1553B should be only part of the whole picture, what I mean No 611 aircraft design institute could adopt various US-mil standards or procedures for design, test, evaluation etc to such a scale for the 1st time. Previous aircraft design may adopt some US-Mil standards but not to an overall basis.

On the other hand, judging from JF-17 case, Chinese aren’t keen to integrate their fighters with other vendor’s weaponry. When they sell JF-17, they sell whole blanket weapons including SD-10 etc as a package. If they sell the J-10 multirole fighters to PAF as well, I think PAF still will accept Chinese bundled ammunitions like SD-10, LS-6, C803, PL-9 etc, or they’d better select a western radar or avionics to support 3rd part ammunitions.

That’s not what that article on JF-17 prototype 04 said. JF-17 can certain use western weaponry. Now, whether these weaponry can be supported by Chinese radar is a different story.

You left out aircraft carrier developments.

Unicorn

photos for strategic assets like nuclear subs don’t come that often.

You evidently still do not understand the difference between track level integration and plot level integration, which comes under radar output integration, and integration of radars (edited part underlined) under a combat system. There is no evidence that the 054A has any level of radar output integration, be it track or plot level.

okay, I was wrong I guess. He wasn’t giving 054A any kind of credit. Check below on my comment on the test ship.

Try reading the paper Datafuser recommended.

so basically, you can’t explain squat.

Shows quite clearly you don’t understand the difference between integration of radars into a combat system, and integration of radar outputs. I highlight datafuser’s sentence: “Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.
”

And what does Kashtan have to do with the possibility of the 054A having radar output integration onboard? Must be some “Chinese-superiority” thought process that I’m not familiar with. :rolleyes:

In general, when china obtains a new weapon system or attempts to buy a new system, it always gets as much technical data on it as possible and then make an improved version based on that. As for how 054A’s radar processing system compare to Polma-E, that I can’t say for sure. But it has been stated that the latest Sovs are using pretty new Russian combat systems and that PLAN sailors actually enjoy using Sovs more than 052B/C, because they find 052B/C’s combat systems to be too advanced. I don’t expect 054A’s combat system standard to be lower and it’s pretty clear what I think about radar processing system.

Here is a suggestion, why don’t you follow PLA a little bit?

I’m not desperate enough to have to throw a red herring to divert attention. And I remind you: “The correlation of number of targets tracked to refresh rate is such that they are inversely proportional.“

Do you understand how event driven programming like this works? you get an event, then you process it. So, if you have X events and your system can accept Y updates per second. Then, the max number of updates for a target is Y/X (although less in practice assuming standard distribution of udpates). But in most systems, Y should be large enough that Y/X will never reached. If they do, you need to upgrade your system. In your case, this 1500 track updates per second in most scenario is never going to be reached.
So no, bringing it up doesn’t impress one bit.

A higher scan rate makes for a lower probability of detection. That’s the trade off of having a higher scan rate. The IADT enjoys the best of both worlds by combining the input from multiple radars, having one radar cover for the deficiencies of another.

I’ve never heard of anything like H-band to be not good enough (or too short) for reliable detection. When you have a more powerful radar, located high (I’d love to see you put all 3 radars on top of the mast) and using more modern processors and algorithm, you are going to get better results. I don’t think anyone would argue that IADT can track lo targets better than Spy-1D.

You have yet to prove that radar output is integrated on the 054A.

right, so they put all these sensors + SAM on the test ship without 054A’s combat system just for fun. Let’s see what China is thinking, “we will integrate all of this only on combat system level, so then we can move this to 054A for use. Oh wait, 054A’s combat system hasn’t been tested for integration of these sensors. we have to integrate on there again! What a waste of time to do it on 891”

Funny that you have to ask so many questions about the SM-1 (showing that there is little you know about it). You also evidently know little about the HH-16, other than info from some perhaps dubious sources which you cannot show here. Yet somehow the HH-16 must be more capable than the SM-1. Because it is made in China? :rolleyes:

well, do a search on HQ-16 and shtil and see how many results you get. Why do I need to state it when it’s everywhere? HH-16 was developed as the new age medium range SAM to succeed shtil in PLAN. They could’ve bought shtil on 054A, but they didn’t.

I ask you to show one thing (and suddenly it became many questions, you really enjoy picking the part you want to reply to and twisting things, don’t you?). What is it’s lowest altitude of engagement? If it can’t intercept 5-7 m targets, then it can’t intercept modern sea skimmers.

As for HH-16 being better than SM-1, yes, I do assume that a system based on a system capable of intercepting sea skimmers can intercept sea skimmers better a system not built for intercepting sea skimmers. I do assume that a system designed to encounter modern anti-ship missile can do it better than a system not designed for it at all.

