siva,siva wrote:What is mean by MTBF of 150 hrs. What kind of failure is that. Does it "fail" for every 150 hours.
According to the following Irkut statement, the number of targets simultaneously engaged is four. As far as the number of targets tracked is concerned, I have seen a figure of 15.Sumeet wrote:
Our BARS will track 15 or 20 and engage 8 simultaneously in the 3rd model which has Indian radar DSPs ?
The third phase Su-30MKI fully implements all navigation and combat modes according to contract commitments. The fighter is capable of employment of the whole nomenclature of aerial weapons, including simultaneous attack of up to 4 targets by guided missiles into front and rear hemispheres, corrected aerial bombs 500 and 1500 kg with designation from laser designation pos. all aerial weapons can be applied with designation from the radar.
Here is the question -- what does the author means when he says that range will be increased to 180 kms ? What kind of target RCS he has in his mind ?The Batch 3 standard will not quite be the "ultimate," since a future modernization is planned. The N011M Bars radars are to receive new transmitter components that will increase their range to 180 km, and new gimbals for the antenna mount to increase the field of view to about 90-100 degrees to both sides. New software will enable a Doppler-sharpening mode and the capability to engage up to eight air targets simultaneously. The aircraft are also to carry the heavy PJ-10 Brahmos-A anti-ship missiles, developed by NPO Mashinostroyenya (Reutovo, Russia) and DRDO (Delhi, India). This missile has a range of up to 300 km, but because it weighs 2,250 kg, the aircraft will be able to carry only one.
The Bars radar has a highly reliable phase-array antenna. It guarantees the detection of an incoming fighter at a distance no less than 130km (60km form the rear hemisphere) and the detection angle of +/-45deg. vertically and +/-70deg. horizontally. Such wide angle was achieved as the antenna could rotate in this plane. The radar could simultaneously track both air and ground targets and engage 4 to 8 targets. In the near future the observation angle would be increased to +/-100deg in both planes, and the accuracy would also rise to 5m (before 10m). Another function of the radar is automatic target transmission to 4 other planes functioning in passive mode.
Phazotron's phased array series (Kopyo-F etc) have an MTBF of 250 hrs, due to the elimination of moving parts. However, the Bars does employ limited mechanical slewing for it's phased array and there should be associated complications.Harry,
MTBF for Zhuk MF is said to be greater than 150 hrs according to Janes, any idea about MTBF of BARS.
I thought it was a min. of 120kms against a 3m^2 target with the existing box so the upgraded box should do a min. of 180kms against a similar 3m^2 target.Sumeet wrote:.........Here is the question -- what does the author means when he says that range will be increased to 180 kms ? What kind of target RCS he has in his mind ? ........
Theres the catch as they are quite coy. .JaiS wrote:Nitin, does NIIP speak of 20/8 for the current Bars ( Mk.3 ), or for a MLU'd Bars ( Mk.3+ ), do you have an online source for this ?JCage wrote:Re: no of targets tracked and engaged, guess what! NIIP is back to saying 20/8...that says something.
Raytheon makes nearly identical claims about the AN/APG-63(V)3 stating that is mostly an antenna replacement and that the back end of the radar set remains much the same. “What has made the difference in the design of the (V)3 variant versus the previous (V)2 model has been the use of next-generation tiles in the T/R modules, a benefit that we enjoyed from the crossover of the technology we developed on the AN/APG-79 for the F/A-18E/F. This makes the (V)3 about 240 pounds lighter than the previous generation model,” stated one designer.
), the 0.75 m2 correspondin to planes equipped with different missiles;
The “Bars” ((“Panther”)) radar control system (RLSU), developed by the V.V. Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Building on order of the Aerospace Equipment Corporation is the next stage of work on the creation of an integrated radiotechnical complex for the fifth generation multirole combat airplane. In 2003, the corporation won a Russian defense ministry tender for participation in this largest of the Russian defense industrial complex’s projects and it plans to invest more than 160 million dollars of its own funds in experimental design work on it.
It should be noted that a decrease of potential performance is observed in aircraft radars (BRLS) with fixed phased antenna arrays at large angles (more than 40 degrees) of beam pattern deflection from the axis of the antenna. Further work on the improvement of the antenna technology led to the creation of moving phased antenna array for the “Bars” radar control system which not only has been freed from the deficiencies of the fixed phased antenna array, but also has assumed a series of new capabilities.
