Military Review

Possibilities for improving the air defense of corvettes

74

In a previous article "What are we building - corvettes or flag demonstrators?" it was about the construction of a new series of 6 corvettes of project 20380 at the Amur shipyard. The article emphasized that the air defense of the 20380 corvette is so ineffective that it can only play the role of a flag demonstrator. Corvette 20386 is much more efficient, but some authors on VO argue that 20386 is too expensive, and 20380 needs to be built, which they consider to be more efficient. The purpose of this article is to substantiate some measures that simultaneously reduce the cost of the air defense complex of light ships and increase its efficiency.


1. Problems of existing radar systems (RLC)


One of the troubles of the Russian Navy is the lack of equipment unification. In particular, there are many types of radars, but most of them lag behind the current level of radar. Mechanical scanning antennas are already an exception. The most effective are active phased antenna arrays (AFAR). AFAR is being introduced into the Navy very slowly. The first on the corvette 20385 should be the Zaslon radar. However, its price is unacceptably high, apparently, it will exceed $ 100 million. Given that the Redut 9M100 and 9M96 air defense systems are complex and expensive, it seems that the main task of the corvette is to defend itself from raids.

The high cost of Russian radars is explained by their low serial production, caused by the lack of unification and the use of outdated design approaches. The newest Zaslon radar contains two radars - a surveillance radar operating in the meteorological-resistant 10 cm wavelength range, and a missile guidance radar operating in a less stable but providing more accurate guidance range of 3-4 cm. ship, it will be able to provide the range and accuracy required for the air defense system in adverse weather conditions. Its main drawback is its high cost.

With smaller ships, the situation is much worse. On MRK 21631, a surveillance radar with a short detection range is installed, which does not allow to prepare in advance for an attack. On the MRK 22800 Odintsovo, the Pantsir-M air defense system was installed, the guidance radar of which operates in the mm-wavelength range, which is completely unacceptable for a shipborne radar, which should operate in rain and fog conditions.

2. Ways to reduce the cost of radar


The key condition for reducing the cost of radar is the obligatory unification of the radar of all ships of the 1st and 2nd classes and MRK. The number of radars on the ship should be reduced to one. Instead of surveillance radar and guidance radar, it is necessary to develop a multifunctional (MF) radar. One exception is allowed - the radar of destroyers must solve not only air defense missions, but also missile defense missions. That is, in addition to the MF ZLS, missile defense requires a separate radar with four very large AFAR with an area of ​​50-100 square meters. m each.

2.1 Choosing a method to reduce the cost of MF radar


It is known that the detection range of targets of a surveillance radar in the first approximation is determined by the product of the radiated power by the area of ​​the radar antenna.

However, the MF radar must not only detect the target at maximum ranges, but also accompany them with high accuracy. The error in measuring the coordinates of the target is mainly determined by the width of the radar beam, which can be calculated by the formula:

α = λ / L
where:
α is the antenna beamwidth (either horizontal or vertical), expressed in radians;
λ is the radar wavelength;
L is the length of the antenna (either horizontally or vertically).

For example, to get a beam with a width of 1 ° * 2 °, the antenna must have dimensions 58λ * 29λ.

It is impossible to arbitrarily reduce the wavelength, since the meteorological resistance can significantly deteriorate and the AFAR area, that is, the detection range, can also decrease. On the contrary, the parameters of the ship's superstructure usually allow increasing the size of the AFAR. However, it is also difficult to make an AFAR in the form of a rectangle, similar to the Zaslon RLK, due to the increased cost of the AFAR.

AFAR consists of transceiver modules (TPM), the cost of which is very high - $ 1000-2000 for PPM. We will take into account that they must fill the area of ​​the AFAR with a step of λ / 2. Then 14000 PPMs will be required, that is, the cost of a PPM kit for the manufacture of one square APAR with a beam width of 1 ° * 1 ° will be equal to $ 14-28 million, which is unacceptable for a corvette.

The way out can be found in the fact that instead of a square AFAR, use an AFAR in the form of a cross of two intersecting rectangles, for example, 58λ * 8λ in size. One rectangle is positioned horizontally and serves to measure the horizontal angles of targets, the other - vertically and measures vertical angles. Then the cost of the PPM set will be reduced by 4 times, and the accuracy of measuring the angles will not deteriorate. It is best if the AFAR will have the form of a "+" sign, but if there is no way to place a "+" on the superstructure, then you can use a construction in the form of the letter "T" or even "G".

When choosing a radar operating wavelength, conflicting factors have to be taken into account. On the one hand, it is necessary to ensure weather resistance even at the far detection limit, which will require an increase in λ. On the other hand, obtaining a narrow beam with limited space on the superstructure requires decreasing λ. In addition, in the future, UAVs with radar will definitely be present on ships. It will not be possible to place a large antenna on the UAV. As a result, we choose λ = 5,5 cm.

2.2 Features of the air defense system of the corvette


The air defense missile system should prevent the enemy fighter-bombers (IS) from approaching the corvette at dangerous distances. It is impossible to give IS the opportunity to approach a distance of 50-60 km and accurately measure the coordinates of the corvette, its speed and course.

You can’t allow IB to start up weapon medium-range, such as GBU-39 gliding bombs with a launch range of 110 km, the number of which on one IS can be 9 or more, etc. To do this, on the corvette it is necessary to have not the planned 9M96 medium-range missiles, but 9M96E2 long-range missiles (DB) with a launch range of 130-150 km. The costs of both missiles are close, since they differ only in the mass and length of the engine.

SAM DB is justified to use only for firing at IS, so their number may be small - 8 pieces. To combat anti-ship missiles, MD missiles are used, the number of which, by the standards of a corvette, should be large - for example, 48. Then the MD 9M100 missile defense system is hardly suitable due to the high cost and low average speed, which will make it difficult to intercept supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles.

The question of which MD SAMs should be used - Pantsir-M air defense missile system with an inclined launch or Tor with a vertical launch, should be decided by the ship designers. Both missiles are "headless", but Thor is more expensive and heavier due to the vertical launch. MF radar will provide all-weather guidance of both missiles with errors 1,5-2 times less than the standard radars of these air defense systems.

2.3 Design of AFAR MF radar


The AFAR scheme is shown in Fig. one.

Possibilities for improving the air defense of corvettes

AFAR is divided into 49 square independent modules - clusters measuring 0,22 * 0,22 m each. The central 17 clusters (highlighted by the bold line) are receiving and transmitting and contain 64 PPMs. The remaining 32 clusters are purely receiving and are used to obtain narrow radar beams. At the same time, they also increase the detection range.

The total size of the AFAR cross is 2,42 * 3,74 m. The AFAR contains 1088 PPM and 2048 receiving modules. Pulse power PPM 15 W. Power consumption of one AFAR 11 kW.

The cost price of AFAR can be estimated only approximately, since the price of one PPM significantly depends on the volume of the order. If we assume that the MF radars become unified for all ships and the total number of APMs and receiving modules reaches 100 thousand pieces, then the price of one APM will be $ 1000, and the receiving module - $ 700. Then the cost of all 4 AFAR will be $ 11 million, and the entire serial MF radar will be $ 16 million.

The radar beam width for radiation is 3 ° * 3 °. At the reception, the horizontal and vertical crossbeams of the cross form rays independently of each other, only the central part of the 3 * 3 cluster is common. Then the beam of the horizontal crossbeam of the cross has a width of 1,3 ° * 5 °, and of the vertical one - 5 ° * 0,85 °. During the detection process, the target can be at any point in the emitting beam. However, during reception, both the horizontal and vertical reception beams must be directed at the target simultaneously. This means that the horizontal bar must simultaneously form a "fan" of three beams that cover the entire emitted beam. The vertical bar should form 4 beams. Then the entire area of ​​both rungs will be used both to detect the target signal and to measure its angles.

Additional tasks of the MF radar are to provide covert communication with other KUG ships at a distance of up to 30 km in radio silence and communication with the UAV.

2.4 Comparative assessment of the costs of the MF radar and radar Zaslon


Almost nothing is known about the Zaslon radar station. There are not even photos of corvette 20386, there is only a drawing. Some experts call the detection range of the Zaslon 75 km, while others - 300 km. Therefore, further we will consider only a comparative estimate of the costs of the proposed MF radar and radar Zaslon. We will assume that the Zaslon guidance radar operates at a typical wavelength λ = 3,2 cm, and the radar MF - λ = 5,5 cm.

Let's compare the costs of both radars, provided that they provide the same detection range. The detection range of radars with the same radiated power, as indicated in clause 2.1, is determined only by the AFAR areas, which, therefore, must also be the same. Considering that PPMs in AFAR should be spaced with a step λ / 2, we get that the number of PPMs in one AFAR Zaslon should be equal to 9400.

Accordingly, the total cost of a serial sample of the Zaslon guidance radar will be $ 43 million. Since the AFAR Zaslon shape is close to a square, with such a number of PPMs, the angle measurement accuracy will be close to the accuracy of the MF radar, but still 10% worse.

Let us also compare the meteorological stability of the radar. The shorter the wavelength, the more it attenuates during propagation. For example, if the target is at a distance of 200 km, and there are clouds of medium saturation on the entire route, then the signal strength of the target received by the Zaslon radar will decrease by 8 times, and the MF radar will only be 2 times lower. If there is rain, the difference will increase even more. Some justification for the Zaslon guidance radar is that overcast clouds are rare, and IS radars operate at the same wavelength, that is, the signal from the ship to the radar will also decrease by 8 times. The Zaslon radar also has a meteorological surveillance radar of 10 cm range, but it lacks guidance accuracy. However, the MF radar will provide launches of anti-aircraft missiles with greater reliability.

It is difficult to estimate the cost of the Zaslon surveillance radar. The size of its AFAR is unknown, but it is clear that the number of PPMs in it is less than 2000. With such a small serial production, the price of one PPM can rise to $ 2000. Taking into account the mechanical drive, the cost of the surveillance radar will exceed $ 8 million. As a result, the cost of the Zaslon radar section alone will exceed $ 50 million, which is 3 times higher than the cost of the MF radar.

2.5 TTX MF radar


Detection range

for IS type F-16 with EPR 2 sq. m - 300 km,
for IS type F-35 with EPR 0,1 sq. m - 130 km.
For anti-ballistic missiles with EPR 0,03 sq. m, flying at a height of 3 m, and at a superstructure height above sea level of 20 m - 20 km.

Errors of a single measurement of IB angles

at a range equal to 80% of the detection range:
in azimuth - 0,2 °
in elevation - 0,15 °.

at a range equal to 50% of the detection range:
in azimuth - 0,1 °
in elevation - 0,08 °.

Note. In the process of tracking, the angular error decreases by a factor of 2–3 in comparison with the given values.

Errors of a single measurement of RCC angles:
at a distance of 20 km in azimuth - 0,03 °.

The measurement of the elevation angle of a target flying at an altitude of less than 25 m does not occur due to signal re-reflections from the sea surface. Instead of measuring the altitude, only the "low-flying target" (NLC) sign is formed, which means that the target has a height of less than 25 m. At a distance of 10 km, the NLT sign is generated for targets flying at an altitude of less than 10 m, and at a distance of 5 km, the NLT sign appears unnecessary, and the error in the measurement of the elevation angle is 0,04 °.

3. The tactics of aiming missiles on anti-ship missiles


The difficulty of hitting subsonic anti-ship missiles is that they fly at extremely low altitudes of 2–5 m. The echo signal reflected from the anti-ship missile system enters the radar antenna in two ways - directly and specularly, re-reflected from the sea surface. Then the radar will see two targets at once, one - true and directly below it - a mirror, as if at the same height under the surface of the sea. The radar elevation angle measurement unit, while receiving two signals, cannot understand this confusion and gives an incorrect estimate of the target height, which can be either lower or higher than the true value. The main means of dealing with altitude distortions is the vertical narrowing of the radar beam, that is, our AFAR requires an increase in the size of the vertical crossbeam of the cross. Then, if you direct the receiving beam to the true target, then the signal of the mirror image will be either outside the beam, that is, it will not be received, or will be received significantly weakened.

The second means of dealing with mirror reflections is to increase the height of the AFAR placement, but even here the real height of the superstructure does not allow us to count on much. Next, we will consider the AFAR with the above dimensions and evaluate what missile guidance capabilities are achieved in this case.

At ranges of no more than 5-6 km, the radar provides precise guidance both in azimuth and in altitude. At a distance of 10 km, the altitude measurement becomes unreliable, and the missile defense system must fly up to the target using the altimeter data, which will have to be included in the missile defense equipment. The flight altitude of the missile defense system is chosen fixed and equal to 4 m to defeat subsonic anti-ship missiles and 8 m - for supersonic anti-ship missiles. If the height of the anti-ship missile system exceeds 10 m, then the radar will note this fact, and the guidance will continue with the usual methods. At ranges of 10-15 km, the target height uncertainty reaches 20 m, and guidance at a fixed height becomes ineffective. Then it is necessary to switch to the differential guidance method, when it is believed that at approximately the same ranges to anti-ship missiles and missiles, the distortions of their heights become the same, and guidance in the last 0,5-1 km section is carried out so that the difference in the height estimates is equal to 0.
The likelihood of defeat with such guidance will be slightly reduced compared to the usual one.

