Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 132

Thread: TPY-2 can be radar OTH ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    215

    TPY-2 can be radar OTH ?

    TPY-2 is a radar of the THAAD system, it has a range of 1000km, however to deal with the goal of ICBM at high-altitude

    The AN/TPY-2 Surveillance Transportable Radar, also called the Forward Based X-Band Transportable (FBX-T) is a long-range, high-altitude surveillance radar designed to add a tier to existing missile and air defense systems.[1] Made by Raytheon, it is the primary radar for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system, but also cues the AN/MPQ-53 radar of the MIM-104 Patriot system. Patriot PAC-3 is a lower-altitude missile and aircraft defense system than THAAD.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPY-2

    The high frequency radio waves used by most radars, called microwaves, travel in straight lines. This generally limits the detection range of radar systems to objects on their horizon (generally referred to as "line of sight" since the aircraft must be at least theoretically visible to a person at the location and elevation of the radar transmitter) due to the curvature of the Earth. For example, a radar mounted on top of a 10 m (33 ft) mast has a range to the horizon of about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi), taking into account atmospheric refraction effects. If the target is above the surface, this range will be increased accordingly, so a target 10 m (33 ft) high can be detected by the same radar at 26 km (16 mi). Siting the antenna on a high mountain can increase the range somewhat; but, in general, it is impractical to build radar systems with line-of-sight ranges beyond a few hundred kilometres



    Will the AN/TPY-2 put it on a high mountain like Everst, it could become an OTH radar?

    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    920
    Radar horizon affected by both target height and radar height, since targets of TPY-2 are ICBM , its line of sight against them could be thousands of km




    There are some specific atmospheric condition such as ducting that can extend radar horizon of any radar greatly but in turn will reduce accuracy significantly
    Last edited by garryA; 5th May 2017 at 12:31.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    215
    What do you mean ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    This is some basic stuff. Horizon is impacted by target altitude. If you are trying to see a target that is operating at an altitude of 300 km, your horizon will be considerably longer than if the target were at 15 km altitude for example. Using the 300 km as a baseline target altitude, the radar Horizon (assuming that the radar is at sea level) extends to well over 2000 km. It will continue to grow with the increase in target altitude. The AN/TPY-2 is a BMD sensor and such is looking for targets very very high up.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    920
    I mean your calculation is wrong because you only consider one out of three variable
    a- radar height
    b- target altitude
    c- atmosphere refractive index ( generally depending on humidity and temperature )
    Last edited by garryA; 5th May 2017 at 13:06.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    Will the AN/TPY-2 put it on a high mountain like Everst, it could become an OTH radar?
    Higher altitude placement extends the Horizon for a given target altitude. It does not make a non OTH radar OTH capable.

    This is some basic stuff. Horizon is impacted by target altitude. If you are trying to see a target that is operating at an altitude of 300 km, your horizon will be considerably longer than if the target were at 15 km altitude for example. Using the 300 km as a baseline target altitude, the radar Horizon (assuming that the radar is at sea level) extends to well over 2000 km. It (Horizon) will continue to grow with the increase in target altitude.

    The AN/TPY-2 is a BMD sensor and such is looking for low RCS targets (warheads) very very high up. In TBM it has an interceptor with an envelope that extends from (roughly) 50-150km (altitude) while in FBM it is tasked at providing Early Warning and discrimination data for Sea Based BMD and can therefore see further depending the mode and the task requirement.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 5th May 2017 at 13:15.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on
    Higher altitude placement extends the Horizon for a given target altitude. It does not make a non OTH radar OTH capable
    True that, most OTH radar use skywave propagation, but their resolution is only good for early warning

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by blackadam
    What do you mean ?
    http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

    For an ICBM at say 2,000km altitude, the distance to horizon is 5,432.5km.

    Using the 300 km as a baseline target altitude, the radar Horizon (assuming that the radar is at sea level) extends to well over 2000 km.
    Nearly - 1979.1km.
    Last edited by Ryan; 5th May 2017 at 14:52.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    215
    So when placing TPY-2 on mountain Everest, it will detect the ground targets in China at range 1000km ?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    920
    TPY-2 is not a ground to ground radar and no one is going to put such a thing on Everest

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    215
    what about this picture ? It shows that TPY-2 is completely capable of scanning surface targets in China. South Korea has a lot of high mountains that can do it


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    The picture is inaccurate... simple. Tpy-2 is an extremely powerful x-band. X-band does not provide oth ability, hence why oth radars have arrays that are literally 100's of m across is size to support such low frequency with any sort of useful directivity.