The “Bars” radar control system has become a new development stage in domestic and worldwide radar and pertains to the so-called generation 4++. It has tangible advantages in comparison with the preceding generation, to which in particular the “Zhuk-MEh” radar control system and others pertain.
The new aircraft radar station has a moving phased antenna array (FAR) with electronic scanning that allows practically instantly shifting the antenna beam pattern to any point in space and depending on the target situation flexibly vary the speed of the beam’s shift and its time at each angular position during a scan of the air space and the surface below, and also to form an antenna pattern of the required configuration depending on the tasks being resolved. Thus, the phased antenna array possesses irrefutable advantages to reflector antennas and slotted antenna arrays.
An airplane equipped with the “Bars” radar control system gains the capability to examine the air space at high speed while simultaneously tracking up to 15 objects and attacking up to 4 targets located at any point of the scanning zone (at a spatial angle of 800) and at the same time to search for new targets. This mode allows in case it is necessary (upon the appearance of a more dangerous target) changing the target being attacked. For an example, in an aircraft radar with a slotted antenna array, once can realize such a regime only in a simplified variant – without maintaining a scan of the ((air)) space and under conditions of the positioning of the targets in a narrow zone of 200 square degrees (for example, in a zone 400 in azimuth and 50 in elevation.)
The “Bars” aircraft radar allows the use of a combined mode, that is, to operate simultaneously both against aerial and against ground targets (whereas this was practically impossible in the aircraft radars of the previous generation.) In which connection, this mode is realized in two variants: the ground target tracking mode with maintenance of spatial scan of aerial targets and the single ground target tracking mode with simultaneous firing at an aerial target in long-range combat.
Beside the modes listed above, the “Bars” radar control system provides:
In the operational mode against aerial targets:
search of targets by speed;
search of targets by measuring and changing range;
scan of the air space in a zone of +70 degrees in azimuth and +40 degrees in elevation;
illumination of targets and transfer of update commands ((KOMANDA RADIOKORREKTSII)) for control of missile armament;
tracking of a jamming platform;
determination of type of airborne targets. On switching on of this mode, the “Bars” radar control system determines the type of aerial target detected through the parameters of the signal reflected from the target: “large target,” “medium-sized target,” “small target,” “group target,” transport airplane, helicopter, and jet airplane. Upon introduction into the data base of the spectral characteristics of specific airplane this mode will allow determining the type of airplane, for example, F-14, F-18 and so on;
determination of the characteristics of a group target in the tracking mode while maintaining scan. This mode allow more effectively using guided missile armament upon attacking a group target;
search, lock-on and tracking of a visually spotted aerial target in close-in maneuvering combat.
In the operational mode against ground targets:
ground ((POVERKHNOST')) mapping in real beam mode;
ground mapping in narrow-beam Doppler mode ((REZHIM DOPLEROVSKOGO OBUZHENIYA LUCHA));
ground mapping in synthetic aperture mode;
selection of moving ground targets;
coordinate measuring and tracking of up to two ground targets;
resolution of tasks of group actions upon attacking ground targets.
In the operational mode against naval targets:
further detection of huge sized naval targets;
scan of the sea surface and detection of naval targets;
selection of moving naval targets;
coordinate measuring and tracking of up to two naval targets, moving or stationary.
The elemental base, the operating system and the applied ”Bars” radar control system software support ((PO)) fully are compatible with Western standards, which allows their upgrade while not changing the logic of the radar control system’s operation. The computer technology of the aircraft computer and “Bars” radar control system search and targeting system has been executed in the form factor of Western military standards (Compact-Pci.) All this gives the "Bars” radar control system considerable advantages over the developments of the Aerospace Equipment Corporation’s competitors, and also increases the competitiveness of Russian aviation equipment on the whole.
The technologies in the “Bars” radar control system make possible the creation of its modifications for various types of airplanes. Thus, the “Bars-29” radar control system for the MiG-29 airplane is 80 – 90 percent apparatus standardized with the “Bars” radar control system of the Su-30MKI, in which connection three non-standardized blocs (the antenna bloc, SHF receiver, and the master generator) are being manufactured on a common technology with analogous “Bars” radar control system blocs. Standardization of the “Bars-29” radar control system and the "Bars" radar control system in the area of software is greater than 90 percent. The small software difference is governed by the difference in the aircraft equipment interface of the airplanes. Such standardization allows essentially standardizing the training of flight crews, radar control system servicing and composition of ground training facilities.
