Upgraded I-HAWK,Mechanised Igla,Giraffe (AMB) Radar&ERWD
-
My 2 cents
Should gradually overhaul I-hawk, a 3G Airforce got no reason to rely on 2G legacy SAM as its main ground based air defense. Replacing it ideally and realistically with true 3G SAMs like PAC-3 -
The US might not be willing, though the Vietnamese already have the S-300.Originally posted by coolant:My 2 cents
Should gradually overhaul I-hawk, a 3G Airforce got no reason to rely on 2G legacy SAM as its main ground based air defense. Replacing it ideally and realistically with true 3G SAMs like PAC-3 -
That is the CIS 50HMG , not the GPMGOriginally posted by lionnoisy:[b]
2.
24.04.2007 Strait Times photo.
A GPMG attched next to the Igla.The Igla platform version seems defferent from
NDP one.
-
Regarding ARMs,
i'm pretty sure we have
1) jammers
2) emergency shut down
3) Decoys.
Anyone with a right frame of mind in preserving our troops, (given the way that RSAF is built upon) should have those things.
I dont really understand what's the uniqueness of the Spyder/Derby System. Is it that it has a Phased array radar?
How's that compared to a Hawk/rapier system that we have now? The range is about the same i think?
Lionnoisy:
There's nothing special of the mech igla. It's a Coaxial. Why you paste a picture of a 50 cal tripod?
Regarding newage SAMs,
they -are very costly- both to have and to maintain/upgrade. I rather we spend money on beamable jammers to reduce capabilities of enemy fighter jets. So they have to come closer to try and get a better bite or shoot earlier and lower the chance of success.
I believe that we dont have LR sams is also because it overlaps the envelop being held now by our F-5s which is more or less for defense, that can be quite dangerous.
Dont forget, F5s engagement range is amraam and that's decent.
With our intergrated AA network, i can safely assume, our sams can be fired -earlier- to engage the planes further due to guidance from C2. -
Becos it is meant to support short range SAM.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:It's still a relatively shorter range radar compared to the Russian radars that run the S-300 systems though. Conceded on the phased array stuff. -
Note GPMG.
The platform seems different from old one.
ST 24.04.2007 -
From what i can tell:
They shifted the coaxial from lower to the top left. Which is now inline with our 25mm - m113s(which is on the right though)
Probably it's due to better alignment/ accuracy at longer ranges.
The mech igla is using a modified 25mm m113 turret which can rotate 360 degrees.
The Hawk is different because it's an upgraded varient. -
Took us forever to bring in decent MBTs. Maybe it'll be another decade or 3 before we get new SAMs.
-
unless there's a desperate need for us to purchase it.Originally posted by sgf:Took us forever to bring in decent MBTs. Maybe it'll be another decade or 3 before we get new SAMs. -
I was thinking MINDEF planners sees the RSN air defence system as a mobile integrated air defence system that can be linked to the RSAF. Remember back in Asia Aerospace exhibition, ST displayed this frigate that can carry 64 VLS on it. Who noes, we might be getting some Navalised SAM eg ASTER-30 or SM-2 missiles. Since the vessels are out at sea, lesser chances the enemy can pinpoint the location. Unlike air-bases on SG. These bases can be easy hit by enemy artillery.
-
Cold launch - or launch without a lock. After some agarlogy, illuminate the target to achieve a lock. That way the target have no time to do evasive action.Originally posted by CM06:Ah the F-5s handle the Inner rim. The Outer CAP is done by F-16s.
F-16s are also on standby. I dont know what you call the out CAP...so i just call that CAP too.
The rapier is working everyday. It's just not improved so not mentioned.
Touchstone what are you talking about? I dont understand.
What's it? -
maciam SPYDER SAM lor.Originally posted by touchstone_2000:Cold launch - or launch without a lock. After some agarlogy, illuminate the target to achieve a lock. That way the target have no time to do evasive action.
-
Instead the Jammer can kill an ARM, it’s the prey of the latter, remember ARM is passive guided and it “ homes On Jammer”Originally posted by CM06:Regarding ARMs,
i'm pretty sure we have
1) jammers
2) emergency shut down
3) Decoys.
Anyone with a right frame of mind in preserving our troops, (given the way that RSAF is built upon) should have those things.
Radar being shot down is equal to your Radar being suppressed. And switch on again takes time and target re-acquisition is extremely slow for the old era mechanical scanning radar if compared to phase arrayed ones. If your SAMs are tasked to protect more important asserts like Airport, then once your radar is shot down. The hostile fighter jets will overcome your SAM post and deliver the “fire-N-forget” long ranger guided A2G missiles. Here, lower –tier or point air defense systems won’t work on the strikes like su30MK which fly fast and shoot at a height.
ARM decoy is essential a radar without receiver & signal processing. It never comes cheap, and because the ARM will always shoot at the emitter which illuminated its launching plane previously, so lure the ARM away from the old era radar by the decoy is not easy or just impossible if the radar never shots down at 1st place. -
Are there systems where the Radar is defended by a point defence system like the Phalanx or a rolling airframe system?
