nam wrote:Ok, so it is X band for target & C for acquisition. I wonder about the power requirement for a 300km X band targeting, in a mobile system. May be it is less compared to AESA, because it is PESA?
X and C bands are very well suited for engagement radars. Power requirements though heavy would be manageable as both Russia and the US has been fielding high frequency radars for this work for some time and the S400 to that end takes the S300 technology forward (92N6 is an upgrade/re-design of the Tombstone PESA) so there was plenty of time to solve that side of things. It is the norm rather than the exception with high end SAM systems.
nam wrote:A land based X band radar at those ranges will need tremendous power source. So S band is used to give it the range required, coupled with Ku band seeker on the SAM to hit the target.
When you are developing a highly capable AMD system, you are usually trading one thing for the other. Higher frequencies is where you want to be on the engagement side for many reasons and this is where the legacy systems also existed so it is only logical that modernized systems also perform in that frequency range. Power requirements relative to more efficient lower frequency sensors would be higher, but they won't be unrealistic or a big ask and in return you also get much better performance.
Primary reason that some of the AD systems use single lower frequency sensor is to cater to a particular cost target (both O&S cost and procurement cost) because S band is very good if you want to balance surveillance needs with Engagement needs and do not want to field multiple sensors.
On Seekers and interceptors:
I could be wrong, but most of the SAMs currently operational with the S300 and S-400 domestic/export systems currently require SAGG with the exception of the 5V55K and 5V55KD which require command guidance. The most widely seen export missile on the S400 will likely be the 48N6E3 which employs a semi-active seeker.
Earlier this month Aviation Week and other outlets reported that the Russian forces had accepted the 40N6 long range SAM which fields an active seeker but there is no confirmation of the missile having been exported to either of the recent S-400 export customers or being part of negotiations even before it entered Russian service.
I am also unaware of what the export designation is for the 40N6 or whether an export variant even exists given it was apparently accepted by the Russian forces just a few weeks ago.
In real world the guidance system can be many things our there including AWACS , L/S band radar , Meter band and even triangulated by passive system
Guidance as usually used refers to SAM guidance or missile communication in a SAGG system. Yes, Air Defenses are linked to all major military surveillance networks such as ground, air and space and so will S400 and other Air-Defense systems as they have been for years. An AWACS is not going to guide a SAM to its target but will provide the SA to the air defender on the ground. When more Active Seeker SAM systems proliferate then it becomes practical and cost-effective to invest in Fire-Control level interoperability between air-sea or land based disparate systems and then you can begin developing systems like that. The USN does that with its NIFC-CA and the US Army is doing this with its IBCS which goes beyond data sharing and a common operating picture with tactical data links and air-defense networks provide already.
Nebo-M meter radar system is integrated with other L/S/X band system ..... Nebo-M system when sensor fused with other RF data provides a good capability against broad range of target.
Do you know what the export systems in the NEBO family are called/designated?
