By: Witcha
- 11th August 2012 at 22:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then it still wouldn't have a carrier.
The original plans for the Gorshkov were to have it refurbished in India. The same could be done for the Varyag after buying the hull for scrap, like China did. The Nevskoye Design Bureau and various other Russian enterprises could and would help out(as they did for China) for all the money India would offer them.
Given the state of Indian shipbuilding the end product would have taken longer, but supposing they started in 1998 we could very well see INS Vikramaditya as a Kuznetsov-class carrier commissioned today!:dev2:
By: JSR
- 12th August 2012 at 18:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indian Navy clearly lack foresight even more than Indian airforce. (See Su-30 programe from 1990s). 1990s was the cheapest period for material and labor rates. every thing could have been done at less than $2b for larger carrier and all that experiance gained. Now things would have moved to Nuclear powered ships. China also bought a dozen SSK relatively cheaply.
By: totoro
- 29th August 2012 at 09:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its definitely a new variant, that much is clear from those images. whether it is going to be called 052d or 052c++ or whatever, that is beside the point.
Gun mount is visibly different, even if the gun inside it is the same. (which we dont know if it is. circumstantial evidence points to a new 130mm gun, but that can't be confirmed from these images)
Upper part of the superstructure is different, one can see the geometry of command bridge is different - there are different number of windows per side of the superstructure, different shape of windows is also evident.
Radar arrays are different - one can tell new ones are slightly bigger and the cover has lost the curve, it is now flat.
By: Jonesy
- 2nd September 2012 at 13:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Regarding the AAW hull...is there any independent confirmation, some export material perhaps, that the MFR is indeed an AESA?. The siting, and sizing, of those panels just look completely wrong for an AESA.
Everyone else who can do AESA has latched on to the benefits of light weight and no waveguide dependencies to mount the antenna faces as high as possible...the benefits of such being so crucial and obvious as to not need explanation. You only mount panels low on the superstructure, as with the Chinese and SPY/Aegis designs, if you need to drive the panels from a high power source thats hard to mount high up i.e a passive phased array.
Why do you go to the trouble of building an AESA then throw away some of the biggest benefits of the technology mounting it so low in your hull?.
By: Witcha
- 2nd September 2012 at 14:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Regarding the AAW hull...is there any independent confirmation, some export material perhaps, that the MFR is indeed an AESA?. The siting, and sizing, of those panels just look completely wrong for an AESA.
Everyone else who can do AESA has latched on to the benefits of light weight and no waveguide dependencies to mount the antenna faces as high as possible...the benefits of such being so crucial and obvious as to not need explanation. You only mount panels low on the superstructure, as with the Chinese and SPY/Aegis designs, if you need to drive the panels from a high power source thats hard to mount high up i.e a passive phased array.
Why do you go to the trouble of building an AESA then throw away some of the biggest benefits of the technology mounting it so low in your hull?.
AESAs need not necessarily be compact and lightweight; see the Russian Gamma-DE. Or large air/missile defence radars like the Green Pine.
It may be that the Chinese wanted a long-range, ABM-capable AESA and so increased the panel size and weight; also their hardware may simply not be as compact and light as Western counterparts; again, like the new Russian AESAs for the S-300/400 SAMs.
In any case pretty much all publicly available literature on this dating several years back has been counting on it being an AESA, so I'm guessing it has an element of truth.:D
By: Jonesy
- 2nd September 2012 at 15:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The fire control sets on S-300 arent AESA if you look at the AFV's mounting FLAP LID, TOMB STONE, GRAVE STONE you see the phase shifter planar array and a primary feed horn mounted at the back of the vehicle. Those systems are PESA's not AESA's.
Granted, for special taskings, you can build big AESA arrays but at sea, whoever you are, the ability to push back the radar horizon is more important than any other consideration especially....as in the PLANs case....if you cant rely on having airborne radar coverage. The RN is in the same situation...hence the stonking great radar mast on T45!.
ABM doesnt really fit either....just who's BM's are the PLAN worrying about to the extent it defines their primary AAW escorts capabilities?. The primary air threat systems to deployed PLAN ships have to be tactical antiship missiles of US, European and Taiwanese origin and the tactical strikefighters that launch them. Thats the opposite target set to what the 052's are apparently configured to fight?.
By: QuantumFX
- 2nd September 2012 at 15:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Regarding the AAW hull...is there any independent confirmation, some export material perhaps, that the MFR is indeed an AESA?. The siting, and sizing, of those panels just look completely wrong for an AESA...
You certainly have a point. All ships with APAR (T-45, F124, De Zeven Provinciën, Project 15A/15B) all have their AESA at the highest possible location.
I don't think there are any English language material. I have seen some screenshots of a CCTV program but have no idea what it said. The designation is the only indication Type H/LJG-346 SAPARS. But other than that, I don't think there is any technical info showing whether it is an AESA or PESA.
By: tphuang
- 2nd September 2012 at 19:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a radar on 052C/D and all the 054A ships that does that. It's SR-64. I tend do go with the theory of wanting "a long-range, ABM-capable AESA" especially now that the new VLS supposed to be able to launch ABM.
And going forward to some point in the not so distant future, 052D will most likely be able to get targeting info from naval aerial assets.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 11th August 2012 at 20:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then it still wouldn't have a carrier.
Posts: 1,240
By: Witcha - 11th August 2012 at 22:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The original plans for the Gorshkov were to have it refurbished in India. The same could be done for the Varyag after buying the hull for scrap, like China did. The Nevskoye Design Bureau and various other Russian enterprises could and would help out(as they did for China) for all the money India would offer them.
Given the state of Indian shipbuilding the end product would have taken longer, but supposing they started in 1998 we could very well see INS Vikramaditya as a Kuznetsov-class carrier commissioned today!:dev2:
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 12th August 2012 at 18:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indian Navy clearly lack foresight even more than Indian airforce. (See Su-30 programe from 1990s). 1990s was the cheapest period for material and labor rates. every thing could have been done at less than $2b for larger carrier and all that experiance gained. Now things would have moved to Nuclear powered ships. China also bought a dozen SSK relatively cheaply.
Posts: 241
By: YU1 - 26th August 2012 at 08:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1st 052D?
Posts: 241
By: YU1 - 26th August 2012 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is what marineforum said in july. China has ordered 4 ships and they all are to be delivered by 2014.
Posts: 1,240
By: Witcha - 26th August 2012 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any known differences between the Russian Zubrs and the Ukrainian ones?
Posts: 241
By: YU1 - 28th August 2012 at 13:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apparently 1st 052D has been launched today.
Posts: 255
By: leon - 28th August 2012 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is it for sure a Type 052D or another Type 052C?
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 29th August 2012 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...
Posts: 1,010
By: totoro - 29th August 2012 at 09:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its definitely a new variant, that much is clear from those images. whether it is going to be called 052d or 052c++ or whatever, that is beside the point.
Gun mount is visibly different, even if the gun inside it is the same. (which we dont know if it is. circumstantial evidence points to a new 130mm gun, but that can't be confirmed from these images)
Upper part of the superstructure is different, one can see the geometry of command bridge is different - there are different number of windows per side of the superstructure, different shape of windows is also evident.
Radar arrays are different - one can tell new ones are slightly bigger and the cover has lost the curve, it is now flat.
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 30th August 2012 at 07:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
More 052D? from HSH :
The APAR has got flatter and bigger? :confused:
Posts: 767
By: snake65 - 30th August 2012 at 20:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Relax, it's the same one. And yes, looks like a modified 052C. Wait till we see all the details. ;)
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 31st August 2012 at 06:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oops! That was a typo. My bad! :o It should have been "More 052D pics?" and not "More 052D?"
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 2nd September 2012 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Helo hanger is more like the 054A than the 052C.
Posts: 1,291
By: Pinko - 2nd September 2012 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Finally, PLAN CV 16
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 2nd September 2012 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Regarding the AAW hull...is there any independent confirmation, some export material perhaps, that the MFR is indeed an AESA?. The siting, and sizing, of those panels just look completely wrong for an AESA.
Everyone else who can do AESA has latched on to the benefits of light weight and no waveguide dependencies to mount the antenna faces as high as possible...the benefits of such being so crucial and obvious as to not need explanation. You only mount panels low on the superstructure, as with the Chinese and SPY/Aegis designs, if you need to drive the panels from a high power source thats hard to mount high up i.e a passive phased array.
Why do you go to the trouble of building an AESA then throw away some of the biggest benefits of the technology mounting it so low in your hull?.
Posts: 1,240
By: Witcha - 2nd September 2012 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AESAs need not necessarily be compact and lightweight; see the Russian Gamma-DE. Or large air/missile defence radars like the Green Pine.
It may be that the Chinese wanted a long-range, ABM-capable AESA and so increased the panel size and weight; also their hardware may simply not be as compact and light as Western counterparts; again, like the new Russian AESAs for the S-300/400 SAMs.
In any case pretty much all publicly available literature on this dating several years back has been counting on it being an AESA, so I'm guessing it has an element of truth.:D
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 2nd September 2012 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The fire control sets on S-300 arent AESA if you look at the AFV's mounting FLAP LID, TOMB STONE, GRAVE STONE you see the phase shifter planar array and a primary feed horn mounted at the back of the vehicle. Those systems are PESA's not AESA's.
Granted, for special taskings, you can build big AESA arrays but at sea, whoever you are, the ability to push back the radar horizon is more important than any other consideration especially....as in the PLANs case....if you cant rely on having airborne radar coverage. The RN is in the same situation...hence the stonking great radar mast on T45!.
ABM doesnt really fit either....just who's BM's are the PLAN worrying about to the extent it defines their primary AAW escorts capabilities?. The primary air threat systems to deployed PLAN ships have to be tactical antiship missiles of US, European and Taiwanese origin and the tactical strikefighters that launch them. Thats the opposite target set to what the 052's are apparently configured to fight?.
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 2nd September 2012 at 15:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You certainly have a point. All ships with APAR (T-45, F124, De Zeven Provinciën, Project 15A/15B) all have their AESA at the highest possible location.
I don't think there are any English language material. I have seen some screenshots of a CCTV program but have no idea what it said. The designation is the only indication Type H/LJG-346 SAPARS. But other than that, I don't think there is any technical info showing whether it is an AESA or PESA.
Posts: 1,082
By: tphuang - 2nd September 2012 at 19:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a radar on 052C/D and all the 054A ships that does that. It's SR-64. I tend do go with the theory of wanting "a long-range, ABM-capable AESA" especially now that the new VLS supposed to be able to launch ABM.
And going forward to some point in the not so distant future, 052D will most likely be able to get targeting info from naval aerial assets.