PLAN News Thread #4

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

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.

SR-64 is a 60rpm mechanical scan reflector-type array?. Are you suggesting that the AESA radar equipped ship is dependent, for missile TI, on a basic air-search set?.

So, when the main threat to Chinese shipping is Harpoon-type medium weight sea skimmers, the PLAN is focusing its AAW escorts at ABM?. Who's BM's are they that worried about to dedicate so much effort to countering with a naval platform?.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 1,010

can we be absolutely certain about that secondary radar on 054a? I always sort of believed the claims it is chinese version of band stand radar for long range surface search, as it makes more sense mission wise.

I mean, here we have a frigate, a ship with a mission to protect itself and perhaps adjacent ships against planes but mostly missiles. Range of its radar is not of utmost importance. And we have the main radar, which features two different arrays working presumably in at least slightly different frequencies. So L band or even S band isn't really needed there. The chinese radar, if anything like the similar Fregat radars, should work in C band.

And that in itself is pretty damn precise already. C band is sometimes used for terminal illumination, for certain systems. It is a great compromise between huge volume air search and precise tracking. we're not talking about 5 rpm of 381 type radar with a single face, if type 382 is anything like fregat we are looking at 15 rpm for a two faced radar. that should be enough for decent tracks to be handed over to the illuminators.

I am not claiming anything with certainity, it just seems like a pretty big overlap of capabilities if it is a fast scanning x-band radar.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 1,291

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?.

Is there any rational behind ur belief that if it's shipborne AESA, it must sit atop?

Citing current European naval AESAs are hardly convincing because most of them are simple tasked FCRs except Simpson, function wise, a volume search AESA similar to the 052C arrays, however, it's well know fact that RN didn't adopt the 4-faced arrangement because of lacking money instead of your fancy illusion that it needs climb to the top. If money is not the issue, type 45 will be more than happy to adopt fixed paneled Simpson radar with max aperture possible, 360 degree seamless coverage and let go the top position to a dedicated horizon search radar like what we find on 052C.

A dedicated horizon search asset separated from.main volume search radar certainly for its merits. The SR 64 on top of 052c is a phased array operating on narrower c band and spinning at 60rpm. It's dedicated, able to feature pencil beam instead of broad fan beam of a VSR for sea slimming, small target detection and tracking, liberating the main.radar for its role designed to.

If you want a even closer analog, the VSR onboard DDG 1000 is a S band fixed AESA. Having you seen it sit very high?

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 1,291

can we be absolutely certain about that secondary radar on 054a? I always sort of believed the claims it is chinese version of band stand radar for long range surface search, as it makes more sense mission wise.

I mean, here we have a frigate, a ship with a mission to protect itself and perhaps adjacent ships against planes but mostly missiles. Range of its radar is not of utmost importance. And we have the main radar, which features two different arrays working presumably in at least slightly different frequencies. So L band or even S band isn't really needed there. The chinese radar, if anything like the similar Fregat radars, should work in C band.

And that in itself is pretty damn precise already. C band is sometimes used for terminal illumination, for certain systems. It is a great compromise between huge volume air search and precise tracking. we're not talking about 5 rpm of 381 type radar with a single face, if type 382 is anything like fregat we are looking at 15 rpm for a two faced radar. that should be enough for decent tracks to be handed over to the illuminators.

I am not claiming anything with certainity, it just seems like a pretty big overlap of capabilities if it is a fast scanning x-band radar.

It's certainly a SR 64 on second mask, the main sea eagle ( top plate) simply doesnt have enough update rate to handle a sea skimming AshM closing in. The SR64 spinning at 60rpm will make up this deficit.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 1,912

Can someone translate particularly the posts by Henri K - Link

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/Smilies/dontknow.gif

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3904/militaire052c0060.jpg
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6267/02092012194057.jpg

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Pinko

Is there any rational behind ur belief that if it's shipborne AESA, it must sit atop?

Yes...its called the radar horizon.

Citing current European naval AESAs are hardly convincing because most of them are simple tasked FCRs except Simpson, function wise

CEAFAR/AUSPAR and APAR both are search sets with very high datarate horizon search modes. The Aussie mount so much so that it has a physically separate X-band FC installation.