-
Well, realistically speaking, did RSAF acquire such close in defense system at 1st place? In spite you keep adding in modern close in defense systems to protect legacy main systems, why not upgrade all in once? Close-in system is not a sure kill of incoming supersonic missile. Even if your close in system intercepts it successfully, the multiple fragments from the close-in explosive also will probably hit your sensitive electronic devices.
-
Realistically Speaking,
this is an entirely networked AA Dsys.
You cant just compare their best against our old stuff.
I already said while our in-land AA system aint that fantastic, combined with the overall picture, it's more than sufficient to handle incoming air threats.
Yes it's always better to have top of the line stuff but given current situation, this is the most value-for-money solution. -
Well, certainly beats having the radar annihiliated. Rolling airframe systems have better interception capabilities if I recall at a distance.Originally posted by coolant:Well, realistically speaking, did RSAF acquire such close in defense system at 1st place? In spite you keep adding in modern close in defense systems to protect legacy main systems, why not upgrade all in once? Close-in system is not a sure kill of incoming supersonic missile. Even if your close in system intercepts it successfully, the multiple fragments from the close-in explosive also will probably hit your sensitive electronic devices. -
Agree a theater air defense system is always better to have a layer of point defense system & some decoys if possible to protect essentially the radar units & command posts, the PAC-2/3 systems can deployed alongside with decoys carefully positioned to protect the main unit. The S-300 SAM post is always seen with SA-17 point defense system to intercept any LACM/PGM etc or even ARM.
-
Originally posted by coolant:
IIRC most Harm's don't home on jam. Jammers emit noise, to drown out and disrupt radar returns, and ARMs don't home on this kinda noise. Rather than using jammers, there are tactics to use multiple radars from multiple locations , emitting at different intervals to confuse weasels.
Instead the Jammer can kill an ARM, it’s the prey of the latter, remember ARM is passive guided and it [b] “ homes On Jammer”
Radar being shot down is equal to your Radar being suppressed. And switch on again takes time and target re-acquisition is extremely slow for the old era mechanical scanning radar if compared to phase arrayed ones. If your SAMs are tasked to protect more important asserts like Airport, then once your radar is shot down. The hostile fighter jets will overcome your SAM post and deliver the “fire-N-forget” long ranger guided A2G missiles. Here, lower –tier or point air defense systems won’t work on the strikes like su30MK which fly fast and shoot at a height.
ARM decoy is essential a radar without receiver & signal processing. It never comes cheap, and because the ARM will always shoot at the emitter which illuminated its launching plane previously, so lure the ARM away from the old era radar by the decoy is not easy or just impossible if the radar never shots down at 1st place.
[/b]
Weaseling is not as simple as popping an ARM at the nearest emitting radar. There's an art and lots of planning to it. You can't be sure if that emitting radar you are targeting is not a bait, trying to draw you into a corridor of tracking radars. -
cant all the sensor and detection slaved to the airborn radar? will they know that?
-
There’re many types of Jammer, to be a “broadband” jammer only gives away noise is hardly effective. ARM is still capable to home on number of types of Jammer.Originally posted by Shotgun:IIRC most Harm's don't home on jam. Jammers emit noise, to drown out and disrupt radar returns, and ARMs don't home on this kinda noise. Rather than using jammers, there are tactics to use multiple radars from multiple locations , emitting at different intervals to confuse weasels.
Weaseling is not as simple as popping an ARM at the nearest emitting radar. There's an art and lots of planning to it. You can't be sure if that emitting radar you are targeting is not a bait, trying to draw you into a corridor of tracking radars.
As long as the RWR alarms you SAM there and the pilot will shoot his ARM if his RWR happens to be ARM capable. Pilot doesnÂ’t do planning & thinking too much at a supersonic speed and under constantly high G conditions and has to face various threats from air or ground all in a while . ThatÂ’s why you put expertise in your RWR, modern RWR will have a processor behind to process unfriendly or neutral signals and a radar database for comparison. If the fighter jetÂ’s main antenna happens to be phase arrayed as well it can bring more details of signals it received to RWR suite. By analyzing such data, the RWR always can present the most likely & dangerous threat to the pilot, if not 100% sure.
As for multiple radars from multiple locations, if intervals happened, it could well be that the different radars also jam each other. To have multiple radars involved is over kill in cost and resource demanding when you can just upgrade to an one-panel radar like PAC-2Â’s MPQ-53 to do all the tricky multi-radars job. -
maciam SPYDER SAM lor.
It is not the Spyder system.
The latter remains a possibility in the future though. As a matter of fact, one should really not limit themselves to altitudes closer to home ground but up and beyond. -
Talking about RWR, now I recall last time I heard the su30MKM using the RWR originated from Israel? -
Not PAC 3 in MEADS?!!! Wooo eee!Originally posted by Thrall79:It is not the Spyder system. The latter remains a possibility in the future though. As a matter of fact, one should really not limit themselves to altitudes closer to home ground but up and beyond. 
-
Rememder? SAF looking for anti-missiles systems so e I-HAWK replacement r not far liao lets just wait a little while longer Im betting on e Ester 30 or S-300