This is very old article which was published before the JF-17 came in PT-4 version and F-16 deal went through after USA cleared the weapons like the AMRAAM etc and F-16 C/D Block 52+

It was in fact Fc-20 (J-10) which was used to put pressure on the USA.

PAF’s new air chief said after the deal of F-16 went through that PAF will buy a new 4th Generation jetfighter from west other then the F-16 being bought from the USA

At the same time PTV in its news showed how EF-2000 is better then F-16 and will be suited for the PAF’s future requirements. And said that PAF is in negotiations with the EU for its sale to it

And F-16 number was reduced due to the tragic earthquake in Northern areas and AJK not due to J-10

so how does coming before PT-4 make it an old article? It was already decided by that time that Pakistan was getting AMRAAM and F-16s. And then J-10 came in after this new broke out and it’s number of orders exactly matched the number of orders that got reduced on F-16s.

As for EF-2000, it’s just a rumour that’s been flying around amongst Pakistani internet warriors for several years. There has been no basis for it. Since J-10 delivery to Pakistan will probably not occur until after 2010. And then, you are inducting a lot of JF-17s. By that time, I don’t consider EF-2000 to be that advanced anymore.

Seriously, stop dreaming. I’m honestly tired of Pakistanis dissing Chinese military hardware.

You fell into the trap of comparing radar vs radar again. First of all, that’s the mod 2 system, not the CORT system. But even that’s irrelevant. The IADT system combines radar plots from all radars to form tracks. Read and understand the highlighted parts carefully. You’ll then see why how many tracks the CAS can sustain on its own is not relevant. The track capacity of the SR-64 is also unknown, making a comparison impossible.

it’s about the weakest link. It applies here. No matter how you plot the radar signals, at any particular point, any of the targets outside of the 4 tracked by CAS cannot have their information updated more than once every 4 seconds.

It is indeed well known that the SR-64 is the target designation radar for the Type 630. However, there is no indication that the radar output is integrated with either the Type 366 FCR on the Type 730, or the Sea Eagle radar on the 054A.

man, you obviously haven’t noticed that every ship with Type 730 has it, whereas only 054 and 071 out of all the ships with ak-630 have it. What am I saying is? Whatever source you use is incorrect.

Referring to the bolded parts, how do you know? I remind you that the IADT can handle up to 1500 track updates per second. I don’t think I have to tell you the implications of that. It is not only a matter of the number of trackable targets, which is not as critical a criteria against the low-E missile threat. What is critical is how fast a track can be established, and how many false alarms can be suppressed. In both these cases, the IADT triumphs. The SR-64 has a data-rate of 1 sec as a result of its 60RPM turn rate. That implies a track needs at least 2 revolutions to establish a track, likely more. The IADT integrates plots from multiple radars, and since tracks are established from multiple plots, a track can be established far more rapidly. Because effective data rate is far higher than 1/sec in the IADT, the IADT can also maintain track on a far more violent maneuvering target.

lol, 1500 track updates per second? How is that a lot? A modern computer system can handle far, far more updates and calculations than that. I really laugh sometimes when I hear about people being impressed by certain calculation speed on some of the military hardware.
And how do you know IADT triumphs over 054A’s combat system on how fast a track can be established and how many false alarms can be suppressed. As for this SR-64 needing at least 2 revolutions to establish a track, that’s assuming it’s operating alone. Which it’s not valid in this case, since Sea Eagle is operating with longer range and can track target with higher accuracy than at least your OHP’s 2D radar. I’m not sure about vs SPS-55 though.

I don’t know. No info on that has been released. But the Block VI features an adaptive fuse to deal with low flying targets, and an improved warhead to deal with faster flying ones. The SM-1 Block VI also features the seeker of the SM-2. Why are you comparing the SM-1 (a missile) to a AEGIS baseline 7 (a system). More strange is, why are you not comparing it to HH-16, since that is what you are trying to do here, establish a case that HH-16 is superior to the SM-1. (Note that I have made no stand as to how capable the SM-1 is versus the HH-16, simply because I don’t know enough about the HH-16 to make a judgement. You have made a stand, now you have to prove it. Lesson: Don’t make statements without firm evidence to back that stand.)

I believe shtil can engage as low as 5m in altitude and HH-16 was designed to be improved compared to shtil. Whereas SM-1 suddenly went from a missile that was engaging high to medium altitude to be able to engage low altitude target?

posted a while back on afm, note the altitude coverage.

JANE’S MISSILES AND ROCKETS – DECEMBER 01, 2004

——————————————————————————–

Russia moves to vertical-launch Shtil
Miroslav Gyürösi

Russia is offering a vertical-launch (VL) version of the Shtil-1 naval surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, writes Miroslav Gyürösi. The move from a system based on trainable launchers to one based on below-deck VL modules is similar to that taken by the US Navy in the mid-1980s when it switched from a Mk 26 trainable launcher to a VL system for the sixth and subsequent Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers.