Elta revealed their latest debutant, the EL/M-2052 AESA radar at Aero India. Despite the high profile, the rather inadequate exhibit of the model in a mere corridor facing wall space left the radar, shockingly, mostly unnoticed. A prototype set has been fabricated and is being installed on a fighter for testing. If successful, this radar could kill just about every other set in the world, in terms of exportability and capability. As expected, a ridiculously high tracking capability of 64 targets, is given. In the air-to-sea mode, the radar is supposed to acquire and track surface targets up to 160 nm away. There are over 1500 T/R modules in this antenna aperture - I know because I counted!
Copyright 2000 Asia Pulse Pte Limited
ASIA PULSE
July 7, 2000
HEADLINE: INDIA, FRANCE IN TALKS ABOUT MIRAGE 2000 JET SALES
DATELINE: PARIS, July 7
India and France are in talks on defence procurements, including 10 Mirage 2000 jets for the Indian Air Force, and identified areas to enhance service-to-service level co-operation.
The Indo-French high committee on defence co-operation opened its three-day meeting on Wednesday at the Ecole Militaire in the heart of Paris, official sources said.
While officials were reluctant to divulge the content of the talks, it is understood that India is negotiating to acquire 10 upgraded Mirage-2000H fighter jets.
The upgraded version of the Mirage-2000H jet has a more powerful radar and the capability to track eight hostile planes and engage four of them simultaneously. The existing radar on the Mirage-2000 can track only four and engage two targets at a time.
PTI
Technological advancements in radar are moving from development to production. Improvements in electronically scanned antennas and phased arrays make them the equipment of choice for next-generation aircraft. A fourth-generation active array is being developed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and work on a fifth-generation model is underway. The USAF F/A-22 also employs active array technology.
Existing radar systems also are being upgraded to incorporate electronically scanned antennas and phased arrays. U.S. contracts have been awarded to retrofit the Raytheon APG-73 with an active array, converting it to the APG-79. Selected APG-63 radars have been upgraded with active arrays. The United Arab Emirates F-16 Block 60 will feature an advanced active aperture system, the Northrop Grumman APG-80. An AESA (active electronically scanned array) add-on to the Northrop Grumman APG-68 offers a lower cost active-array alternative to users who can't afford the APG-80(V). Under a project called NORA ( Not Only A Radar), Raytheon and Ericsson are developing AESA capabilities for the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter, and the Amsar program is producing an AESA radar system for Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon. The system also may be used on midlife upgrades of the Tornado GR4, Dassault Rafale and earlier Eurofighter production models.
EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Oct. 19, 2004
Raytheon Company's AN/APQ-181 radar for the B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber, now being upgraded to include a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna, has successfully completed a production readiness review (PRR) for the transmit/receive (T/R) module at the heart of the array.
Each antenna requires more than 2,000 of the two-channel modules, making them the single largest investment for the system. The modules are now fully qualified with zero failures in the qualification test program, and Raytheon has demonstrated its ability to mass produce them at an affordable cost.
To achieve PRR, Raytheon's T/R module design for the B-2 AESA completed qualification testing on schedule. The testing proved the modules could perform in extreme temperatures, vibration and shock. Throughout the testing, critical functions of the T/R modules evaluated were successful with no need for rework or retest.
The B-2's AN/APG-181 Ku-band radar will also be upgraded by replacing the legacy antenna with a new solid-state, active electronically scanned array (AESA), which will be provided by Raytheon (El Segundo, CA) under a deal announced on Sept. 9 that could be worth as much as $600 million. This represents the fourth phase of the B-2 Radar Modernization Program (RMP). Under the RMP, each B-2 will receive two new AESA antennas, one each on either side of the nose on the underside of the aircraft.
Of course, putting a high-power antenna on a stealth aircraft seems like it would be counter-productive: how can the aircraft be stealthy when its active, high-power radar is practically screaming out its location? The answer, according to Rob Dorr, Northrop Grumman's B-2 RMP program manager, is that the antenna will incorporate some LO design features, but perhaps more important, the radar will employ low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) waveforms and power-management techniques (the latter presumably meaning that the B-2 would employ the radar very conservatively).
