Russian Radar systems

Gomig-21 wrote:So essentially, resonance means longer wavelengths that are a meter long and by being that long, they tend to overwhelm the subject they're bouncing off and that subject's stealthy attributes can only cope with such long wavelengths that scattering it or redirecting it by shaping or absorbing it via its RAM for only so much until an actual and identifiable return does come back which is discernable?  Am I getting it right in an even more super dumbed down version, or not?

The problem with physics is either you know it or not, there are few shortcuts or intuitive analogies that work all of the time, and this is specially relevant with EM fields, which are seriously complicated and, especially for the magnetic field, counter-intuitive.

That being said, the wavelength can be seen as the size of the pencil when making a drawing. If the thickness of your pen is bigger than the size of the details you try to draw, they will not be recognisable. So, a stealth plane whose details are in the centimeter-decimeter range can not be "represented" by a wavelength in the meter range. The plane will not be able to reflect the incoming EM field in a structured way and so it will not be able to scatter it away from the emitting radar.

Think of it in terms of quality of signal... a very high frequency means more content and detail... like an AM radio signal is mono sound... even with headphones you get two copies of one sound signal. With higher frequency... FM... the sound quality can be improved and two sound channels sent, so you get more detail, but shorter range and you need a good aerial to get a better signal.

Human vision is excellent or can be.

Paint and material camouflage is effective because we see so well.

If we could only see in a small range of colours and could mainly see movement like most animals then camouflage would be much less effective.

You could paint yourself up to match the background perfectly but if I was looking at you in IR with a thermal imager which sees heat instead of visible light then you would glow like anything else the same temperature.

Stealth uses shaping to direct light away from its source... the opposite to the reflector on a bike or car that directs light back at a light... so when your headlights shine on a bicycle the reflector actually looks like a light in its own right when it does not have batteries and just reflects the light your lights directed at it.

A stealth "reflector" would redirect the light you were shining at the bike away from the lights so it would look black and hard to see.

Imagine a man standing in the middle of a field at night holding a full length mirror. It is completely dark. If he holds the mirror between you and him with the mirror facing you directly when you shine your torch at him you will see the light reflected directly back at you so you will see yourself and your torch so he will be easy to see. If he turns the mirror 45 degrees, you would no longer see yourself or your torch... you would see whatever is 90 degrees from his position which might be a light or it might be black... if he angles the mirror up the your torchlight will go up into the sky, but if he angles the mirror down you might see your torchlight on the grass leading away from him which might give you an indication of where he is.

The use of enormous power is like trying to light up the whole field and spotting the black spot where light is not coming back to you.

His problem is that if you start changing frequencies then it has different properties... I have mentioned IR and the EM spectrum is enormous... a mirror is optimised to redirect visible light, but it does not work as a mirror to sound or radio waves...


When you look at an aircraft you can see it... no matter what shape it is...

But to see the detail in an aircraft you need it to be well lit as well.

With very high frequency radar it uses a lot of energy to show lots of detail... including shape.

Long wave radar doesn't have that level of detail on that scale... radar waves a few mms long can show detail down to half their wavelength, but that is the same for all waves... so an AM radio signal that is a kilometre long is just going to bounce off an object a dozen metres wide... it will appear as a blob and not a shaped object... but it will be a radar reflection from somewhere where there is no reflection or a very weak reflection in very high frequencies...

An aircraft like an Su-57 with an L band radar and IRST and Ku and Ka band high frequencies should quickly be able to establish the positions of objects that appear out to max range in L band but are very weak in Ku and Ka bands, and have IR signatures...

The problem with physics is either you know it or not, there are few shortcuts or intuitive analogies that work all of the time, and this is specially relevant with EM fields, which are seriously complicated and, especially for the magnetic field, counter-intuitive.

Nice way of saying blind leading the blind I think....

Analogies can only be taken so far and sometimes are mistaken for fact.

A good example is the fabric of spacetime... someone used the analogy that space time is like a fabric, but now we know space is expanding... but when you expand fabric eventually it rips or tears... but that is fabric... not space time. For all we know space time is not a fabric but has been described as a fabric so normal people can better understand what these people are talking about... but that does not mean space time could ever rip or come apart... we really have no idea.

One of the best descriptions of stealth I have seen was a comparison between the cockpit canopies of the Hughes 500 helicopter (bubble canopy) and the Mi-28s tiny flat transparencies.

