Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 28 Nov 2014 07:40

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 246 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 22:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 791
The MKI Bars radar, a PESA was classified as mini-AWACS, in the above scenario if the Phalcons can be replaced with the Bars carrier, it offers much more flexibility, maybe the proposed upgrade of high powered AESA's offer the required stand-off ranges

Active stealth such as Rafale's Spectra which tunes into the hostile radar frequencies and masks the reflected signal in near real time, it can act as a passive sensor and probably can be operated in a multi-static mode with the long range air defence radars of China itself, a fair number of sensors flying along the Himalayas can give cues of stealth aircraft flying between them and the Chinese S-300 systems

MKIs can switch on their torches towards the cueued direction for tracking purposes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 06:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23581
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
vivek_ahuja wrote:
Bi-Static and Multi-Static radars are one answer.

Think of it this way, if you have more than one radar illuminating a piece of real estate in the sky, any incoming fighter will have to expose its larger RCS cross-sections to one or more of the illuminating systems. If they are all networked, then the information is shared and the location passed on to the aircraft/target under threat. Alternatively, the information is given to inteceptors that will track and eliminate the targets.

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7969 ... oncept.jpg

Another way is to increase the power of the radar systems, but this is limited to platform choice for the airborne radars. For example, it might be possible to increase the power on the Phalcon (unlikely but possible) while that is not the case on the CABS AEW. Ground based radars don't really have power limitation problem but instead have are vulnerable and restricted on line of sight.

-Vivek


Also as per the article above - use L and S band radars. What are they?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 09:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 565
Popular Mechanics wrote:
Aerospace engineers designed stealth airplanes primarily to beat the detection equipment that poses the greatest threat—X-band radar. Surface-to-air batteries use this band because it operates at wavelengths that give the optimal compromise between the range and resolution needed to identify and track a target. But when stealth airplanes are exposed to radar waves longer than this wavelength range, they generate stronger radar returns.

For this reason, well-equipped defenders have more than one kind of radar protecting the same airspace, set up at different angles. For example, a defender protecting a fixed target (like a uranium-enrichment facility) could share data from a network of several radars to get enough information to accurately launch a missile. A VHF radar could detect incoming aircraft while lower-frequency S-band or L-band radars on the flanks could paint the target from the sides. Russia sells such counterstealth radar combinations as package deals.


This isn't quite true. A layered IADS uses radars of different frequency bands for different tasks. L and S band radars are long-range search radars. Great for early warning and surveillance, but the coverage is spotty and the data rate is low, meaning they can't be used for tracking and fire control. X band radars are used for fire control. They have relatively short ranges and cannot be used to scan the sky; they are pointed at the target identified by a C band target acquisition radar. They follow that target and provide data to weapons (AAA, SAMS, etc) to be directed against it.

To say that the X band radar is the "greatest threat" paints a false picture, IMHO. Depending on the target profile and the system set up for air defence, the greatest threat may well be something else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 00:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 791
We take border fencing seriously, probably fencing around the nuclear plants as well, so why not do that for Mumbai, the NCR, Jammu and Srinagar, create a perimeter around each place so that all movement is through checkpoints. The people living there and any one visiting should be one of the first ones that have an identification such as an Adhaar card or a Passport.

Pros:
Bomb and run campaigns by paki proxies (sleeper cells) wouldn't be easy due to checkpoints, neither is the availability of the incendiary material

The hit or miss of intelligence information on terror and acting on it in time (small time attacks such as the best bakery case still happening) can now give way to a more reassuring situation

Currently each institute or place of importance needs protection, instead of thinking point security why not adopt area security by creating sanitized zones (which is more relevant after the Headley episode)

BMD assets need protection from asymmetric targeting and they can be located inside the perimeter

For Jammu and Srinagar AFSPA can be removed in the sanitized zones

Mass riots/hysteria seen in recent times will pass since they can't take off from the place of event at will

Cell phone towers in multi static mode around the perimeter can detect stealthy cruise missiles approaching the metro area and can be shot down using VSHORADS

In future if per news reports the atomic agency decides to build underground nuclear reactors that are located within cities or SEZ's, the same security would be needed

Cons:
Traffic might face delays through the checkpoints, Mumbai and Delhi will have atleast 10 major highways leading in/out and about 5 rail lines.

For roads, we would need large US-Mexico type of border checkpoints for each highway near the perimeter, for bypass traffic existing alternate routes would have to be improved

For trains, an option is Metro rail would have to be extended upto the perimeter and transfer stations (checkpoints) to the rail network would have to happen. This gels with the Railways plan of de-congesting main stations by making all trains passing through metro regions to stop at many small stations between the outer limits of the metro and the main station. Only this time the local metro transport will take that role and the IR train itself will stop at the outermost station at the perimeter and takes a bypass to go onwards.

City growth
With rapidly growing city, containment by perimeter will be a problem so one way to mitigate this would be to forecast the growth and hence the identify the suitable outer limits which say could be revised after 25 years and hopefully the TSP problem disappears by then. A perimeter further out than the current settlement creates a buffer zone for VSHORADS deployment as well.

Tier 2 cities and towns are ignored in the security setup, with security forces having the key places covered can then focus on these areas.

In rural villages people usually know each other in the village so a neighborhood watch kind of program helps them. Just awareness needs to be made.

These are thoughts and not a Spec ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 00:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Nov 2011 22:31
Posts: 2987
Location: Jambudveepe Bharatvarshe, Bharatkhande, Sakabde, Mero Dakshine Parsve
shiv wrote:
Trying again

What means and technology has India developed/acquired to track stealthy aircraft?

Over the Himalayas, there are no cellphone towers for help in tracking. Perhaps IR?



Series of a cheaper version of Aslesha, even 2D perhaps, on all valley floors, looking up perhaps even in some more dense arrangement cris-crossing the valley. You cannot have angles at all places. Planes cannot be angular in dorsoventral axis. hein ji.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 00:17 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38615
X-post...

Corruption, Bureaucracy Delay $100B India Buy
Quote:

NEW DELHI — India plans to spend more than $100 billion on weapons and equipment in the next five to seven years, but [b]if the military wants to prepare for a possible simultaneous conflict with Pakistan and China, that figure will need to rise to about $150 billion, a senior Indian Army official said[/b].

Forces on the borders with Pakistan and China will need to be increased and better equipped, the official added, especially the mountain troops. He declined to say if any plan is being developed to change the type or quantity of weapons and gear being bought.

The top five procurements for India’s services now cost more than $60 billion, a figure anticipated to increase by at least 20 percent, to $72 billion, because of inflation. Other planned purchases could push the spending figure to more than $150 billion in the next seven to 10 years.

Army: The purchase of a variety of 155mm/.52-caliber artillery guns will continue to be the top priority. All of the field guns in more than 220 artillery regiments are planned to be replaced for more than $8 billion.

Ten years of effort to buy the artillery through open competition have resulted in no purchases, as corruption cases against vendors have impeded procurement.

A program to buy wheeled guns also faces imminent cancellation because one of the competitors, Rheinmetall Air Defence, has been banned from doing business in India for 10 years. :mrgreen:

The Army has now ordered a homemade upgraded version of the 155mm/.45-caliber guns by the state-owned Ordnance Factories Board.

The Army is also buying 145 light howitzers from the U.S subsidiary of BAE, which will be deployed along the higher reaches of India’s border with China. Additional purchases are planned
.

Air Force: The Air Force is facing a shortage of combat aircraft following the retirement of MiG-23s and replacement of MiG- 21 and -29 aircraft. The service wants to increase its fleet of about 33 squadrons to at least 44 squadrons to retain its edge over Pakistan over the next 10 years. In addition, a variety of radars is needed to keep the air defense systems intact.

The big-ticket program is the Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), costing more than $12 billion, and beginning induction of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), being jointly developed with Russia. The FGFA is worth about $25 billion for the purchase of 250 aircraft.

The first MMRCA delivery will not begin earlier than 2015-2016, by which time the Air Force will have retired 100 more MiG-21s, the bulk of its combat fleet, and 40 more MiG-27s. To compensate, the Air Force plans to upgrade existing aircraft.

France’s Rafale was selected as the preferred aircraft in the MMRCA program, and negotiations are underway over issues pertaining to transfer of technology and offsets. The contract is expected to be finalized before March.

Navy: The Navy is retiring aging Russian warships faster than it is inducting new ones, so the service wants the Defence Ministry to take steps to reach a target of 185 warships by 2017. A Navy official said fleet strength could fall to 120 warships by 2017 from 140 now.

The Navy in 1999 had planned to build 24 submarines by 2022-2023. But so far, not a single submarine has been added, and the first lot of six conventional Scorpene submarines procured from France is behind schedule by more than three years. State-owned Mazagon Docks, where the subs are being built, has been asked to deliver one submarine every six months starting in August 2015. All six have to be commissioned by September 2018.

India’s submarine fleet has dwindled from 21 in the 1980s to 14. Meanwhile, India has leased a Russian nuclear submarine for 10 years, and the homemade nuclear submarine Arihant is expected to be ready for operational use early next year. India plans to build more of the Arihant class.

The Indian Defence Ministry has not yet issued a request for proposals for an additional six submarines, worth around $12 billion, because it has not decided whether to allow domestic shipyards to bid on the program.

The Navy also is acquiring seven stealth frigates at a cost of $7 billion. Mazagon Docks, prime contractor of the project, had invited overseas shipyards to provide modular construction technology.

The project has not been finalized because the only bidder to express interest, a joint Lockheed Martin-Hyundai Industries team, withdrew.

“All defense acquisition programs are behind schedule, some of them by over 10 years because of bureaucratic delays, which affect the combat worthiness of the Indian forces. Structural changes should be made in the purchase processes, which will include a greater role for the Indian forces and specialists hired from outside the Indian Defence Ministry,” said Nitin Mehta, defense analyst. .
:rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 246 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Jayan Menon, sam witte and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group