NIIP Bars and Irbis series of radar for Su-30/Su-35

Anduriel said:
But old Bars design?
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely. There were also "Bars-23" and "Bars-29" for MiG-23 and MiG-29 sized aircraft. and they're all "scaled down" N011M Variant. Also not counting "Osa" which destined for MiG-29 and MiG-21.
 
Irbis-e can scan without physically turning the aperture, but the aperture can turn to improve the field of regard. Do you guys think the pilot can steer the aperture a certain way to reduce the RCS of the aircraft?
 
Vanessa1402 said:
Irbis-e can scan without physically turning the aperture, but the aperture can turn to improve the field of regard. Do you guys think the pilot can steer the aperture a certain way to reduce the RCS of the aircraft?
Click to expand...
In theory it's possible. Whether it's actually implemented that way is yet another question. It must be noted that the mechanical steering is basically limited to azimuth though.
 
Scorpion82 said:
Vanessa1402 said:
Irbis-e can scan without physically turning the aperture, but the aperture can turn to improve the field of regard. Do you guys think the pilot can steer the aperture a certain way to reduce the RCS of the aircraft?
Click to expand...
In theory it's possible. Whether it's actually implemented that way is yet another question. It must be noted that the mechanical steering is basically limited to azimuth though.
Click to expand...
are you sure about that?, I vaguely remember it can turn in any direction
 
To my understanding the rotational movement copensates for bank only, but isn't used to extend elevation coverage.
 
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcdYVZrwHik
Bars video



The Su-35’s air-to-air Phazotron NIIP N-011 multi-mode, look-down/shoot-down radar (which also has an air-to-ground capa- bility out to a range of 124 miles) is sophisti- cated but not up to state-of-the-art Western standards. Typical of Russian radars, it depends more on its enormous power than on sophistication to accomplish search-and- track tasks and overcome countermeasures. Regardless, Sukhoi claims the unit can track up to 15 targets simultaneously while it engages any six at ranges of up to 249 miles. Few Russian aircraft observers truly believe the latter, but military strategists often use it anyway for threat analysis purposes.
Click to expand...

Those numbers are pretty out of line with what I’ve heard about Bars MSA but I wonder where they came from?
 
I dont understand a lot of the intricate details of radio electronics and deeply admire stealthflanker types who are gifted with mathematical and engineering acumen. That said I think it is much more complicated than "it isnt aesa". From all I can gather the irbis e is one of the most powerful pesa radars ever made with functions built in to keep it very competitive. From what I gather the beam steering and agility and bandwidth and power are near peer to even very modern aesa radars. There are certain key features missing tho like LPI and the flexibility of having myriad transmitters as opposed to only one with a few concurrent channels.

Can someone with much better knowledge speak on this when they have the time? If I am wrong on anything please correct me and rip what incorrect stuff I've said apart. For example am I right about pesa radars not having LPI ability as it only has a single powerful transmitter? I know irbis is unique in that it does have hundreds of recieve channels but this is a huge difference between pesa and aesa right?

Edit: had to add a thought.
 
Doing radiating element counts for Irbis. Although it's PESA, it is still a Phased array radar where the number of radiators matter.

Irbis-Counting.png

From the counts, one can try glean into some parameters e.g antenna gain from simple equations and some basic assumptions.

For gain it can be found from :
G=N*PI()*Efficiency

Where N is the element counts, Pi is pi (3.14 something) and Efficiency, the efficiency factor here for phased array are determined via its radiation pattern, which would mean knowing the weighting function for the antenna allows first cuts for estimating efficiency. The typical and relatively popular weighting function is Taylor -40 dB which give beamwidth broadening factor (k) of 1.25 and aperture efficiency of 0.76.

Using the factor into the Irbis element counts yield 36.4 dB. About 0.4 dB more than Bars despite smaller diameter (0.9 vs 1 m) of Irbis.

Knowing the element counts may also frequencies to be estimated too. This however also requires that the physical antenna aperture (or at least the part of the aperture that occupied by the radiators) to be known. Irbis however have publicly available information of 0.9 m diameter, thus physical area of 0.63 sqm. This can then be divided by the Element counts to find the element area. This element area can then be directly used to estimate operational wavelength through the Squared wavelength/4 relationship.

From above, the element area is found to be about 0.0003 sqm. Operational wavelength would then be 0.0369 m or 8120 MHz.

