Counter-battery clash "killers of artillery": Russian "Zoo-1" against shtatovskogo AN / TPQ-47. Is it worth it to be under a delusion?

Counterbattery radar artillery reconnaissance 1L260 "Zoo-1M" (left) and AN / TPQ-47 (right)

In previous works, we returned several times to a comparative review of various types of domestic radar systems of the Radio-Technical Forces of Russia with their American counterparts. As a result, it turned out that the high technical indicators of our stations, together with their much larger nomenclature, determine a significant separation from state products, which cannot boast of any unique functions. Clearly just the contrast is seen in comparison with the standard surveillance radar decimeter AN range / TPS-75 «Tipsy» c Russian multifunction radar centimeter range 64L6 "Gamma S1" or all-altitude radar detector AN / TPS-59 with domestic interspecific RLC 55ZH6M "sky-M ". If the list of functions of US stations is very limited (air traffic control and targeting for anti-aircraft missile batteries), then our complexes (due to their multi-range) can be hardware and software methods adapted to direct targeting for anti-aircraft missiles during the interception of enemy targets.

Nor can the US Air Force boast of such specialized tools as the high-energy low-altitude detector (NVO) 48YA6-K1 “Podlet-K1” capable of detecting inconspicuous cruise missiles at a distance of 35 km. Nevertheless, radars for work on aerospace space objects - this is not a complete list of radar weapons to counter the threat from the enemy’s offensive-defensive weapons. Today’s counterbattery radar of artillery reconnaissance, designed to reveal enemy firing positions along the flight trajectories of artillery shells, unguided and guided missiles and operational-tactical ballistic missiles, occupy a niche in the list of radar complexes of the new generation. The principles of operation of these stations set rather high demands on the computing facilities of electronic equipment, as well as on the energy capabilities of antenna posts based on PFAR / AFAR. For example, if for confident determination of the position of a 120-mm mine or 122-mm unmanaged projectile outburst, it is sufficient to briefly “enlighten” its trajectory using a beam of the radiation pattern in any sector of the ascending section, then to determine the launch position of an XM30 GUMLRS corrected rocket or shot of the artillery M982 “Excalibur”, it is necessary to “fix” the initial segment of their trajectory, because in 5 and more kilometers they can be redirected to a higher priority target, after which the coordinates a tive artillery battery will be almost impossible.

That is why during the design of counter-battery artillery reconnaissance radars the main focus is on the stability of the so-called “lower beam” mode, when the viewing range in the elevation plane ranges from 0 to 10 degrees. For example: the AN / TPQ-36 and AN / TPQ-37 "Firefinder / II" American counterbattery radar ranges from 0 to 7 / 7,5º, respectively. This is almost 5 times less than that of the national artillery reconnaissance complex 1Л219М Zoo-1. Nevertheless, the choice in favor of the "lower beam" leads to other noticeable shortcomings. In particular, “Firefinders” of AN / TPQ-36 / 37 modifications do not have the ability to detect mines, as well as rocket and artillery shells, ascending or descending branches of the trajectory exceed the above-mentioned viewing sector. Consequently, these radars cannot accurately calculate the points of falling of the shells in a few tens of seconds, which means that there is no ability to timely alert friendly units of the impending artillery strike. It is this disadvantage that the AN / TPQ-36 “Firefinder” radar handed over to Ukrainian formations can boast. Time does not stand still, and the development programs of artillery reconnaissance radars continue to improve, adopting all the necessary features of aerospace radars.

The most modern domestic concept of such a radar system is 1L260 Zoo-1M, developed by the Tula scientific and production association Strela, which is part of the Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern. Back in 2013, information appeared about the beginning of the military test phase of the updated Zoo; in the same year, at the MAKS-2013 aerospace show, a prototype of the complex with the main tactical and technical characteristics was put on public display. The same prototype was also presented at MAKS-2017, which, with reference to the “Herald of Mordovia”, was reported bynews rbase.new-factoria.ru system ("Missile Technology").