Russian Public Joint Stock Company DNPP (Dolgoprudnenskoye naucsno – proizvodstvennoye predpriyatie), which is part of the Almaz-Antey Air Defence Concern, developed the new 9M317ME SAM as an upgrade for the Shtil-1 naval air-defence system. Developed by the Altair Naval Radio Electronics Scientific Institute Public Joint Stock Company, which is also a member of the Almaz-Antey Air Defence Concern, Shtil-1 is an improved version of the earlier Shtil system that is the export variant of the M-22 Uragan system fitted to the Project 956 (Sovremenny-class) destroyers.

The 9M38 missile was developed in the 1970s to be a common round for the land-based 9K37 Buk (SA-11 ‘Gadfly’) and naval Uragan/Shtil (SA-N-7 ‘Gadfly’) system. It used a configuration similar to that of the US Standard Missile, with cruciform wings of long chord and short span, plus cruciform tail surfaces. In the land-based system, the 9M38 was fired from 9A38 and 9A310 self-propelled launch vehicles, while the naval Shtil and Shtil-1 systems used a trainable launcher fed by a below-deck loading system based on 12-cell drum magazines.

In the early 1990s, development started on an improved 9M317 missile able to replace the 9M38. This armed the Buk-M1-2 (SA-17 ‘Grizzly’) system, which entered service with the Russian Army in 1998. The 9M317 was similar in configuration to the 9M38 but the cruciform wings were of much smaller chord and span.

The new 9M317ME missile is being marketed as a further development of the older 9M38 and 9M317 but the changes are on a scale that makes the round almost a new missile. It is designed to be fired from a cylindrical container/launcher mounted in a cell within the new Shtil-1 VL system. This arrangement provides a much higher rate of fire than the original trainable launcher and magazine system used in Shtil and Shtil-1. The latter could fire a missile every six seconds, but the 9M317ME-based system being offered for Sovremenny-class destroyers can fire rounds at one-to-two-second intervals.

The new launch technique has required drastic changes to the configuration of the missile. The long-chord wings have been replaced by vestigial fixed surfaces located not on the missile centrebody but near the rear of the airframe just ahead of the cruciform tail surfaces. These fixed surfaces may be intended to control the airflow passing the tail fins. The latter move to steer the missile – the same control scheme used on the 9M38 – but are folded to allow the round to be stored in the container/launcher.

The 9M317ME is 5.18 m long and 360 mm in diameter. The tail surfaces have a span of 820 mm when deployed.

After the round leaves the VL, a spring mechanism unfolds the tail surfaces and four gas-control vanes operating in the motor efflux turn the missile towards the required direction of flight. Once this turnover manoeuvre is completed, the gas-control vanes are no longer used. Subsequent flight control is via the moving tail surfaces.

A dual-mode solid-propellant rocket motor based on a more energetic charge than that used in the 9M38 provides the missile with a maximum speed of Mach 4.5 (1,550 m/s), a significant increase over the Mach 3.0 (1,230 m/s) of the older missile.

Guidance remains a combination of inertial and semi-active radar (SAR) homing. Inertial guidance is used in the early stages of flight and then the SAR seeker is activated to complete the interception. If the missile is being fired against long-range targets, it can receive mid-course updates while flying under inertial control. Launch weight of the 9M317ME is 581 kg. It is armed with a 62 kg warhead initiated by a dual-mode (active or semi-active) radar proximity fuze, or a contact fuze.

The range of the modernised Shtil-1 system is between 3.5-32 km, while the altitude coverage is from 5 m up to 15 km. These limits are set not by the performance of the missile but by the capabilities of the existing shipboard illuminating radars. This suggests further growth potential if the system is upgraded or if new radars are added.

The VL version of Shtil-1 is being offered for surface ships with displacement of more than 1,500 tonnes, providing protection against aircraft, helicopters, fast patrol boats and anti-ship missiles. It can also control the ship’s guns. Publicly, no claims are being made for an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capability, but the land-based 3M317 missile is reported to have successfully engaged Smerch artillery rockets and a ballistic missile during tests conducted in the mid-1990s. The VL system’s ability to cope with tactical ballistic-missile threats may be limited by the performance of the existing shipboard radars.

The basic VL module contains 12 9M317ME missiles but, as with the unmodified Shtil and Shtil-1 systems, the upgrade is being offered in a series of optional configurations, which add greater numbers of MR-90 Orekh (‘Front Dome’) target-illumination radars and additional VL modules. All variants use target information from the ship’s 3D surveillance radar.

The CAS is made up of two radars. A search and TWS radar, and an illuminator radar. Hence the CAS can maintain track of multiple targets, but only provide illumination for 1. You understand the difference between track and illuminate, do you?

how would I not? But, even when I searched up the TWS capability of CAS, it seemed not that impressive.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA081964

The CAS is comprised of a search antenna located on the lower side of a stabilized platform and a track antenna located on the upper side of this platform, with the entire assembly enclosed in a fiberglass shock-mounted dome. With the addition of a separate track and illumination radar (STIR) as missile control, the system becomes the MK 92-2 FCS. The MK 92-2 FCS has a capability of tracking four targets simultaneously on its three tracking antennas. The CAS track antenna can track one target, and the CAS search antenna provides data for a track-while-scan (TWS) system capable of tracking two targets. These two X-band systems are driven by a common transmitter through a power splitter. The STIR antenna tracks one target and is driven by its own X-band transmitter.

Assumption. Evidence?

well, it’s well known that SR-64 is integrated with Type 730’s FCRs on 052B/C and 051C, since the Type 730 is the only close in defense on 051C/052C. You can think about it this way, it has no other purpose on these two ships if it is not integrated with Type 730. Now, extend that to 054A, it is also integrated with HH-16. Although it has many limitations and is not ideal, so that’s why they are developing the MFR.

Which makes one wonder why a test ship is needed after the systems are put on board the 054A.

it would be for a future batch. At this point, I think a lot of the stuff tested on 891 like the newer FCRs and the newer Sea Eagle can be retrofitted. The MFR seems to be a little larger than SR-64, not sure whether or not fitting it on 054A will cause problems, but that’s something shipbuilders would know far better.

Not to you, at first. You thought 1.

okay.

There is little on the 054A, other than what can be seen externally. Hence a firm, committed position cannot be established with regard to 054A’s capabilities, especially with regard to non-visible systems. Notice I have always based my position on a caveat. You, however, have put forth a firm position about 054A superiority in low-E target detection. Hence it is your responsibility to prove that 054A is superior in that regard. You have not done that satisfactorily.

It all depends on your view toward SR-64, my point has always been that SR-64 was developed for this role of tracking low and stealthy targets. And it can do it better than any combination of radars on OHP. Now, if you can’t believe that a radar locating at a top of the mask with the size of almost Sampson, but operating at a much higher frequency, cannot accurately track many low targets with high resolution, then I can only state it repeatedly.

Assuming again? How can you be sure that the urgent need to replace the old Jianghus did not take precedence?

because you HH-16 was on 891 long before 054A was built. In fact, HH-16 was said to have completed testing in 2004. Although, I figure the radar integration probably extended after that.

And that doesn’t detract from the fact that the SR-64 still gives a lower update rate than the IADT system. In the 052C system, however, the SR-64 can probably cue the AESA radar to a missile detection, thus making for a high data rate as a result of electronic scanning.

It gives 1 per second. What more do you need? And due to the position of AESA radar on 052C, it doesn’t have the radar horizon that SR-64 has.

Sorry, but I was asking about the SM-1?

You would have to ask Galarhn. But from what he was saying, SM-2 only had reliability against low sea skimmers at like 5-7 m in baseline 7. What’s SM-1’s lowest engagement? Can it reach 5 m?

Exactly. The threat comes as much from under the sea as from the air.Isn’t it interesting that the 054A might have to give way in some areas to a FFG some 30 years older? My point is, when we take overall survivabilty/capability into account, the OHP might not be as backward as it may initially seem.

I wouldn’t insult OHP or Type 23 in that way, but rather stating that OHP and 054A probably has comparable ASuW. And in the current doctrine of USN, OHP is not asked to contribute much in AAW. And in the current doctrine of PLAN, 054A is not asked to be on the same level in ASW as some of the dedicated ASW frigates. It’s no slight against either ships, just the role they are asked to play.

it is not only they know about it but they also work on it
Salyut is basicly working with Limin and they are helping in the WS-10, the Russians know more things than you credit them.

even if they helped on it, how would it not be Chinese?

Basicly the J-11 is not chinese, it is Russian and it has a lot of Russian tech, from the SD-10, the Su-27SK and now even the WS-10, you call indigenization but it is Russian tech that has been transfered to China, however this technology has been originally created in Russia, you do not give credit to even an airframe that was designed in Russia, the AA-12 tech that was transfered to the SD-10 and the Russian aid in the WS-10.

plaaf uses PL-12, not SD-10, do you have any evidence PL-12 uses AA-12 technology? And I’m not in the mood to open a can of worms by debating whether or not SD-10 uses AA-12 technology since there was already a humongous thread on this all thanks to you.
helping on WS-10A project does not make it Russian. Even if they did help, Russians don’t get paid for WS-10A now, that’s for sure.
the points is that China already paid for the su-27 design and now everything on J-11B is made in China.
Whatever help they got on it is irrelevant. That’s sunk cost, that’s absorbed knowledge. So, what point are you trying to make?