Imagine both helicopters hovering 100m in front of you and the sun is behind you shining brightly.

With the Hughes 500 there will be a shiny bright reflection of the sun in the bubble canopy so no matter what the helicopter does it will be easily visible just by this bright reflection.

The Mi-28 however has tiny flat canopy windows so most of the time the sun will not be visible but as it turns and climbs and flys around occasionally you will get a bright flash when the sunlight is reflected to your position... most of the time the sun will not be visible at all.

Neither aircraft is actually stealthy of course but if they were the transparencies would be angled to almost never reflect the light or radar back to an observer, and the reflecting surfaces will be minimised as much as possible... like optical ports in a tank.

Even though 1 meter radar cannot scatter useful information from a 1 cm object like micrometer band waves, it will still scatter something since we
are dealing with photons and quantum mechanics. One could scan a 1 cm object with a 1 m wavelength beam if the angles and intensity could
be varied. Having more than one source of the scanning beam also helps a lot. This way you get additional information that can be used to
construct an image of the target. This assumes no resonance in the target.

But this is usually not practical under rapidly changing conditions such as movement of the target and the resources that can be deployed
to engage in this process are limited. Resonance radars are nifty because there will be harmonics induced by a 1 m wavelength beam
that are of shorter and longer wavelengths. In fact, they do not depend on the radar scanning beam details too much as long as we
are not talking much longer incoming wavelengths which rapidly weakens the amplitude of resonance harmonics and thus makes them
harder to detect. So the job of resonance radars is to detect wavelengths expected to be generated in aircraft like objects.

Modern radars really do undermine the effectiveness of stealth. The monochrome radars of the 1950s are ancient history.

kvs wrote:Even though 1 meter radar cannot scatter useful information from a 1 cm object like micrometer band waves, it will still scatter something since we
are dealing with photons and quantum mechanics.    One could scan a 1 cm object with a 1 m wavelength beam if the angles and intensity could
be varied.   Having more than one source of the scanning beam also helps a lot.   This way you get additional information that can be used to
construct an image of the target.   This assumes no resonance in the target.

But this is usually not practical under rapidly changing conditions such as movement of the target and the resources that can be deployed
to engage in this process are limited.   Resonance radars are nifty because there will be harmonics induced by a 1 m wavelength beam
that are of shorter and longer wavelengths.   In fact, they do not depend on the radar scanning beam details too much as long as we
are not talking much longer incoming wavelengths which rapidly weakens the amplitude of resonance harmonics and thus makes them
harder to detect.    So the job of resonance radars is to detect wavelengths expected to be generated in aircraft like objects.  

Modern radars really do undermine the effectiveness of stealth.   The monochrome radars of the 1950s are ancient history.

 

So what you're basically saying is that Resonance radars send long, 1 meter wavelengths that also (by default?) create/induce harmonics within those wave lengths once they're bouncing off the target, and those harmonics create varied RETURN waves that are long and short which give more information on the target instead of returning only longer wavelengths since those really don't contain much detail by themselves.  Does that pretty much summarize it correctly in a really layman way, or is it an incorrect deduction of your post?

Gomig-21 wrote:

kvs wrote:Even though 1 meter radar cannot scatter useful information from a 1 cm object like micrometer band waves, it will still scatter something since we
are dealing with photons and quantum mechanics.    One could scan a 1 cm object with a 1 m wavelength beam if the angles and intensity could
be varied.   Having more than one source of the scanning beam also helps a lot.   This way you get additional information that can be used to
construct an image of the target.   This assumes no resonance in the target.

But this is usually not practical under rapidly changing conditions such as movement of the target and the resources that can be deployed
to engage in this process are limited.   Resonance radars are nifty because there will be harmonics induced by a 1 m wavelength beam
that are of shorter and longer wavelengths.   In fact, they do not depend on the radar scanning beam details too much as long as we
are not talking much longer incoming wavelengths which rapidly weakens the amplitude of resonance harmonics and thus makes them
harder to detect.    So the job of resonance radars is to detect wavelengths expected to be generated in aircraft like objects.  

Modern radars really do undermine the effectiveness of stealth.   The monochrome radars of the 1950s are ancient history.

 

So what you're basically saying is that Resonance radars send long, 1 meter wavelengths that also (by default?) create/induce harmonics within those wave lengths once they're bouncing off the target, and those harmonics create varied RETURN waves that are long and short which give more information on the target instead of returning only longer wavelengths since those really don't contain much detail by themselves.  Does that pretty much summarize it correctly in a really layman way, or is it an incorrect deduction of your post?

Just as materials can resonate at certain vibrational frequencies (e.g. Tacoma Narrows bridge incident), they can also vibrate in the
EM realm as well. All materials absorb since there are no perfect reflectors (and absorbers outside of black holes if they exist). One
meter radar EM waves will go through materials including metal. The Faraday cage effect from electrostatics applies to some extent
but since scanning waves are not some steady state illumination and include a magnetic component they will penetrate the skin of the aircraft
(with attenuation due to absorption and scatter). Even the skin of the aircraft is a source of resonance harmonics and it does not have to
be just the frame, the engines or other "volume filling" objects.

So think of the targeted aircraft as absorbing the 1 meter radar waves and then emitting a broad spectrum of waves with both shorter
and longer wavelengths compared to the scanning radar beam. Being resonance harmonics, they do not form a continuous spectrum
of emissions but are organized in spikes depending on the characteristics of the aircraft. So different aircraft will give different spectra
of resonance emissions but likely not wildly different. So the return signal that the radar system needs to process is not 1 meter original
wavelength scanning beam scatter, but new wavelengths likely to form from resonance in the aircraft body. This requires testing
with targets to figure out what bands to detect for resonance return signal.

A detail that should be mentioned is that the amplitude of the scanning beam can be cranked up to produce a better return signal.
No amount of RAM coating will save you from this. And no RAM coating works 100%. In fact, since RAM is an absorber it must be
an emitter (in some other wavelengths). So the aircraft will still be exposed to EM waves induced by the original radar scanning beam
and will produce harmonics in some other bands compared to what the radar beam itself would directly induce. Regardless, cranking
up the scanning beam amplitude returns a "cornucopia" of resonance EM emissions that one could detect if one looked for them.

By contrast, using passive IR emissions does not allow you do dial the return signal since the source of those IR emissions is independent
of the radar (no longer radar really) system. Also, IR is scattered and blocked by clouds and fogs more effectively than radar and
at least some of the resonance harmonics.

kvs wrote:Just as materials can resonate at certain vibrational frequencies (e.g. Tacoma Narrows bridge incident), they can also vibrate in the
EM realm as well.   All materials absorb since there are no perfect reflectors (and absorbers outside of black holes if they exist).   One
meter radar EM waves will go through materials including metal.   The Faraday cage effect from electrostatics applies to some extent
but since scanning waves are not some steady state illumination and include a magnetic component they will penetrate the skin of the aircraft
(with attenuation due to absorption and scatter).   Even the skin of the aircraft is a source of resonance harmonics and it does not have to
be just the frame, the engines or other "volume filling" objects.  

So think of the targeted aircraft as absorbing the 1 meter radar waves and then emitting a broad spectrum of waves with both shorter
and longer wavelengths compared to the scanning radar beam.  Being resonance harmonics, they do not form a continuous spectrum
of emissions but are organized in spikes depending on the characteristics of the aircraft.   So different aircraft will give different spectra
of resonance emissions but likely not wildly different.    So the return signal that the radar system needs to process is not 1 meter original
wavelength scanning beam scatter, but new wavelengths likely to form from resonance in the aircraft body.   This requires testing
with targets to figure out what bands to detect for resonance return signal.  

A detail that should be mentioned is that the amplitude of the scanning beam can be cranked up to produce a better return signal.
No amount of RAM coating will save you from this.   And no RAM coating works 100%.   In fact, since RAM is an absorber it must be
an emitter (in some other wavelengths).   So the aircraft will still be exposed to EM waves induced by the original radar scanning beam
and will produce harmonics in some other bands compared to what the radar beam itself would directly induce.    Regardless, cranking
up the scanning beam amplitude returns a "cornucopia" of resonance EM emissions that one could detect if one looked for them.

By contrast, using passive IR emissions does not allow you do dial the return signal since the source of those IR emissions is independent
of the radar (no longer radar really) system.   Also, IR is scattered and blocked by clouds and fogs more effectively than radar and
at least some of the resonance harmonics.

Thank you for taking the time to post that and to answer all my pain in the ass questions! lol.  You and Garry and the other fellas have been great and I'm very appreciative at the patience and information you've outlined.  I'm starting to understand how this resonance radar works against stealthy aircraft and why country X has bought it along with the Protivnik-GE since I'm guessing the surveillance part of the latter radar works well with the Resonance-NE and in tandem will aid in developing a signature library, so to speak.  That goes with what you said in this particular section of your post, I think:

So think of the targeted aircraft as absorbing the 1 meter radar waves and then emitting a broad spectrum of waves with both shorter
and longer wavelengths compared to the scanning radar beam. Being resonance harmonics, they do not form a continuous spectrum
of emissions but are organized in spikes depending on the characteristics of the aircraft. So different aircraft will give different spectra
of resonance emissions but likely not wildly different. So the return signal that the radar system needs to process is not 1 meter original
wavelength scanning beam scatter, but new wavelengths likely to form from resonance in the aircraft body. This requires testing
with targets to figure out what bands to detect for resonance return signal.

Based on that bolded part, it sounds like once they set up these radars, they actually need to test them for a while against these stealthy targets to develop those recognizable return wavelengths and then be able to organize that collected info into a library of sorts so that when the day comes and they're looking at the radar return signals in a time of war, they'll have these signatures already predetermined so that the instant the radar pics up a stealthy aircraft, it's recognized immediately.  In other words, without all this testing and gathering of information and the creation of a recognizable library, you couldn't just field a brand new resonance radar and expect it to instantly give you recognizable, stealthy targets right off the flick of the switch.  You need to first create an organized compilation of information that is preset from all that testing in order to recognize it when the crap hits the fan, so to speak? lol.

If you watch the combat approved series of videos there was one particular episode where there were a whole lot of different scale models shown of different aircraft and missiles and things and they were raised up by a cable system to be held up in the air with various radar and equipment around the place. The cable they were suspended from allowed the models to be rotated in various axis so you could scan it with a radar and rotate it in real time to view the model with the radar from every possible direction.

This sort of thing creates a radar image in that frequency from that radar antenna for that target type... and they could do the same in optical and IR so they can store a 3D database of what objects look like in HF radar and IIR frequencies and use computer processing power to match this library of images from every potential angle with radar returns in the real world to rapidly identify a target and label it correctly within the system.

The Americans did something similar to develop stealthy designs... they just made shapes they guessed would work best... made models and hung them up in front of real radars and tested the results. Eventually thanks to a paper by a Soviet scientist they were able to create a mathematical model of how radar waves work in the real world and were then able to use computers to test thousands of shapes at a time and pick perhaps the best 5 or 10 to make and test in their testing facilities.

If they did what the Russians are doing now they likely would have realised the Iranian F-14 diving at them in Iranian waters in the 80s was actually a climbing Airbus... but if they can't tell something is climbing and then levelling off, and are convinced it was diving and accelerating... then no amount of computer help would matter I guess.

GarryB wrote:If you watch the combat approved series of videos there was one particular episode where there were a whole lot of different scale models shown of different aircraft and missiles and things and they were raised up by a cable system to be held up in the air with various radar and equipment around the place. The cable they were suspended from allowed the models to be rotated in various axis  so you could scan it with a radar and rotate it in real time to view the model with the radar from every possible direction.

This sort of thing creates a radar image in that frequency from that radar antenna for that target type... and they could do the same in optical and IR so they can store a 3D database of what objects look like in HF radar and IIR frequencies and use computer processing power to match this library of images from every potential angle with radar returns in the real world to rapidly identify a target and label it correctly within the system.

The Americans did something similar to develop stealthy designs... they just made shapes they guessed would work best... made models and hung them up in front of real radars and tested the results. Eventually thanks to a paper by a Soviet scientist they were able to create a mathematical model of how radar waves work in the real world and were then able to use computers to test thousands of shapes at a time and pick perhaps the best 5 or 10 to make and test in their testing facilities.

If they did what the Russians are doing now they likely would have realised the Iranian F-14 diving at them in Iranian waters in the 80s was actually a climbing Airbus... but if they can't tell something is climbing and then levelling off, and are convinced it was diving and accelerating... then no amount of computer help would matter I guess.

That's great. I do enjoy those episodes of Combat Approved but it might be tough finding that one particular show. I'll try and look for it.

Sounds like all that SIGINT and ELINT work with radars and creating stored signatures that are instantly identifiable is true in this case with radars. It makes sense that would be the way it's done since it's not really expected that you pull up to a hill, put the parking brake on, raise the radar and associated equipment and power everything up and you're ready to pick up F-35s flying 600 km away! There's a lot more that goes into it to develop the system that eventually makes it work a bit easier in time of war.

If you try to understand how radar work and some of physics, try to make TDR(Time Domain Reflectometer). You can find schematics on internet, and it is not expensive at all, I made my TDR for my job(I need them for looking where is fault in telecommunication cables), in time when I do not have any job I play with TDR and use it like a simple radar. Of course it is primitive version like a radars from early 1940 but it is working. In TDR you can change pulse width, what is pulse width shorter more details you get but range is short. Longer pulse width you can see fault on longer distance. My TDR is working with 9V battery and it have power of 15mW, in theory I can see u p to 10-14 km(with longer pulse width) in reality 8-10km. But in shorter pulse width I can see fault with more details but cost is 100meters.

Hole wrote:
New radars

This is really something else.  So I see the obvious 2 systems in Algeria and Egypt and the one(s) in Russia, but any idea what the 4 are that seem to be coming out of Iran?

The testing of potential targets for resonance radar systems is necessary but not the end of the story. With modern computing
power combined with wide spectrum detection it is possible to have real time adaptive detection. Since the target will emit EM
in some form regardless, any new signals (not part of natural emissions) on the horizon can be "tuned" and followed. The key
is the ability of the detection arrays, especially the phase-array components, to catch new signals.

In some ways it is easier to cover more of the EM spectrum than to have models built on tests only. The tests are useful for
giving information about generic resonant emissions of various structures. So that helps to focus on certain regions of the
EM spectrum and devote more detection resources to them.

Any flying object will be producing emissions that are not part of the normal atmospheric and ground emissions. But these
signals may be weak enough to be missed if the focus of the radar system is too narrow. The 1950s radars are the definition
of narrow focus since they detected the backscatter of the scanning beam. This made stealth worthwhile. In the 1960s
and against 3rd world countries that later. But physics gives solutions to defeat stealth and it is a matter of development
and investment to achieve this.

Gomig-21 wrote:This is really something else.  So I see the obvious 2 systems in Algeria and Egypt and the one(s) in Russia, but any idea what the 4 are that seem to be coming out of Iran?

Iranian OTH radars

LMFS wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:This is really something else.  So I see the obvious 2 systems in Algeria and Egypt and the one(s) in Russia, but any idea what the 4 are that seem to be coming out of Iran?

Iranian OTH radars

I figured they were OTH radars since they have the same coverage as the Resonance-NE in Algeria and Egypt, but was wondering if they were a Russian type or they're domestic-built Iranian radars?

Over the horizon is really not that far when you think about the minimum distance is only 5 km until you start getting beyond the horizon, and these radars have a range of 600-1100km which are way beyond that distance which would be almost any type of radar.  Unless OTH means something else!?

kvs wrote:The testing of potential targets for resonance radar systems is necessary but not the end of the story.    With modern computing
power combined with wide spectrum detection it is possible to have real time adaptive detection.   Since the target will emit EM
in some form regardless, any new signals (not part of natural emissions) on the horizon can be "tuned" and followed.   The key
is the ability of the detection arrays, especially the phase-array components, to catch new signals.  

In some ways it is easier to cover more of the EM spectrum than to have models built on tests only.   The tests are useful for
giving information about generic resonant emissions of various structures.   So that helps to focus on certain regions of the
EM spectrum and devote more detection resources to them.  

Any flying object will be producing emissions that are not part of the normal atmospheric and ground emissions.  But these
signals may be weak enough to be missed if the focus of the radar system is too narrow.   The 1950s radars are the definition
of narrow focus since they detected the backscatter of the scanning beam.   This made stealth worthwhile.   In the 1960s
and against 3rd world countries that later.    But physics gives solutions to defeat stealth and it is a matter of development
and investment to achieve this.

Interesting. So while it's good to test and develop a computer generated library that can instantly recognize a signal and classify it immediately but one can also do the same thing in field in real time and be able to identify stealthy targets during hectic, wartime moments. I bet having the computer be able to recognize a signal for you instantaneously and save you a ton of work & maybe even time is a better option, though.

Gomig-21 wrote:I figured they were OTH radars since they have the same coverage as the Resonance-NE in Algeria and Egypt, but was wondering if they were a Russian type or they're domestic-built Iranian radars?

I am not sure but the graphic mentions three concrete types of Russian OTH radars, so they should be Russian indeed.

Over the horizon is really not that far when you think about the minimum distance is only 5 km until you start getting beyond the horizon, and these radars have a range of 600-1100km which are way beyond that distance which would be almost any type of radar.  Unless OTH means something else!?

OTH radars allow low altitude surveillance beyond the radar horizon. They propagate based on ionospheric reflection or surface wave, depending on the type, and that sets them apart from other types of radar, which propagate in a straight line.

Russia is creating a continuous field of radar against aerodynamic targets based on them, they are also relevant for the coastal defence.

A radar is not a weapon, there were no sanctions against selling them.

Hole wrote:A radar is not a weapon, there were no sanctions against selling them.

But their putting sanctions on the Sputnik vaccine, and saying that it's loosely related to Novichok (not joking). Uncle Sham: "If there's a will, there's a way!"

Isos wrote:

I think they are iranian copies of Rezonance. Probably done with russian help.

Radar horizon is not the same as visual horizon. For very low flying (100m) it's around 40km. For a target flying at 1km in aktitude it will be more like 100km... it varies with target altitude and radar mast height.

OTH use the atmosphere to bounce the radar signal so that it can see in those dead zones.



You can calculate radar horizon on this website :

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

Very cool.  That makes a lot of sense and I did actually read the OTH for radar being roughly around 45km at some point the last few days, except my brain is so flooded with info from indulging in this rather complex topic, yet a fascinating one, for sure.  And I've been at it really heavy and all out for the last 2 weeks my eyes are popping out of their sockets!  

It reminds me when I decided to get a radar for the boat, we had to mount it on the radar arch at a 10 degree downward forward slant because it tends to cover better once you increase the throttle and the bow rises and the boat is planing.  Once planing, but still at a slight bow-up angle, the radar is then at the optimum angle to detect the surface of the water for a few nautical miles, actually.  Kinda the same concept but the opposite train of thought to OTH radars.



And here is an interesting image I got last year when I was around 55 miles offshore at a marine sanctuary fishing for tuna but had to be aware of humpback wales breaching in the area and as I turn the radar on to overlay on top of the GPS navigation map, I took this picture because of location that I wanted to document coordinates but only realized later while downloading the images that the red outline you see there to the right by the + sign is actually a whale that came up to the surface and the radar picked it up!  I never saw it because I was too busy with fishing lines and documenting location etc.  But to my surprise, when looking at this image later on, I couldn't believe the radar picked it up that clearly, too!  It's pretty wild you can see the outline of the tail even.  Somewhat scary because I was out far by myself and there wasn't a boat in sight for 20 miles!

Nebo M mobile radar on Combat Approved Stealth Hunters.  

https://lenta.ru/news/2020/10/31/ibcs/

An article from the drive?

The latest Sky-M radars close the last hole in the Russian air defense

The newest Sky-M mobile radars have shown high efficiency, revealing more than 50 air targets during tactical exercises of the air defense forces in the Urals. By the decision of the Ministry of Defense, in the near future, such complexes will be at the disposal of the 76 air defense division.

Today our border is reliably protected by a network of 7 Voronezh-type radars. The system is on duty around the clock and allows you to recognize even subtle targets at a distance of up to 6,000 km and altitudes up to 8,000 km. Moreover, each of the above stations is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 500 objects.

At first glance, it may seem that our "air border" is securely locked. However, Voronezh also has a weak point. This radar is powerless against targets operating at altitudes up to 70 km.

Until now, the "hole" was closed by mobile complexes such as "Podlet" and "Protivnik-G". However, they also have their drawbacks. In particular, the rather narrow field of view makes the radar data vulnerable to attack. In addition, both complexes cannot boast of accuracy when tracking hypersonic targets.

The above-mentioned gap will be closed by the Sky-M mobile radars. The complexes simultaneously operate in the meter, decimeter and centimeter ranges, which allows you to completely close the "gap" up to 600 km in range and the same in height. At the same time, the system is capable of effectively opening any targets, including small-sized, radio invisible and even hypersonic ones.

It should be noted that the latest radars allow doubling the time allotted for the reaction of the air defense system (from 2 to 4 minutes). In addition, due to its high mobility, the deployment time of the complex does not exceed 15 minutes.

There are no analogues in the world today in terms of tactical and technical characteristics of the domestic radar. Radar "Sky-M" in combination with over-the-horizon stations "Container" effectively complements the functionality of the "Voronezh" system, ensuring the formation of an insurmountable radio-technical boundary along the entire perimeter of our borders.