The source states that 1L260, presented by AFAR, is capable of detecting: 155-mm projectiles of the SAU M109A6 “Paladin” at a distance of 23 Kz.Ye. IIA ”- 26 km. It also indicates that the angle scan zone is 2 - 30º. This suggests that the computational terminal of the Zoo-45M can easily determine the positions of enemy artillery units along trajectories of unguided projectiles at even longer ranges. To do this, it is enough to track the 164 — 65-kilometer downstream portion of the trajectory. In particular, the coordinates of the battery of "Paladins" firing simple or active-projectile projectiles can be calculated at a distance of the order of 0 - 40 km, the positions of the M1 MLRS launchers can be calculated at a distance of the order of 5 km. It is worth noting that a similar technique would be absolutely useless with respect to managed OTBR and adjustable missiles, since the initial and middle sections of the trajectory (located outside the energy potential of the Zoo) can vary considerably depending on the flight algorithm loaded by the INS of the projectile.

As you can see, thanks to the large-scale scanning sector, the counter-battery 1L260 “Zoo-1М” radar noticeably outperformed the staff AN / TPQ-36 and AN / TPQ-37. Apart from the fact that the station is capable of calculating the enemy’s firing positions, shells falling places, as well as adjusting the fire of friendly counter-battery weapons, the list of its tasks now also includes an overview of the airspace for threatening elements of high-precision weapons. According to the developers and specialists, the Zoo-1М is capable of issuing target designation to the operator terminals of short-range anti-aircraft missile systems (obviously, this refers to Pantsir-S1, Tor-M1 / 2) in the network-centric system of a modern military anti-aircraft defense. It is quite logical that such a link would require the use of an intermediate link - a unified battery command center of the 9 – 737 “Ranzhyr” type with some hardware “bells and whistles”, but this is still silent. Considering that the Zoo 1M station is capable of “tying up tracks” of such small-sized objects as 82-mm mines, the calculated minimum EPR may be at the level of 0,008 - 0,01 м2: small-sized UAVs and tactical missiles with radio-absorbing and composite materials.

1L219М Zoo-1 artillery reconnaissance radar

The throughput of the counter-battery radar 1Л260 reaches approximately 12 simultaneously accompanied by the passage of targets, while a minute can be "held" to 70 - 75 artillery and rocket projectiles. It takes about 15 - 17 to determine the trajectory, as well as the coordinates of the launch and fall of the shells The element base (including computational) of the counter-battery 1L260 “Zoo-1M” radar has a great similarity to the “stuffing” of the previous 1L219М “Zoo-1” modification. It was built around the modern digital computer of the Baguette family. The main difference is in the use of a completely new active phased array antenna 1ЛХNUMX, the total power of the receiving and transmitting modules of which reaches 261 kW (70-219-1-ZOOXXXXXXXXXXXXX3-X-NUMX-X-NUMX-1-259-30-70-80-XNUMX-XNUMX-XNUMX-XNUMX-XNUMX) Due to this, XNUMX is observed - XNUMX% increase in the effective range. Moreover, in comparison with the first “Zoo”, the new version has ten times greater vitality and service life: the failure of several dozens of anti-personnel landmines will only slightly affect the performance of the main task list.

The only parameter by which the American counter battery radar AN / TPQ-37 is slightly ahead of 1Л260 Zoo-1М is the effective detection range. The US product is capable of detecting 152-mm artillery shells at a distance of 30 km, while unguided missiles are trapped in 50 km, which is 1,3 times more than the updated Zoo. Nevertheless, this is only a drop in the sea against the background of the error in determining the coordinates of the barrel artillery of AN / TPQ-36 / 37, which varies in the range of 60 - 80 m. At the "Almaz" counter-battery, this parameter does not exceed 40 m!

Meanwhile, it’s not worthwhile to delude yourself in connection with the superiority of the Zoo 1M over the above counter battery artillery reconnaissance radars, since the American companies Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have two spare counter battery / multifunction radars, whose capabilities are not only inferior , but also partially ahead of all known modifications of the Zoo. The first project is a high-potential AN / TPQ-47 RLC (or AN / TPQ-37 P3I Block II). The use of a decimeter S-band does not ensure the radar of the increase in resolution and accuracy of determining the trajectory of the projectiles, but it allows to realize a greater range in 1,5 - 2. In particular, AN / TPQ-47 is able to detect: 82-mm mines at a distance of 20 km, 120-mm mines at a distance of 30 km, 152-mm artillery shells at a distance of 60 km, unguided and guided missiles - 80 - 100 km. These indicators are among the best in the world. Tactical ballistic missiles on the ascending branch of the AN / TPQ-47 trajectory can “see” at a distance of 300 km! This radar is also designed to detect various types of airborne objects, including aircraft using stealth technology, which makes it possible to integrate into air defense / missile defense systems.

