India to acquire ‘x-band’ radars Can spot a six-inch object from 4,600 km

[Old School]

X-Band is an important element for the SPYDER air defence system to properly work. As India will depend on SPYDER system for it's air defence and other indigenous air defence system in the future , X -band radar only makes logical sense.

 

[Mauryan]

No big deal....

All you need is money.

Russian Qabala radar can detect and track targets at ranges of 6000km,though its a bistatic radar.

Any further improvements on the Sword Fish can extend its range further from 1500 km.

When any news report says, that India to acquire-then take it with a bucket of salt. There was a plan once from all three forces and the strategic command to have such radars at their own sites like IN having its own sea based radars while IAF having its radars at AFB.But the plan was later dropped due to the reason of being costly to develop and procure.

If the plan is re-visited again ,then the procurement will be based on the 2018 date plan.

Obama pledging to create history with his India trip already holds as many holy grails.China was already aware of the recent U turn by Yanks.Anything gonna happen.With china showing its middle finger to US ,US desperately needs India and not the other way around.Time for people to watch the miracle show in the coming 2 years if the reports are said to be true.

Afterall,India is once again revisiting its space defence systems after 2 decades.Best time for some of these radars to be placed in space.As everyone says,this is clearly the decade of Indian technological prowess.Many more noteworthy things are going to be seen on many front pages.

 

[KEETARP]

This begs the question of why would Pave Paws uses such low freqs when the higher freqs are already in operation? The answer is that Pave Paws' mission is volume search. The lower freqs will have a wider dispersion pattern than the ghz freqs. For volume search, a wide beamwidth is good, but at the expense of target resolutions, such as fine speed or altitude resolutions.

Gambit , why not then switch to even lower Freq than X-Band , that will give an even better Beam-Width for volume search and range of operation. And make a bigger Antennae size to overcome resolution drawback .

Clearly...Depending on the mission, range may not be as important as volume search and vice versa. The reason why the X-band, or ghz freq or centimetric wavelength, is used here is because of the nature of the target, which is far smaller than a fighter aircraft and is moving, or descending, at double digit Mach. Remember, the type of target set our mission. The target is a descending warhead, possibly nuclear, moving at double digit Mach. Unlike Pave Paws, we would have a better idea of the source direction of this target, therefore we can afford to use higher freqs, which give us tight beams, at the expense of longer coverage time for a given volume, or sector of the sky

In that case of Small Nuclear warhead of Cm or Bm, wouldn't an F22 give you a better display than a Boeing-737 MEAS with even much lower freq .
But still Air-Forces around world prefer an L-Band AWACS for 24hr Tracking and Surveillance from Cruise missile or Smaller Jets ,
even Fighter aircrafts with X band tighter Beams still take Data from AWACS or AEW platforms.

Won't at certain range for a particular storm object
beam smearing effect = equals = beam misses or beam-filling returns and then you would be getting an more accurate picture

 

[gambit]

Gambit , why not then switch to even lower Freq than X-Band , that will give an even better Beam-Width for volume search and range of operation. And make a bigger Antennae size to overcome resolution drawback .

Pave Paws uses the mhz bands. For the system we are talking about here, there is a compromise that involve mobility. The larger the array, the more difficult it is to move, not just the array itself but all the associated support, which include hardware and people.

I must caution the readers on the word 'better' as sometimes casual usage of certain words can give the wrong information. Everyone is guilty of this carelessness, including those who are in the industry. Regarding radar detection, specifically beamwidth, the word 'better' can falsely imply 'tighter' and 'pencil' beams are very desirable in many situations. That is NOT true. If someone want to convey the message that he is looking for or using a 'tight' beamwidth of so-and-so degree, he should be so specific. The word 'better' is more like 'preferable' as in beamwidth of so-and-so degree is preferable to this situation instead of that situation. For volume search, if the customer is willing to sacrifice target resolutions for speedier coverage of a certain sector of the sky, or may be even everything from horizon to horizon in 360 deg out to 5000 km, then 3+ beamwidth is 'better' or 'preferable' to any less. Very tight or 'pencil' beams are 'better' or 'preferable' when you are fighting for your life instead of looking at large swaths of the sky for long term objectives.

In that case of Small Nuclear warhead of Cm or Bm, wouldn't an F22 give you a better display than a Boeing-737 MEAS with even much lower freq .
But still Air-Forces around world prefer an L-Band AWACS for 24hr Tracking and Surveillance from Cruise missile or Smaller Jets ,
even Fighter aircrafts with X band tighter Beams still take Data from AWACS or AEW platforms.

Won't at certain range for a particular storm object
beam smearing effect = equals = beam misses or beam-filling returns and then you would be getting an more accurate picture

The problem with what you are proposing here has nothing to do with engineering but with mission requirements, which ALWAYS places constraints on engineering. It is more cost effective to have a long duration large platform than many smaller ones. In a pinch, the local theater commander may be creative enough to do exactly what you propose, but if the intention is to monitor a potentially hostile enemy's movement, then using many smaller platforms that may have presence reliability issue is not tactically or strategically sound.

 

[Guest]

What does x band has to do with the distance?
It is simply a bigger radar! it is not only x band radar. for instance, KLJ-7 is an x band radar!

six inch object with respect to the claimed distance needed to be answered.

it doesn't. just as many members pointed out, the only advantage is X band radar is more sensitive. it's the antenna size (or sensitiveness) and the transmitters peak power than determined the distance. however, the peak power of the transmitter is constrained by the material it is used. so this is a engineering problem more than a physics problem. so as to the sensitiveness of the antenna. of course the coding and decoding algorithm of the signals is important too, but this is much more easier to learn or copy.

sorry for saying it doesn't, what i meant was i doesn't increase the distance. on the contrary, it reduced the distance compare to the L band radar if every other thing are the same.

 

[Guest]

@ gambit
can you explan a little bit how the radar calculate the distance between the radar and the target? i know the basic equation that S=V*T, so my question is how to get the precise figure of "V" and "T".

 

[Kinetic]

They are most probably talking about this radar.... will be surprised if US selling this to India. If true than it will be a giant leap in India's capabilities. I guess they have EA incorporated in it.

Advanced US Radar Could Extend Israel's Missile Defense - Defense-Update

Forward-Based X-band Transportable (FBX-T) radar

Known as the Forward-Based X-band Transportable (FBX-T) radar, the AN/TPS-2 is built by Raytheon, based on the 'Ground Based Radar' employed with the THAAD system. The FBX-T is designed as an air, ground and rail transportable, X-band, phased array radar that uses high-powered, electronically scanning pulsed beams, to track small objects in space at high resolution. The system has been described by U.S. officials as capable of tracking an object the size of a "baseball from about 2,900 miles (4,600 km) away". The system is being developed in a spiral process. The current phase provides surveillance and search capabilities early in the target trajectory, and enables the early engagement of the threat. It also supports messaging and communication with the Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (BMDS) battle manager (C2BMC).

Performing autonomously, or as cued by other sensors, the FBX-T is optimized for its role as missile detection and tracking sensor. The radar will provide target detection, classification, discrimination, acquisition and tracking. It will plot the trajectory parameters for each threat missile, and pass it to the command and control system for use by the fire control systems, such as the Green Pine radar, acting as fire control system, midcourse and terminal sensors. Furthermore, the long range and wide area coverage provided by the new radar could cause Israel rethinking its sofar shelved, 'boost phase intercept' concept, by deploying forward positioned interceptors far from its borders and close to the enemy launching sites.