.

And I was a bit impressed by your context of having the 007`s on either sides.And this is the spot where real time intelligence wins.Since any stuff related to Intelligence gathering is banned to public media we may have to take a chance regarding this channel.

 

[Screaming Skull]

Main beam performance remain valid within 120deg of scan angle, meaning target information that is detected by the main beam are clearly resolved to the system's best parameters. Outside of that 120deg and the wave superposition principle begins to have a negative effect on that performance. The sidelobes have nowhere to go but into the main beam. So if you wish, for the benefit of interested readers, from the center of each array, draw a 120deg corner to illustrate this scan limit. Then draw and overlay another corner with 140deg to illustrate the maximum limits where target ambiguity begin to induce serious doubts for the system.

Why should superposition have a negative effect? You are assuming that there will be destructive interference always. That is not true. It will have a negative effect only when the signals are out of phase. There in lies the advantage of AESA, each T/R module can generate its own signal where the frequency and phase angle of signals emitted from different T/R modules may be different and may be tuned to be in phase with the superposing signals.
Yes there will be blind spots. But these regions will be very close to the radar itself and this distance becomes insignificant compared the total tracking and detection range of the radar.
Moreover, what you have stated is not unique to the Phalcon. In fact using a triangular configuration is a possible solution to the problem. In two array systems the problem will be more pronounced.

Personally, 0.2 meter clearance is too little for the array from the radome. Wings under aerodynamic forces can flex to around a meter, or more for the B-52's wing span. The radome will not flex but it will have some movement as well as vibration.

Since there is no relative motion between the array set up and the radome, imo a clearance of 0.2m is sufficient. Vibration is a problem but it will effect the supporting trusses only. As long as the vibration is not high enough to structurally deform the radome, the arrays will be safe. Any motion of the radome will lead to a proportionate motion of the array too. So for all practical purposes they may be considered as a homogeneous system.

 

[Screaming Skull]

True, it is not...However, regardless of type, classical concave dish, slotted array or ESA, antenna dimension is proportionate to power and inverse to beam width.

RADAR BEAM CHARACTERISTICS

So if the Erieye has individual arrays that are physically larger than the Phalcon's, the Erieye will produce superior target resolutions as well having longer effective reach -- per array. Both AWACS and other airborne objects are not static and their flight paths will not keep the targets in the AWACS's 'dark zones' for long. We learn quickest thru visual means and I think the readership would benefit best if better graphics artistes than I provide those visuals.

See there is a trade off here. If you make the individual T/R module large then there will be a limitation on the total number of T/R modules you can carry in an array of given length. Now, it is left to the user to decide what is the optimum balance he needs between the size of the T/R module and the total number. Having a large number of T/R modules is very important to improve resolution of target, improving stealth, reducing the steering time etc. At the same time large modules provide more power.
One of the possible solutions is to get more power out of smaller T/R modules. This is possible by using advanced material tech. So, eventually it comes down to the quality of the solid state materials used in the Swedish and Israeli T/R modules.