According to the American information resource globalsecurity.org, the AN / TPQ-47 counter-battery artillery intelligence radar control point is equipped with the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFTDS) network-centric system for distributing field artillery fire. The calculated AN / TPQ-47 coordinates of the enemy’s firing positions are immediately transmitted to the AFATDS terminal, which, based on the location information of friendly artillery batteries (including the types of ACS and MRLs used), selects the tools that can most effectively suppress the enemy’s artillery. From all we conclude that, despite the network-centric characteristics similar to the Zoo-1M, AN / TPQ-47 has the best long-range performance in 3. This makes it possible to display all of their counter-battery potential 155-mm SAU using the corrected Excalibur projectile (the so-called M982 smart shot), high-precision MLRS MLRS / HIMARS modifications, which use XM30 GUMLRS controlled missiles with a range of more than 80 km with a range more than 300 km, with XMUMNUMX guided missiles with a range of more than XNUMX, with XMUMNUMX guided missiles with a range of more than XNUMX, with XMUMNUMX guided missiles with a range of more than XNUMX, with XMUMNUMX guided missiles with a range of more than XNUMX, with XMUMNUMX GUMLRS with a range of more than XNUMX, with XMXNUMX guided missiles with a range greater than XNUMX, using XMXNUMX guided missiles with a range of more than XNUMX. also ATACMS complexes with a range of up to XNUMX km.

The AN / TPS-80 G / ATOR multi-function radar will become the information base of the US Marine Corps in both counter battery and anti-aircraft / anti-missile missions.

Domestic radar artillery combat L-260 "Zoo 1M" gives an opportunity to show the potential of a SAU "MSTA-S", "Coalition-SV" with a range of 40 shooting - 70 km and multiple launch rocket systems 9K58 "Smerch", applying reactive shells with a range of up to 70 km (9М55К1 with self-guided 9H142 "Motive-3М" or high-explosive fragmentation 9М). Energy and long-range capabilities for the independent issuance of target designation to operational-tactical complexes "Tochka-U" or "Iskander-M" at a distance of 55 - 150 km from "Zoo-300M", unfortunately, no. At the same time, the American Nortrop Grumman already has a production line almost completely ready for serial production of even more multifunctional radars with counter-battery and anti-air capabilities like AN / TPS-1 G / ATOR (Ground / Air Task Oriented Radar). Their last modifications will receive more energy-efficient and wear-resistant transceiver modules based on gallium nitride, which will increase the range of work by about 80 times. The AN / TPS-1,3 multifunctional AN / TPS-2 operating on the 4-80 GHz frequencies can track both artillery shells (determining the coordinates of the enemy’s firing positions and projectile impact points) and accompany air targets at distances up to 250 - 300 km.

In terms of the effectiveness of airborne visibility and target designation, this radar corresponds to products such as the Opponent-G radar detector or the BBO 96L6 all-altitude detector, while the counter-battery capabilities are ahead of our Zoo-1M. One can only hope that our defense industry will soon have a decent response in the form of a multifunctional dual-use radar system with an increased working resource due to the introduction of AFAR technology with LTCC substrate. Indeed, only this technology is capable of putting a fat point in the “interspecific radar race” between Russia and the United States.

Information sources:
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/news/na-maks-pokazali-ubiycu-artillerii
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/an-tpq-47.htm
https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/programs/aviation/antps-80-groundair-task-oriented-radar-gator

Comments

[guerrilla]

I have long wanted to ask, Donbass do not need these? How many lives would be saved. And the stubborn ones were driven away ...

[Lopatov]

There definitely are "Storks"

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

There definitely are "Storks"

Yes, our specialists have the Joint Center for the Control and Coordination of the Ceasefire Regime (JCCC) officially

[Pivot]

Comparison of course in the spirit of the National Interest, forgot to indicate the number of complexes in the troops.