If money is not the issue, type 45 will be more than happy to adopt fixed paneled Simpson radar with max aperture possible, 360 degree seamless coverage and let go the top position to a dedicated horizon search radar like what we find on 052C.

Topweight. Why do you think the T45 has the beam it does?. You cant put high weight loads on top of an 150ft masthead on a ship. As for money do you know what we spent on MESAR/Sampson?. Putting in 4 fixed panels cost wise would have been a drop in the ocean compared to the development costs of the system. BAE also determined that they were unhappy with the 4 fixed panel array as it presented the opportunity for an attacker to concentrate a streaming attack on one bearing and saturate one panel.

The only system that combines phased array technology with a need for a separate horizon-search set is the US SPY-1. This is because, as the US has admitted, SPY-1 wasnt optimised for low angle work...it was designed to manage large numbers of high altitude tracks. The SPQ-9B is installed in US ships not because its the better setup, but, to cover deficiencies in the primary radar!.

If you want a even closer analog, the VSR onboard DDG 1000 is a S band fixed AESA. Having you seen it sit very high?

Do you want to have another look at the DDG1000?. Its radars are sited above the bridge and the uppermost panel is quite a distance up...its just that the design has filled in the superstructure between where the masts would be. Compare the radar layout between 052D, Burke/Tico and DDG1000 and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, if you'll note, I'm asking if there is any confirmed proof that the set on the Chinese ships is an active array. I'm not being critical of the Chinese ship even if it IS a passive phased array as that would have some clear advantages given their strategic and tactical challenges. I'm saying that the installation looks odd for an AESA so is there confirmation anywhere that it actually is one.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Is there any rational behind ur belief that if it's shipborne AESA, it must sit atop?

Citing current European naval AESAs are hardly convincing because most of them are simple tasked FCRs except Simpson,


SAMPSON!

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 1,010

If i remember correctly, only Ticos carry spq9B. Burkes have no such radar.

052c is more akin to tico that way, as it does have a fast turning high resolution radar for horizon search, on top of its mast.

type 45, in my opinion, has merged the roles of all of those radars (almost even the EW radar, as well, except in saturation attack situations where SAMPSON couldn't track close targets and do long range scanning at the same time as efficiently as RN wanted. That is why that L-band radar is there.) in a single radar sitting high up. It is one of the best aspects of Type 45 design.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 1,912

more...

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Sea/052D/is052D-VLS_1.jpg
http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Sea/052D/is052D_9.jpg
http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Sea/052D/is052D_8.jpg
http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Sea/052D/is052D_7.jpg

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 1,291

See the sheer size of the panels, it must make the lightweights envy :dev2:

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 1,291

Pinko

Yes...its called the radar horizon.

CEAFAR/AUSPAR and APAR both are search sets with very high datarate horizon search modes. The Aussie mount so much so that it has a physically separate X-band FC installation.

Topweight. Why do you think the T45 has the beam it does?. You cant put high weight loads on top of an 150ft masthead on a ship. As for money do you know what we spent on MESAR/Sampson?. Putting in 4 fixed panels cost wise would have been a drop in the ocean compared to the development costs of the system. BAE also determined that they were unhappy with the 4 fixed panel array as it presented the opportunity for an attacker to concentrate a streaming attack on one bearing and saturate one panel. .

Cost is officially quoted by BAE as one of the reason and the weight issue is also rebuffed considering the rotating mechanism also adding pounds.

“BAE Systems says that employing two rotating active arrays, as opposed to four fixed arrays, is "better" because of the high cost involved in procuring the arrays and the problems associated of mounting the relatively heavy arrays as high as possible on the ship, to make maximum use of the available type of ship-defense missile. "
However, it should be pointed out BAE Systems has in practice primarily adopted a rotating array as a compromise solution driven by cost, and that the weight argument in favour is offset by the added structural weight of rotation-proof housing and, of course, drive motors. If phased arrays had zero cost, a multi-face fixed set-up would surely have been preferred be preferred as the advantages of a fixed set-up are so significant. The comment about saturation attacks against fixed arrays have more to do with the missiles that are guided than with the radar being fixed or not.”

