Shocking! No radars over China frontier, confirms IAF chief

[SADAKHUSH]

Be relaxed, now China is in the defense position, you Indians are darling and ally of the mighty USA, you can already line up with Vietnam to meddle the South China sea, what China can do? China is a crippled duck, at USA and India's mercy, maybe after 15-20years, will China dare to talk to India then.

Do not forget in the early eighties you were in bed with while Yankees and cowboys were banging you and you were enjoying it. You scoundrels stole the missile technology and they learned the lesson. I wish they never had a President like Nixon, who was the catalyst in supporting your commies against than Soviet Union. That golden era is over once for all.

India has had independent foreign and economic policy from day one and will continue to have no matter how much violence is perpetrated by foreign elements. We are equal partners with USA and nations of SCS. Only alternative your commies have is to resolve the boundary disputes with other nation and learn to live peacefully.

I am going to print and frame your to see what happens in 15 to 20 years time period. If, I am not around than will be watching from the other world.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. He mentioned ITBP is one of the form let both army and Air-force know abt intrusions,
2. He also mentioned they lack low level radars over mountain terrain,
3. Why mountain terrain > Coz their are passes where Helo and sub sonic speed aircraft can fly,
4. He didn't mention abt Army AD role coz its Army business and nothing to do with IAF radar,
5.What is so difficult to understand ?, Or what else one trying to see..

This image is more or less true atleast for the NE region, I hardly have any info of Active Air defense batteries operational for the whole NE, but on the other hand the same also applies for PRC

Did you notice my post and the vid ?

Did you notice PRC movements ?
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...offensive-combat-readiness-against-india.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

BEL Mobile Radar System

These can cover 50kms, And many of these which can be manpack can be deployed over mountains..

 

[Godless-Kafir]

This is bull crap, how come there can be no Radar on Chinese border? There is no Radar over Kolkatta?

 

[Archer]

The above radar - LLLR is the Bharani. This has been developed for the Army by LRDE in partnership with BEL who is the manufacturer. It is a 2D system - provides bearing and velocity, but not height. Its a man portable system, to be deployed in mountainous terrain etc and to be used against mostly low flying aircraft attempting to use the valleys and terrain features to catch the Army by surprise. The radar has cleared trials and is under order by the Army, with 16 radars.

The Aslesha (LRDE of the DRDO names its radars after nakshatra) is the 3D "version" of the Bharani. In reality though, while some subsystems are common, its a pretty different system, and is classified as a LLLWR by the IAF. 21 of these are on order by the Indian Air Force. Refer:

2012: Radar Power
Radar power
Range of Radars (2009)
Range of radars
Indian Eye in the Sky (2012)
Indian eye in the sky

The LRDE is also developing newer variants of the radars mentioned above. Particular projects of note in the coming years will be the AESA versions of the LLTR and the Medium Power Radar. While the former will take over from Rohini, the latter will replace the Israeli imports with a local radar. The IAF has indented for 15 Israeli and 8 Indian MPR so far.

Basically radars are not going to be a problem area considering orders placed and development underway

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Aslesha (LRDE of the DRDO names its radars after nakshatra) is the 3D "version" of the Bharani. In reality though, while some subsystems are common, its a pretty different system, and is classified as a LLLWR by the IAF. 21 of these are on order by the Indian Air Force. Refer:

2012: Radar Power
Radar power
Range of Radars (2009)
Range of radars
Indian Eye in the Sky (2012)
Indian eye in the sky

The LRDE is also developing newer variants of the radars mentioned above. Particular projects of note in the coming years will be the AESA versions of the LLTR and the Medium Power Radar. While the former will take over from Rohini, the latter will replace the Israeli imports with a local radar. The IAF has indented for 15 Israeli and 8 Indian MPR so far.

Basically radars are not going to be a problem area considering orders placed and development underway

 

[p2prada]

Ground based radars are useless over the Himalayas. There are only a few zones that can be watched. Enemy aircraft have no problems identifying blind spots there. It works against the Chinese too, but a little lucky for them they are at a higher elevation. Low level radars are good enough for using point defence systems apart from medium range SAMs like Akash. Long range radars are sitting ducks against enemy artillery and aircraft.