[75 hammer]

Can also report where deployed! In general, the "Zoo" began to be made in the USSR, and now it has been seriously modernized, so your request must be redirected to the General Staff.

[Pivot]

When he served, he did not see a single zoo, except for drunken ensigns. I’m not sure that 10 of these complexes will be typed, but this is so guesswork, who in the subject tell me how many such radars are in the troops?

[Lopatov]

There are a lot of such radars. "Zoos" - not enough. But until recently, they did not pay much attention to them, yet the Zoo is redundant for local wars.

Basically, "such radars" are represented by complexes ARK-1 and ARK-1M "Lynx"

[infantryman2020]

1. "Zoo-1М" is also far from new to the year of development and, accordingly, on the element base.
2. Cheap jingoistic patriotic jokes. Such complexes are characterized not by dislocation, but by their place in the OSH of parts and compounds. And the total in SV. What's the point that it is comparable to a similar American one (even if it is), if their specific number is less by an order of magnitude.

[Bongo]

Quote: Pivot

Comparison of course in the spirit of the National Interest, forgot to indicate the number of complexes in the troops.

Unfortunately, Eugene is very characteristic of categorically frankly ignorant statements:

the list of functions of American stations is very limited (air traffic control and target designation for anti-aircraft missile batteries)

Maybe before writing this it’s worth studying the nomenclature of American radars?

[Lopatov]

Oh ... How many things have been done ...

Firstly, the radar of determining the coordinates of shooting guns is by no means a horse in a vacuum. Spherical. This is part of the system. At the moment, in addition to active radars, passive sound-measuring systems and radio-intelligence systems are included in the counter-battery system. On the approach, sound-thermal (Penicillin-OEM), in the future, heat-sound-seismic.
For some reason, the Americans are not developing any components other than the most vulnerable - ARSOM radar. Although they have successful experience in using the HALO (Hostile Artillery LOcating) British sound metering systems in Yugoslavia by the Marine Corps

Giant sayings of the Israeli military-industrial complex on the most promising thermal complexes at the moment are also unclaimed.
It seems that the Americans intend to fight exclusively with the Papuans, who are not able to either jam or destroy the radar to determine the coordinates of the firing guns.

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

It seems that the Americans intend to fight exclusively with the Papuans, who are not able to either jam or destroy the radar to determine the coordinates of the firing guns.

And what else do they consider the rest of the world?

[tchoni]

Quote: Spade

It seems that the Americans intend to fight exclusively with the Papuans, who are not able to either jam or destroy the radar to determine the coordinates of the firing guns.

The Americans simply believe that at the time the ground operation began, the opposing side would have no trivial means left to stifle and destroy the radar, nor to the industry capable of creating such means. That's all. And they, in my opinion, are right ....

[Lopatov]

Quote: tchoni

And they, in my opinion, are right ....

I’m afraid that, before the start of the operation, the complete destruction of all means of electronic intelligence capable of detecting the coordinates of the radar and all means of electronic warfare capable of drowning out is from the category of unscientific fiction.

[Lopatov]

Secondly, range. It is a common mistake to assume that the greater the maximum range of fire of missile and artillery fire weapons, the farther they will be from the line of contact. No, they will remain at the same distances, just the battle order of the enemy will be under fire at great depths. Therefore, what is the difference, what is the maximum notch range for different complexes? This is generally not a very important characteristic, testifying more likely not to the combat capabilities of the radar, but, together with the intelligence sector, about the number of complexes needed to effectively cover the front section
The performance response of the complexes comes first. In reconnaissance, and, more importantly, in the maintenance of artillery fire. The author may have forgotten, but for this kind of radar, the second, no less, and even more important task is to target their artillery fire weapons. Not the detection of UAVs and other cruise missiles in the interests of military air defense.
No wonder that specialized fire control radars appear to determine the characteristics of the trajectory of their shells / RS. You can recall the Israeli and Chinese MLRS, and radar on the 2C35 "Coalition"

And here speed is a very important thing. Especially considering that the sighting, as such, in the conditions of modern combat is almost impossible. Short fire attack and leaving the position. And the projectile flies quite a long time, which increases the time spent on the OP when using the sighting at times.