    Good to see the radar getting the respect it deserves from the Chinese and Russians at the moment, it is quite the world beater. TPY-2 makes the 3-4 piece combination of arrays used for the S-400 look like a toy. S-400's early warning and engagement radar systems have dozens of single points of failure to defeat the kill chain, it is yesterday's (decades?) news. The tpy handles both early warning and engagement for all aerial and space targets and at closer ranges has the raw power and gain to function as a directed energy weapon (52,000trm AESA with >16w peak output per module)

    A lot of Sukhoi fankiddies cry like babies over my criticism of the the t-50's half baked effort at LO and state that attention to detail and low compromise in regards to stealth is just a gimic, but the TPY-2 is the reason I'm correct. With the ability to detect a 0.01msq target from over a thousand km away, the T-50's tennis ball frontal RCS would render it as detectable as a legacy fighter the moment it popped over the horizon against a deployed TPY (tpy can guide forward deployed patriot shots against aircraft, and in future whatever fills the slamram's role which should be even more concerning... think front line fighting vehicles with a few anti air missiles, launched and guided by the TPY-2 hundreds of km behind the front)

    Will be interesting if the lbx gets developed. 2 TPY-2s stacked on top of each other on a truck mounted turntable.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 6th May 2017 at 10:49.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    You clearly read wrong. The TRM count is half of what you mentioned, and the TPY-2 looks at purely ballistic missile targets and does operates in two modes (FBM and TBM) but requires hardware changes to support those missions with a few hours required to re-configure it to support each distinct mission. It does not aid in air breathing target early warning, detection, tracking or neutralization. It is used purely as an BMD sensor either supporting a deployed THAAD battery or providing early warning and discrimination for the sea based BMD mission.

    It is a however a highly capable sensor designed with high frequency modules providing maximum discrimination. The third generation GaAs TRIMMs present in the last iteration of the radar have now been replaced with GaN and the first GaN TPY-2 is currently in production and will be delivered in the fall. All subsequent TPY-2's including those for export, will from now include GaN TRIMMs.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th May 2017 at 10:40.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    Yeah maybe the trm count was from an article I read years ago on lbx... but there is no technical reason whatsoever for a theatre early warning/engagement radar with its capability to be limited to missile altitude targets on the horizon vs immensely easier to detect aircraft.

    With the US push for a distributed network of multispectral, multi role sensor nodes and launch platforms it would be horribly naive to think the TPY-2s software has not been developed over the past few years to allow it to interleaved between numerous new modes not mentioned on the publicly available Raytheon home page.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    Yeah maybe the trm count was from an article I read years ago on lbx... but there is no technical reason whatsoever for a theatre early warning/engagement radar with its capability to be limited to missile altitude targets on the horizon vs immensely easier to detect aircraft.
    Not Maybe, the TRIMM count on the TPY-2 is public knowledge and your figure misrepresents it by a factor of 2. Secondly, i was not speaking of technical reasons but actual real world performance where this sensor exclusively operates as a BMD system and had no requirements, nor did it test out other target sets during either its developmental or operational testing. Lets stay fact based and speak of real world deployed performance for the benefit of accuracy.

    With the US push for a distributed network of multispectral, multi role sensor nodes and launch platforms it would be horribly naive to think the TPY-2s software has not been developed over the past few years to allow it to interleaved between numerous new modes not mentioned on the publicly available Raytheon home page.
    Again, if you (I or anyone else) claims that it is an air-and missile defense sensor as opposed to purely an BMD sensor the burden of proof would be on the person making the claim to prove it. At the very least show that they went back and preformed developmental and operational testing on those modes, and present data and the financial/contract trail of new software modes being sought, being developed, being tested and being approved as an upgrade.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,735
    Its a neat and quite compact radar array i must say.
    Is this system modular(modular as in it can share battle picture with other systems if not provide any targeting data)?


    The picture is inaccurate... simple. Tpy-2 is an extremely powerful x-band. X-band does not provide oth ability, hence why oth radars have arrays that are literally 100's of m across is size to support such low frequency with any sort of useful directivity.

    Good to see the radar getting the respect it deserves from the Chinese and Russians at the moment, it is quite the world beater. TPY-2 makes the 3-4 piece combination of arrays used for the S-400 look like a toy. S-400's early warning and engagement radar systems have dozens of single points of failure to defeat the kill chain, it is yesterday's (decades?) news. The tpy handles both early warning and engagement for all aerial and space targets and at closer ranges has the raw power and gain to function as a directed energy weapon (52,000trm AESA with >16w peak output per module)
    Ouch.. crashed and burned again did we

    Why don't you just type in a search on its official site before posting nonsens..here, let me do it for you, it took me 5 sek:

    http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/antpy2/

    And why would you need to put gimbals on that radar? It should have a sufficient coverage sector as it is. You just hook up another unit one if you require more coverage.
    Last edited by haavarla; 6th May 2017 at 11:51.
    Thanks

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    Its a neat and quite compact radar array i must say.
    Is this system modular for Patriot systems etc?
    Modular in the opposite direction, as in Raytheon had a stacked TPY-2 proposal with between 2-2.5 the TRIMM volume as an LRDR alternative at one point. The Patriot radar Analysis of Alternative eliminated an X-band radar option for now as unaffordable given US Army budgets and for now they are sticking at the C-Band GaN upgrade but things could change in the next budget. Certainly Lockheed wants an open competition with a clean sheet radar being allowed but it remains to be seen whether the US Army wants to go down that road.

    The X Band companion to the AMDR is going to be a modular sensor so if an X-band GaN IAMD lower tier sensor is eventually pursued by the US Army it will probably borrow technology from it much the same way EASR borrows its MRAs from the AMDR. RFI was also issued for an X-Band GaN AESA upgrade to the AN/MPQ-64 and Raytheon will likely be the sole source here since it now has a fairly substantial X-band GaN component facility supporting the TPY-2 program (1 25,000 TRIMM radar a year production). These two are likely to contribute more towards an X-Band Patriot sensor (potential) since these are IAMD sensors and are newer programs of record.

    Both Raytheon and Lockheed are working on prototype GaN X-Band radars for yet to be disclosed applications. My guess is that Lockheed is working on its proposal for the X-AMDR, while Raytheon is prototyping the Sentinel A4 since export pressure probably warrants earlier development than US Army upgrade cycle, much the same way they are forced to stay ahead of US Army timelines on Patriot AESA given export requirements and competitiveness. Raytheon's last remaining foothold on the Patriot program remains the radar..Lockheed has sort of taken over the interceptors, while Northrop Grumman has taken over the Command and Control..so I don't expect Lockheed to successfully mount a challenge here. IBCS is the critical piece in patriot relative to the primary sensor..It is my opinion that multiple GaN AESA bumped Sentinels are far more important in the long term capability than a new lower tier sensor given the diverse threat..Between an AESA AN/MPQ-65 upgrade and the THAAD (through a future dual C/X band missile data link) TPY-2 there is enough growth opportunity. What they need is distributed coverage which these upgraded, compact and mobile MPQ-64s are going to deliver particularly now that they will be able to assist in bringing down targets using PAC3 and future patriot missiles.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th May 2017 at 12:09.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Not Maybe, the TRIMM count on the TPY-2 is public knowledge and your figure misrepresents it by a factor of 2. Secondly, i was not speaking of technical reasons but actual real world performance where this sensor exclusively operates as a BMD system and had no requirements, nor did it test out other target sets during either its developmental or operational testing. Lets stay fact based and speak of real world deployed performance for the benefit of accuracy.



    Again, if you (I or anyone else) claims that it is an air-and missile defense sensor as opposed to purely an BMD sensor the burden of proof would be on the person making the claim to prove it. At the very least show that they went back and preformed developmental and operational testing on those modes, and present data and the financial/contract trail of new software modes being sought, being developed, being tested and being approved as an upgrade.
    The 2015 test where a pair of TPY-2s were use to control a network of thaad and aegis involved short and medium ranged ground and air launched ballistic missiles (both endo and exo-atmospheric) and a *cruise missile*. I would say a highly diverse target set, one in which a fighter would sit right in the middle of.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 6th May 2017 at 12:17.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,735
    The 2015 test where a pair of TPY-2s were use to control a network of thaad, aegis and patriot platform involved short, medium range ground and air launched ballistic missiles and a *cruise missile*. I would say a highly diverse target set, one in which a fighter would sit right in the middle of.
    Any source of this would be fantastic.
    Otherwise i will take this as the usual content coming from you..

    And pls stop comparing it to a S-400 system. Its two different systems, designed to do different tasks.
    The TPY-2 is better at some applications but far worse at other when you compare it to S-400.

    The Russians are doing this at a different angle. They use humongous Voronezh stations to do the same applications as TPY-2.
    Voronezh is part of the Russian Air & Space defence:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

    Again, pls do a readup on the different systems before you post crap like this:

    Good to see the radar getting the respect it deserves from the Chinese and Russians at the moment, it is quite the world beater. TPY-2 makes the 3-4 piece combination of arrays used for the S-400 look like a toy. S-400's early warning and engagement radar systems have dozens of single points of failure to defeat the kill chain, it is yesterday's (decades?) news.
    Last edited by haavarla; 6th May 2017 at 12:16.
    Thanks

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    he 2015 test where a pair of TPY-2s were use to control a network of thaad, aegis and patriot platform involved short, medium range ground and air launched ballistic missiles and a *cruise missile*. I would say a highly diverse target set, one in which a fighter would sit right in the middle of.
    AN/TPY-2 radars operating in FBM pass on Ballistic Missile early warning and discrimination data to AEGIS operating out at sea. AEGIS Baseline 9 opens up concurrent IAMD capability using both onboard (AEGIS IAMD) and Offboard (TPY-2 BMD) sensors. TPY-2s role here is to look over the horizon and range limitations of the SPY-1. It is not picking up cruise missile threats headed towards an AEGIS defended area, that the AEGIS does using its own sensors, or other off board sensors such as those operating in the air (E-2D for example).

    And pls stop comparing it to a S-400 system. Its two different systems, designed to do different tasks.
    The TPY-2 is better at some applications but far worse at other when you compare it to S-400.
    The comparison is redundant. TPY-2 is purely a BMD system and as part of a THAAD battery supports destruction of only Ballistic Missile targets while as an early warning set up is looking at completely different altitudes to provide EW and aiding in discrimination in the mid-course stage of ballistic missile flight.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th May 2017 at 12:15.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    AN/TPY-2 radars operating in FBM pass on Ballistic Missile early warning and discrimination data to AEGIS operating out at sea. AEGIS Baseline 9 opens up concurrent IAMD capability using both onboard (AEGIS IAMD) and Offboard (TPY-2 BMD) sensors. TPY-2s role here is to look over the horizon and range limitations of the SPY-1. It is not picking up cruise missile threats headed towards an AEGIS defended area, that the AEGIS does using its own sensors, or other off board sensors such as those operating in the air (E-2D for example).



    The comparison is redundant. TPY-2 is purely a BMD system and as part of a THAAD battery supports destruction of only Ballistic Missile targets while as an early warning set up is looking at completely different altitudes to provide EW and aiding in discrimination in the mid-course stage of ballistic missile flight.
    So you have proof that during that particular test, SPY-1 was the first to detect the cruise missile of course?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    So you have proof that during that particular test, SPY-1 was the first to detect the cruise missile of course?
    No you have made a baseless claim, it is on you to prove it. It is common knowledge within those that study MDA programs and Ballistic Missile Defense in the US that the TPY-2 a BMD sensor and not an IAMD sensor like the SPY-1 or SPY-6.

