Karan M wrote:tsarkar wrote:No where in the paper is Air to Ground mode research described. Only ground clutter rejection in Air to Air mode is discussed. Both are fundamentally different things.
The paper may not cover each and every detail. Details come out via ancillary events elsewhere! It mentioned work done in fine-tuning the radar performance against clutter and developing ECCM modes.
If the research paper posted by you doesnt cover ground mapping capabilities, then why are you misleading the forum by projecting it as an "example" of ground mapping capabilities?
PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED.
Karan M wrote:tsarkar wrote:No where in the paper is Air to Ground mode research described. Only ground clutter rejection in Air to Air mode is discussed. Both are fundamentally different things.
No, they are not fundamentally different things btw. It
directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.
Lovely point - Algorithms for rejection of ground clutter in Air to Air mode "directly feeds into" Algorithms for Air to Ground mapping.
PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED
Karan M wrote:It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.
These are just jumbled meaningless words intended to confuse. Air to Air background ground clutter rejection and Air to Ground Mapping modes are COMPLETELY different things.
You also overlooked mine and brar_w that ground mapping is done in X, Ku & Ka band, that Uttam and UAV radars are being developed on, and not S Band of Netra program that makes it utterly meaningless to use even as a development platform.
PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED
Karan M wrote:That image which DRDO released some of the capabilities being tested. The gent who took the pic, attended the event was kind enough to provide details and share the link. All we are doing is figuring out they are running tests.
https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 92/photo/3
The first two slides do not mention Air to Ground modes in Netra program. And in the last slide, the presenter was showing serendipity. Serendipity like P-15 missile guidance radars fired by IN missile boats targeted Karachi oil tanks instead of ships in 1971.
Karan M wrote:The paper also does not mention air to sea performance either. But that is part and parcel of the actual AEW&CS! Guess which program developed that? The X band SV-2000 and XV-2004, but weren't you convinced technologies developed for other bands could not be ported over to other systems. Well, the developers disagree.
Objects that are bigger than intended targets - Eg Metal Oil Tanks have better reflectivity than Ships - will show up better on radar.
Similarly warships at sea with length ~ 150 meters and larger cargo ships will show up on a radar designed to track fighters 13.2-22 meters.
So Air to Sea detection is simpler than Air to Air detection (150 meters vs 15 meter target). Air to Ground tanks, trucks, jeeps at 10 meters or lesser size are difficult to detect.
Again you are attempting to showcase something basic (ships being detected by a radar whose primary function Air to Air) as something big.
The Mirage Cyrano, RDM radars of 70's & 80's could detect ships and Pakistanis had Exocet armed Mirages in 70's in their No 8 Squadron.
Su-30MKI original Bars radars in No 220 squadron is able to fire Brahmos against ships without any modification.
So if you're trying to communicate that Ship detection is a huge thing for an Air to Air radar, then it isn't because ships are much larger than aircraft.
Its like a hunter specializing in shooting lions and tigers wont have any trouble if an elephant comes along.
Karan M wrote:We now know for sure, that S-Band A2A, A2S modes can be ported on to X-Band Uttam.
But not air to ground. Also algorithms cannot used as is due to the difference wavelengths of bands.
Karan M wrote:We know your claim that the above GMTI mode was useless as it is not a "weapons quality track" was incorrect, as the mode shown above is a GMTI mode being finetuned on a radar testbed and the weapons quality track was actually the A2A High Precision Track. And GMTI is a wide area surveillance mode. Accusations that developers are "embellishing" have no locus standi, as they are merely demonstrating suitably sanitized work on these aspects to a technical audience.
There is no doubt that the air to air mode was a weapons quality track. However no where in the deck is it mentioned that Air to Ground mode is being tested on the same testbed.
Traffic on Hosur road is dense bumper to bumper and its actually like large metal snake kilometers long. I doubt any of the 3 services would give it as a test case. Using traffic on Hosur Road as a test case is HUGE embellishment. Maybe a set of 6-8 tanks in the desert or Punjab fields would be a better test case.
Its like asking for a system that tracks wolves and you're showing a slide that tracks elephants and saying my system works good in tracking wolves.
The other faux pas is the 10-22 km range. Tell me Karan, what is the range of Akash and similar missiles like SPADA and Buk in Pakistani & Chinese service? In that 10-22 range, you're putting a business jet with low maneuverability further reduced by Balance Beam or Belly Blister radar configuration within the range of EVERY Pakistani fighter, air to air missile and surface to air missile.
For air to air in the super extended mode the detection range is a very respectable 475 km out of range of the above threats.
For air to ground, why not wait for a few years to complete development instead of itching to release a slide to the world showing 10-22 km range.
Karan M wrote:We know that apart from A2A and A2S on AEW&CS, A2A, A2G, A2S is being developed for Uttam. A2G is being developed for Ku-band SAR. And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems, which any sane developer would do. So again, what is the issue?
A big NO. Unless for the same function, eg SAR, ISAR or GMTI, and the same band, algorithms cannot be happily swapped.
"Methods and Capabilities" are vague words used by you to confuse readers. What do you mean by "methods"? What do you mean by capabilities? By capabilities if you mean by marginal A2G capabilities in S Band being "happily swapped" to A2G capabilities in X or Ku/Ka Band, then no, its not "happily swapable"
Karan M wrote:And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems
This is another genius statement from you that you're using to debate but is completely untrue.
If Algorithms are just cut and paste and happily swapping, then why is Uttam or UAV radar development taking so long? After all, its simple swapping
UAV radar is in Ku Band and completely unrelated to S Band Netra radar by every stretch of imagination. The discussion started because the Netra radar was given as a example of A2G capabilities.
Also 40 km slant range is design specification. Needs to be seen what is actually realized, whether more or whether less. Here people jump for joy on seeing design specifications without checking how much has been realised.
Karan M wrote:We also know the Ku-band SAR being developed for the UAVs was going to be used to develop a maritime patrol radar which was X-band
The exact words are
LRDE is also planning to develop a derivate of this radar for operations from manned reconnaissance aircraft including a maritime
The next page isnt showing. There is no mention of the derivative radar being X Band. The article talks about a UAV ground mapping radar deployed from a manned reconnaissance aircraft that you extrapolate and embellish to "maritime patrol radar".
BTW Ku Band is unsuitable for maritime reconnaissance. While the high frequency low wavelength radar is good for resolution required to detect ground targets like tanks or trucks, it lacks the range in 100's of km to designate targets for missiles like Brahmos, NSM, Sea Eagle or Exocet.
Which is why maritime radars are L, S and occasionally X Band.
Karan M wrote:So at the end of all this, may I ask, what exactly is your point?
My point is that you make dishonest & incorrect statements like
1. Air to Air ground clutter rejection being directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes
Karan M wrote:No, they are not fundamentally different things btw. It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.
2. Swapping algorithms between A2A, A2S & A2G across different radar S, X, Ku & Ka bands
Karan M wrote:And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems
3. Conveniently making "a UAV Ku Band radar deployment from manned reconnaissance aircraft" a "X Band maritime patrol radar."
Karan M wrote:We also know the Ku-band SAR being developed for the UAVs was going to be used to develop a maritime patrol radar which was X-band
Karan M wrote:I am sorry but at this point I am not sure if you are serious. Forget the A2G testbed stuff for a moment. This opens up a whole new confusing can of worms.
I am very serious and very sure of what I know and what I type.
PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED
Karan M wrote:I mean you are claiming that wings will always come in the way and create blind modes for air to ground even at range? How do you think the radar addresses low flying aircraft flying just above the ground in the look down mode? So the wings would get in the way of all balance beam AWACS, conventional AWACS?
PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED
You see air to air radars in L, S & X Band detect at 300 km or higher ranges where the effect of blind spots from wings is minimal.
However, air to ground radars in Ku/Ka band have much higher resolution but much lower ranges, around 100 km. The DRDO UAV radar has a design specification of 40 km. At those lower ranges, the wings create blind spots that affects ground mapping modes like SAR, ISAR, STRIP SAR, SPOT SAR.
Karan M wrote:The AEW&CS tracks ships on the sea.
At very long ranges using L or S Band
Karan M wrote:But as a testbed, why wouldn't DRDO use every and any asset at its disposal.
Because in the balance beam configuration you cant test SAR, ISAR, STRIP, SPOT modes properly.
Ever wonder, why US J STARS and UK ASTOR/Raytheon Sentinel all have belly mounted radars. Can you show me one ground mapping aircraft or UAV with its radar mounted above the fuselage?
Karan M wrote:Now we have the gent in question who led program 1 (S band) openly stating they are using it to develop X band tech, you are bringing in wings. I just dont get this.
Can you show me a quote from this gentleman where he is freely swapping algorithms between radars operating in different bands and modes?
I will be happy to get on a call or video conference with him.
Karan M wrote:I am unaware of a single wingless AWACs operating anywhere. But they all seem to operate very well in tracking low flying targets at a distance. This is completely not of import at all.
Just because you are
absolutely ignorant about radar frequencies, resolution, range and use in different applications makes you think radar placement is unimportant. Thank you for this pearl of wisdom.
I explained why every AWACS - E3, E2 Hawkeye, Phalcon, A-50, Saab Erieye, DRDO Netra has the radar above the fuselage while every ground mapping aircraft like JSTARS, Raytheon Sentinel, Heron, has the radar below the fuselage
L Band - Longest range (~300 km), lowest resolution. Used on all IN destroyers and Godavari/Brahmaputra RAWL radars and Israeli Phalcon AWACS to detect ships at very long range and large fighters at long ranges. Large size of targets makes negates lack of resolution.
S Band - Lesser range (~200 km) but better resolution than L Band. Used on Elta 2248/2238/Russian Fregat radars in IN Ships and DRDO Netra AEW&C to detect smaller aircraft
X Band - Lesser range (~100 km) but better resolution than S Band. Used on fighter radars like Uttam, Elta 2052, Elta 2032, Bars, RDY, Zhuk. Used to detect aircraft and cruise missiles. In ground mapping modes can detect large ground targets.
Ku/Ka Band - Lesser range (<100 km) but best resolution. Used on Ground Target radars like Apache Longbow, Elta 2055 used on Heron & Searcher UAV, DRDO UAV radar. Can detect small ground target like tanks and vehicles.
Ranges cited above are approximate to explain differences between radar bands in operations
I'll be happy to get on a call or Zoom with the gentleman who is happily swapping algorithms between different bands, modes and radars.
PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED
1. Air to Air ground clutter rejection being directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes
Karan M wrote:No, they are not fundamentally different things btw. It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.
2. Swapping algorithms between A2A, A2S & A2G across different radar S, X, Ku & Ka bands
Karan M wrote:And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems
3. Conveniently making "a UAV Ku Band radar deployment from manned reconnaissance aircraft" a "X Band maritime patrol radar."
Karan M wrote:We also know the Ku-band SAR being developed for the UAVs was going to be used to develop a maritime patrol radar which was X-band