Chinese access to Russian radar output integration equipment was never in doubt. The only problem is, is the Poima-E on board the 054A? I really don’t think so, though I’m not 100% certain. It is highly likely that the JRCCS combat system is the one aboard the 054A instead, but there is no mention of a radar-output integration function in that system. Despite tphuang and Pinko’s insistence, they have yet to provide any evidence backing their claims. 😀

Is there also any more detail on how the radar data is fused on the Poima-E?

well, I think yourfather admits to track level integration, but not plot level.

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.

well yeah, there is a difference. If you are so smart, why don’t you explain how it’s done? I’ve done SE in this area before and is unconvinced about the resolution on some of these tracks they are getting per second update.

Try reading the paper Datafuser recommended.

well, you managed to speak one sentence about 054A and make two mistakes. Brilliant.
Well, it has been stated in numerous articles that Type 730 is integrated with SR-64 (kanwa most notably), but I’ve always believed that the best evidence coming for PLAN are pictures. For the case of 052C, there is absolutely zero reason for SR-64 to be there unless it integrates with the Type 730 CIWS. Now, I don’t know what kind of source you are looking for, whether it’s official PLA daily announcement or whatever. But you are not going to get those. You have to sort of use common sense.
.
.
.

I don’t know what kind of evidence do you need? Having SR-64 sitting there capable of supporting only Type 730 is not evidence that it is integrated with Type 730? What do I say to that? It’s like the Russians were able to integrate that onboard radar with kashtan (I’m sure at least that one is plot level integration), yet China can’t do the same. I mean what do I say to that?
.
.
well, with the way they’ve been testing the new set of sensors/weapons for 054 series on 891 as a integrated system. I think that’s pretty good evidence.

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:

are you this desperate, that you can only insult me to prove points. Do I need to go through your posts to show how ignorant you are toward PLAN?

but in this case, I’m laughing at your assertion that a system capable of taking 1500 updates a second is a lot. If a system cannot handle more track updates than the possible number of radar generated updates, it’s in real trouble and needs upgraded. So, you replied 3 paragraphs without addressing that.

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.“

operating at a high frequency like SR-64 allows more radar inputs. Which gives it better ability to distinguish the bad inputs from the good ones. Sitting high on top of the mast gives it better angle against sea clutter. Using a faster machine like 054A would use compared to OHP (let’s just say today’s computers are far faster than the ones of OHP’s last update) would allow it to do more calculations per second.

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

other than that every other AD system on 054A is an improvement over 052B. Other than the numerous internet sources that mentionned HH-16 as an improved shtil. Other than HH-16 replacing shtil as the medium range naval SAM of PLAN. I guess I can’t find any evidence.

As for this SM-1 being able to engage low altitude targets. If SM-2 wasn’t able to do this until baseline 7 (which didn’t happen until late 90s). A missile that USN doesn’t even use anymore is somehow be upgraded to engage 5 m targets. When was the last update SM-1 got?

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:

the book has information and shows up points which are not shown in the public and censored investigation report which is available in the internet. i don’t think that every word written or spoken about this incident which is not in this report must necessarily be classified.

Indeed. Yet has the book brought up enough evidence upon which one can conclude the failure of any specific equipment? That would require classified information.

did the report answered the questions why no radar was able to detect the exocet (sps-49, mk-92 search radar, mk-92 tracker, awacs(!?), ..) or why there was no warning or correct identification from the slq-32 about the lock on?

There was warning, as you yourself insisted, with the audible alarm indicating the lock on by the Exocet’s radar. The question remaining is, why was the warning not acted upon?

backtracking to what? do you think that getting a “high-pitched sound” from some sort of emitter (which imho was the lock on from the exocet seekers) on your loud speaker without any information about bearing and type of emitter is a detection? it is enough to make you alarmed but how would you defend your ship without detailed information?

To have an audible alert, a detection must have occurred. On that point you and I are in agreement. You also believe that the lock-on signal that was intercepted originated from the Exocet’s radar. While I am not 100% sure on that point, I think there is a very good chance you are right, so for the purpose of this discussion, we can take that as a settled upon point. What’s left is why the people failed to react to the alarm.

On that, you propose that the SLQ-32 failed because it did not indicate the bearing/parameters of the alert. I think that highly unlikely. The lock on lasted at least 10 seconds, as the report indicated. The SLQ-32 would have had more than ample time to characterise the signal. The system tries to classify emitters as hostile based on the identified characteristics, and issues an audible alert when a signal is classified as such. Norman Friedman stated that in this particular incident, too many false classifications were indicated, resulting in the operator switching off this alarm.

It may be such that the Exocet managing to strike the Stark resulted from the oversight of the operator. Of course, one could also describe it as a failing of the SLQ-32 in this instance.

i do not doubt the credibility of this report but i say that there are questions which are not answered by this report.

Indeed. The parts which refer to technical details about system performance are all dacted out. Which is why it is hard to arrive at a firm conclusion about system performance.

the report is right if it says that the equipment of the stark was able to defend the ship against “hostile intent”.

There are two thing that can be ascertained, even with all the dacted out parts.

1. The OHP had the inherent capability to detect the Exocet and shoot it down. (para 18 of pg 33)
2. There were multiple unused modes which could have prevented the incident at its different stages, be it before the Mirage fired, or even after it fired the Exocets. (also para 18 of pg 33)

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.

Yet again, you demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you understand the relation between plots and tracks? I had assumed that pointing out that IADT integrated radar outputs on the basis of plots would have sufficed. It seems now that I had credited you with more knowledge than you possess.

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.

I had meant to type Type 730 in the first sentence. But it doesn’t matter, for the second sentence still applies. There is no indication whatsoever that radar output is integrated for any of the systems. You have yet to show proof, till now, for any of your stand.

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.

Laughing at the number itself is an indication of what you do not know. The correlation of number of targets tracked to refresh rate is such that they are inversely proportional. It may be such that the processing power is more limited in the IADT, but you do not know the number for the 054A, so how do you assume that the 054A’s combat system can track more targets?

Processing is also done nearer to the radar to reduce the number of false detections etc, reducing the number of extraneous plots. In this case then, a comparably lower refresh rate is sufficient to handle the load. Look at the advancements made to the Mk92, just as an example, in reducing the amount of clutter in the raw return. On the other hand, being able to hndle more tracks is not itself an indication of superiority of one system over another.

Again, I remind you: 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. Throwing up a red herring to divert the argument to an area which you think is in your favour is silly. It will fool no one.

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.

If the 054A’s combat system does not integrate its radar outputs, then it would not be able to compare in terms of how fast a track can be established. For how many false alarms can be suppressed, the IADT will also have an advantage, simply because the ability to correlate information from multiple sources at the plot level aids greatly in false target rejection.

As for this SR-64 needing at least 2 revolutions to establish a track, that’s assuming it’s operating alone.

If you haven’t noticed, all my arguments are made on the caveat that the 054A’s combat system does not integrate the radar outputs. it’s just that you and Pinko are so allergic to the slightest suggestion that the 054A could be inferior to the 30 year old OHP under a specific circumstance, that caused you to get into this no-win (on your part 😀 ) debate.

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.

You are assuming again that the 054A integrates radar output. Evidence? 😀

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.

It did not ‘just’ happen. That capability was gained after substantial changes, of which I have already listed some. For that matter, how do you know that HH-16’s performance is improved over the Shtil? i’ll like to see some evidence to that.

When KH-31A & KH-31P have the same speed or KD88 IR guided missile and KD88 passive guided ARM have the same speed, how are your 2D radar going to differentiate them by VELOCITY? If say Su30 shooting both KH-31P & KH-31A at almost the same time?

Then they are of equal priority, and illumination of them in any order is not important.

Man, I have to say the integrator indeed not only integrates radar signal because 054A’s low altitude AshM tracking sensor suite is combined with both Radar like SR64 and fiber optical warning system like IR17, they are unbreakable pair. The SR64 covers almost 360 deg but not the front potion which is blocked by the main mast, where the IR17 is sitting . the IR 17 optical device provides coverage of SR64’s blind area and acted as a back up in case the SR64 not function well in a clutter or ECM denser environment. Now think of your CAS, it doesn’t have a 360 deg coverage. So the 054A integrator must combine data from sensor other than radar with the data from radar. Can I say it’s a radar only integrator? Of course I have to say it’s sensor fusion. Concept is evolving, especially when you are talking an open architecture.

