PLAN Sovremenny DDG 136, 137, 138 & 139 Thread


Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
According to Friedman, it's the other way around. What's your source?


Can't the same argument be made against aircraft launched ARH missiles? The relatively small and underpowered aircraft radars are unable to track the missiles as far out as ship-borne radars can, so the missiles have to rely on properly adjusted setpoints to arrive close enough so that the target falls within their homing basket.

A missile in mid-course could still receive updated setpoints, even if the tracking radar can no longer detect it, relying that the inertial guidance of the missile is good enough to figure out its position.


Same could be said of other command guidance systems or TVMs.

Not quite. The early Tartar and Terrier missiles were beamriders. They were upgraded to semi-active homers in the 1959/1960. Both missiles were upgraded to the Standard missile in mid 60s. Terrier became SM-1 ER and Tartar SM-1 MR. SM-1/SM-2 is not any smaller than Tartar. In fact, later variants are larger. Are you mixing up Tartar with Talos? Second, many missiles have a beacon emitter at their tail, so only a receiver would be needed onboard.

SPG-51 was installed on Virginia class nuclear cruisers, that were armed with SM-2 MRs. These missiles have a range of 90nm. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that ROC's Kidd destoyers have the same capability, which gets us to about 3x the 956 EM that PLAN has.

With regards to Friedman, I already showed you several sources. Not to mention none of the Indian and Chinese sources ever mentioned the Fregat having an X-band array, and they are the direct users of this radar. Even the photographic evidence do not support the Fregat having an X-band or being 2D or having worst 3D than the other array. Your call.

Modern aircraft radars are not underpowered, comparative to those in the 70s and 80s. SPG-51 dates back to the fifties so its not comparable. Please note that the extended range PL-15 for example, requires the use of AESA radars on the J-16 and J-10C. If you go back to the 70s and 80s, aircraft BVR engagements doesn't work that well, and specific aircraft that specialize in BVR, such as the F-14 Tomcat and the MiG-25 or MiG-31 have large powerful radars, these are the first aircraft to feature phase arrays.

If your missile has to rely on midcourse updates, how does the datalink find it if the tracking radar can no longer detect it or know where it is? How far can the datalink go? This is not more powerful than a radar itself. Its said the datalink for the Standards on the AEGIS is on the SPY-1 itself. With the SPG-51, it needs to be located with the illumination radar, so the datalink itself has to be within the SPG-51 array, so the array has to be pointed at the missile, and the missile has to be within the beam cone. Early SARH is similar to beam riding because the missile being tracked and the target being tracked needs to be in the same scanning cone of the fire control radar. Electronic scanning changed everything as you can quickly scan a much larger volume of the sky so that both missile and target do not need to be both within the same scanning cone. But the SPG-51 is a mechanical parabolic, it doesn't multibeam, so what it needs to track and talk with, everything has to be pointed with the same antenna.

Regardless how far the missile's ballistic range is, its effective combat range is dependent with the fire control radar it is paired with.

This is a neat reference.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SPG51.png

Frontdome.png


Not much of a difference, although I will give a slight edge for the SM-2MR/SPG-51 combination when it comes to range. However there are six Front Domes on the Sovremenny, which are four more tracking/illuminating radars than the two SPG-51 on the Kidds, and the other two PLAN Sovremenny has the assistance of the Pozitiv ME1 radar, which can electronically scan multiple targets with weapons quality track. The Sov will win in multiple engagement.

None of these matters when you are dealing with antiship missiles when they are hiding below the radar horizon and becomes only visible once they arise from it. At this point, the missile will only be detected around 30 to 40km. I do not have the height measurements but I will give the advantage of the Kidds due to the height of their radars from sea level for the advantage of having an earlier warning and engagement.

As for the Front Domes I never found what makes them tick, but this is the inside of the Fire Dome radar used with the land based Buk missile.

firedome.jpeg

That looks like a reflective planar array, and it reminds me of aircraft radars, kind of a slotted planar array radar without the slots and the feed is on the front and not the back.
 
Last edited:

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
With regards to Friedman, I already showed you several sources. Not to mention none of the Indian and Chinese sources ever mentioned the Fregat having an X-band array, and they are the direct users of this radar. Even the photographic evidence do not support the Fregat having an X-band or being 2D or having worst 3D than the other array. Your call.
The claim about X-band was my mistake, because I misjudged the size of the smaller antenna. Therefore, the only potential mistake Friedman made may be his claim that the smaller antenna operates at the lower frequency band compared to the larger one. If you provided a source for that, than I did not see it.

If your missile has to rely on midcourse updates, how does the datalink find it if the tracking radar can no longer detect it or know where it is? How far can the datalink go? This is not more powerful than a radar itself.
There is a big difference in a one-way path signal propagation from a beacon compared to two way signal propagation with scatter on target. Radar signal degrades with R^4 + scatter + extra R of atmosphere absorption compared to R^2 of one way beacon signal propagation.

I doubt that most fighter radars actually track missiles to the extremity of their ranges. For example , the AIM-120C-7 has a range of 111km. Can the ROC's F-16 Blk 20 AN/APG-66(V)3 radar actually track that small missile (only 18cm diameter) at 95km, which is about where it would go active at its extreme range? According to you that would be more than twice the range of SPG-51 which has a way larger antenna aperture and more powerful feed plus the range advantage of C-band vs X-band.

The PLAN HHQ-9 was described to have a beacon that sends data to the Type 346 radar during midcourse guidance. The USN's 240km range Talos SAM from the 1960s used a C-band missile borne beacon to track the missile. This was done by a separate SPW-2 guidance radar independent of the monstrous AN/SPG-49 C-band tracking and illumination radar with a peak power of 3MW in track mode and instrumented range of 275km. Apparently, the 5kW average power CWI at C-band was sufficient to perform SARH at those extreme ranges. Some sources:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I have more to say, but don't have anymore time to write today :) To be continued.
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
The claim about X-band was my mistake, because I misjudged the size of the smaller antenna. Therefore, the only potential mistake Friedman made may be his claim that the smaller antenna operates at the lower frequency band compared to the larger one. If you provided a source for that, than I did not see it.


There is a big difference in a one-way path signal propagation from a beacon compared to two way signal propagation with scatter on target. Radar signal degrades with R^4 + scatter + extra R of atmosphere absorption compared to R^2 of one way beacon signal propagation.

I doubt that most fighter radars actually track missiles to the extremity of their ranges. For example , the AIM-120C-7 has a range of 111km. Can the ROC's F-16 Blk 20 AN/APG-66(V)3 radar actually track that small missile (only 18cm diameter) at 95km, which is about where it would go active at its extreme range? According to you that would be more than twice the range of SPG-51 which has a way larger antenna aperture and more powerful feed plus the range advantage of C-band vs X-band.

The PLAN HHQ-9 was described to have a beacon that sends data to the Type 346 radar during midcourse guidance. The USN's 240km range Talos SAM from the 1960s used a C-band missile borne beacon to track the missile. This was done by a separate SPW-2 guidance radar independent of the monstrous AN/SPG-49 C-band tracking and illumination radar with a peak power of 3MW in track mode and instrumented range of 275km. Apparently, the 5kW average power CWI at C-band was sufficient to perform SARH at those extreme ranges. Some sources:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I have more to say, but don't have anymore time to write today :) To be continued.

I do not have to provide a source about the smaller antenna having a lower frequency band when you can see it with your own eyes.

If you are going to prove the smaller array works at a lower frequency, the array would have to be less dense with greater separation of the rows. I don't see it that.

img07-091-01.jpg


The smaller array still has a high number of rows that can be used for vertical scanning and measurement.


As for APG-66 V3, I would doubt that in SARH mode, using Sparrow, that it could track a missile up to 95km. So you're right there. It's likely to engage with the Sparrow at much closer ranges. So you're proving my point. I never said that missiles attain full combat effectiveness at their maximum range, and I contend that the fire control radar is the limit.


A beacon takes up the missile's battery and requires additional circuitry. A Talos can afford to use that because it is a huge missile. This is as big as some supersonic antiship missiles today.

HHQ-9 uses a TVM for its midcourse. That's obvious. That means it has to send data back from what it got with its seeker. But in the early stage the seeker won't have the range to seek the target so it has to be carried along by command guidance alone, then shifts to TVM once the missile's seeker is in range. That allows the midphase range to be extended, with the final leg of the journey in active mode, leaving it entirely to the active seeker.

You're spouting instrumented range. Do you know what instrumented range is? Its a figure that is not relevant to what it's actual range is. Instrumented range is the mathematical range of the radar using its longest PRF, allowing for enough time for the transmitted signal to go to source, target, then source within the same duty cycle, without an ambiguous range reading. If you have a small antenna and a weak transmitter, but with a very long PRF, you can claim a very long instrumented range.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SPG-51 has an instrumented range of 100 nm, but you can see from the .mil pdf its actual engagement range is much shorter.


Regardless, we are talking of the SPG-51 here, not the SPG-49. If a Talos is used with the SPG-51, it would still hit an effective limit with the SPG-51's range, and that's going to vary with the RCS of the target.


At least the Russians give you some context, as they can indicate at what range a bomber will be detected, at what range a fighter is detected, and at what range a missile is detected.


FREGAT-M2_190618_04.jpg


FREGAT-M2_190618_03.jpg


If you want some translation of the text, here goes.

"The survey of space is carried out by frequency scanning of the pencil-type beam in the vertical plane with circular electromechanical rotation of the antenna in the horizontal plane. The antenna device consists of two main antennas and identification system antennas. The main antenna, which is a flat sheet of waveguide lines, forms a wave front with horizontal polarization. The antenna canvases of both frequency channels are installed "backs" to each other at the same antenna post, which makes it possible to double the speed of the space survey and the rate of information delivery to consumers on the targets accompanied on the "passage". This design of the antenna post allows, in addition to increasing the noise immunity and reliability of operation, to increase the accuracy of determining the coordinates of high-speed maneuvering targets."

Источник:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ВТС «БАСТИОН» A.V.Karpenko

Bold is mine.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
Thanks to LKJ86/PDF. Scene taken from a video, see 052D thread.


001SX8hXly1gp0v8id9rgj61900u0h9t02 (1).jpg


Scene likely shot from 132 Suzhou with two Sovremenny ahead. This highlights the visual differences between the refit and the -EM version, such as from the back, the presence of the Type 364 radar on the former and the Pozitiv radar on the latter. You can also see the tall ESM stalk on the refit that's inherited from the 052D series.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
I do not have to provide a source about the smaller antenna having a lower frequency band when you can see it with your own eyes.

If you are going to prove the smaller array works at a lower frequency, the array would have to be less dense with greater separation of the rows. I don't see it that.
This a tricky radar to look at, because of the canted antennae. I found a high resolution image of Fregat M2EM (the one from the brochure you posted) where it is easy to count the horizontal lines. I posted the image below, so that you can double check.

By my count there are 36 lines in the big antenna and 24 lines in the small antenna. If I take Friedman's quote that the big antenna is 3.3m tall and the small 2.42m tall, then I get an average spacing of 9.16cm for the big antenna and 10cm for the small antenna. So the big antenna comes out as denser!
INS_Satpura_-_Fregat_M2EM_Radar.jpg

As for APG-66 V3, I would doubt that in SARH mode, using Sparrow, that it could track a missile up to 95km. So you're right there. It's likely to engage with the Sparrow at much closer ranges. So you're proving my point. I never said that missiles attain full combat effectiveness at their maximum range, and I contend that the fire control radar is the limit.
OK. I don't know if we will be able to agree here, but I will return the discussion back to the Standard missile and SPG-51.

Basically, my argument is that the Kidd can shoot at targets at ranges that exceed the ability of the SPG-51 to track the missile. Moreover, it is not necessary for the ship to track the missile. SPG-51 just needs to be able to track the target. Here is an illustration of the difference in guiding a SM-2 missile with AEGIS and legacy Terrier/Tartar systems:
1617185395400.png
With the Tartar combat system (I believe that we agree this is what is present on the Kidd) the SM-2 missile flies on autopilot towards the assigned setpoint. As is mentioned in the text above, the ship can issue updated setpoints throught the midcourse phase if course changes are required. This is basically what I was saying up till now. However, the question of whether the combat system tracks the missile or not is not answered above. There is a clue later in the article:
tartar.png
So, as long the ship is able to track the target it can direct missiles at it. Finally, the endgame is similar for both systems with the difference that Tartar needs to switch to SARH earlier than AEGIS:
1617186060700.png
Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A similar logic applies to ESSM: even such a small missile (a derivative of AIM-7 Sparrow) has space and battery for a receiver/transmitter (uplink/downlink beacon) towards the ship. The AEGIS system uses the AEGIS upllink (SPY-1 S-band comm RF) to command guide the missile to a setpoint before it begins homing on target.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
I searched for clues as to how capable SPG-51 is at tracking missiles. I found the following CEC experiment that was conducted in the 90s. A Ticonderoga cruiser launched a SM-2 interceptor against a beyond-the-horizon sea-skimmer. The SM-2 was command guided by the Ticonderoga towards an intercept trajectory. After flying beyond the radar horizon the missile was transferred to SPG-51D (same as ROC Kidd) on top of a mountain which provided target tracking and illumination in the homing and endgame phase. See the illustration below:
1617195172700.png
The key clue to the SPG-51D performance against small sea-skimming missiles is the following paragraph:
mk74.png

If we take the ship horizon as 20nm, then we can conclude that the (mountain top) SPG-51 can track and illuminate sea-skimming missiles at ranges well beyond 20+25=45nm. As was explained in my previous post, the SPG-51 tracks only the target missile. It doesn't track the SM-2 missile.

Therefore, the ROC got a rather capable SAM platform in the form of those NTU upgraded Kidd destroyers which easily beats Sovremennys in terms of long range SAM capability.

Wikipedia description of NTU for Tartar:
Vessels of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had their Tartar systems upgraded to modification 14 or 15 standard which enabled them to employ the Standard Missile 2 as part of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(NTU) program. The New Threat Upgrade equipped vessels could utilize the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
systems on the SM-2 and time share illumination radars for semi-active homing in the terminal phase of the intercept, increasing the number of targets the Tartar system could attack at the same time. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Tartar ships could function nearly as well as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
equipped vessels, except for dealing with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The NTU still requires the AN/SPG-51 radar to acquire a lock on the target and illuminate it just before intercept.
 
Last edited:

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Correction for my Fregat average distance between elements in the vertical dimension calculation. I should've divided by one bar less to get the average separation:
1. Big antenna. 330cm/35=9.42cm
2. Small antenna. 242/23=10.52cm
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
I searched for clues as to how capable SPG-51 is at tracking missiles. I found the following CEC experiment that was conducted in the 90s. A Ticonderoga cruiser launched a SM-2 interceptor against a beyond-the-horizon sea-skimmer. The SM-2 was command guided by the Ticonderoga towards an intercept trajectory. After flying beyond the radar horizon the missile was transferred to SPG-51D (same as ROC Kidd) on top of a mountain which provided target tracking and illumination in the homing and endgame phase. See the illustration below:
View attachment 70550
The key clue to the SPG-51D performance against small sea-skimming missiles is the following paragraph:
View attachment 70552

If we take the ship horizon as 20nm, then we can conclude that the (mountain top) SPG-51 can track and illuminate sea-skimming missiles at ranges well beyond 20+25=45nm. As was explained in my previous post, the SPG-51 tracks only the target missile. It doesn't track the SM-2 missile.

Therefore, the ROC got a rather capable SAM platform in the form of those NTU upgraded Kidd destroyers which easily beats Sovremennys in terms of long range SAM capability.

Wikipedia description of NTU for Tartar:
Vessels of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had their Tartar systems upgraded to modification 14 or 15 standard which enabled them to employ the Standard Missile 2 as part of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(NTU) program. The New Threat Upgrade equipped vessels could utilize the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
systems on the SM-2 and time share illumination radars for semi-active homing in the terminal phase of the intercept, increasing the number of targets the Tartar system could attack at the same time. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Tartar ships could function nearly as well as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
equipped vessels, except for dealing with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The NTU still requires the AN/SPG-51 radar to acquire a lock on the target and illuminate it just before intercept.


Only if CEC is used, and you are presuming that you have a radar on a mountaintop near the coast. Mountains give land based SAM radars an enormous radar horizon. This means less in the open sea.


If the SPG-51C is at sea level, you can presume the radar horizon will prevent what you illustrate from happening.

I wonder how you can miss the radar being on a mountain on this demonstration.


Individually, the SPG-51C is still restrained by the range of its illumination beam, and that according to the .mil pdf, does not appear to be much better than the Front Dome on the Sovremenny.


I don't know if you noticed but in your illustration, the engagement range is much shorter than the tracking range.

1617185395400.png


You do have one problem with the SPG-51C is that both the tracking radar and the illumination radar has to share the same beam because they share the same parabolic antenna. That is illustrated in B. However your target tracking range is longer than the illumination range, so the target is being tracked for a while before it gets into the illumination beam range.

Without CEC, the Kidd just doesn't have the "long" range you are touting for. Taiwan does not have AEGIS ships, and while they may have Patriot systems, MPQ-53 with its C-band doesn't work with Standard missiles. Unless Taiwan has some other land based SAM with CEC systems that can work with the Standards, the CEC issue is moot. You're back to square one. Do note this is a waste of time, I also mentioned the use of CEC in a previous post and said the same thing---you don't have the assets to support this. Even from a mountain top, the illumination range of the SPG-51 remains unchanged, maybe 70 to 80km at most and much less than that when its a missile with a low RCS; a typical sea skimmer missile can have an RCS from .5 to .1m. Most of these quoted ranges are against aircraft with 25m2 to 3 or 5m2. The Tico would have to be close to coast which makes you wonder what it is doing there in the first place. Because its just an experiment, and it does not reflect a real life condition. It doesn't even extend the range at all because again, the SPG-51 isn't going farther with its total range, its only going higher to extend its radar horizon. Because of the height of the SPY-1 radars, your radar horizon isn't the best, maybe around 30km but to get the exact numbers you have to find the height of the SPY-1 from the sea level. So you are back to Square One because none of this is a demonstration of long range, but a demonstration of CEC being used to overcome the limits of radar horizon. If you want longer range you should have pointed to a demonstration where the Kidd would hand off the SM-2MR to an AEGIS ship, and the AEGIS ship completes the journey of the SM-2MR. This is the only situation where you can point to the Kidd's having presumably a longer SAM range but its with a big helping hand.

Pointing to inertial guidance with uplink information doesn't extend the maximum range of the illumination beam, which puts the hard limit on the effective range of the SARH missile. It merely changes the shape of the midphase path but you end up in the same point in space. Further more if you are not flying A to B in the straightest and most direct path, your interception time is going to take longer.

Now with regards to the Fregat's smaller array, even 24 rows is big. The smaller array is still more square like than other S-band for instance the SMART-S which is even used in the Charles De Gaulle carrier.


smart-s_mk2_thales_s-band_solid_state_multibeam_surveillance_radar_top-770x385@2x.jpg

The smaller array on the Fregat has more rows than the Type 120 search radar used with the land based HQ-9 system.


unnamed (20).jpg


Fregat is used to track targets and queue the Tombstone, Flap Lid or Top Dome fire control radars for the naval S-300. For what it does, that's pretty adequate even in the ranges used with the S-300. If you are adding Top Plate over the existing Top Pair, doubling on the search radars, the second one can be presumably added for its tighter tracking needed to queue the fire control radars, with the Top Pair concentrating on sheer search coverage.


unnamed (19).jpgRussian_Cruiser_Pyotr_Veliky_CGN_Kirov-class.jpgSlava_cruiser_MARSHAL_USTINOV_Russia_Navy_refit.jpg
 
Last edited:

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
One more thing to add, with regards to the Fregat and frequency scan. The longer the distance between the radiator to another, the greater the angle the beam that can be phase shifted. Another factor that is difficult to measure but is important to how far the angle the beam can be phase shifted, is the length of the S or snake feed that you see on the sides. Without knowing the actual length of the S feed, a longer distance between each radiator means each sequential radiator gets a greater delay time.
 
Last edited:

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Only if CEC is used, and you are presuming that you have a radar on a mountaintop near the coast. Mountains give land based SAM radars an enormous radar horizon. This means less in the open sea.
The mountain wasn't the point. You can inverse the picture: put the radar at sea-level and the threat at altitude. The point was to demonstrate what the tracking and illumination capabilities of the upgraded SPG-51D are. Tracking a sea-skimming missile is a lot more challenging than tracking an aircraft flying at 1km+ altitude. If the SPG-51D was credited to be able to track and illuminate sea-skimming missiles at ranges well beyond 45nm=83.34km, then it would do even better against aircraft whose RCS is 10-100 larger than the missile and who don't fly as low.
If the SPG-51C is at sea level, you can presume the radar horizon will prevent what you illustrate from happening.

I wonder how you can miss the radar being on a mountain on this demonstration.

Individually, the SPG-51C is still restrained by the range of its illumination beam, and that according to the .mil pdf, does not appear to be much better than the Front Dome on the Sovremenny.
First, it is SPG-51D Mod 15 NTU that is installed on the ROC Kidd's. Second, the plots in that pdf are authors's simulations where he plugged in his estimation of radar parameters into the radar equation. Judging by the range he gave to the SM-2MR he must've been used the early variant of the missile. The same could then be said of the SPG-51 radar.

The SM-2MR Blk III on the ROC Kidd have a range of 90nm and the ship's Tartar combat system received the NTU upgrade in the 88-90.

You do have one problem with the SPG-51C is that both the tracking radar and the illumination radar has to share the same beam because they share the same parabolic antenna. That is illustrated in B. However your target tracking range is longer than the illumination range, so the target is being tracked for a while before it gets into the illumination beam range.
In AEGIS ships, the SPG-62 illuminators are slaved to SPY-1. On the Kidd, the SPG-51 needs to be able to track the target in order to point the illumination beam correctly, which happens automatically since they share the same antenna. Thanks to inertial guidance of SM-2 missiles, the tracking/illumination can still be timeshared among a large number of missiles, although less than in AEGIS for the reason discussed above. For the initial part of the engagement, the SPS-48 track is sufficient (otherwise it couldn't time share).
Even from a mountain top, the illumination range of the SPG-51 remains unchanged, maybe 70 to 80km at most and much less than that when its a missile with a low RCS; a typical sea skimmer missile can have an RCS from .5 to .1m.
You keep running into contradictions. We just saw in the example above that SPG-51D is capable of engaging small sea-skimming missiles at a distance of well beyond 45nm ( if positioned at a mountaintop). Against aircraft with RCS up to 100 larger it should theoretically be able to do triple that (quadratic root relation of range to RCS).

Your argument is basically that ROC's Kidd destroyer and F-16 fighter are mismatched to their anti-air weapons of choice and can't take advantage of the full capability of the SM-2MR Block IIIA missile and the AIM-120C-7 missile, respectively. On the other hand, you claim that the PRC's Sovremmeny destroyers and J-10 aircraft are perfectly matched to their weapon of choice. Please.

Pointing to inertial guidance with uplink information doesn't extend the maximum range of the illumination beam, which puts the hard limit on the effective range of the SARH missile. It merely changes the shape of the midphase path but you end up in the same point in space. Further more if you are not flying A to B in the straightest and most direct path, your interception time is going to take longer.
SPG-51D has enough illumination power. As discussed previously, it has a slightly larger antenna and 40% of the output RF power compared to SPG-62. Increasing power output by 60% will give you 26% more illumination range (square root relation). The latter's minimum illumination capability is 240km, which is the range of the SM-2ER Block IV missile, but is likely even more as it supports the longer range SM-6. Taking 240km as the baseline, we can derive the SPG-51D max illumination range to be 190km.

Finally, I guess you know that modern SAM's don't fly the shortest path from A to B? In fact, not flying the straight line to target is what gives them ultimately more range due to superior aerodynamics.
 
Last edited:

Top