As a result, we come to the conclusion that with a sufficient supply of missiles, the first shelling of a subsonic anti-ship missile system can be carried out at a distance of 10-15 km, evaluate the result of the firing and conduct a second shelling at a distance of 5 km.

Since the supersonic anti-ship missile flies at an altitude of 10 m, shelling at a distance of 10 km will already be effective with conventional guidance.

The disadvantage of the command method of targeting missiles is a significant reduction in the range of destruction when intercepting maneuvering anti-ship missiles. For example, at a distance of 5 km, the MF radar will take 0,5 seconds to detect an anti-ship missile maneuver with an overload of 2g, which will increase the miss by 2-3 m. Therefore, it is desirable to reduce the firing range at a maneuvering target to 3 km. The best way to increase the interception range is to install a simple IR seeker on missiles with an anti-ship missile capture range of 1,5–2 km. However, this will require a new ROC. Otherwise, you will have to reduce the beam width of the MF radar. It is desirable to increase the size of the AFAR cross to 3,74 * 6,18 m, but this requires coordination with the ship's designers and will increase the cost of the MF radar by $ 3 million.

4. The use of KREP for air defense


Suppose that while patrolling BMZ corvettes will operate singly or in pairs. Then, when an IS reconnaissance appears, the KREP of the corvette must turn on the interference of the IS radar. The on-board radar will necessarily track the direction to the interference, and in the presence of a second IS, it can approximately determine the distance to the corvette. Consequently, a single corvette, in principle, cannot hide its location with the help of KREP. A pair of corvettes can worsen the direction finding accuracy, but for this they must have a good location at the time of the start of reconnaissance - the distance between the corvettes relative to the direction to the IS should be from 1 to 4 km. Therefore, further we will consider the defense of only a single corvette.

Only an imposed jammer (PP) - a helicopter-type UAV - can significantly distort the results of reconnaissance. Consider two fundamentally different PP options - light and heavy.

A light PP flies off to the side of the ship by 1,5-2,5 km and suppresses the radar along the main beam of its antenna. The interference power is measured using the concept of "energy potential", which is equal to the product of the transmitter power of the transmitter and the gain of the antenna of the transmitter. The required energy potential (EP) is directly proportional to the RCS of the ship and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance the IS can fly to the corvette.

If there is a missile defense system on the corvette, this range will be 150 km. If we assume that the PP is required to suppress only the IS radar, then it is enough for it to have an antenna operating only in the wavelength range of 3-4 cm. Then, for example, if it is necessary to obtain an EF of 3000 W, then an APAR with a size of 0,15 * 0,15 is required m, containing 16 PPMs with a power of 2 watts. The mass of the PP equipment will be 5–7 kg. The required time of duty of the PP in the air is 1 hour.

The efficiency of a single PP is not very high - it can create an angular sector of interference on the radar indicator with a width of ± 1 °, and the PP itself will be tracked by the radar much more accurately. If the enemy uses two IS spaced 50-100 km apart, then he can accurately determine the coordinates of the PP. A pair of PPs will be much more effective. They will create an interference sector of ± 2 °, and none of them will be direction finding. The ship can be located anywhere in this sector.

Heavy PP is an AWACS UAV helicopter designed to detect ships at ranges up to 300 km and anti-ship missiles at ranges up to 50 km. Next, we will consider an approximate version of such an AWACS-PP.

If a rectangular AFAR with a length of 1,6 m and a height of 0,4 m, containing 96 PPMs with a power of 10 W each, operating in the range of 3-4 cm, is suspended under the UAV, then the UAV will be able to suppress the radar along the side lobes of the antenna. Equipment weight 50 kg. Such a UAV can fly off to the side of the ship by 10 km, and forward towards the IS - by 20 km. As a result, it becomes meaningless to determine the coordinates of the ship by measuring the coordinates of the PP. The best performance is obtained when light and heavy PP are used at the same time.

To combat the GOS RCC, it is best to use light PP. It should be borne in mind that one of three wavelength ranges can be used in the GOS: 3,2 cm; 1,8 cm and 8 mm. Even the option of a seeker with 3,2 cm and 8 mm at the same time is not excluded. It is possible to place all three ranges at once on one PP, and it is possible to use replaceable letters. The distance from the ship to the side will be 0,5-1 km and forward - 1-1,5 km.

One PP is capable of simultaneously suppressing two GOS.

5. findings


Corvette 20380 was created using technology 40 years ago and is so noticeable that it cannot be hidden by the interference of its KREP from the detection of IS even from a distance of 400 km.

The Redoubt air defense missile system at 20380 does not have a missile guidance radar and does not provide radio correction for missiles, that is, expensive missiles will miss the target during target maneuvers.

Corvette 20386 is made taking into account the Stealth technology, and if we eliminate obvious flaws such as signal bridges and protruding cylinders on the superstructure, then its visibility can be reduced by 10-30 times compared to 20380.

The cost of the Zaslon radar on the corvette 20386 can be reduced by three times by replacing them with a unified MF radar.

It is desirable to significantly simplify and reduce the cost of KREP Zaslon, but add light UAV jammers.

To detect over-the-horizon targets, it is necessary to develop an AWACS UAV that also performs the functions of a jammer.
Author:
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. iouris
    iouris 30 March 2021 12: 12
    +1
    Cruisers, destroyers and an aircraft carrier will provide improved air defenses for corvettes.
    1. Victor Tsenin
      Victor Tsenin 30 March 2021 22: 15
      +4
      We are talking about corvettes, not about expensive and formidable sea brethren.
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 30 March 2021 12: 18
    +2
    I installed extreme radars on PSKRs, such as "Naiad-5" and "Pechora". They are navigational. And one "shooting", MR, number because of secrecy I do not remember ... repeat Then we did not hear about phased arrays.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 30 March 2021 12: 51
      0
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      I installed extreme radars on PSKRs, such as "Naiad-5" and "Pechora"