Going by your psychobabble, obviously you still don’t know the difference. The SR-64 or the IR17 could very well just designate the target to the LR-66 of the Type 730, upon which the LR-66 as a FCR takes over the tracking of the target, without any radar output integration done. Where is it stated that the radar outputs of the target indication radar and the FCR are integrated? Assuming things, yet again. Though in this case, an assumption born out of ignorance.

What has been addressed earlier? Is this one: at range these targets are not time critical? Even apply your 25 nm range for your CAS to detect a RCS 0.1 grade missile, from where your IADT starts to get elevation update, taking the update rate of every 4-5 seconds by CAS, you need 2-3 updates at least to build up the missile’s flying profile. It’s in a handful seconds the supersonic AshM or ARM will cover your 25nms range , meanwhile your IADT to build up the missile’s flying profile along needs 10-15 seconds. Every second counts yet you address not time critical?

The most important factor in determining which target is time critical is its time to impact, upon which velocity determination is critical. The radars do this at all ranges. With this, the target engagement priority can be established. With that, the target illuminators can then independantly illuminate the priority targets, with 3D designation capability for the trackers incorporated in phase III of the Mk92 upgrades. Before all this though, the target has to be detected and reliably tracked, which is where the IADT system beats individual radars of the 054A. A high altitude, high speed target closing in on the OHP will be detected a long distance away with the SPS-49. In a sense, it is less-time critical than a moderate speed target just crossing the radar horizon, as the high-speed, high-E target would have been detected and tracked long before the same could be done for a low-E target.

As long as it’s more capable than your SPS-55 and SPS-49 combo.

And how have you proved that the 054A, if its radars are working individually to compile the air picture, is more capable?

Did I deny the FFG’s CDS doesn’t have radar integration function, see who is denying 054A futures a same open architect CDS doesn’t have radar integration function? The rest people can judge who’s silly?

Are you a total idiot? Show me where is it that the 054A combat systems have a radar output integration function? I have already shown such for the ADAC.

Quote:

Then I was surprised to see how a situational awareness people saying that. Even in a range, you still need to discriminate the signature in your radar screen is composite of only 1 or 2 or more targets. Only a realtime 3D radar can tell you that by revealing their altitude. Only by observing their trajectory precisely would you identify the incoming missiles are made of descending AshM, “Zenith” approaching ARM or both, otherwise, your 2D radar only shows you a slightly enlarged dot of all these missiles. If your CAS at this crucial moment is engaged with a sea skimming target and can’t provide elevation data to your IDAT? I even not mentioned how your CAS can provide 360 deg coverage?! You did mention how important the early warning that SAAR V’s 3D radar should give in another debate with Tphuang, but here is “ not time critical’?

Well, I think currently you are in debate of that claimed range of finding AshM with another gentleman so I’d better not challenge by myself. I’m not discount CAS performance I’m only discount your overly claim of the capability of normal, less power output FCR like CAS. Your CAS has to do horizon search at low angel, provide high angel elevation data of a “high flyer” target at the same time and fire control . Essentially, you are putting your CAS do basically what the sea eagle 3D radar, sea skimmer tracking SR64 radar and FCR of Orekh copy. Such a claim need I produce any Sea eagle’s performance before the bubble self busted?

Somehow, your almighty CAS can provide 3D data for volume air search while doing horizon search but a C-band, 360 degree rotating with pencil beam is not able to track low fly surface targets?

I suggest you read through my earlier statements one more time, as all your blatherings here has been addressed earlier. If you cannot get them, then any further conversation is limited by your intellect.

Quote:
So as to better enhance system performance. How does bringing up the SPY-1 time and again help your case?

It doesn’t have IDAT before CDS but yet more capable than your IDATed FFG-7.

Yes, the SPY-1 is likely more capable than the IADT. But how does that help your case for the 054A when 054A doesn’t have AEGIS/SPY-1? :rolleyes:

See the double standard at the best display , the FFG UP, the IDATed FFG-7’s direct upgrade, is with its MK92 being directly plugged into an open structure/high FDDI bused CDS, you so automatically assume the radar integrating is resident inside the CDS but meanwhile denying the same structured/high FDDI bus linked 054A CDS is without radar integrating ability?

CAE was provided with a contract to specifically produce radar integration software for the ADACs. Pinko, I suggest you stop making yourself look silly.