[Pivot]

Comrade Lopatov, this is the point I remember shooting using the DAK2M or a more prosaic but less cumbersome compass. Such a topic would help, but as I understand it, equipping with such a miracle from a division and higher?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Pivot

Comrade Lopatov, this is the point I remember shooting using the DAK2M or a more prosaic but less cumbersome compass. Such a topic would help, but as I understand it, equipping with such a miracle from a division and higher?

In fact, in artillery there are only two sightings. One is by observing the signs of discontinuities (this is when the plug is taken), and by the measured deviations. And the device for such a measurement can be anything. From a compass with a stopwatch starting, and ending with a helicopter / spotter. Including a radar station for determining the coordinates of firing guns. Usually it is used for shooting targets that are detected by the same complex. To eliminate the "hardware error"

[Bratkov Oleg]

Until the moment when the militants in Syria were not fired with calibers from the Caspian Sea, they flew a maximum of 300 kilometers, there was no other confirmed data. So with the "Zoo", with the beginning of the war, they will change some block, otherwise they will rearrange it corny in places, and it will work with twice the range ...

[Lopatov]

Thirdly, accuracy and efficiency. Yes, “Excalibur” is a noble thing ... But who decided that the radar for determining the coordinates of the firing guns determines these coordinates with sufficient accuracy for their application? And it’s painful to shoot with “Excaliburs” over square-nesting areas. Although there is currently no other method to compensate for radar positioning errors (and sound and radio reconnaissance), only shooting at areas with a rather high expense.
High consumption, because to defeat modern self-propelled guns, either a direct hit or a very close gap is necessary. Yes, and towed not far from self-propelled guns left:


Well, in general, the capabilities of the radar to open the battle order modern artillery equipped with effective ASUNOs are very, very low. A "dispersed" battle order requires an actual transition from counter-battery to counter-weapons combat. Moreover, the ability for the gun / installation to quickly leave the fire (or even firing on the move, from short stops for unobserved targets, as, for example, in Israeli self-propelled mortars) greatly reduces the effectiveness of fire destruction. Including shells with self-aiming combat elements. Indeed, for their use it is necessary not only to quickly detect the fire, it is also necessary to quickly evaluate the most likely route for leaving it, which will require either human participation (for a long time), or artificial intelligence (which is not yet available)

Highest value for counter battery versus modern artillery acquires electronic intelligence. Which will detect artillery fire control units with the subsequent destruction or electronic suppression, including specialized projectiles / RS with jamming warheads.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Spade

Indeed, for their use it is necessary not only to quickly detect the fire, it is also necessary to quickly evaluate the most likely route for leaving it, which will require either human participation (for a long time), or artificial intelligence (which is not yet available)

This is the same forgotten feeling when comments are better than the main article.
Welcome.
Thank you, I read with interest all three comments.

[corporal]

Quote: Aleks tv

This is the same forgotten feeling when comments are better than the main article.

Support.
It is a pity that Comrade Lopatov seems to be the only one of the artillery specialists who will post comments.

[Lopatov]

Welcome.
The author simply wrote an article in the style of “ARSOM radar is very simple”, somewhat overloading it with technical terms. In fact, it is very difficult.

He built the whole narrative on, in fact, a speculative, advertising characteristic, "serif range." Hedgehog it’s clear that the closer to the point of departure the section of the projectile trajectory is detected, the more accurate the results will be ... And if this is the Smerch MLRS with correction on the active section of the trajectory? The coordinates will initially be incorrect due to the fact that it changes with a rocket immediately after launch, while the rocket engine is running.
And, for example, an ordinary howitzer shell can be detected immediately before the target, in a descending section. And having accurate data on the state of the atmosphere, calculate the point of departure with sufficient accuracy for return fire.

The "notch range" is calculated simply, taking into account only the effective dispersion area (EPR) of the projectile / RS / mine / missile. This is enough for an advertising booklet, in reality, everything is much more complicated. It is actually floating, and depends on many things. Starting with the type of projectile, as already written, it is better to track the guided ones as close as possible to the departure point, with conventional ones it is much easier. Finishing with the required accuracy. If there are several artillery divisions involved in counter-battery and a lot of shells, then it turns out like in a joke: "Athos, draw a cross on his heart with chalk, I’ll stick a sword there ... Alyosha, sprinkle it with chalk and serve the mace"

[Abel]

Bravo! Thanks for the clear and understandable explanation.

[avt]

Quote: Aleks tv

This is the same forgotten feeling when comments are better than the main article.

Yes - ah ... Really already somehow forgotten. Lopatov unfolded well Thank you.

[Pivot]

I agree to all 100, and the nickname from Comrade Arteleriysky

[evil partisan]

Quote: Aleks tv

This is the same forgotten feeling when comments are better than the main article.

I join, Colleague!

[Catherine II]

Quote: Aleks tv

This is the same forgotten feeling when comments are better than the main article.

I agree ... not a private phenomenon, but a pity. VO was once famous for comments

[rice]

Quote: Aleks tv

This is the same forgotten feeling when comments are better than the main article.

I completely agree. Yes, I learned something new for myself.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Spade

Moreover, the ability for the gun / installation to quickly leave the fire (or even firing on the move, from short stops for unobserved targets, as, for example, in Israeli self-propelled mortars) greatly reduces the effectiveness of fire destruction. Including shells with self-aiming combat elements.

EMNIP, precisely because of the massive "automation" of artillery (more precisely, the closer integration of artillery reconnaissance systems, fire control systems and gun mounts proper), an increasing number of AR radars, increasing the accuracy of position detection and reducing the time interval "notching a shot - determining the coordinates of the enemy’s position - choosing one’s own forces for return fire - calculating data for firing - return fire"already in the 80s of the last century it was believed that in a large war a gun could fire 3-4 shots from one position, after which it should leave immediately.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Alexey RA

already in the 80s of the last century it was believed that in a large war from one position the gun could make 3-4 shots, after which it should immediately go away.

Depends on the type of gun, its rate of fire for short periods of time. Generally minute fire attack, and leave the position. Consider not only the time for the “serif-data transfer-shot” cycle, but also the flight time of the projectile. In the same 2C3, similar in ballistics to the American "Paladins", a projectile at a distance of 12 km flies 35 seconds.

In fact, the Soviet 2S19 MSTA-S was precisely the answer to the American Takfaer artillery automatic control system

[voyaka uh]

"Which will detect artillery fire control units with subsequent
destruction or electronic suppression "///

We focus on the development of drones such as Harpy - shock drones-kamikaze.
With a small warhead for accurate hits on radars, antennas, speakers ...
And then ... artillery works as if "against the Papuans." Because
enemy batteries without means of detection are much less dangerous.

[DimerVladimer]

EW artillery shell - more effective in terms of operational efficiency, cheaper than kamikaze drone:
+ it does not require an accurate hit, while “covering” for a long time a vast area for communications and electronic intelligence;
+ it is difficult to extract / destroy (especially if additionally conduct remote mining in the area of ​​its fall) - it is relatively easy to triangulate (detect), but it is difficult to extract / destroy.
+ it is cheap and does not require complex means of delivery (barrel artillery, NURS)
- Cons in comparison with a kamikaze drone - this is not a lethal weapon, after the end of energy production or when the target is relocated, this procedure will have to be repeated if necessary. and the second minus - the range is limited by delivery vehicles (barrel artillery, NURS).

On the other hand, for a kamikaze drone to complete the task, several intermediate tasks must be successfully completed:
- delivery of the drone to the target area;
- opening the location of the object;
- guaranteed defeat of the target;
if the drone destroys only the remote antenna complex - this may not cause critical damage to the main equipment and will not cause a long interruption of operation.

On the whole, a complex of measures in the form of electronic warfare shells and a drone intercepting electronic reconnaissance and communications equipment on a march would be even more effective than separately.

[voyaka uh]

"and the second minus - the range is limited by delivery means" ////

Each country develops where it has strong achievements.
In Israel, these are drones. We learned to work with them in the army, and are used to it.
And URs that we intensively develop and produce.
And the barrel artillery in Israel "in the backyard." MLRS generally was not in the army for a long time.
And counter-battery struggle in the Arab-Israeli wars did not happen.
Fighter-bombers solved all problems, striking at the artillery of the enemy.

[novel66]

and attack aircraft for these purposes would be better, but in Israel they are not. and why?

[voyaka uh]

They are not needed. F-16 with its aiming container and URami copes well.
From a great height out of reach of anti-aircraft guns and MANPADS. And against a powerful missile
armor won't help.

[Abel]

Such was the military doctrine, taking into account the geographical size of Israel. I-B could inflict 2 blows on the passage: there and back. But there were already moments when aviation was in short supply. So the army must be balanced: "the specialist is like a flux"

[Lopatov]

Quote: voyaka uh

We focus on the development of drones such as Harpy - shock drones-kamikaze.

They still need to fly. Not the fact that it will work out. In addition, it is slow compared to art. projectile. And here the time factor is of great importance. After all, while the fire control system is not destroyed and not suppressed, tons of shells and mines are dumped in your troops ...

[voyaka uh]

"Moreover, it is slow in comparison with the artillery shell" ////

Slowly, yes, but much further. And you can knock
cars with radars, antennas, control points are still on the march.
To this and strive. To when the advancing enemy army
begins to unfold to open fire, she no longer had electronic
eyes and ears.

[Lopatov]

Quote: voyaka uh

Slowly, yes, but much further.

And why is it "much further" if the distance from the force of 10 kilometers from the line of contact?

[voyaka uh]

I, apparently, explained poorly. Detect and beat key components
control (cars with radars, antennas, "rumors", command
points) preferably long BEFORE the line of contact. And small shock drones
well suited for this. So that the batteries of artillery and NURs arrived at
the line of contact is already "undressed" - without eyes and ears.

[Abel]

Quote: voyaka uh

Slow - yes, but much further

ABOUT! With the size of Israel - this is very important. Or is Israel planning to go beyond its borders?

[voyaka uh]

In absolutely all wars, Israel carried out deep strikes on the enemy’s infrastructure and rear, convoys on marches, command posts.
With a country width of 20-40 km (narrow places) there is no place even for
the smallest tactical retreat.
Therefore, special importance is given to the development of long-range precision weapons.
Despite its cost.

[DimerVladimer]

Quote: Spade

Of greatest importance for counter-battery against modern artillery is radio intelligence. Which will detect artillery fire control units with the subsequent destruction or electronic suppression, including specialized projectiles / RS with jamming warheads.

+ I absolutely agree.
Means of passive monitoring of the radio environment (triangulation by radio signal) have proven effective when not only radar systems, but also individual radio stations and mobile phones, served as targets.

Which will detect artillery fire control units with subsequent destruction or electronic suppression, including specialized projectiles / RS with jamming warheads

.

+ I agree that direct destruction of the artillery reconnaissance station (radar) is not required, for squeezing out of the dislocation area, it is enough to "put" an electronic warfare shell next to the station, which will interrupt the station’s communication with the units, for its non-removability or destruction by detonation, to remotely mine anti-personnel mines in the area.
The station will be forced to relocate, which will disrupt its work.

Therefore, it is advisable to use a double outfit of detection and control of artillery fire, acting alternately.

[Lopatov]

You didn’t understand what it was about. The fight is not with artillery reconnaissance radars, this is a separate issue. Fighting with an artillery fire control system that allows you to disperse the guns / installations over the maximum area, making them much less vulnerable to counter-battery combat.

[DimerVladimer]

The only parameter by which the American counter-battery radar AN / TPQ-37 is slightly ahead of the 1L260 Zoo-1M is the effective detection range. The American product is capable of detecting 152 mm artillery shells at a distance of 30 km, while unguided rockets are detected at 50 km, which is 1,3 times more than that of the updated Zoo.

The effective detection range is the most important parameter that determines whether the radar is hit by counter-battery means.
The farther the radar - the greater the chance of survival.

[kirgudu]

I don’t understand what is stopping me from firing at any radar with a missile with a guidance head on the radar?

