For a UHF radar, I think 40km is far too short. My guess is 100-200km. That is why I say an LRASM would find it difficult to avoid an AWACs
PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
For a UHF radar, I think 40km is far too short. My guess is 100-200km. That is why I say an LRASM would find it difficult to avoid an AWACs
All those problems are even worse for the radar platform. What's the point of your argument? That LRASM cannot work?
If the missile is flying fully autonomously then it will have to pop-up from time to time to search its environs. If it is guided by another platform, say a F-35, than it can afford to sea skim for as long as necessary.
There is a difference between having clutter issues and having your performance degraded by clutter (which is inevitable). A VLO target (LRASM's RCS could be as low as 0.00005m2 from the front) below the clutter noise is going to be very difficult to detect. Don't forget that clutter RCS increases with range. The majority of techniques used to suppress the clutter also suppress the echo of the target. This problem is still a subject of active research. With its passive RF sensor, a VLO sea-skimmer will always have an upper hand against AEW aircraft and can plot evasive actions to stay out of their detection range (which is not going to be large to begin with).
Last edited:
No, it's not going to work like that. A large and powerful UHF radar like the Nebo-M can probably detect a F-35 fighter from around 90nm. LRASM has a RCS of at least 20 times less than the F-35, which means the Nebo-M could detect a high flying LRASM from about 45nm. But this is going to be coarse data: it will jump around each time you rescan the target, if the missiles are flying close enough the radar won't be able to tell you if there is just 1 or 20 of them. And it won't be good enough for a firing solution. For that you need a better quality track from an S-band or higher radar.
Obviously, an AEW aircraft won't be nearly as capable as a large terrestrial UHF radar. I am having trouble to find a PLA AEW aircraft that has a UHF radar. Can you help me out?
However, when the LRASM sea-skims, then the echo from the sea waves will completely drown the missile echo from all but the shortest ranges.
I ran a test in CMO: I had the KJ-2000 fly right into the LRASMs. It detected the first missile at 14.4nm.
I'd ignore the CMO performance characteristics. There's too much bias.
Minimum detection range of 108km+ for stealthy cruise missiles below. You'll have to argue with the methodology there.
Hence my comment on a 100-200km detection range for LRASM
no they're not, because a shipborne radar platform has far more power than a missile borne one that is constrained by size, weight and cooling.
You missed the context: the discussion was about a missile with a passive RF seeker.
All the propagation and multipath scatter problems apply just as well to the radar, but doubly so because the emitted RF signal has to travel a two-way path instead of one-way in a passive system.
There is no intentional bias in CMO. There are some understandable gaps in the database on PLA platforms because officially published data is very scarce.
I did the same test with an E-3C: it detected sea-skimming LRASMs at 17.6nm, just marginally better than KJ-2000.
Actually, CMO appears to hardly penalize radars at all against sea-skimmers. I suspect that real-life performance would be worse.
This is the whole point of a VLO cruise missile: get past enemy pickets and capitalize on surprise.
a shipborne active radar does not have propagation and multipath scatter problems because it can do 3 things:
1. directionally emit to avoid noisy regions
2. encode the radar signals with a pattern so that the received is tuned for that specific frequency and pattern and any distortion is known and compensated for
3. use a multistatic configuration with i.e. a helicopter emitter and the ship is passively listening
a passive RF seeker cannot do these things:
1. it must accept whatever RF signals are incoming and cannot disregard entire directions because the target might be in that direction
2. it doesn't know what the incoming signal looks like; it has the burden of processing the signal to remove the noise
3. it relies only on its own passive sensor
by78
General
I'll remind you that the launch weight of 2200kg refers to the vehicle-launched variant, which includes a booster. There are two other variants: one air-launched and one ship-launched. The air-launched variant has no booster and weighs 1200kg. It can be released from altitudes of 7000m to 12000m at speeds of 0.8ma to 0.95ma.
I'm surprised you didn't know this. Despite your obvious lack of research, and despite the provided by HDBP Ltd. clearly showing that it's air-launch capable, you amateurishly claim that launching the missile from JF-17 represents some kind of nay impossible feat. I'll also remind you that JF-17 can carry more than 3500kg of payload, which is well north of 1200kg.
Or did you perhaps misjudge the missile's size and weight from the CG graphic, despite your experience with CGI renderers? Tisk, tisk, how amateurish of you.
Please do some basic research before you sprinkle saliva on a subject that you know precious little about. It'll save all of us a lot of time and make this forum a much better place.
P.S. The third image is from the , which sent attachés to the 2018 Zhuhai Airshow. Is that a good enough source for you, amateur?
Last edited: