S-350 "Vityaz" SAM System

Austin wrote:https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img137/6130/radary.jpg

Austin wrote:Vityaz is most certainly PESA atleast on the pictures they showed , And the two planer antenna is I would suspect one for IFF and one for Height Finding.

Austin wrote:I would suspect the need to mass produce Vityaz and a cost effective replacement for S-300P/PT would have made the decison go PESA way ,

Austin wrote:Considering it already has ARH it better than S-300 missile and the PESA would also be of an advanced type.

Austin wrote:SOC , How difficult it is to jam an AESA verus PESA radar using modern jammer , the thing I am aware of AESA is higher bandwidth and graceful degradation under jamming conditions , plus lower power needs.

SOC wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:A few points:

- The existence of feedhorns for a space-fed array is indicative of the fact that the radar shown for this variant of Vityaz' is not an AESA (AFAR, АФАР), but it is not an indication that this radar is a PESA;  not all ESAs are either AESAs or PESAs.

?  AESA or PESA is basically referring to whether or not the T/R modules in the array face are either generating (AESA) or receiving from somewhere else (PESA) RF energy to transmit.  What sort of ESA wouldn't fall under one of those two categories?

SOC wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The apparent existence of a lower subarray (subarrays) can be an indication that the radar is actually a PESA, if that subarray was, for example, for purposes like generating nulls in the antenna pattern. The upper array is probably an L-band array which has IFF as one of its roles.

It looks like there are possibly two subarrays above the main array face, stacked one atop the other.  To get a better impression of what's going on we need an image showing the back of the array face.

SOC wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:- The KM-SAM radar is a space-fed PESA.

I've seen it mentioned in advertising materials as a "plain array active phase radar", possibly implying AESA.  However, the rotating antenna cabin does seem large enough to house a space-feed system behind the antenna, so who knows.

Vladimir79 wrote:This is the answer we have been needing.  S-300/400 is good at high altitude long range targets, but worthless against low flying cruise missiles or tree hugging aircraft.  

Viktor wrote:

Well no SAM is great against low flying targets because Earth itself hides it. Thats why you have 20m and 40m mast that carry specialized search radar system and

as well as shooting radar system along with S-300 batteries and regiments.

Around fixed sites you have things like this:
   
and MIG-31 with R-33/37 above  . Still S-300 proved itself to be perfectly capably of shooting low flying ground hugging targets while defending area.

Even Vityaz with active radar guidance will need to have 40m mast integrated within its batteries and regiments to know where to look, calculate and shoot but
because of it, it will be able to shoot down cruise missiles more effectively.

Viktor wrote:TR1 is right. Russians raise everything to the masts from the acquisition to engagement radar.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Viktor wrote:TR1 is right. Russians raise everything to the masts from the acquisition to engagement radar.

That is incorrect, the 30N6 mast pictured there is not for mobile TEL but city defence.  This is what exists...

SOC wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

Viktor wrote:TR1 is right. Russians raise everything to the masts from the acquisition to engagement radar.

That is incorrect, the 30N6 mast pictured there is not for mobile TEL but city defence.  This is what exists...

The 40V6 mast series is used to enhance low-altitude coverage by lifting the battery-level radar systems above the terrain coverage.  The much larger elevating platforms are used primarily for the 64N6 radars.  They've also lifted 96L6 radars up on the 40V6MR masts with the Moscow S-400 sites.  The mobile 5N63S/30N6 radars are still elevated, just like the 96L6:  they remove the radar container from the chassis and sit it atop the mast.  The disadvantage is that it takes 60-90 minutes to erect the masts depending on the height used, but it's worth the tradeoff around Moscow as it gets the radars a clear field of view.  This whole concept came about as an alternative to taking a bunch of time to clear the forests enough to give the required field of view.

TR1 wrote:
The Greens strike again.

Cyberspec wrote:The engagement of low flying cruise missiles has been proven on *many* exercises. The difference is they can't be engaged at long ranges but much closer (15-30km).

Experiment number 3


Target type: Low flying target

Objective: to test effectiveness of system in conditions of strong surface clutter against a low flying target.

The target was detected at a distance of 14.6 km and hit at a distance of 4.6km (2 missiles were fired)

Pics and charts included
Source: http://www.vko.ru/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=320&ItemID=280&mid=2891&wversion=Staging

Rpg type 7v wrote:that factory looks like  custom private business joe s workshop in bakersfield california, not a trace of streamlined mass production ,robots and lots of assembly workers , and high productivity...lol
pretty slow unefficient rudimentary production there.
this vitazz is disappointing on so many levels   

The company partially based the design of the Vityaz on its work with the South Korean KM-SAM Chun Koong system. Almaz-Antey designed three radar units for the KM-SAM, and is rumored to have also helped design the system’s missiles.

The Russian military officially backed the Vityaz project – which has better capabilities than the Korean air defense system – after studying its performance, Almaz-Antey said in 2010. The new Russian system has been in the works since 2007, and is expected to be completed in record time.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russia_demonstrated_the_new_short-to-medium_range_air_defense_missile_platform_50r6a_vityaz_0207131.html

The first development provides a broader explanation for Samsung’s innovation capacity. In the late 1990s they were able to tap into a source of cheap scientific expertise in the former Soviet Union.

Samsung has nurtured a close relationship with the Russian Academy of Science since then. There is a framework agreement between the two parties. And the Korean Government has its own agreement under which it funds Korean small businesses to develop projects on the back of Academy research. Samsung meanwhile appears to help the Academy to increase its patent count and to exploit its inventions.

...

Has the Russian connection shown concrete value for Samsung?

Right now Samsung is working on 3D projection and display with the Academy. In 2009 BusinessWeek reported that Samsung relied on its relationships with Russian experts for its smartphone software development, adding:

   Russian brains helped Samsung develop the image-processing chips in its digital TVs and refine its frequency-filtering technology that significantly reduced noise on its now-ubiquitous handsets.

...

But a second effect of the relationship with Russian science was the introduction of TRIZ, an innovation method that Samsung adopted from 2000 onwards but which only reached American companies from the mid-2000s onwards (Intel is a user).

TRIZ is a methodology for systematic problem solving. Typical of its origins in Russia, it asks users to seek the contradictions in current technological conditions and customer needs and to imagine an ideal state that innovation should drive towards.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2013/03/07/why-is-samsung-such-an-innovative-company/

except km-sam is already operational and in mass production...
while viutaz is not even in testing...it lags allot.
there is a reason new assembly buildings for A-A are under construction.