Interestingly, the radar's performance, according to Dorr, will not be enhanced under this program – by Air Force requirements. The program, as currently structured, requires no enhancement of capability, but for the radar to operate in another location in the electromagnetic spectrum, although the potential for future capability upgrades remains. The real driver for the upgrade, the need to operate in another portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, was necessitated by a move made late in US President Bill Clinton's administration. The legacy system operates in a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where Department of Defense (DoD) systems are secondary users, with commercial applications as primary users. As a secondary user, the B-2 radar could continue operations only if the system did not interfere with primary users, as interference could lead to the radar unintentionally "frying satellites," according to one industry source.
In 2000 a US Department of Commerce letter to the director of spectrum management for the DoD stated that secondary users in the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where the B-2 radar operates would no longer be able to operate on a non-interference basis with primary users in the near future. This correspondence drove the USAF to migrate the B-2 radar system to another portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in which DoD systems are guaranteed primary-user status.
But while the radar upgrade may not yet be providing the B-2 with a boost in capabilities, the same cannot be said about enhancements being made to the bomber's ability to deliver ordnance. Currently, the B-2 is able to deliver a total of 16 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), but Northrop Grumman is about to deliver a new bomb rack to the Air Force that would enable the stealth bomber to deliver 80 JDAMs – meaning that a single B-2 could strike as many targets as five could using the legacy bomb rack (or one B-2 conducting five separate sorties).
Avionics Technology has progressed in the former Soviet Unio and now Russia, but at a slower pace than in the West. And today that progress faces economic roadblocks.
Today, the prime Russian center for avionics computer design and integration is the Ramenskoye Instrument Design Bureau in Moscow. Most avionics computers are produced by the Scientific Research Institute (Russian acronym, NII) and are called the "Argon" family of processors.
The first generation of the analog navigation computers was installed in long-range Soviet air defense interceptors in 1957. Designated the NI-50PM, it interfaced with a large Doppler radar sensor.
In 1970, with computer size and weight becoming more practical, the MiG-23B Flogger jet fighter was fitted with a KN-23 navigation system. It included an analog computer that programmed three route turn points (legs on a route) and four home airfield coordinates. Four years later the MiG-23BM PrNK-23 avionics package was upgraded, with a digital KN-23 computer, providing two more route turn points.
Long-range bombers like the Tupolev Tu-20 and commercial transports like the Ilyushin Il-76 were able to hold the large central TsNV navigation computer complex (multiple boxes with different sub-functions), although the TsNV was too large for smaller aircraft. The complex’s main unit was the BTs-63A astro-orienter, which included an auto sextant, course indicator and computer. Inputs by the navigator to the digital navigation computer (TsNV) were through a PUSH keyboard, part of the control-indicator unit.
Flight and Weapons Control
The first Soviet warplane with computer flight control was the two-crew Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer in 1971. This aircraft, described as "the first modern Soviet fighter to be developed specifically as a fighter-bomber for the ground attack mission," tried to match the F-111 all-weather attack role. The pivoting wing Su-24 had a digital TsVU 10-058 computer, which utilized the Orbita-10 computer module. The enhanced Su-24M (modified) introduced in 1978 had an improved 10-058K TsVM for flight control and a newer MVK computer unit.
Processing power required numerous units in the ‘70s. Also introduced in 1971 was the Tu-22M1 Backfire bomber (redesigned Tu-26 Blinder) with an integrated navigation/weapon control computer complex reportedly totaling as many as 80 line replaceable units (LRUs). On another part of the airplane, the electronic warfare (EW) energy management system used a C-VU-10 complex consisting of an additional 22 computers.
Soviet computer design gradually evolved to the digital world. The MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor aircraft, with its heavy vacuum tube SAU-155 (SAU, for system of automatic control) flight control computer, was redesigned as the MiG-25RB reconnaissance bomber in 1970.
The MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, third-generation fighters, were fitted with the more advanced Argon Ts-101 family of computers. The Su-27’s TsVM-80 main fire-control computer was the first system in a Russian aircraft to combine infrared sight, laser, optical and multimode radar inputs to feed a head-up display (HUD). The Su-27 also includes Russia’s first operational helmet-mounted target designator, called the NSTs-27. It feeds the 36SH optical radar, which is produced by Geofizika NPO and incorporates one Ts-101 computer.