    The Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control Model 2, or AN/TPY-2, is a transportable X-band, high-resolution, phased-array radar designed specifically for ballistic missile defense. The AN/TPY-2 is capable of tracking all classes of ballistic missiles and identifying small objects at long distances. In the forward-based mode, this radar plays a vital role in the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) by acting as a forward based sensor for the system, detecting ballistic missiles early in their flight and providing precise tracking information for use by the system. Use of multiple sensors provides overlapping sensor coverage, expands the BMDS battle space, and complicates an enemy's ability to penetrate the defense system. In the terminal mode, the same radar provides surveillance, track, discrimination and fire control support for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) weapon system. LINK
    The Russians are doing this at a different angle. They use humongous Voronezh stations to do the same applications as TPY-2.
    Voronezh is part of the Russian Air & Space defence:
    Those are also not comparable. TPY-2's in FBM serve more to address the discrimination challenge than a purely early warning challenge hence the reason why the TPY-2's Analysis of Alternatives narrowed down on a high frequency sensor at considerable expense in terms of cost, cooling, and power requirements. If EW applications/needs outweighed the need to provide better_than_SPY-1 discrimination they would have stuck to a much lower frequency sensor setup and would have saved a ton of money doing so. There is a significant cost and range penalty imposed on the TPY-2 on account of the X-Band design trade..ALthough it does provide EW capability it is doing it through brute power and a GaN upgrade will certainly help but ideally for EW you would want something operating at lower frequency which gets you better performance for the role.

    There is an interesting LRDR piece that I have come across but forgot to save, where it showed that a comparable LRDR Alternative at X band would have required a two-faced SBX with about 50% greater TRM count than the current comparable range performance of the S-Band GaN AESA. Although the discrimination bump from the UHF band UEWR will be considerable given a switch to higher S band sensor, it will still be inferior to an X band from purely a discrimination stand-point. They narrowed down to S band because LRDR must strike a balance between long range and discrimination more so than TPY-2 which serves first and foremost as a THAAD sensor and then as a discrimination/EW radar in the forward deployed sense.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th May 2017 at 12:42.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,735
    Those are also not comparable. TPY-2's in FBM serve more to address the discrimination challenge than a purely early warning challenge hence the reason why the TPY-2's Analysis of Alternatives narrowed down on a high frequency sensor at considerable expense in terms of cost, cooling, and power requirements. If EW applications/needs outweighed the need to provide better_than_SPY-1 discrimination they would have stuck to a much lower frequency sensor setup and would have saved a ton of money doing so. There is a significant cost and range penalty imposed on the TPY-2 on account of the X-Band design trade..
    Its not comparable on its technical feature, since they operate at different Bands and frequency.
    But they do have part of the same application as is detecting ICBM threats.
    Like i said Russia is doing this at a different angle.

    The S-400 92N2 radar and 5P85T2 is also not comparable to TPY-2 on a technical matter, TPY-2 being but one element while S-400 is a complete stand alone system. And S-400 is much more designed towards Air defense like aircraft and cruise missile.

    Edit:
    The Voronezh-VP radar looks like it will have X-band targeting feature.. when it enters operation. But of course it will be a stationary radar station, and not the same as TPY-2 in that regard.
    There is utterly little to go by with the Voronezh radar, but the newest VP radar entered experiment service last year, in other words, its still being developed.. but i did find a little treat:

    Voronezh radar are highly prefabricated radars needing fewer personnel and using less energy than previous generations. The ones being built in Mishelevka are Voronezh-M, also described as Voronezh-VP, a VHF radar with a stated range of 4,200 kilometres (2,610*mi). The VP stands for high potential and may reflect that it has six segments, rather than the three of other Voronezh VHF radars.
    Last edited by haavarla; 6th May 2017 at 13:27.
    Thanks

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    Its not comparable on its technical feature, since they operate at different Bands and frequency.
    But they do have part of the same application as is detecting ICBM threats.
    Like i said Russia is doing this at a different angle.
    Yes if you expand the definition they will appear to be similar. But technically different since as I explained the TPY-2 has only part of its mission covering Early Warning but is really geared towards theater_range discrimination challenge. There are other more comparable EW BMD sensors out there that compare better to the Russian system. It is also not about a 'different angle' but a totally different mission scope. There are dedicated BMD EW sensors in the US as well that serve this mission. The TPY-2 is not really that.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    No you have made a baseless claim, it is on you to prove it. It is common knowledge within those that study MDA programs and Ballistic Missile Defense in the US that the TPY-2 a BMD sensor and not an IAMD sensor like the SPY-1 or SPY-6.



    Those are also not comparable. TPY-2's in FBM serve more to address the discrimination challenge than a purely early warning challenge hence the reason why the TPY-2's Analysis of Alternatives narrowed down on a high frequency sensor at considerable expense in terms of cost, cooling, and power requirements. If EW applications/needs outweighed the need to provide better_than_SPY-1 discrimination they would have stuck to a much lower frequency sensor setup and would have saved a ton of money doing so. There is a significant cost and range penalty imposed on the TPY-2 on account of the X-Band design trade..
    So your dispute is that the radar can't be used to detect atmospheric targets or just doesn't have the ability to discriminate a fighter or cruise missile target from a ballistic missile?

    Thaad testing alone has been performed on low endo-atmospheric targets since as early as 2007. I provided an example of a test involving a slower flying cruise missile which you're implying had nothing to do with the radar during the test (its on you to provide evidence that tpy had no involvement in detecting or tracking the cruise missile as it's your claim is didn't).

    So we have numerous tests where Thaad has been proven against low atmospheric, high speed srbm targets including ftt-14 which involved very high lead angle in a "very high dynamic pressure" environment... ie low level, side on shot. A test involving a cruise missile being defeated by AEGIS in conjunction with thaad. It seems that low altitude and possibly low speed is not a problem for the radar.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 6th May 2017 at 13:19.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    98
    @ActionJackson

    A lot of Sukhoi fankiddies cry like babies over my criticism of the the t-50's half baked effort at LO and state that attention to detail and low compromise in regards to stealth is just a gimic, but the TPY-2 is the reason I'm correct. With the ability to detect a 0.01msq target from over a thousand km away, the T-50's tennis ball frontal RCS would render it as detectable as a legacy fighter the moment it popped over the horizon against a deployed TPY (tpy can guide forward deployed patriot shots against aircraft, and in future whatever fills the slamram's role which should be even more concerning... think front line fighting vehicles with a few anti air missiles, launched and guided by the TPY-2 hundreds of km behind the front)
    The Russians do not intend to send the T-50 into an intact advanced IADS.

    They have an advanced IADS themselves and know some things about the means necessary to detect VLO targets.

    So the decision not to equip the T-50 with all-aspect or wideband stealth makes sense.
    It also makes sense for the Americans to have all-aspect wideband stealth because not all their potential adversaries have a advanced IADS.

    Hence the T-50 will only enter the enemy airspace once assets like the TPY-2 have been taken out by weapons such as the Iskander-M.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,735
    Yes if you expand the definition they will appear to be similar. But technically different since as I explained the TPY-2 has only part of its mission covering Early Warning but is really geared towards theater_range discrimination challenge. There are other more comparable EW BMD sensors out there that compare better to the Russian system. It is also not about a 'different angle' but a totally different mission scope. There are dedicated BMD EW sensors in the US as well that serve this mission. The TPY-2 is not really that.
    Agreed.
    I'm not that schooled on missile and radar reference, but i think i got the principle right here.. unlike ActionJackson.
    Last edited by haavarla; 6th May 2017 at 13:04.
    Thanks

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by PeeD View Post
    @ActionJackson



    The Russians do not intend to send the T-50 into an intact advanced IADS.

    They have an advanced IADS themselves and know some things about the means necessary to detect VLO targets.

    So the decision not to equip the T-50 with all-aspect or wideband stealth makes sense.
    It also makes sense for the Americans to have all-aspect wideband stealth because not all their potential adversaries have a advanced IADS.

    Hence the T-50 will only enter the enemy airspace once assets like the TPY-2 have been taken out by weapons such as the Iskander-M.
    Iskander missiles are the bread and butter of thaad's target set, difference being a thaad battery carries more interceptors than an inskander battery carries missiles and it reloads faster too (4 at a time rather than one per launch vehicle).

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,735
    Iskander missiles are the bread and butter of thaad's target set, difference being a thaad battery carries more interceptors than an inskander battery carries missiles and it reloads faster too (4 at a time rather than one per launch vehicle).
    For once you might got something right.
    But i thought the latest Iskander-K system had an evolved flight profile, like it can fly low.. very low from earlier systems.
    Thanks

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    98
    Iskander is one mean to take out such high value targets and there are others.

    As for THAAD vs. Iskander. We can't know for sure. The Iskander is a maneuvering target, it has a kinematic advantage to pull G's, plus decoys, plus ECM, different trajectories.

    What is certain: The Russians won't use fighter/bombers to take out such dangerous and well protected targets. I'm cute sure that the US will also avoid using B-2, F-22/35 against the highest tier elements of Russian IADS in case of a conflict.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES