Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

96L6 surveillance radar will track stealth targets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 96L6 surveillance radar will track stealth targets

    Russia displayed the 96L6 surveillance radar for the S-400 missile system at the MAKS 2001 defence exhibition at Zhukovsky near Moscow, writes Miroslav Gy? It operates in C-band, and the manufacturers say it can detect and track aircraft and cruise missiles which use stealth technology.

    Work on the 96L6 began in the second half of the 1980s, when Boris Vasilyevics Bunkin, the general designer of CKB Almaz defined the requirements for a surveillance radar to form part of the new S-400 missile system. The design of the new radar was assigned to the Lira design bureau, which is a part of LEMZ - the Lianozovskiz Elektromekhanicseskij Zavod (Lianozovo Elektromechanical Factory). Lira and LEMZ are part of the financial-industrial group Oboronitelniye Sistemi (Defence Systems).

    During the development and trials stage OKR (Opitno-Konstruktorskaya Rabota) of the programme, the new radar was designated VVO (Vsevisotniy Obnaruzhitel = detector for all altitudes).

    The requirements for the VVO were very rigorous. The team headed by the late main designer Yuriy Fyodorovics Lisin based its design on research by Professor VI Vinokurov into the detection of difficult signals.

    Another organisation involved with the development programme was the scientific research experimental establishment (Naucsno-Issledovatelskaya Eksperimentalnaya Rabota) Slozhnost (Complexity), whose general designers are BV Bunkin and Yuriy Aleksandrovics Kuznecov.

    An experimental radar was built and tested in a series of trials against Yak-52 training aircraft. Specialists from other Russian radar establishments such as LETI, NII-2 MO, NII-3 MO, UPI, CNIIRES and VNIIRT participated in the trials, and the resulting data influenced the future development of radar technology in what was then the Soviet Union.

    In 1988, representatives of the main developing organisation and the customer signed agreement giving the go-ahead for wideband radar technology, based on this earlier research to be used in the VVO programme. As a result of theoretical and experimental research, a database of difficult signals was developed, along with signal processing hardware with a speed of 10 billion operations per second, plus other components.

    In 1991, the Lira design bureau built a prototype of the VVO radar. This started operation in early 1992, and in April of that year was demonstrated against low-altitude targets. Later that year systems were delivered for trials at the training centre of NII-2, the scientific research institute of the Russian air-defence forces. The system was displayed in model form at the MAKS 97 defence exhibition.

    When the system enters service it will replace the 5N66M and 76N6 (NVO/NVO-M) radars currently used for the detection of low-flying targets. (The 76N6 is known to NATO as 'Clam Shell'.) Both had been developed in the early 1970s by the design bureau of the LEMZ factory. Later the 96L6 will replace the 19Zh6/35D6/36D6 family (ST-68U/-68UM) of all-round surveillance radars, which were developed and produced in Ukraine by NPO Iskra.

    The role of the 96L6 is the detection of air targets and measuring of their azimuth, elevation and range. It can be used with the S-300PMU surface-to-air (SAM) system, can autonomously assign targets for the 90Zh6E, 90Zh6E1 and 90Zh6E2 (S-300PMU-1 and later) air-defence missile complexes, and can be connected with the Baykal-1E and Senezh-M1E automated command and control systems or the radiotechnical forces' Osnova-1E and Polye-E command posts.

    It can pass information about a wide spectrum of the aerial targets, including aircraft, helicopters, UAVs and missiles, to the 30N6E, 30N6E1, 30N6E2 ('Flap Lid') series of tracking and missile guidance radars.

    The 96L6 is very effective against low flying targets and against targets in the medium and high altitudes. It maintains its performance in the presence of heavy jamming, and has a very low false-alarm rate.

    Targets can be tracked at elevations from 60? down to 0?, but a minimum of -3? is available as an option. The antenna uses several beams when scanning in elevation. For detection of very low flying targets, or if the radar is deployed in a wooded area, the antenna can be mounted on a 966AA14 elevated tower. The latter consists of a 40V6M tower mounted on a MAZ-537G (74106) truck.

    There are two versions of the 96L6 - one which is installed on a single vehicle, and another which uses two vehicles.

    The single-vehicle variant consists of:

    • a 966AA01 antenna array;

    • a 966FF03 shelter which houses the receiving, transmitting and information-processing subsystems, an operator console, communication and IFF systems and a ZIP-O repair set;

    • a TM966 vehicle based on a Type 7930 Astrolog wheeled chassis with a SEP-2L generator and power-distribution system; and

    • a set of cables.

    The two-vehicle version consists of:

    • a truck and trailer-mounted 966AA00 antenna set incorporating the 966AA01 antenna, an SES-75, SES-75M or equivalent model of electrical generator and power-distribution system, plus cables; and

    • a truck and trailer-mounted 966FF00 installation incorporating the 966FF03 shelter and SES-75/-75M electrical system.

    The two vehicles can be deployed up to 100m apart.

    Operating frequency C-band (4-6GHz)
    Range 5-300km
    Maximum target elevation up to 60?
    Maximum number of tracks up to 100 targets
    Time from target detection to availability of target data:
    - For elevations under 1.5? 12s
    - For elevations over 1.5? 21s
    Maximum number of the false target co-ordinates in 30min no more than 3-5
    Crew 3
    All-round search performance
    Azimuth 360?
    Elevation 0-20? (-3? if required)
    Doppler speed range ?30 to ?1,200m/s
    Information update rate:
    - in the low zone (0-1.5?) 6s
    - in the upper zone (1.5-20?) 12s
    Sector search
    Azimuth up to 120?
    Elevation 0-60? (-3? if required)
    Doppler speed range ?50 to ?2,800m/s
    Time taken: sector search up to 8s
    Time taken: lower sector search 5.5s
    Time taken: full search cycle 13.5s
    Low-altitude target search
    Azimuth 360?
    Elevation 0-1.5?
    Doppler speed range ?30 to ?1,200m/s
    Search time 6s
    Deployment time from the move 5min (single-vehicle) 30min (two-vehicle)
    Time needed to install antenna on the tower 120min
    Activation time when in combat position no more than 3 min
    Activation time when alerted no more than 40s
    Continuous operating time no limits
    Operating environment
    Temperature ?50?C
    Dust up to 2.5g/m_
    Wind up to 30m/s
    Resistance to being over-turned by wind up to 50m/s
    Operating altitude up to 3,000m
    Service life before overhaul 10 years
    Operating hours before overhaul 12,000h
    Total service life 20+ years
    Total operating hours 25,000-30,000h

  • #2
    once again more people ignorant of the S400lol!! this can in no way touch any US stealth AC.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by urmomma158
      once again more people ignorant of the S400lol!! this can in no way touch any US stealth AC.
      One must read a hell of a lot of books to show such brilliance.

      Comment


      • #4
        Maybe it can detect a stealth aircraft. But how stealth of an aircraft, and at what range? That's all that matters.

        I can personally detect stealth aircraft completely without a radar. But since I can see it probably inside 5 miles, it doesnt accomplish much, does it?

        Comment


        • #5
          I wonder how well it can track HARM's.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by canoe
            I wonder how well it can track HARM's.
            Hi Canoe, HARM homes to the overall radiation of the radar (not the beam as I thought before). Russian industry is right now producing very cheap devices which full HARM and divert them from radar. On the testing the head of the project was staying on the radar station being attacked by actual anti-radar missile. So sure he was that probability of destroying actual radar surrounded by 100 diverts is close to 1/10,000.

            HARM needs new homing.....

            I was told that major elements of 96L6 surveillance radar were tested against ferrying F-117 and B-2. But we discussed that ferrying stealth may have specific measures to increase their visibility
            Last edited by Garry; 14 Apr 06,, 14:01.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's a sureveillance radar it can only track stealth targets targets 0.2 square meters and above our stealth AC have much smaller rcs's. Now show me a fire control radar that can do that the US has one.. already been built, being saved for the DDX. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ystems/mfr.htm

              Standard missile have more range than the S400. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/stardsm3.htm
              http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

              Now i find it rather silly when people think that the Us has no counterstealth capabilitites at all. Quite pathetic logic some people have.
              Last edited by Shadowsided; 15 Apr 06,, 20:48.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Garry
                Hi Canoe, HARM homes to the overall radiation of the radar (not the beam as I thought before). Russian industry is right now producing very cheap devices which full HARM and divert them from radar. On the testing the head of the project was staying on the radar station being attacked by actual anti-radar missile. So sure he was that probability of destroying actual radar surrounded by 100 diverts is close to 1/10,000.

                HARM needs new homing.....

                I was told that major elements of 96L6 surveillance radar were tested against ferrying F-117 and B-2. But we discussed that ferrying stealth may have specific measures to increase their visibility
                once again this has been adressed in another thread. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...&page=10&pp=20

                once again sams arent scary. they havent even been successful at keeping conventional AC out.
                the bottom two links show the limitations of sams and how terrain and radar horizons can affect their performance.
                http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm
                http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...pietrucha.html

                the latest harms can use GPS and an active seeker when needed. http://www.atk.com/AdvancedWeaponSys...tems_aargm.asp
                http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ions/aargm.htm
                Last edited by Shadowsided; 14 Apr 06,, 21:32.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Please get lost kid. I read all but I talk only to grown up guys. I really have too little time to waist it for argues with meaningless people :)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Garry
                    I was told that major elements of 96L6 surveillance radar were tested against ferrying F-117 and B-2. But we discussed that ferrying stealth may have specific measures to increase their visibility
                    As I understand it thats correct. Someone (can't remember who) told me that the B2 has different modes when its not effectively in war mode its alot more visible then normal to a wide range of detection systems.

                    All that said I'm still not a fan of SAM based air defence. I don't think there much historical presidence to show SAM's were more or even comparably effective then having an actual airforce defending your airspace.

                    I'm still of the mind that if you want to have effective air defence you need to have alot of planes and well trained pilots.
                    Last edited by canoe; 17 Apr 06,, 22:25.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by canoe
                      As I understand it thats correct. Someone (can't remember who) told me that the B2 has different modes when its not effectively in war mode its alot more visible then normal to a wide range of detection systems.

                      All that said I'm still not a fan of SAM based air defence. I don't think there much historical presidence to show SAM's were more or even comparably effective then having an actual airforce defending your airspace.

                      I'm still of the mind that if you want to have effective air defence you need to have alot of planes and well trained pilots.
                      Hi Canoe, in my view SAMs is a cost effective PART of air defense. Without cover of Air Force it will not surive long. A good saturating salvo of cruise missiles from safe distance (strategic bombers can shoot salvos from over 3,000km) would finally break a breach in the coverage by SAMs and their low mobility (even for mobile SAM complexes) will not allow to cover this breach timelly.

                      However, in my view a coordination of air force and SAMs, can make a formidable air defense. AWACs flying inside coverage of friendly SAMs can detect enemy attack very far away, and risk only little countermeasure.... fighters can go in and out of friendly SAMs coverage thus attacking enemy and then returing to the safe areas where no enemy fighter (even stealthy) would risk engage them. Moreover fighters may get data on approaching enemy fighters much beyond of its radar capabilities when SAMs give this data to fighters.

                      In addition to that, the very essense of SAM is that it has VERY LOW maintenance cost compared to aircraft - you know that each fighter airframe uses up to 3-5 engine suites during its lifetime.

                      The acquisition cost is also an issue. With current variable cost per F-22 beyond $100mln, it also becomes much more economic to have many S-400 complexes for that cost. Due to its cost advantage you may build a heavilly defended zones where an overalapping coverage would make targets be detected and countered from several angles simultanuousloy.

                      So low cost + low maintenance make it very REASONABLE part of air defense. You need MUCH less resources of Air Force deviated to defense..... cause SAMs increase effectiveness of defencing Air Force.

                      In some way it resembles me a fortress once used in wars.... It will not survive by itself, but it may enforce your defense if used viselly, thus requiring enemy to either spend more RESOURCES to breach your defense or spend LONGER TIME.

                      ps. I meant modern SAMs with coverage zones of hundreds km.... not the short-range trash from 1970-es which is used by most of the world.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Garry
                        Please get lost kid. I read all but I talk only to grown up guys. I really have too little time to waist it for argues with meaningless people :)
                        Well your ignorance has shown as well as how little you know about aviation yourself (your previous posts in other threads show so) The 96L6 in incapable of engaging the Raptor as i have provided on other threads which you know yourself. Your posts show it, you know you were proven wrong in other threads give it up.

                        Current Russian fighters are already on par with America’s best fighter, the F-15. Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters will surpass the F-15; they are set to roll off production lines by 2005
                        It also says advanded sams are a threat.

                        http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/index.html
                        http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/stealth.html

                        THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets, he said. It also will be a key to cruise missile defense because with super-cruise speed it can position itself for both a "first and second shot," Roche revealed, which is difficult "because a cruise missile can come from any direction."
                        http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...2F03224wna.xml

                        There you have it the F 22 is superior, in order to attack the sams it needs glide bombs like JSOW or cruise missiles like JASSM all it has now is a JDAM which is not good for moving targets. Hopefully we can now get back looks like this thread is won. Plus gary if shown you that even an F 15 can take out the S400, without an airforce your sams are cooked.

                        Check this out the Raptor is much more advanced than most people think.http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...2F05244wna.xml
                        Last edited by Shadowsided; 18 Apr 06,, 15:22.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by urmomma158
                          Well your ignorance has shown as well as how little you know about aviation yourself (your previous posts in other threads show so) The 96L6 in incapable of engaging the Raptor as i have provided on other threads which you know yourself. Your posts show it, you know you were proven wrong in other threads give it up.


                          It also says advanded sams are a threat.

                          http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/index.html
                          http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/stealth.html



                          http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...2F03224wna.xml

                          There you have it the F 22 is superior, in order to attack the sams it needs glide bombs like JSOW or cruise missiles like JASSM all it has now is a JDAM which is not good for moving targets. Hopefully we can now get back looks like this thread is won. Plus gary if shown you that even an F 15 can take out the S400, without an airforce your sams are cooked.

                          Check this out the Raptor is much more advanced than most people think.http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...2F05244wna.xml
                          First off, you dont ignore any potential threat. Any SAM/AAA ring is going to be considered.

                          As far as the JDAMs...what kind of moving targets are you going after? Most "mobile" SAMs take a few hours to set up/tear down, and they're not carried on sports cars. If they move it, they're not moving it long distances, or else they've negated their own air defense. So an SA-20 for example, is going to be within a few miles of its previous position. So you look around for a good hilltop, then get some imagery of the gomers setting it up, then you hit it. "Mobile" SAMs arent usually all that mobile, unless they're tactical systems.

                          Edit: That Raptor article is 2 years old.
                          Last edited by Jimmy; 18 Apr 06,, 21:01.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by urmomma158
                            Well your ignorance..., without an airforce your sams are cooked...
                            One could argue it is the other way around: during the second part of the 80's, WP air defence systems saturated the air space over the battle area to such a level that NATO canceled CAS from its doctrine

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jimmy
                              First off, you dont ignore any potential threat. Any SAM/AAA ring is going to be considered.

                              As far as the JDAMs...what kind of moving targets are you going after? Most "mobile" SAMs take a few hours to set up/tear down, and they're not carried on sports cars. If they move it, they're not moving it long distances, or else they've negated their own air defense. So an SA-20 for example, is going to be within a few miles of its previous position. So you look around for a good hilltop, then get some imagery of the gomers setting it up, then you hit it. "Mobile" SAMs arent usually all that mobile, unless they're tactical systems.

                              Edit: That Raptor article is 2 years old.
                              I never said it would use JDAMS just JSOWS and JASSMs but it needs AARGMs. Besides what does the age of the article have to do with anything, the raptor can still take out the SA 20.The SA 20's anti stealth claims are old and the S 300 made the same claims.The S400 is advanced but not enough to take on a Raptor. That's quite a good point on the mobility of sams i can use that on ATS thank you very much. :) besides heres more sources http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a69082ec7.htm Beisdes the 96L6 is older the article i provided
                              Last edited by Shadowsided; 19 Apr 06,, 02:25.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X