AWACS and other airborne radars are the best for this region. But we have very very few apart from fighter radars. Ground mapping is very difficult and clutter rejection is very difficult as well. But any day better than a ground based radar.

We pretty much need an AWACS for every squadron, or at least one for every airbase.

 

[ace009]

Ground based radars are useless over the Himalayas. There are only a few zones that can be watched. Enemy aircraft have no problems identifying blind spots there. It works against the Chinese too, but a little lucky for them they are at a higher elevation. Low level radars are good enough for using point defence systems apart from medium range SAMs like Akash. Long range radars are sitting ducks against enemy artillery and aircraft.

AWACS and other airborne radars are the best for this region. But we have very very few apart from fighter radars. Ground mapping is very difficult and clutter rejection is very difficult as well. But any day better than a ground based radar.

We pretty much need an AWACS for every squadron, or at least one for every airbase.

I wonder why we cannot have radar installations on key access points - valleys wide enough for major thrust by the enemy, key flightpaths from existing Chinese airbases. We know the location of these bases, we know the kinds of aircraft that they can deploy for there - hence their ranges, stealth characteristics and armament are known. So, we can identify strategic locations to place the radars - can't we?
Sure long range radars are susceptible to enemy airstrike, but you can protect them with SAMs - for radars with ranges of 200+ km, no artillery can find them.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I wonder why we cannot have radar installations on key access points - valleys wide enough for major thrust by the enemy, key flightpaths from existing Chinese airbases. We know the location of these bases, we know the kinds of aircraft that they can deploy for there - hence their ranges, stealth characteristics and armament are known. So, we can identify strategic locations to place the radars - can't we?
Sure long range radars are susceptible to enemy airstrike, but you can protect them with SAMs - for radars with ranges of 200+ km, no artillery can find them.

Mountains are separated by valleys which are 2-10kms in length, there are ground observers mostly in these valleys, Helo or Jets at low altitude makes lots of noice if not visual..

Over heights you can use these radars 3D & 2D, and now we will have low level radars at top peaks which can cover large distance with other radars and Ground observer, Its a mountain based radar and observation network..

 

[p2prada]

I wonder why we cannot have radar installations on key access points - valleys wide enough for major thrust by the enemy, key flightpaths from existing Chinese airbases. We know the location of these bases, we know the kinds of aircraft that they can deploy for there - hence their ranges, stealth characteristics and armament are known. So, we can identify strategic locations to place the radars - can't we?

Place small low level radars in the valleys and mountain tops on the leeward side(not facing the enemy). Position men there and stick manpads in their hands. Shoot at the aircraft's ass when it passes over. That's your fool proof defence on mountains.

Long range radars are like the targets waiting to be shot at. No matter how good the position is an aircraft is always more maneuverable and the radar is static. A road based radar like the ones mated to the HQ-9 SAM is very deadly even if it belongs to the Chinese. Again it is their advantage. We don't have such expensive options as of today.

There is a much better option considering Chinese radar coverage looks better on paper. Satellite based radars. That's one of the best possible options for us apart from AWACS. A satellite based radar mated with an AWACS is quite fool proof. We will need many satellites for 24/7 coverage though. Very Expensive. An example is the Israeli TecSAR that we launched for Israel. But this is a big satellite, a similar capability can be achieved by launching many microsatellites at one go. They are too small for the Chinese to target with their ASAT systems. When I say small, I mean they are targeting a $100000 satellite with a $1-5Million missile.

Sure long range radars are susceptible to enemy airstrike, but you can protect them with SAMs - for radars with ranges of 200+ km, no artillery can find them.

Don't underestimate the 2nd Artillery Corps. Their range isn't a paltry 200Km. With today's technology I doubt our static radars will survive long anyway.

Currently, we can only use fighter aircraft to provide 24/7 monitoring of airspace in that region. Bars is very useful there.

 

[ace009]

There is a much better option considering Chinese radar coverage looks better on paper. Satellite based radars. That's one of the best possible options for us apart from AWACS. A satellite based radar mated with an AWACS is quite fool proof. We will need many satellites for 24/7 coverage though. Very Expensive. An example is the Israeli TecSAR that we launched for Israel. But this is a big satellite, a similar capability can be achieved by launching many microsatellites at one go. They are too small for the Chinese to target with their ASAT systems. When I say small, I mean they are targeting a $100000 satellite with a $1-5Million missile.

I am no expert in satellites, so can;t say what $100,000 satellite will be like. But a small satellite also means a small radar - isn't it? From space, a small satellite, especially with the cloud cover of North East, - how effective will it be? The small radar on the leward side souds better, but then again, range and effectiveness is a question - right?

 

[p2prada]

I am no expert in satellites, so can;t say what $100,000 satellite will be like. But a small satellite also means a small radar - isn't it?

Less power, but it will be enough. It is not like the enemy can jam it easily. They physics is also a bit different. The range from LEO to the surface is 300-600Km. Currently radar is used to map the ground. Perhaps there are micro satellites for tracking. But there are technologies being developed that would allow transfer of power through air.

I don't have access to the book, but the synopsis will give you an idea.
Amazon.com: Space Based Radar and Its Impact on Aircraft Susceptibility (9781423562542): W. A. Ricks: Books

This is old stuff that was declassified, so you can only imagine the classified stuff.

From space, a small satellite, especially with the cloud cover of North East, - how effective will it be?

Cloud cover does not stop a radar. Only optical sensors. Nothing in the air can beat a radar. A radar can see everything. What is important to you is retained and everything else is discarded. If you are a weatherman, then you can discard birds, aircraft as clutter and retain only clouds. If you are a military pilot then you will discard moisture, cloud, birds, insects etc and retain only the aircraft and ground.

F-22 works the same way. It is not invisible to radar, but by creating a smaller reflecting surface it is able to reduce it's radar return to that of a bird's or an insect's. So, your radar software will automatically reject it thinking it is a bird or an insect. Clutter rejection threshold is what defines stealth. If your aircraft is below the threshold then you are "invisible." Similarly a cloud is also invisible. Even smoke and fog.

The small radar on the leward side souds better, but then again, range and effectiveness is a question - right?

The point is not to look for enemy air traffic in their air space. It is to prevent our air space from being abused. From the leeward side, the enemy has no idea what's waiting for them. They pass over a SAM "minefield" and the pilot is forced to engage a missile from a point he cannot see. It is all tactics. Even enemy troop positions are almost always on the leeward side. Artillery and aircraft are quite useless in such situations because the target is not in LOS.

Edit: A lot of Soviet satellites were nuclear powered generating a lot of power, in the range of Kilowatts.

 

[p2prada]

I am no expert in satellites, so can;t say what $100,000 satellite will be like.

I gave the $100000 example as an estimate as against a Million dollar missile. An anti-sat system is much more expensive quite like the satellite. Anyway a microsatellite weighs anywhere between 10Kg and 500Kg. So, you can expect a military satellite to be on the higher side of the weight figure. But these are microsatellites.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I am no expert in satellites, so can;t say what $100,000 satellite will be like. But a small satellite also means a small radar - isn't it? From space, a small satellite, especially with the cloud cover of North East, - how effective will it be? The small radar on the leward side souds better, but then again, range and effectiveness is a question - right?

If i am not wrong there are Spy satalite also use for reading geography and weather, these are equipped with radar as well as optics..

 

[ace009]

Less power, but it will be enough. It is not like the enemy can jam it easily. They physics is also a bit different. The range from LEO to the surface is 300-600Km. Currently radar is used to map the ground. Perhaps there are micro satellites for tracking. But there are technologies being developed that would allow transfer of power through air.

I don't have access to the book, but the synopsis will give you an idea.
Amazon.com: Space Based Radar and Its Impact on Aircraft Susceptibility (9781423562542): W. A. Ricks: Books

This is old stuff that was declassified, so you can only imagine the classified stuff.



Cloud cover does not stop a radar. Only optical sensors. Nothing in the air can beat a radar. A radar can see everything. What is important to you is retained and everything else is discarded. If you are a weatherman, then you can discard birds, aircraft as clutter and retain only clouds. If you are a military pilot then you will discard moisture, cloud, birds, insects etc and retain only the aircraft and ground.