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm

The only system that combines phased array technology with a need for a separate horizon-search set is the US SPY-1. This is because, as the US has admitted, SPY-1 wasnt optimised for low angle work...it was designed to manage large numbers of high altitude tracks. The SPQ-9B is installed in US ships not because its the better setup, but, to cover deficiencies in the primary radar!.

On the contrary, it’s quite popular for top notch navies, DDG1000 is another example-- featuring the S-band VSR fixed array similar to the 052C’s AESA for volume search, while the separated X-band SPY-3, another fixed multi-faced AESA for horizon search. I wouldn’t be surprised that on top of the fixed S-band AESA, next PLAN DDG design will feature separated X or C-band AESA on top of the mast, at least in the rotating form, if not the SPY-3 fixed type, to provide horizon search while FC for ESSM/ HQ-16 type of AAM for close defense.

Do you want to have another look at the DDG1000?. Its radars are sited above the bridge and the uppermost panel is quite a distance up...its just that the design has filled in the superstructure between where the masts would be. Compare the radar layout between 052D, Burke/Tico and DDG1000 and you'll see what I mean.

LOL, is the uppermost panel belongs to X-band SPY-3 , not the S-band VSR I asked you in my last post, don’t smoke around.

Anyway, if you'll note, I'm asking if there is any confirmed proof that the set on the Chinese ships is an active array. I'm not being critical of the Chinese ship even if it IS a passive phased array as that would have some clear advantages given their strategic and tactical challenges. I'm saying that the installation looks odd for an AESA so is there confirmation anywhere that it actually is one

If it was asked 10 years ago, probably makes sense, but 10 years on, it’s declassified, most official chinese media confirm it’s active phased arrary, and major western media, probably reporting second hand by translating the official Chinese source, also commonly agree it’s AESA. Such information can be found in major DoD reports or Jane’s etc, do google it.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 1,291

If i remember correctly, only Ticos carry spq9B. Burkes have no such radar...

052c is more akin to tico that way, as it does have a fast turning high resolution radar for horizon search, on top of its mast.

And don't forget the horizon or surface search is not only the case that height matters, resolution is equally import as traditionally only X-or C band as premier surface/horizon search radar for discriminate small targets from dense clutter.

in the case of Aegis ships, many FCRs in X-bands actually attribute to the surface serach/update rate through sensor fusion, and those radars not necessarily to be seated high.

type 45, in my opinion, has merged the roles of all of those radars (almost even the EW radar, as well, except in saturation attack situations where SAMPSON couldn't track close targets and do long range scanning at the same time as efficiently as RN wanted. That is why that L-band radar is there.) in a single radar sitting high up. It is one of the best aspects of Type 45 design

SAMSON does it best for the compromised solution, but hardly the best, you just can't ask a surgeon to be doubled up as a cleaner in the name of "merged roles", while a pethetic outcome can be cheered as " glory", and by this point, I know Jonesy never fails to entertain me on a otherwise boring day, each time we encounter, amazing! :D

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 1,912

See the sheer size of the panels, it must make the lightweights envy :dev2:

Yeah, trying to put 4 of those at the top the mast ain't gonna happen. You'll need a Zumwalt like design for that.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Pinko,

OK so you dont have any proof its an AESA beyond 'its common knowledge' you could have just said that.

Your view is that PLANs preferred AAW solution is a low-mounted large panel AESA plus a masthead basic horizon-search mechanical rotator. An arrangement configured to address a primary high-altitude/BMD threat tasking when there is no apparent high-alt/TBM threat that justifies it. OK.

T45. Dont confuse BAE's official statements with Beedalls analysis. The requirement for T45 was to have a radar mounted at a specific height, at a specific frequency band, to provide a specific zone of coverage. Mounting 4 panels at 150ft masthead means widening the ships beam to maintain stability. More beam increases hydrodynamic drag and means more propulsive force to keep speed performance. Putting 4 panels on then increases costs dramatically more than the price of two additional panels. It means, very simply, a bigger ship!. Your insinuation was that the cost of the panels alone was too much which is simply inaccurate.

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 445

Pinko,

OK so you dont have any proof its an AESA beyond 'its common knowledge' you could have just said that.

Your view is that PLANs preferred AAW solution is a low-mounted large panel AESA plus a masthead basic horizon-search mechanical rotator. An arrangement configured to address a primary high-altitude/BMD threat tasking when there is no apparent high-alt/TBM threat that justifies it. OK.

T45. Dont confuse BAE's official statements with Beedalls analysis. The requirement for T45 was to have a radar mounted at a specific height, at a specific frequency band, to provide a specific zone of coverage. Mounting 4 panels at 150ft masthead means widening the ships beam to maintain stability. More beam increases hydrodynamic drag and means more propulsive force to keep speed performance. Putting 4 panels on then increases costs dramatically more than the price of two additional panels. It means, very simply, a bigger ship!. Your insinuation was that the cost of the panels alone was too much which is simply inaccurate.

haven't you realized by now Jones. Chinese fanboys operate by rules of exceptionalism, where assumptions, guesstimates, and pictures are enough proof, and where the wests' military experience doesn't apply.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

hey ... no-one noticed that !!!

Varyag has been numbered "16" and repainted again .... and it seems to be official:


China to name its first aircraft carrier 'Liaoning'

China will name its first aircraft carrier "Liaoning" in honor of the province where it was retrofitted, the Southern Metropolitan Daily reported, citing an authoritative source.

The paper confirmed that officials decided to name the carrier to commend the province where it was renovated and repaired, thus Liaoning.

The carrier, often referred to by its original name Varyag, is a retired Soviet-era vessel that China bought from Ukraine in the late 1990s. The carrier was later harbored in Dalian, Liaoning Province, where it was retrofitted.

The vessel began sea trails in August 2011 and on September 3 received the side designation "16," prompting speculation that the vessel had completed basic trails and would soon be commissioned.

The carrier's name has been a topic of interest for some time, and many netizens opined that it was likely to be named after Shi Lang, a well-known general during the Qing Dynasty, or the former leader Mao Zedong, or even the capital city of Beijing.

However, according to Chinese naval designation regulations, vessels can only be named after provinces, cities, counties, mountains or lakes, and not people.

China will officially announce the name of the vessel after it has been commissioned.

http://china.org.cn/china/2012-09/10/content_26481340.htm

Deino

Attachments

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

... The requirement for T45 was to have a radar mounted at a specific height, at a specific frequency band, to provide a specific zone of coverage. Mounting 4 panels at 150ft masthead means widening the ships beam to maintain stability. More beam increases hydrodynamic drag and means more propulsive force to keep speed performance. Putting 4 panels on then increases costs dramatically more than the price of two additional panels. It means, very simply, a bigger ship!. Your insinuation was that the cost of the panels alone was too much which is simply inaccurate.

The alternative would be to have four smaller panels, but that limits performance in particular directions.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 1,291

Pinko,

OK so you dont have any proof its an AESA beyond 'its common knowledge' you could have just said that..

Dude, that’s the exactly lazy attitude that sinks your Europeans nowadays.
5 mins is the time you need to pick any info about the 052C radar is AESA from WWW:
1. Janes: Jane’s stated the 052C AESA as “sea star”, directly translated from official designation of the radar from Chinese.

http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Intelligence-Weekly-2009/China-keeps-developing-its-aircraft-carrier.html

2. The Naval institute guide to world naval weapon: page 222 has explained why the 052C fixed phased arrary likely to be active.

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=346++radar+%2B+%22052C%22&source=bl&ots=hIVxPTZ_aU&sig=rGWzqjqEsR3ukzAeoywlVENCaXU&hl=en#v=onepage&q=346%20%20radar%20%2B%20%22052C%22&f=false

Your view is that PLANs preferred AAW solution is a low-mounted large panel AESA plus a masthead basic horizon-search mechanical rotator. An arrangement configured to address a primary high-altitude/BMD threat tasking when there is no apparent high-alt/TBM threat that justifies it. OK.

T45. Dont confuse BAE's official statements with Beedalls analysis. The requirement for T45 was to have a radar mounted at a specific height, at a specific frequency band, to provide a specific zone of coverage. Mounting 4 panels at 150ft masthead means widening the ships beam to maintain stability. More beam increases hydrodynamic drag and means more propulsive force to keep speed performance. Putting 4 panels on then increases costs dramatically more than the price of two additional panels. It means, very simply, a bigger ship!. Your insinuation was that the cost of the panels alone was too much which is simply inaccurate

Have i said at 1st place that the high cost is just caused by the sheer cost of the additional arrrays? you may want to check our original comment. and of course, the list can still go on, e.g: an additional rotating array on top of the mast, should the sampson goes for 4 panels, and yet another adding cost.:eek:

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 1,291

haven't you realized by now Jones. Chinese fanboys operate by rules of exceptionalism, where assumptions, guesstimates, and pictures are enough proof, and where the wests' military experience doesn't apply.

1. So major western warfare academics, intel agencies, reputable defense publishers are all dominated by fanboys if your ranting make sense.

2. This is a PLAN thread, and this kind of reporting has a long tradition in this board, and as far as fact concern, it proven to be the most reliable and accurate and especially, time proven, if you, someone with zero track record on the military knowledge that this board desires the most, but infamous for propaganda ranting, better keep away from here and troll elsewhere.

3. It’s disgusting to see someone disguise some other nation as a cover to carry out his true capability of inflaming. :rolleyes:

Member for

19 years 6 months

Posts: 3,609

If i remember correctly, only Ticos carry spq9B. Burkes have no such radar.

052c is more akin to tico that way, as it does have a fast turning high resolution radar for horizon search, on top of its mast.

type 45, in my opinion, has merged the roles of all of those radars (almost even the EW radar, as well, except in saturation attack situations where SAMPSON couldn't track close targets and do long range scanning at the same time as efficiently as RN wanted. That is why that L-band radar is there.) in a single radar sitting high up. It is one of the best aspects of Type 45 design.

The SPQ-9 is no a new radar and has received a number of upgrades over the years. It was originally built to be the main air defense radar on several American destroyer and cruiser classes, but over time it has been relegated to a secondary role on advanced air defense ships to fill in coverage gaps, or a slot on some amphibious ship classes as a relatively inexpensive, medium-capability main radar. Initially tested on the USS Norton Sound (AVM-1), SPQ-9A was deployed on Spruance-class destroyers, Kidd-class destroyers, Ticonderoga-class cruisers, Tarawa-class amphibious assault ships, Iowa-class battleships (1980s refit), California-class cruisers and Virginia-class cruisers.

The SPQ-9A is being replaced on all Ticonderoga Class cruisers by the SPQ-9B, which provides twice the range and improved range resolution, as a part of the United States Navy's "Cruiser Modernization" program, and becomes a part of the Mk-160 Mod 11 gun fire-control system (MK160 GFCS). Its mission is to serve as a primary fire control or backup radar that can detect and track low-flying, high-speed, small radar cross-section anti-ship missile targets in heavy clutter environments. That’s especially useful amidst waves, or close to shore.

Still, the AN/SPQ-9B has known limitations. These were succinctly stated in a FY 2009 testing report for the San Antonio Class that cited: “Problems associated with SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radar performance against certain Anti-Ship Cruise Missile attack profiles.”

In April 1212 Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Melville, NY received an $8.8 million contract modification for AN/SPQ-9B cooperative engagement capability (CEC) interface kits and antenna group upgrade kits. The AN/SPQ-9B compensates for known weaknesses in the S-band SPY-1 main radar on American destroyers and cruisers, and CEC creates a common picture of the battlespace for participating ships. The USA’s DDG-51 destroyers don’t have SPQ-9 radars, so connecting the cruisers’ SPQ-9s to CEC makes sense for US battlegroups.

Note that while not on the Burke, the Royal Australian Navy’s Hobart class Aegis “air warfare destroyers” will also be equipped with the AN/SP-9B as a secondary radar, per DSCA requests. SPG-9B also equips the Legend class national security cutters, which additionally sport EADS TRS-3D Air Search Radar and AN/SPS-73 Surface Search Radar. IMHO Usefulness of CEC capability for those 2 classes of ships is evident.