Both the Su-27 and MiG-29 were benchmark aircraft in terms of computer power. The two fighters also were initial platforms for the "Tester" on-board flight recorder, which records 256 parameters. Post flight analysis of Tester cassettes are conducted using the base Luch-74 laboratory monitoring system, built around the ES-1841 computer, an IBM PC copy that has been produced by Miniradioprom since 1987. A recent 1998 prototype of an upgraded MiG-29 SMT incorporates a more powerful MVK computer .
Dsnt the radar also include the radar processor. Or did u mean just the antenna by AESA. ?Of course we will need much more processing power. But will that be a big issue. At least not as much as the AESA entenna itself. And it wont even cost us too much extra space/power consumed to add a multiprocessor platform or a better processor.Aditya_M wrote: Seriously, an AESA requires far more processing capability than a conventional radar (which the MMR will be, as opposed to a passive phased array). May be converting a passive array to an active one using the existing computing set will not be a monumental effort, but this means you will not be able to take the advantage of all the features the AESA antenna will offer - real frequency agility being the biggest one I guess. Then there is the utility of using one section of the modules for scanning in one region, while using another set to track an object - ral time multitasking which a specialized set can perform that makes the AESA invaluable. As JCage pointed somewhere - "Track Here while Scanning There" as opposed to "Track here and then scan there"
So unless there is a certain amount of flexibility (and room) in the existing architecture (both physical build and electronic / computer connectivity) it will be tougher to "upgrade" from MMR to AESA. Fortunately, one of the objectives of the LCA programme was to make the architecture un-rigid so that we could put the best of many worlds into one plane.....
MELCO - Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Following two DOD technology visits to Japan, Commerce and DOD
sponsored a symposium on the FS-X active phased array fire control
radar in June 1992. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO), which
is developing the radar, provided a technical overview to over 150
U.S. industry and government attendees in Washington, D.C. Reviews
of the symposium varied.
There has been little follow-up to the symposium by either Commerce
or MELCO, although some U.S. firms have been expecting such efforts.
MELCO officials told us they had contacted several U.S. companies
about commercial applications for FS-X radar technology. Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry has told MELCO it must demonstrate a commercial application of the modules before receiving approval to export them.
Interest in the FS-X radar among the U.S. radar companies we
contacted is mixed. Some U.S. radar industry officials told us they
would like to visit MELCO's FS-X facilities in Japan to learn more
about their radar modules.\3 U.S. companies produce similar modules
and believe they could benefit from knowledge of Japanese production
methods. However, some of these companies believe U.S. radar
technology itself is more advanced and therefore they cannot learn
much from Japan. In the spring of 1994, DOD completed testing of five radar modules the United States purchased from Japan.
UNITED STATES IS EVALUATING
JAPANESE RADAR MODULES ALTHOUGH
POTENTIAL USES ARE UNCERTAIN
The United States has obtained more information on the Japanese
active phased array fire control radar than any other non-derived
FS-X technology. In August 1992, DOD purchased five Japanese FS-X
radar transmit/receive modules, supporting connectors, and technical
data for testing purposes. DOD paid the then current Japan Defense
Agency/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation prototype module contract
price of $4,800 per unit and about $70,000 for technical data and
additional items required to test the modules.
Mitsubishi Electric officials reported in November 1993 that they had
reduced module unit costs to about $3,300. Mitsubishi Electric
officials would like to reduce module costs even further by
increasing the module production run to at least 20,000 units
annually. Mitsubishi Electric's cost goal is about $1,400 per unit
for the FS-X program, assuming production of 120,000 units (or enough
for about 130 aircraft). Mitsubishi Electric officials noted that
they do not expect to reach the $1,400 per module goal until 2 years
into full-rate FS-X production.
By February 1994, the United States had
finished a complete set of verification tests for module performance.
The tests indicated that the modules perform according to
specifications and will meet Japanese FS-X radar requirements. A
U.S. engineer involved in the testing said that the performance of
Japanese modules was very good and in one area are on a par with the
best U.S. modules.
In May 1994, a U.S. radar module testing team visited Japan to
compare and verify U.S. and Japanese test results.