F-22 works the same way. It is not invisible to radar, but by creating a smaller reflecting surface it is able to reduce it's radar return to that of a bird's or an insect's. So, your radar software will automatically reject it thinking it is a bird or an insect. Clutter rejection threshold is what defines stealth. If your aircraft is below the threshold then you are "invisible." Similarly a cloud is also invisible. Even smoke and fog.



The point is not to look for enemy air traffic in their air space. It is to prevent our air space from being abused. From the leeward side, the enemy has no idea what's waiting for them. They pass over a SAM "minefield" and the pilot is forced to engage a missile from a point he cannot see. It is all tactics. Even enemy troop positions are almost always on the leeward side. Artillery and aircraft are quite useless in such situations because the target is not in LOS.

Edit: A lot of Soviet satellites were nuclear powered generating a lot of power, in the range of Kilowatts.

Interesting.
I found this paper on cloud cover and radar effects in different bands - although not for military applications.
http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVIII/part7/b/pdf/317_XXXVIII-part7B.pdf

The through the air power transmission concept you talked about is using microwaves - my previous company was involved in a similar project - it has it's pitfalls - powering a radar on a satellite is not that simple using a microwave based power source. A nuclear reactor is much better alternative.

 

[p2prada]

The through the air power transmission concept you talked about is using microwaves - my previous company was involved in a similar project - it has it's pitfalls - powering a radar on a satellite is not that simple using a microwave based power source. A nuclear reactor is much better alternative.

Yeah. The US is trying to power satellites and aircraft using this in order to push them past the limits of current physical and economic constraints. One other application is using radars as a directed energy weapon on large aircraft like the F-22 to kill incoming missiles.

 

[pankaj nema]

IAF to deploy mountain radars along LAC - Times Of India

This news about IAF getting Mountain radars is from JULY 2010 .

Maybe we have installed a few by now

 

[pankaj nema]

Mountain radars for Northeast

One more news from July 2011

This talks of even Long rang Mountain radars

 

[p2prada]

The articles seem to be speaking about Ground Master 400 radars from Thales. These are road transportable and gives some parity with the Chinese HQ-9's fire control radars.

 

[SPIEZ]

Less power, but it will be enough. It is not like the enemy can jam it easily. They physics is also a bit different. The range from LEO to the surface is 300-600Km. Currently radar is used to map the ground. Perhaps there are micro satellites for tracking. But there are technologies being developed that would allow transfer of power through air.

I don't have access to the book, but the synopsis will give you an idea.
Amazon.com: Space Based Radar and Its Impact on Aircraft Susceptibility (9781423562542): W. A. Ricks: Books

This is old stuff that was declassified, so you can only imagine the classified stuff.



Cloud cover does not stop a radar. Only optical sensors. Nothing in the air can beat a radar. A radar can see everything. What is important to you is retained and everything else is discarded. If you are a weatherman, then you can discard birds, aircraft as clutter and retain only clouds. If you are a military pilot then you will discard moisture, cloud, birds, insects etc and retain only the aircraft and ground.

F-22 works the same way. It is not invisible to radar, but by creating a smaller reflecting surface it is able to reduce it's radar return to that of a bird's or an insect's. So, your radar software will automatically reject it thinking it is a bird or an insect. Clutter rejection threshold is what defines stealth. If your aircraft is below the threshold then you are "invisible." Similarly a cloud is also invisible. Even smoke and fog.



The point is not to look for enemy air traffic in their air space. It is to prevent our air space from being abused. From the leeward side, the enemy has no idea what's waiting for them. They pass over a SAM "minefield" and the pilot is forced to engage a missile from a point he cannot see. It is all tactics. Even enemy troop positions are almost always on the leeward side. Artillery and aircraft are quite useless in such situations because the target is not in LOS.

Edit: A lot of Soviet satellites were nuclear powered generating a lot of power, in the range of Kilowatts.

Soviets were the pioneers in satellite technology.
the kosmos nuclear powered satellite was a huge failure and landed in Canada. And Soviet just payed a huge fine for that