[52]

Well, at least the means of delivery and detection of this radar. This is an airplane or helicopter with the appropriate equipment and weapons. As a result, the operation to destroy the Zoo can do, taking into account losses from military air defense and electronic warfare three times more expensive than the radar itself. Now no one is fighting in a vacuum, and a lonely radar is not standing on the mountain, waiting for presentations from the adversary.

[sivuch]

Anyway? For example, GOS, which would work on meter radars, do not exist in nature. By millimeter radars, NNP, too (although here, I think, the problem is solved). Plus, there are all kinds of radar operating modes, such as Flicker, simulators, such as understudies or the current newspaper.

[Kenxnumx]

And do we have analogues TPQ 48 50. That was small and easy to service.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ken71

And do we have analogues TPQ 48 50. That was small and easy to service.

Unfortunately not.
There are light "Storks". But for local wars, they are not particularly adapted. A radar is needed with a sector of 60-00 / 360 degrees horizontally

[HEATHER]

"ZOO". An interesting and high-quality name, see with a hint. Soon the cells of the menagerie will open. Or already?

[vnord]

Quote: kirgudu

I don’t understand what is stopping me from firing at any radar with a missile with a guidance head on the radar?

The price of the issue.

[52]

Good article, Thank you to the author!

[borov]

What can I add ...

[Andy]

so August 2008. what is the effectiveness of the zoo?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Andy

so August 2008. what is the effectiveness of the zoo?

Due to its absence, it is unknown. Only ARK-1 were available, as far as I know, faulty. At least in the 19th MSD

[Bashibuzuk]

Great article. And even better comments. And Mr. Lopatov’s comments, as usual, are more detailed than any other and leave a pleasant degree of some awareness that “... we have better than that. But not enough.”
To my regret, reading the article, I suddenly found myself thinking that very much like all these elevated indicators, centi and decimeter ranges, are far from the program. Suddenly I thought, before rockets fired from an inclined guide, shells flew straight from the barrel (that's a miracle). And now, no matter how you watch the video, all the rockets wobble at the initial stage, like a drunken prostitute, some shells of a young man ... and then they also wobble. So I thought - and ugly ... in a couple of decades, the missiles will leave the guides “low-handed”, tangentially to the underlying surface. And after a dozen km startanut at the zenith. And then how to catch them? Not rockets, no - but launchers .... industrial problem ... however.
So I thought, what if from several directions we irradiate the zone of interest to us with meter stations. Or decameter. With variable pulse width modulation.
And then we see - some kind of byak rides. Big one. Arrived, stopped. An obscure movement began in the radio range. And then, suddenly, out of nowhere, he appeared in ... and so on. Sudden missiles drew ten kilometers from this byaka. In an absolutely clean field. What to do?
To strike at this very byak. And do not spoil.
I hope the idea is clear, or how?

[lukewarm]

As always - catch up. After decades of defeat and trampling into the mud, old developments are pulled out from under the cloth. And of course there’s a lot of foam in the spirit of "no analogs in the world." May God grant that these radars in the troops be in the right amount and specialists should be trained. What’s the matter, question: The author spoke about the range of the “American,” about the trends in rapprochement between the air defense and artillery radars. So: what about the radio horizon? For such ranges? That's about the S400 in Syria they wrote that he does not see because of the mountains, as a result, the range is limited. So after all, the C400 has a mast, but here it is not. And if the art will shoot from behind the mountain, then what? Who knows, please answer. It would be interesting to hear

[Philip Staros]

I don’t know ... But from the written and the logic it follows that if the artillery shoots from behind the mountains, the Zoo will track the DOWN part of the trajectory of freely flying shells (not actively maneuvering) and calculate the starting point.

[Philip Staros]

Well, let's get upset that our tank guns don't shoot as far as the American ICBMs fly ...
Judging by its appearance, the zoo is a mobile advanced-based system and it works just with guns, etc. And for its purposes, its capabilities are quite enough.
And we have other means against tactical missiles.

[Prosha]

When I see such expanded posts, I immediately have a question in my thoughts, but what about the data here for open access? I am far from the world of radio electronics, so I apologize immediately for ignorance.

[Bratkov Oleg]

Quote: Prosha

... and the data that is given here for open access? ...

After reading, burn the monitor, and everything will be fine.