      How can I ask a specialist? Not familiar with the electronic warfare "Hipper"? It is simply not searched in any way in the Internet, except on the EP "Lun".
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 30 March 2021 13: 18
        +5
        Namesake hi Excuse me, I'm not familiar ... I'm more on "civil" marine radio equipment.
  3. NDR-791
    NDR-791 30 March 2021 12: 22
    0
    5. findings
    Now it remains only with a wave of a finger from the conclusions to get real results ... and we will have everything.
  4. alexmach
    alexmach 30 March 2021 12: 28
    +7
    How can air defense 20386 be significantly more effective than 20380 and 20385 if they are equipped with the same air defense systems? With the same radars, BIUS, missiles.
    1. jonht
      jonht 30 March 2021 12: 39
      +2
      Only at the price and size, and if in 20386 the 3C14 was not delivered like that, then its shock capabilities are not about anything. And this is almost in the size and price of the frigate.
      All the same, I consider 20385 the optimal corvettes, but they are expensive, but all the same, they are more versatile.
      1. Vladshat
        Vladshat April 3 2021 08: 40
        0
        Last year, at some showroom, an updated corvette, pr. 20386, was demonstrated. On it the Redut air defense missile system for 16 cells and UKSK 3s-14 for 16 cells are standard. Well, everything else. And this is already serious, we agree. Only now it is not clear which project is being built, updated or old.
    2. Dodikson
      Dodikson 30 March 2021 13: 12
      0
      only 20385 is modern there.
      the rest is slag, drank and corruption. (just kidding, but still)
    3. aagor
      30 March 2021 19: 37
      0
      First of all, 20386 is an order of magnitude more invisible and can, with the help of interference, steer the anti-ship missile to the side. In addition, they put the Zaslon radar on 20385 and 20386, but nothing is known about 20380.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 30 March 2021 19: 39
        +2
        but about 20380 nothing is known

        It is also known. The same Barrier since "Aldar"
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 31 March 2021 09: 09
        +1
        Quote: aagor
        First of all, 20386 is an order of magnitude more invisible

        This is only a guess so far. There is no ship yet.

        Quote: aagor
        can use interference to divert the anti-ship missile to the side

        It is also speculative so far. As it was recently reported on VO, KREP on the earlier 20380 (even before the "Barrier") was brought to a workable state with great effort. KREP "Zaslon" and so far no one has really tested it.
        1. aagor
          31 March 2021 22: 11
          0
          The KREP, which is installed on the ship, can only hide what the distance to the ship is equal to. Then the anti-ship missile system will aim at it like a radio beacon.
      3. Vladshat
        Vladshat April 3 2021 08: 43
        0
        On the project 20380 ,, Hero Tsydenzhapov ,, already installed ,, Barrier ,,.
  5. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 30 March 2021 12: 36
    +1
    For me personally, an excellent article, a kind of educational program, thanks to the author!
    1. Genry
      Genry 30 March 2021 15: 12
      -3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      For me personally, an excellent article, a kind of educational program, thanks to the author!

      Have you read it all?
      I, after the cruciform antenna, understood - the author is a dropout.
      1. aagor
        30 March 2021 19: 41
        +4
        The author is just a professional - he has been involved in the development of the radar for over 15 years. The cruciform antenna has been around for 70 years - the so-called Mills cross. The new technological base makes it possible to obtain the same characteristics as those of conventional AFAR, for a price three times lower.
        1. Genry
          Genry 30 March 2021 19: 52
          +1
          Quote: aagor
          The cruciform antenna has been around for 70 years - the so-called Mills cross. The new technological base makes it possible to obtain the same characteristics as those of conventional AFAR, for a price three times lower.

          In the cross-shaped antenna, scanning with two flat beams in the transverse planes is realized. This is similar to the old radar where there were separate vertical and horizontal scanning and the antenna reflectors were mechanically swinging, each in its own plane.
          Here it is impossible to implement narrowly targeted scanning and get rid of unnecessary interference.
          A full-fledged antenna array allows scanning with a narrow-beam beam, which is the main advantage of a phased array (narrow-beam, hidden for side objects, radiation and bypassing sources of interference at reception).
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 30 March 2021 21: 08
          0
          Quote: aagor
          The new technological base makes it possible to obtain the same characteristics as in conventional AFARs, for a price three times lower.
          What, and power?
          1. aagor
            31 March 2021 22: 13
            0
            Not the power, but the detection range, which is equal to the product of the power and the antenna area.
        3. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 31 March 2021 03: 15
          0
          Quote: aagor
          The author is just a professional - he has been involved in the development of the radar for over 15 years.
          Good day! May I ask you, have you heard anything about the electronic warfare "Hipper" complex? In and-not, only the name is found.
          1. aagor
            31 March 2021 22: 15
            0
            Unfortunately, I have been retired for 8 years and have almost no new information.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U April 1 2021 03: 10
              0
              Quote: aagor
              Unfortunately, I have been retired for 8 years and have almost no new information.
              Thanks for this sad I am writing an article about ekranoplans, the Internet mentions the EW "Hipper" complex on the "Moon" and that's it, just the name!
        4. Kalmar
          Kalmar 31 March 2021 09: 20
          0
          Quote: aagor
          The author is just a professional - he has been involved in the development of the radar for over 15 years.

          In this case, could you somehow write a separate article about the detection / interception of low-flying missiles (or poke your nose into one, if you already have it)? For sofa experts, everything is usually simple: any "Harpoon" gets lost at once, as it is shown from behind the radio horizon, and here, it turns out, everything is much more cunning. Thanks.
          1. aagor
            31 March 2021 22: 17
            +2
            I'll think about it. The topic itself is interesting.
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 31 March 2021 03: 17
        0
        Quote: Genry
        I, after the cruciform antenna, understood - the author is a dropout.

        It may be so, only I and generally about zero, but about the nuances of detecting anti-ship missiles on an ultra-small one, I have never met anyone, even you. wink
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 30 March 2021 12: 37
    +1
    Possibilities for improving the air defense of corvettes
    The question is, of course, an interesting one ...
  7. lucul
    lucul 30 March 2021 13: 08
    0
    Corvette 20386 is made taking into account the Stealth technology, and if we eliminate obvious flaws such as signal bridges and protruding cylinders on the superstructure, then its visibility can be reduced by 10-30 times compared to 20380.

    Corvette 20386 is an attempt to copy Zumvolt.
    Regarding the air defense of corvettes, recently, a land-based version of the Buk-M3 was placed on the deck of the ship (tied with a cable), which successfully hit the target (rocket) during testing, without any integration with the ship, and no sea pitching did not interfere with the Buk. dry cargo ship and it will work autonomously.
    Now compare the cost of the Zaslon corvette radar ($ 100 million) with the cost of the Buk-M3. And you will understand that the naval versions failed the technical task.
    1. Dodikson
      Dodikson 30 March 2021 13: 13
      -1
      Buk has only air defense mission
      and the Barrier is everything. from navigation to an overview of the situation, and not only air
      1. lucul
        lucul 30 March 2021 13: 17
        -1
        Buk has only air defense mission
        and the Barrier is everything. from navigation to an overview of the situation, and not only air

        Yes, I understand, but the price, the price, the price of the Zaslon RLC is very high.
        1. Dodikson
          Dodikson 30 March 2021 13: 18
          0
          a telescope is also more expensive than binoculars. but their functions are different.
          1. lucul
            lucul 30 March 2021 13: 21
            +1
            a telescope is also more expensive than binoculars. but their functions are different.

            I remember that for some expensive weapons, after the Ministry of Defense began to check the validity of the price, the manufacturer dropped the price 3 times.
            I don’t mean to say that Zaslon is bad, no, but the price needs to be double-checked.
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 30 March 2021 13: 33
      0
      Quote: lucul
      Corvette 20386 is an attempt to copy Zumvolt

      Yeah, especially tonnage. laughing And Zumwalt (Zamwalt, Zumwalt) is an attempt to copy LaFayette.
      1. lucul
        lucul 30 March 2021 14: 27
        -2
        Yeah, especially tonnage

        I was referring to the Sumvolt concept.
    3. Galleon
      Galleon 30 March 2021 13: 46
      +2
      A dear bow, a naval version of the "Buk" - the "Hurricane" air defense system with the "Nut" control system - was still on the destroyers of Project 956. He fired normally.
      In addition, I am sure that when designing the case 20386, the terms of reference were not set to copy the Zumvolt. The meaning of Zumvolt is not only in a futuristic body and a decrease in r / l visibility, but in an awesome power supply and a platform for testing new types of weapons: an e / m cannon, a combat laser, etc. The decrease in r / l visibility has been used in the construction of ships from the 80s for sure. I myself observed the application of such a coating in the factory. They were specially fenced off from optical reconnaissance satellites with shields.
      1. lucul
        lucul 30 March 2021 14: 26
        -2
        The naval version of the "Buk" - the "Hurricane" air defense missile system with the "Nut" control system - was still on the destroyers of Project 956.

        I'm talking about Buk-M3 (2016), the naval version of which is the 3S90M "Shtil" - a shipborne version of the complex with a naval version of the 9M317M missile in the MS-487 TPK for the Russian Navy.
  8. Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 13: 32
    +2
    Interesting article. Thanks to the author. I will not go into details (I am not a specialist), but the approach is correct: comparing the capabilities of systems, changing these capabilities by replacing equipment, comparing cost-effectiveness.
  9. Pavel57
    Pavel57 30 March 2021 14: 02
    +5
    Two questions on the article -
    The article emphasized that the air defense of the corvette 20380 is so ineffective that it can only play the role of a flag demonstrator. This is partly the case for another reason - ammunition in 8 anti-ship missiles is sufficient for only one clash. And then what, even if the corvette comes out the winner, home for medals?
    And the second - about missiles with ARGS - expensive missiles will miss the target during target maneuvers. This is not the case when launching a rocket at a range to the target of 1,3-1,5 ARGS capture range. That is, they can be used as a defense against anti-ship missiles.
    As for a long-range launch, the missile defense system will still not be enough against a massive strike by aviation, which will first provoke missile launches by entering the zone of permitted launches, and then making a maneuver and leaving the corvette. In any case, the range of guaranteed destruction of a target, when in any evasive maneuver, it is struck by the energy of the missile is about half of the maximum range, that is, about 50-60 km. And in this case, all the same, the planes will bombard the corvette with bombs and guided missiles.
    Withdrawal of the corvette, whatever one may say or not push, the ship of the coastal zone in terms of the stock of missiles "K-K" and "Z-V" and the performance of air defense.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 30 March 2021 14: 40
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      And then what, even if the corvette comes out the winner, home for medals?

      By and large, all weapons are disposable. Wearable (transportable) ammunition has been used up and if the weapon can still be used, then it's good. If not, then it is considered that it has completed its task. As an example: the guaranteed resource of the AK-74 barrel is 10000 shots, however, according to the requirements of the Ministry of Defense, the Kalashnikov assault rifle must withstand 180 shots in non-stop burst mode.
    2. aagor
      30 March 2021 19: 54
      0
      The first is the disadvantage of the 20380 in that it only has a Fourke surveillance radar, and there is no missile guidance radar at all. As a result, the missile defense missile launches into the anticipated meeting point and at the time of launch cannot yet capture the target.
      If, after launch, the target maneuvers, then the missile defense system does not find it.
      Second, an inconspicuous ship can easily organize jamming from placed directors and disrupt the guidance of most anti-ship missiles.
  10. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 30 March 2021 17: 56
    0
    The radar beam width for radiation is 3 ° * 3 °. At the reception, the horizontal and vertical crossbeams of the cross form rays independently of each other, only the central part of the 3 * 3 cluster is common. Then the beam of the horizontal crossbeam of the cross has a width of 1,3 ° * 5 °, and of the vertical one - 5 ° * 0,85 °. During the detection process, the target can be at any point in the emitting beam. However, during reception, both the horizontal and vertical reception beams must be directed at the target simultaneously. This means that the horizontal bar must simultaneously form a "fan" of three beams that cover the entire emitted beam. The vertical bar should form 4 beams. Then the entire area of ​​both rungs will be used both to detect the target signal and to measure its angles.

    1. If we consider one cross-shaped AFAR MF radar, then for sequential viewing (irradiation) with a beam of 3 * 3 degrees of the responsible sector 48 degrees vertically and 90 degrees horizontally at a distance of 300 km it will take about one second. That is, the minimum frequency of the probing pulses of 500 Hz can be added to the characteristics of the radar?
    2. Do I understand correctly based on the above quote? A horizontal bar with a beam width of 1,3 * 5 degrees should simultaneously form a "fan" of three beams, each of which will have a beam pattern of 3,9 * 15 degrees, covering the entire emitted beam? After all, if the entire crossbar forms a fairly narrow beam horizontally (1,3), then each of the three segments separately must form an expanded beam up to (3,9). Using the same logic to calculate the vertical crossbar? Please clarify.
    3. How many targets can the specified AFAR MF radar detect simultaneously and how much can it take for escort? What will be the discreteness of updating information and the number of targets fired at the same time?
    4. How many APMs or clusters (and they are already barely enough to form a 3 * 3 degree beam) will be involved in the process of providing covert communication with the ships of the order and in the control and exchange of information with 2-3 UAVs?
    1. aagor
      30 March 2021 20: 27
      +2
      1. Such a large frame will have to be viewed not for 1 second, but for 20 seconds. Usually, a frame height of more than 10 ° is not required. A frequency of 500 Hz is quite possible.
      2. It is necessary to understand in a different way. The source is the emitted beam 3 * 3 °. The horizontal bar forms three receiving beams 1,3 * 5 °, horizontally spaced by 1-1,3 °. The vertical crossbar forms four beams 5 * 0,85 °, vertically spaced by 0,8 °.
      3. The limit on the number of targets in the view frame is determined by the processor's performance. A typical number is 200, but, if desired, it can be increased to 500-1000. You can take up to 50 targets for escort. The discreteness of target detection is 5-10 sec, the discreteness of updating information on the targets being fired is 0,1-0,2 sec.
      4. For covert communication, a special time window is allocated, which occupies 1-5% of the total AFAR time balance. Targets are not detected during this time. The radiated power is reduced to 1mW.
      1. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 31 March 2021 15: 29
        +1
        The author writes in the article:
        Then the beam of the horizontal crossbeam of the cross has a width of 1,3 ° * 5 °,

        The author writes in a comment:
        The horizontal bar forms three receiving beams 1,3 * 5 °, horizontally spaced by 1-1,3 °.

        An inquiring immature mind has the right to figure it out. Applying the formula from clause 2.1. articles and knowing the maximum number of modules vertically in a horizontal bar (16 pieces) and a wavelength of 5,5 cm - we get the narrowest possible width of the horizontal bar of the horizontal bar at 6,375 degrees (versus the vertical width of the DP declared by the author of 5 degrees). Dividing 16 horizontal rows of the crossbeam to form three separate beams vertically, we get two beams formed from 5 horizontal rows of modules and 1 row of 6 horizontal rows of modules. As a result, we get two beams with a vertical beam width of 20,4 degrees and one beam with a vertical beam width of 17 degrees. When the direction of these three beams is separated by only 1-1,3 degrees, the target (caught in the 3 * 3 degree diagram formed by the PPM) will be perceived simultaneously by three receiving beams with practically the same weight coefficients. The question arises, is there any sense in the formation of three separate rays when obtaining a zero result and complicating the software?
        1. aagor
          31 March 2021 22: 31
          0
          The antenna is divided into 49 clusters. The cluster size is 22 x 22 cm, i.e. is equal to 4 wavelengths. The horizontal bar contains 11 clusters horizontally and 3 vertically. As a result, the specified beam width is obtained - approximately 1,3 * 5 °.
  11. Phoenix
    Phoenix 30 March 2021 18: 08
    +2
    Does a corvette need such air defense at all? Maybe it makes sense to stay at the Shtil-1 air defense system in combination with a cheap radar? Where there is a risk of meeting with aviation, frigates should act, the task of the corvette is rather coastal defense from submarines and observation of enemy ships within line of sight. Dozens of corvettes are needed, but RTOs are not needed at all!
    I would pay more attention to the aviation component of corvettes. The hangar is doubled, two helicopters are MANDATORY for an active search for a boat, in one person it can only be frightened. As the author noted, helicopter UAVs are needed in large quantities.
    From missile armament - it is necessary to replace the inclined X-35 with quadruple TPKs of the same X-35 inside the UKSK half-length. UKSK with a depth of 5,5 meters (instead of the full 9 meters) can easily get obsessed with corvettes and take quadruple TPK X-35, containers for 9 pieces 9M100 and quadruple TPK under 9M317M from Shtil-1. For example, French VLS are arranged this way, they have two options in height and one diameter.
    1. aagor
      30 March 2021 20: 34
      0
      The enemy is unlikely to allow the submarine to be drowned without attempting to strike the anti-ship missile. The proposed air defense system is not expensive at all, and it is not worth replacing it with a Buk with semi-active guidance. When attacking a group of anti-ship missiles, he will confuse which SAM to which anti-ship missiles to target.
      1. Phoenix
        Phoenix 31 March 2021 00: 27
        +1
        Buk M3 is also a new missile, with an active seeker and a solid range of 70 km. For self-defense against missiles behind the eyes. You just need to install the seeker from the land one on the sea version of the rocket.
        1. aagor
          31 March 2021 22: 38
          0
          For firing at low-altitude anti-ship missiles, the Buk is also not needed, any MD SAM is enough. For shooting at IB Buk is not enough, you need a 9M96E2 missile defense system.
          1. Phoenix
            Phoenix April 1 2021 12: 35
            0
            So we leave only the MD air defense system, save a lot of money and build 50 pieces of such ships. And no RTOs.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 30 March 2021 21: 11
      0
      Quote: Phoenix
      Does a corvette need such air defense at all?
      Ours? Yes! For the states at sea, the main striking force is aviation.
      1. Phoenix
        Phoenix 31 March 2021 00: 30
        0
        So he does not fall under it near his shores. Mass raid on a single corvette? Hardly. When serving in the seas, he needs to be wary of missiles from submarines, boats and helicopters.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 31 March 2021 00: 39
          0
          Quote: Phoenix
          So he does not fall under it near his shores.
          200-300 km from the coast - are they near their own shores or not?
          1. Phoenix
            Phoenix 31 March 2021 12: 59
            0
            Yes, completely under the guise of our own aviation.
  12. bk0010
    bk0010 30 March 2021 21: 14
    0
    If we consider that the Redoubt 9M100 and 9M96 air defense missile systems are complex and expensive, it seems that the main task of the corvette is to defend itself from raids.
    Not so: to complete the main task, our corvette must defend itself from raids.
    The key condition for reducing the cost of radar is the obligatory unification of the radar of all ships of the 1st and 2nd classes and MRK.
    A MRK will not burst from the radar of a class 1 ship?
    The number of radars on the ship should be reduced to one. Instead of surveillance radar and guidance radar, it is necessary to develop a multifunctional (MF) radar.
    Uh-huh: instead of one expensive surveillance radar and 4 (say) guidance radars, we put 4 expensive multifunctional radars ... Savings!
    1. aagor
      31 March 2021 22: 47
      0
      The MRK will not burst if a cross of the indicated dimensions is placed on the superstructure. If there are difficulties with placement, then the cross can be raised higher and replaced with the letter T.
  13. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 30 March 2021 22: 14
    0
    > Corvette 20386 is made taking into account the Stealth technology, and if we eliminate obvious flaws such as signal bridges and protruding cylinders on the superstructure, then its visibility can be reduced by 10-30 times compared to 20380.
    Rhetorical question, what is more expensive is the loss of a little capable ship, together with a trained crew, or a much higher chance of survival of a more expensive corvette with, in general, a crew? It is still necessary to think better on what to save on and listen to such comrades as the author of the article.
    1. YOU
      YOU 30 March 2021 23: 07
      +2
      In my opinion, the author's attempt to rehabilitate the long-criticized 20386. The task of the corvette is to protect the exit areas of nuclear submarines and escort convoys. With the clearly inconsistent role of 20386 in PLO, it is no longer discussed. Guarding a convoy of N, what kind of stealth ships are there. It is necessary to build corvettes for their tasks and not try to justify a super expensive ship that is not capable of solving basic tasks. Or is 20386 able to solve some kind of strategic problem (to fight off everyone by destroying the base at least in Norway) ??? Strange promises ???
      1. Victor Tsenin
        Victor Tsenin 30 March 2021 23: 13
        +1
        With all due respect, tasks 20380 are consistent, tasks 20386 are not consistent? In my opinion, at a price 3+ times higher, but seeing-it is worth it. We are few and the life of a fighter is more valuable than ever. And money, you know what it really is. I will consider strategic tasks as a joke)
        1. YOU
          YOU 30 March 2021 23: 25
          +1
          I completely agree about people's lives. But 20386 is either a helicopter, or a container with "Calibers" and therefore with a PLO "Answer" missile. Here's the choice. And in the convoy they will not hit the corvette, whether we see it or not. And for a dry cargo ship with the same missiles, or a tanker with refueling for the same N, corvettes, helicopters, etc. This will load the air defense of the corvette as if they shoot at it, but if it hits, then the effect, as you understand, is different. The same corvette just won't go out to sea next time, there is no fuel. And then it's better without Stealth, but more.
          1. Victor Tsenin
            Victor Tsenin 30 March 2021 23: 31
            0
            And the point in the mass of ready-made drowned people 20380 then, if more? M. b. is there an intermediate option?
          2. YOU
            YOU 30 March 2021 23: 31
            0
            Yes, litter, of course, refers to a bunch of 20380 and 20385. One 20380 is also not about anything.
            1. YOU
              YOU 30 March 2021 23: 42
              +1
              Isn't 20386 a drowned man? Or is he better than anything else. Stealth won't solve anything. As I wrote, they will not hit him in the first place. The results of the Anglo-Argentine conflict were analyzed even on this site. Not to mention other sources. The British were already ready to abandon the continuation of the struggle, if Argentina had struck not at warships, but at supply transports, the result would have been different. You think no one teaches lessons.
      2. Vladshat
        Vladshat April 3 2021 09: 33
        0
        An updated project 20386 was demonstrated. On it, in front of the superstructure of the UKSK 3s-14 for 16 missiles. This dramatically changes the situation. The capabilities of the PLO are the same as those of the frigates. And shooting with calibers from a 40-foot container from the deck of a ship is a utopia. The helicopter is not blocked. Let's wait for the launch of this corvette this year. There will be more details. Then we will criticize.
  14. Pavel57
    Pavel57 30 March 2021 23: 54
    +2
    Quote: aagor
    The first is the disadvantage of the 20380 in that it only has a Fourke surveillance radar, and there is no missile guidance radar at all. As a result, the missile defense missile launches into the anticipated meeting point and at the time of launch cannot yet capture the target.

    Does this comment mean that the correct missile must engage its RGS target before launch?
    It seems to me that you do not have a clear idea that a modern rocket receives information about the target (in terms of speed and coordinates) before launch, which allows it to immediately aim at the target. Since there is always a desire to shoot farther than the capture of the RGS, then a radial correction is introduced according to the parameters of the target movement. If the target is flying straight and evenly, then in fact no radic correction is required. if there is a target maneuver, then with a certain frequency it is necessary to re-enter the current position and speed into the rocket via the radio channel until the target is captured by the target. If there is no radio reception channel, then the launch range will be, as I already wrote, 1,3-1,5 capture range of the RGS. With a range of capture of RGS on the KR 15 km. the launch range will be about 20 km, which is enough to intercept the CD. Yes, there is a question about the accuracy of the target parameters of the corvette surveillance radar. But in principle, it is possible to work without radio correction at a short distance in the case of firing at the CD.

    When firing at aircraft carrying anti-ship weapons, the launch range is 130 km. is a pleasant self-deception, because 130 km. will be obtained with a straight and uniform movement of the aircraft, and with maximum speed. And if the plane is at a distance of 130 km. will use his weapon and turn it away, then even the presence of radio correction will not help.
    130 km. it is the launch range, not the range of the interception line.

    As a result, a small stock of anti-aircraft missiles in the event of a real outfit of attack means, and not a single aircraft, will be insufficient due to the small volumes of the cellars of a small ship.

    I would make such a conclusion. A corvette with armament for one engagement with the enemy, and a limited amount for the deployment of echeloned air defense assets can operate only under the cover of its own aviation. And no solo campaigns, only if to demonstrate the flag.

    1. aagor
      31 March 2021 22: 57
      0
      I just found out that the Customer has already replaced Fourke's radar with the Zaslon radar on the last 20380. Therefore, apparently, there will be no problems with radio correction.
      Guidance at a range of 130 km for both the Zaslon radar and the 9M96E2 missile defense system is not a problem, the main thing is that the target does not turn around and leave the affected area.
  15. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 31 March 2021 19: 15
    +2
    We will assume that the Zaslon guidance radar operates at a typical wavelength λ = 3,2 cm, and the radar MF - λ = 5,5 cm.

    INFORMATION TO THOUGHT
    The radar of the fifth generation fighter Su-57 NO36 "Belka" operates in the X-band (8-12 GHz; wavelength 3,75-2,5 cm), consists of 1526 PPM and fits into the dimensions of the AFAR antenna cloth 0,7 * 0,9 , 400 meters. The radar solves all tasks in the interests of air combat: maximum detection range of 62 km; simultaneous tracking of 16 targets; the possibility of simultaneous shelling of XNUMX of them. I draw your attention to the fact that the width of the DN is not mentioned anywhere, as well as the accuracy characteristics. Why is the installation of four such AFARs on the mast of a corvette, multiplied by four and the combat capabilities of the radar as a whole, does not satisfy the needs of the maritime class?
    Considering that PPMs in AFAR should be spaced with a step λ / 2, we get that the number of PPMs in one AFAR Zaslon should be equal to 9400.

    The overestimated estimate is taken from the ceiling, given the above characteristics of a real production model of weapons.
    Sea bone focuses on the meteorological stability of the radar.
    The shorter the wavelength, the more it attenuates during propagation. For example, if the target is at a distance of 200 km, and there are clouds of medium saturation on the entire path, then the signal strength of the target received by the Zaslon radar will decrease by 8 times, and the MF radar will only be 2 times lower.

    In the commentary to the author's article "Air defense efficiency of a promising destroyer. Alternative radar complex. "not radical, but an alternative proposal was voiced to switch from a 5,5 cm wave to a 6,6 cm wavelength.
    I will explain the rationale for this proposal for the corvette.
    The author forms a cruciform APAR with dimensions of 2,42 * 3,74 meters from 49 independent square clusters containing 64 transmitting-transmitting (PPM) or receiving modules (PM), 0,22 * 0,22 meters in size (based on the wavelength 5,5 cm). For simplicity of calculations, a classical square AFAR is proposed from 49 independent square clusters containing 64 modules each, but staggered 32 PPM and 32 PM. Based on a wavelength of 6,6 cm, we get a cluster size of 0,264 * 0,264 meters. We round up to 0,27 * 0,27 meters. Uniform alternation of PPM and PM will have a positive effect on the thermal mode of operation of the AFAR as a whole. Thus, we get the generated DN for transmission within 1,82 * 1,82 degrees, which is much better than that of the author of the article at a wavelength of 5,5 cm (3 * 3 degrees). An antenna measuring 1,89 * 1,89 meters occupies an area of ​​only 3,6 square meters, which is much more preferable for placing a small corvette at a higher mast height than a cross spread over the area with dimensions of 2,42 * 3,74 meters. AFAR contains the same number of modules as in the author's project (1088 PPM and 2048 PM), 1568 PPM and PM each. While maintaining the energy consumption of one APAR within 11 kW, it is possible to reduce the pulse power of the PPM from 15 to 10 W, taking into account their increased number in the APAR by a third.
    And now the most important thing. The width of the AP for receiving the proposed APAR will be identical to the AP for radiation (1,82 * 1,82 deg). Without going into complex calculations, let's draw an analogy with the NO36 "Belka" radar (in brackets). Wavelength 6,6 (3,125) cm; the number of AFAR elements 3136 (1526); dimensions 1,89 * 1,89 (0,7 * 0,9) meters; width DN 1,82 * 1,82 (2,5 * 2) degrees. I see no objective reason to consider a shipborne radar worse than an aircraft one in terms of accuracy and performance. As an option, we can even consider the possibility of even improving them on the principle of giving a square AFAR cloth of 49 clusters a cross-like pattern by removing three clusters from each corner and growing them on each side. The accuracy characteristics will increase proportionally with the increase in the size of the APAR.
    The choice is up to the sailors.
    1. aagor
      31 March 2021 23: 23
      -2
      You have brought advertising characteristics on the Belka radar station, which NIIP publishes to seduce foreign customers. When you start to understand, it turns out that we mean detection by an external control center, and the target and our information security are both at a typical altitude of 10 km, i.e. there are no path losses in the atmosphere. EPR of the detected target is also not given by NIIP. Then it turns out - they meant the bomber. An antenna with an area of ​​0,6 square meters will in no way allow obtaining the 300 km range required for the MF radar using modern information security.
      It is categorically unacceptable to alternate transmitting and receiving clusters. Otherwise, diffraction lobes appear, i.e. additional copies of the main rays.
      The 6,6 cm range for radar is not allowed by GOST.
      1. Hexenmeister
        Hexenmeister April 1 2021 09: 26
        -1
        An antenna with an area of ​​0,6 square meters will in no way allow obtaining the 300 km range required for the MF radar using modern information security.
        Even as it will allow, only "Belka" radar of a different type, and not these, "frozen in the 19th century 500 Hz".
  16. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 1 2021 10: 56
    +1
    Quote: aagor
    for SAM 9M96E2 is not a problem, the main thing is that the target does not turn around and leave the affected area.

    In past wars, the Americans and Israelis used tactics to force the enemy to use up ammunition by entering the zone of permitted launches, but not approaching the line of guaranteed defeat. They enter, the battery launches a rocket, the attacker makes a lapel. The rocket is not catching up. A simple tactic to get the enemy to fire rockets into the milk. For the ship, this will lead to the rapid consumption of significantly limited ammunition. If you wait for the air target to enter the zone of guaranteed destruction (0,5 from Dmax), then the corvette will be hit by cruise missiles and guided bombs. Again, the question of a limited supply and a possible side by side of air defense systems. And 130 km - the maximum launch range is already not enough when hitting with Harpoons or similar missiles from modern information security.
    So there is no need to create illusions that the strengthening of the air defense will save the corvette in the event of a single voyage from modern means of attack from the air.
    1. aagor
      April 1 2021 15: 32
      0
      For anti-ship missiles, launching anti-missile guided missiles is more expensive. You can only missiles MD. The guaranteed start-up zone depends on the IS speed, but clearly more than 0,5 D maximum. The main thing is to prevent IS from reaching the launch range of simplified weapons such as gliding bombs or KAB and not to let it close (less than 100 km), so as not to give it the opportunity to determine the coordinates and course of the ship.
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 April 1 2021 16: 10
        0
        Andrey, you yourself name the line - 100 km, beyond which gliding bombs are poured onto the ship. 100 km is definitely more than the range of guaranteed target destruction of the corvette missile defense system.
  17. Viktor Grib
    Viktor Grib April 4 2021 14: 43
    0
    Thanks to the author. Good sturdy material for ship designers to think about. However, from the classes of corvettes and mrk I suppose to stop at Project 20385 "Thundering" and Project 22800 "Odintsovo", adding to Project 20385 PU "3S - 24" for 8 missile launchers "Uran - U". , but not finalized, even with a leapfrog with a name!
  18. sprototype
    sprototype April 9 2021 18: 22
    +1
    1. The author does not understand at all how the PA PAR is formed.
    2. His miracle project will have a narrow BP only strictly along the normal to the antenna web. When deflected along any of the beams of its "cross", the width of the BP of its antenna will sharply degrade along the perpendicular coordinate. When deflected at any arbitrary angle between the beams of the antenna sheets, the antenna pattern will degrade along both coordinates.
    3. Operation for transmission with a "small antenna" will certainly provide a significantly worse AP and, as a consequence, a large required power (in proportion to an increase in AP) to receive a reflected signal with the same energy on the receiving antenna.

    I don't even want to disassemble other nonsense. It seems that Topvar is specifically looking for authors to prove that there is no bottom that could not be broken. Klimov and Timokhin have a "worthy competitor"