Antenna beamwidth can also be approximated by simple relationship 100/Sqrt(N) Which for the element counts, yield 2.3 Degrees.

One confusion i have is the element spacing. Most relationship i cited above assumes half wavelength spacing for the antenna. There is however means of optimization like element placement (square grid vs triangular lattice) which allow for thinning of the array vs scan angle requirement tradeoff. This element spacing confusion in turn will affect the estimated value of frequency.

The other relationship i read for triangular lattice, which seems to be the arrangement Irbis used puts the element area equation to be 0.332*Squared wavelength. Thus using this relationship give me frequency estimate of 9356 MHz (0.032 m wavelength)

The antenna frequency bandwidth, beamwidth estimates and gain is unaffected. At least before i start digging more relationship.

Range estimates using K.Barton's equation for Modern Radar, using available public informations along with values established above yield range estimates of some 408-385 km for 3 sqm SW-1 target with PD 0.5% and 257-243 Km for 90% PD. Assume the Dwell time per beam to be 0.03 seconds similar as Zaslon and that 10x10 degrees search area. It will completes the scan in 0.55 seconds.

If Wide angle search is assumed (e.g 120 deg and 7 Bars) Same detection range can be achieved with same dwell time but the whole scan time would be 9.28 Seconds. Is that acceptable ? What if faster scan is desired. e.g 5 seconds. Halving the dwell time (now 0.015 seconds/beam) drops the detection range to 320 km for 50% PD and 204 km for 90%.

So i feel that the informations publicly available is actually true. at least for noise limited condition like above. Clutter however will present challenge which depends on what kind of "Improvement factor" the signal processing can allow and how much sidelobe reduction Irbis antenna could have. This however is harder to find in public source. There are descriptions from Chinese forum about Irbis's "supposedly inferior range" But given there are no hard value nor condition of the flight was given or target informations (e.g speed, altitude). It will be difficult to make any estimates.

I "developed" some simplified method for calculating range vs Surface clutter condition but it's rather crude and only counts mainlobe clutter contribution. No means to calculate improvement factor available yet.
 
BARS range 110km for a 3sq meter target. That’s a hair greater N001, though I’m such detection quality is much better. That seems similar to the difference between N019 and Zhuk-ME.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3616.jpeg
    IMG_3616.jpeg
    352 KB · Views: 20
The inconsistency is probably caused by use of range of different PD and PFA's. Bars has always been credited with 250-300 km range. It could be however for PD-50%, while the 110 km range figure is for PD-90%.
 
stealthflanker said:
The inconsistency is probably caused by use of range of different PD and PFA's. Bars has always been credited with 250-300 km range. It could be however for PD-50%, while the 110 km range figure is for PD-90%.
Click to expand...
There isa simple answer - mid-life upgrades. I saw a picture from presentation where was timieline of Indian N011M variants. with first variant being purely A2A, with A2G and other improvements coming through with upgradesand new production blocks.
 
Anduriel said:
There isa simple answer - mid-life upgrades. I saw a picture from presentation where was timieline of Indian N011M variants. with first variant being purely A2A, with A2G and other improvements coming through with upgradesand new production blocks.
Click to expand...

That cant explain differences and inconsistencies in range figures tho.. like Initial N011M Bars was always rated for at least 150 km range for a "fighter" sized target then it's credited with 330 km range for Su-27's. That's in some 2005's, now is 2024.
 
stealthflanker said:
That cant explain differences and inconsistencies in range figures tho.. like Initial N011M Bars was always rated for at least 150 km range for a "fighter" sized target then it's credited with 330 km range for Su-27's. That's in some 2005's, now is 2024.
Click to expand...
N001VEP also has 150km range for its long range search. I notice a number of Russian radars have similar range to their equivalent. Like Zhuk-ME and N019M1.
 
stealthflanker said:
Yeah but not sure if you can compare it with Bars, as it's a much newer more advanced design.

That 150 km range is probably obtained through very long dwell time, which may not be realistic for combat scenario.
Click to expand...
I’m actually curious, as I understand it some parts of the N001VEP might be better, like the Baguet series 55-04.02 processors were not used on (at least the initial variants) of Bars. Bars seems to have been forced early on to rely on legacy Soviet components, I’m not sure what later upgrades entailed.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom