YourFatherIf that’s the case, then despite the SLQ-32’s deficiencies in MMI, the SLQ-32 still did manage to detect both the Cyrano radar of the Mirage and the Exocet’s radar, did it not? If so, the SLQ-32 worked as expected.
YourFatherActually, paragraph 60, page 13 of the report clearly stated that EW2 Kummrow was listening to the Cyrano IV radar’s signal when he heard a radar lock on, with this new signal continuing for 10 secs before the search mode signal of the Cyrano IV was heard again. This occurred around 2108, with 1st missile impact around 2109. It is unclear whether this radar lock on came from the Exocet or the Cyrano IV, but para 71 showed that LCDR Gajan made a transmission around 2109 that the Stark was locked-on twice, before the transmission ceased. But there wasn’t any explicit statement indicating that the lock-on originated from the Exocet and not the Cyrano.
imho the slq-32 did not work as expected.
The SLQ-32 is designed to give an alarm when a detected emitter is classified as hostile under semi-auto mode. According to Norman Friedman, the Stark’s SLQ-32 was under this mode, but due to the dense pulse environment, too many false alarms were given by the system, leading the operator to switch off the alarm. This could have led to the Exocet not getting detected.
YourFatherthere is an interesting small part in the book about the performance of mk-92:
Quote:
[…] the mk-92 was reportedly tested before this incident by dutch and german crews who knew that an exocet was to be fired at a particular point during the test, and it failed to detect and engage the missileafaik the us-navy send aegis ships to the gulf as a result of this incident.
so my conclusion is, that in this incident the stark would have been a real chance defending itself in several ways if the right decisions were made early enough but the incident also highlighted the limitations of the ohp’s aaw-equipment.
Which book is this? I’m sure it’ll make for interesting reading. Did they also refer to which mod of the Mk92, and whether it was evaluated together with the IADT system?
YourFatherany source for this? according to the public part of the investigation report and the book “missile inbound” only the forward lookout (seamen williams) spotted the incoming exocet and called the bridge. so afaik there were only 3 person onboard the stark which knew about the exocet before it hits the ship. it was sm williams, ltjg hansen on the bridge and an phonetalker in the cic.
Yes, you are right. I was mislead by page 34, para 19 of the post-mortem report, where it was stated that the Mk 92 CAS failed to lock on “until seconds before missile impact, deprived the ship of its most capable system to detect and destroy the first exocet”. However, in page 14, it was stated clearly that the CAS was used to lock onto the Mirage seconds before impact.
the book claims furthermore that after the first missile hits the stark, the xo in the cic first thought a gun had been fired inadvertently. this shows, that the cic had no knowledge about the incoming missiles.
Yes, the information wasn’t passed on to CIC.
but what if the stark had been on it’s own? of course they would have tracked it with their own radar not an hour before impact but maybe 20min before impact. (the mirage was not flighing very low i think) but they would not start firing on an unknown track without any reason, so the first sign of an attack would have been detecting the incoming missiles. what if the attacker is flying that low that you cannot track the plane before it fires it’s missiles?
Had they followed the cumulative experience of USN vessels operating in the area, illuminating the Mirage would have sufficed to turn the Mirage away. The Mirage was also required to lock on to the OHP before firing, so circumstances would not have differed in that aspect from what happened. Had appropriate action been taken from the point where the SLQ-32 provided warning, the OHP would likely still have been able to defend itself in your scenario.
but in this point cas failed onboard stark. so everythink would have been depend on the ciws own search and track radar. but what if the missile is incoming in the death zone of your ciws?
We do not know that CAS ‘failed’. It simply might not have been in the proper operating mode. As we already know the ship was not under fighting condition. As the report stated, had procedures been followed, the ship could have unmasked.
Anyway, as a result of this incident, Sidekick was installed. Later the IADT, CORT, RAIDS and MPU upgrades were added.
YourFather– the ohp’s were designed as asw ships with only limited aaw abilities. neither it’s area defence missile system nor it’s ciws has a 360° firing angle. the main fc system (stir) is not usable for sam-shots ahead of the ship because it’s masked by the main mast. so if you want to have a real chance to shot down a ashm you have to maneuver the ship early to get all your systems into action (2 fc channels, sm-1, phalanx and maybe the 76mm oto). how long does it take to maneuver a ohp into a 90° turn? 15sec? maybe 20?
even in a subsonic sea skimmer scenario this is a lot of time, not to talk about supersonic sea skimmers.
the reloading time for the mk13 is 7,5sec which limits the number of engagements.
Indeed the weak link in the chain is the concurrent engagement capabilities of the OHP, a shortcoming only addressed with the upgrade to Mk92 mod 12, ESSM etc.
– facts on paper and performance in real world scenarios may vary a lot. if the early cas had a range of 25nm why the stark was not able to detect the exocet’s? not at 10nm, not at 5nm, not at all, they were only able to detect and track the mirage.
The CAS actually did detect it, but only seconds before impact. Of course, 25nm is the max theoretical range, but this applies as much to the OHP as the 054A. Note that in the report following the incident, the Stark was judged technically capable of defending itself from the missiles in that specific situation, had proper procedures been followed. Stark was under condition ‘White’, which meant that the Starks systems were in a mode under which quick reaction was not possible. The report even showed that there were uninitialised systems which when activated would have increased the probability of detecting the missile launch.
– if the iadt had improved the abilities of the ohp’s that much, why did the us-navy mothballed all the mk-13’s with sm-1 and stir? maybe the sm-1 was not worth the money to keep it in service? the australien navy upgrades 4 ohp’s for 250mio$ per ship to keep them in service (with essm and maybe sm-2). i think they are not doing this because sm-1 performs well in modern scenarios.
Money. Or rather, the lack of it, needed to support the system. It is probable the Australians changed over to SM-2s because SM-1s were no longer in production and not because additional capabilites of the SM-2 was required over the SM-1. Else they could have added the WDS mk 14?
sensor fusion like iadt is a must have in modern aaw (where ashm have a low rcs, flying low and fast) but there are a lot of other issues like modern radar systems with high update rates, mounted as high as possible, a modern cms with an automated alert and engagement-system and a layered defence with a short reaction time, a high firing rate, 360° capability and a high kill ratio again maneuvering sea skimmers. all these points makes a number of different systems a well performing and efficient aaw-system.
True, but Tphuang specifically talked about low level target detection. It was on that that I made a comparison, and a comparison based on the condition that were the 054A not equipped with a radar integration system, my stand would hold. So far, they have not been able to provide evidence that such a system exists, yet Tphuang has put forth the assertion that the 054A is definitely better in that area.
wow, CAS can suddenly track more than 1 target now? Why don’t you show some evidence of that.
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?
this is really getting ridiculous. As I said a billion times, you cannot possibly have radars in today’s battlefield that doesn’t have some level of integration with each other. What you should be arguing about is comparing the level of integration.
Assumption. Evidence?
what era was that? As I said before, sensors on 051C and 052B are just put on the ships without being tested together. So if the integration is not as high, then they won’t bother with the test ship. But in this case, they’ve actually put the entire set of sensors on 891. I do suggest you follow 891 a little more, so you will have an appreciation of this.
Which makes one wonder why a test ship is needed after the systems are put on board the 054A.
OHP at any given time, can handle no more than 2 targets. That’s well known.
Not to you, at first. You thought 1.
I’m sure SR-64 can do far better than that (at least the # of FCRs). You can claim the number of targets tracked on OHP is more, but it can’t engage them. Sea Eagle can also track many targets, but it’s not engaging them either.
True. Nothing to argue on that, and I have never alluded to OHP superiority in terms of concurrent engagement capabilities.
It’s really annoying. You came in with an extremely low view of a ship you don’t know much about and then jump the gun on everything I said.
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.
All air defense systems are tested before they go on the ship. They don’t build the ship until the AD systems meet the requirements. That’s just their way of doing things.
Assuming again? How can you be sure that the urgent need to replace the old Jianghus did not take precedence?
SR-64 does not have capability to track targets at far range due to its high frequency and it’s emphasis on being able to accurately track stealthy targets at high supersonic speeds. MFR with greater sophistication may not be able to track anti-ship missiles as well, but will improve on searching capability (in conjunction with Sea Eagle), track more targets and then be able to give data uplink to more missiles.
have you been reading at all? SR-64 sacrificed range just to be able to reliably track stealthy supersonic missiles. Even a ship like 052C still retains SR-64 to be able to accurately track sea-skimmers. If there is anything that shouldn’t be question, that’s SR-64’s reliability.
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.
SM-2 on baseline 7 Aegis. See the original question.
Sorry, but I was asking about the SM-1?
Aside from the obvious point that HH-16 was developed recently with this kind of threats in mind and that the system was developed to counter this thread. you should also check up on the capability of Type 730 CIWS vs concurrent supersonic targets.
Yes, the Type 730 is capable agaisnt supersonic threats, but so is the Block 1B Phalanx. And anyway, engagement capability is not the point of contention here.
depends on the threat. It’s definitely far more noisy, not really good for ASW. If you are not going into deep waters, 054A’s existing sonar + ka-28 can do the job, although not as well. But at this point, PLAN seemed to not be fans of using surface combatants as main ASW assets, so that’s why AAW on 054A is emphasized and has high requirements.
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.
YourFatherThat’s the problem right? By combining CAS, STIR and SPS-55, you can only get the updated data for the targets tracked by CAS and STIR. Which means you can only reliably track the two missiles. The other targets, you can only get a refresh every 4 seconds at the best case scenario. SR-64 alone can reliably track far more than that.
Wrong. The SPS-49, the SPS-55 and CAS can continue to track other targets. Only the STIR would be tied up when illuminating a target. Meaning that other targets still get a minimum of 1 sec updates.
I never admitted anywhere I don’t know what’s on 054A, I said it’s hard to quantify the integration software on the two ships. Read below on the rest.
You assumed that the 054A had a radar integrator. You have yet to provide evidence other than ‘look, the test ship has so-and-so systems on board, and that must mean that a radar integrator is present’.
By the way, as long as you have any kind of combat system, there is always going to be some form of radar integration.
Sure? Then explain why the Lesorub system of the Slava has the Top Pair feeding it but not the Top Steer? A CDS is a track-keeping system. It may be that only one radar feeds the system. A CDS is not an indication that radar integration exists.
It’s interesting, if you look at it, SR-64 alone can track more targets and give command updates to more missiles than your entire integrated system. Btw, with the new MFR that they are going to put on 054 series, that’s only going to make the gap larger. And having an additional searching radar only augments the capability.
SR-64 may be able to provide command updates to more missiles, but how do you know it can track more targets than the OHP? You have the track capacity for the SR-64? Or the OHP, for that matter?
don’t you think you are getting too emotional here? I haven’t bothered to do anything other than explaining 054A to you. You are using bold, italic, calling me names. But anyhow, I think the part your have in Italic is a pretty big claim
I highlighted the important points. It seems that those points are making you uncomfortable. :rolleyes:
But yes, you’ve been making claims about 054A having slower reaction time by simply assuming that 054A’s radar integration software is not up to par.
I have only said that if the 054A did not have a radar integrator, it would not fare as well in detection and tracking of low-E targets.
When was last time OHP was upgraded for better air defense The issue is that 054A is pretty much tasked with defending AShM for much of PLAN fleet, so it’s simply has a much higher air defense requirement.? PLAN would not field it the way it is unless it meets the requirements.
So requirements equate to capability? Ever occured to you that capability might not have met requirements? Going by the way you assume things, why dont you assume that the need to upgrade to a MFR means that the 054A’s capabilities are regarded as unsatisfactory?
wow, you can engage two now, amazing.
If the 054A cannot detect the targets in time, then the number of channels is irrelevant. The Hanit is an extreme case of that. Similarly, if the target is only detected at extremely close range, than the effect of that may be such that having more channels might not compensate for having only 2 channels but having early warning.
baseline 7.
baseline 7? First, SM-1s are divided in Blocks. Not baselines. And there is no evidence of a Block 7 version.
you want to use OHP against a barrage of Brahmos and Klub? You are kidding me.
Against a saturation strike comprising these targets, the OHP will probably need the Mk 92 mod 12 upgrade, TMS upgrade and ESSMs to be viable. Then again, it is not certain that the 054A is viable against these threats either. Note also that the threat does not solely comprise these high end missiles. In fact, these are probably still the minority.
On the other hand, against submarines, how well will the 054A do compared to the OHP?
So you do realize the IADT suite is in incapable to match phased arrayed Sea eagle’s ability in resoluting the elevation right? Fade charts is hardly efficient in elevation performance compared to Sea eagle’s electronic scan in the elevation. APS-145 using exactly the same technique to exploit altitude information of the target and E-2 AEWS is not famous to provide target’s altitude information, by applying such a technique doesn’t come unconditioned, it will affect the 2D radar’s detection range and update rate. CAS being designed as part of FCR, its X-band and narrow beam scan have determined it’s incompetent to act as a volume search role which naturally requires multi target detection & tracking, in order to draw elevation data from the CAS’s scan, the search radar beam is stepped up 4 beamwidths over 3 scans and then back down in half a scan. Target height thus is found by using this spiral scan technique. Now, you see, in such a mode, only 4.5 scans can roughly determine a target’s altitude so you see your really promoted 60rpm is actually watered down.
As said, at range these targets are not time critical, hence the drawback is not much of a handicap. While the CAS provides elevation data only 14.5 times a minute, that’s still comparable to what the Sea Eagle can provide. Notice that track updates are still vastly superior to what the Sea Eagle or even the SR-64 provides individually.
And working in such a narrow beam elevation finding and being the nature of X-band, it’s impossible for your CAS still has your claimed 50nm detection of a incoming missile, even a more powerful, S/C band Sea eagle only can roughly detect a missile 75kms away although it has a max air search range over 300kms.
Impossible? The early CAS provided a range of 25nm. I’m sorry, but provide evidence if you intend to discount the performance of the CAS. Why don’t you discount the claimed performance of the Sea Eagle instead?
So I say, in a high angel volume search, IADT will still not be able to bring in elevation data from CAS. The main purpose of bring the Fire control CAS into IADT is to brief up the updating rate and most importantly, to track sea skimming AshM in low angel.
The CAS was integrated to enhance the performance of the system. The MPU itself already had the ability to detect and track low level targets.
Today’s war is totally 3D, low flying air strikers with navigation pods can approach really low, and your CAS still has its role in a beam rider like SM-1. in a total way, your CAS may have to cue SM-1 thus will definitely limits its role of altitude data providing. A Striker like Su30 can shoot multiple missiles either AshM or ARM. Only the radar with true 3D resolution is effective to engage multiple air targets. Being a situation awareness advocator, I think you should have your answer in which radar or radar suite detects better.
Try finding out more about the CAS. :rolleyes: Like Tphuang, you assumed that CAS was one radar.
Why must integrate into an IADT which essentially is a software approach to bring some less capable radar into a “synthetic radar” by combining & weighing the individual radar’s data into a single file? You don’t see SPY-1 combined with SPS-49 by such an IADT before being plugged into CDS.
So as to better enhance system performance. How does bringing up the SPY-1 time and again help your case?
Of course, Sea eagle being a system only electronically scanning in elevation, it’s way behind true phased array system like Sampson & SPY-1, but my main intention to say the Sea eagle a “Multi-role” only means the phased array radar can basically accomplish several radars role in your IADT.
How? It doesn’t do horizon search the way the STIR and CAS does.
Referring to the diagram I posted in the Greece FFG thread. All the system being integrated by an open structure( Open architecture), high speed data bus CDS on board 054A doesn’t mean it’s less capable than you having an additional Radar integration layer before the CDS. Explain why FFG UP which sees MK92 Mod12 being integrated into an open structure, high speed CDS without IADT a upgrading from IADTed FFG-7?
The radar integration capability was upgraded with a data-fusion system provided by CAE. The system resides within the ADACs CDS. So the IADT function never went away, the function still exists, but is handled by another system. 😀
YourFatherThe difference in concurrent engagement is huge. You can’t even compare the two.
Undeniably true, but as said, that’s only one factor in assessing the capability of a system with respect to low-elevation targets.
how can it possibly be better in terms of detection and tracking low altitude and heavily maneuverable targets in clutter?
It can be, if you are able to set aside your nationalism and emotions, and be ready to evaluate based on facts and not conjectures.
As I said, with the power and the height of SR-64. It can accurate locate many stealthy anti-ship missiles traveling at mach 3. I know you would ask this question, so I will just answer now. They got plenty of drones with low RCS and high maneuverability to use for something like SR-64 to test. You might want to check up on Ba-7 if you have doubts. Even aside from drones, YJ-83 is a missile skimming at 3 to 5 m is terminally supersonic. SR-64 is specifically designed to track this type of targets and give command updates to HH-16 and pass info to Type 730 CIWS. And then HH-16 only needs to receive terminal guidance from the FCRs. And Type 730 CIWS has the 3 eyes + FCR to track similar type of targets. They all have high frequency -> so you get better resolution and sacrifice range. Comparing this to what I get on SPS-55:
https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/war…ADAR/sps55.htm
That’s 16 RPM. Barely better than your average VSR. Certainly cannot get the 1 second refresh rate of SR-64.
Nothing against OHP, sea-skimming supersonic missiles just weren’t as prevalent back when it was developed and it’s main role is not AAW.
The CAS rotates at 60RPM. And the IADT combines input from the CAS, the SPS-49, the STIR and the SPS-55, making for a far higher cumulative refresh rate than just the SR-64 operating alone.
where did I say the ability to detect and maintain track is lame? That is putting words in mouth. You’ve been doing this through the entire discussion. Clearly, what I referred to lame is that you are using a factor that is a bit of an unknown to “proof” that 054A’s ability to detect/track is inferior. This is after calling me ignorant for not understanding my previous point and then bring up a bunch of other radar when I was clearly comparing the early detection/tracking capability of the two ships.
Indeed you were trying to compare the early detection/tracking capability of the two ships. The problem as you yourself admitted is you don’t know what is on the 054A, yet you proceeded to state with confidence that the 054A was better in that area than the OHP. You stated the 054A’s superiority unambiguously, yet you are unable to prove that it is so. I said that there was no indication that the 054A was necessarily superior, since the OHP had a radar integrator which sharply reduced reaction time against low-E threats. Considering that reaction time is just an important a factor as number of fire channels when taking into account small, fast low-E threats, and the fact that it is unknown how well the 054A compares to the OHP in that regard, how can one assume that the 054A is better as you claimed?
national network with a network of FCRs and surveillence radar joint together by fiber optic network. surveillence radar pass information to the FCRs. Which FCRs use to detect the targets around its area. If one goes down, the closest one picks up the target and then provide the guidance for the nearest missile to intercept. In fact, 052C’s AD is quoted by many as part of this system, that it extends the radar coverage several hundred NMs from the shoreline. The only thing we are not sure right now is what kind of data feed 052C and 054A get from AWACS and other aerial assets and other ships or not. Or to what extend they are integrated.
You don’t know how it is integrated, yet you again proceeded with confidence in trying to use that as ‘proof’ that somehow the 054A had a radar integrator. You just love assuming things up.
No, this kind of integration has only been seen with 054A and 052C’s sensors + missiles. In 052C’s case, it’s a lot simpler since it was just the MFRs + HH-9. In 054A’s case, it brought in VSR and FCRs too. By the way, for something like 051C that had tombstone + older version of Sea Eagle + SR-64, they never bothered to do something like this. That’s why I never trusted in it’s low altitude air defense. They basically are putting a complete system on 891 for testing. And when that is ready, they will put it on the ship that’s fielding it as a system.
And so how does having these systems on the test ship prove that a radar integrator is on board the 054A? Even if you are right, and they are testing something similar on board, that means that the 054A doesn’t have it on board yet. Or is the PLAN into fielding systems before testing them?
you basically knew nothing about 054A, but you still managed to make claims everywhere.
Where have I made ANY explicit claim that the OHP was better than the 054A in early detection? All I have mentioned till now was that were the 054As without a radar integrator to combine all the outputs of its radars, they would not be as capable as the OHP in detection of low-E targets. The thing is, we don’t know whether the 054A is fitted with an IADT equivalent or not. You, however, despite knowing full well that you don’t know, explicitly stated that the 054A was more capable in that regard, and proceeded to defend your claim.
Also, I’m makin this claim, because as I explained before, the sensors on 054A are better at multiple engagements and low level tracking.
How are they better? You have not proved conclusively that they are. You have only proved conclusively that you derive the wildest conclusions based on the flimsiest of evidences.
Also, PLAN’s general requirement and the mission profile for 054A is aimed at a far great air defense capability vs today’s anti-ship missile threat than what OHP was designed for.
Everybody can set requirements, meeting them is quite another. The OHP has been extensively upgraded.
interesting, two illuminators with the upgrade.
Next time, do try to find out more before making claims about 054A superiority. The OHP always had mod 2 systems, which all along had the STIR. Meaning they’ve always had two anti-air engagement channels. Mod 1s were the versions without the STIR, and no mod 1s were installed on OHPs.
well, based on what our defense professional Galarhn said about SM-2 only achieving reliability against sea-skimmers with the recent Aegis versions and that SM-1 was never designed for engaging supersonic sea-skimmers. Whereas, HH-16 was designed to be improved from shtil-1, which does have proven anti-missile capability. In fact, I would say it’s developed to be Chinese equivalence of ESSM.
Which version was he (whoever he is) referring to? SM-1 Block VIB is considered effective against sueprsonic sea skimmers.
And then even after this, I haven’t got down to the close in air defense of 054A with 2 Type 730 CIWS and AK-176M. This is often the most overlooked part of 054A’s air defense.
Close in engagement capability is more than the OHP. Don’t worry, nobody will deny you that. 😉
I guess that’s a debate on what PN needs. If they want better ASW and don’t mind an older hull, then they will go with OHP. If they want a newer hull with OTH ASuW capability + limited areas air defense, they’d go for 054A. But in this case, they will probably get both, since they are getting OHP for free. I was simply replying to clear ignorance and bias against 054A on the other thread.
If they want better ASW, better littoral ASuW, respectable self defense, limited area air defense and proven performance, the OHP fares better.
YourFatherTo satisfy the wishes of Unicorn and Wanshan, I shall continue this discussion in a new thread.
YourFather1st, I need to check whether there’s any Type 364 Seagull C ( SP64) onboard 054A in the 1st place or not, yes, older 054 FFG does have this radar but older generation 054 doesn’t have Sea Eagle.
If you can accept Sampson as a MFR, you will notice Sampson also can’t guide a semi-active radar homing missile like SM-2, it still needs another dedicate fire control radar to do the terminal guidance. HQ-16 is semi-active guided. The benefits of Sea eagle is it features 2 antenna in S & C band respectively, although the sea eagle features 2 phased array antennas working in different bandwidth, its single signal processing is still able to integrate different & massive volume of signals from both phase arrayed panel by rotating simultaneously, the Sea eagle can detect and track multiple targets simultaneously, thanks to its phase array antenna which is multiple beam forming capable, and it’s nature a phased array radar can engage more targets than your mechanically scanned SPS-49, SPS-55 by its power output and design is still not a capable volume search option. the Sea eagle’s capability to find a target farther with better situational awareness by knowing the targets’ not only bearing and range but also altitude. Being a phase arrayed, it can engage more targets simultaneously and the dedicate fire control radar only need guide the SARH HQ-16 in the final kill thus greatly enhance the latter’s capability to switch to new target for next illumination fast enough. Do you mean the saying of Sampson a MFR a joke as well? This time is not me, but Britons.
Does the Sea Eagle do surface tracking and horizon search? The Sampson doesn’t need to do terminal guidance since the system it is part of uses Aster missiles. The OHP gets elevation information through its CAS.
Can you deny IADT is still an additional layer? Do the SPS-55 & SPS-49 combine their individual signal processing units into one or still separately? Do mind, the sea eagle does combine the different signal from different antenna panel by processing them in one unit. Do those individual signal processing work synchronized or still in different pace, think about, their rotating rate are still different. Yet you still don’t understand 2D & 3D, when you have no good enough altitude data via SPS-49, your IADT has to wait such feed from another capable SPS-55 while Sea eagle can have altitude and other 2D information at the same time. No time lagging,
But the data refresh rate is lower than that of the CAS from which the IADT can derive altitude information. IADT may add another layer, but the number of layers is not relevant. It is the time saved from faster target detection and transition to track that matters, and here is where IADT gives an advantage. SYS-2 even has a special quick reaction mode where track data is passed directly to the WDS for immediate target prosecution, bypassing the CDS.
The point is when no phased arrayed radar like SPY-1 available, the SPS-49 plays main role in volume search, but since, there’s SPY-1, the SPS-49 has to be in the back seat. SPY-1 is high cost in operation, so does the phased array radar on PLAN 052C, nobody will turn on such high power, expensive radar in normal surveillance
What does that have to do with what I said – the SPS-49 and the SPQ-9B is (in some cases, will be) an integral part of the AEGIS. Which throughly debunks your assertion that “Aegis never relies so many individual systems to accomplish the same role”. The SPQ-9B is to be part of the system dedicated to horizon search in the ASCM defense role.
As I said, phase arrayed Sea eagle can provide one more dimension of data simultaneously, it need no time lagging IADT process. All in one radar eliminates synchronization issue of your different radars. Phased array radar provide true multi target capability over your aged SPS-49, it can do from detection to tracking simultaneously, greatly enhanced radar’s efficiency and your FCRs therefore spend shorter time to engage targets.
There is no problem with synchronisation. The IADT is able to handle up to 1500 track updates per sec. Look at the number of radars in the IADT capable of horizon search. The SPS-49, the STIR and the CAS. With RAIDS, even the Phalanx radars and the SLQ-32 will be integrated to formulation of the ship’s response to an ASCM threat.
comparing the tracking radar + number of FCRs, OHP cannot possibly compete with 054A.
OHP cannot compete with the 054A in terms of number of channels, but it may (and is likely to) be more capable in terms of detection and tracking of low altitude, heavily maneuvering targets in clutter. And in those cases, ability to detect early and maintain track matters just as much as number of FC channels.
So, you are down to this lame argument of China can’t combine it’s radar data.
So something like the ability to detect and maintain track is now lame to someone who cannot quite substantiate their claim that the 054A is definitely better at detection and engagement of low altitude targets.
If you ever checked their surveillance radar export brochures, you would see that they have developed a land based system that integrates everything together. It’s not that hard to assume they put it on naval AAW platforms.
And what sort of integration does it carry out? There are different ways of integration, just as there are IADT integrates radar information differently from other radar integrators out there. There is also nothing to say that just because some land based system in China does radar integration, that means the 054A also has a similar system.
As for what evidence I see of such a system on 054A. Most of this is seen on 891, you can see clearly where the test ship is testing out the combined effort of HH-16 + FCRs + the new Sampson like MFR + new variant of Sea Eagle LRR. To me, that’s clearly a naval AD system at work. Even before being deployed on any ship, they are bringing this set of sensors together to work with HH-16. If they are not also testing out the hardware+software that integrates the data from all the sensors, why would they do this?
Probably to see that they simply work under the CDS.
If they are not also testing out the hardware+software that integrates the data from all the sensors, why would they do this?
Integrating the disparate systems under a CDS is quite different from integrating radar outputs.
Now, what you can argue is whether 054A’s radar integrator is as advanced as OHP or not, but without data of each, nobody can answer that for you.
Exactly. So you cannot make the claim you initially did that the 054A is better than the OHP in tracking and engaging low altitude targets, because you don’t know.
Now, what you can argue is whether 054A’s radar integrator is as advanced as OHP or not, but without data of each, nobody can answer that for you. As for this OHP being able to handle 2 air targets, I read at least the SM-1 can only handle 1 due to the limited nature of MK-92. Unless you have some other sources that show it can handle 2 air targets, which I can’t seem to find online.
Each SM-1 can of course handle only one target. But the Mk 92 system can handle 2 air targets, CAS provides one, STIR provides another.
still doesn’t address the real problem that SM-1 is just not that capable of intercepting sea-skimming missiles.
Based on? :rolleyes: Somehow the HH-16 of which little is known just is better. You don’t know how it is better, but it is better, because you want it so.
Going back to the topic, it is by no means certain that the 054A is necessarily better than the OHP or the Type 23 as the platform of choice for Pakistan. OHP and T23 will be transferred at very low cost compared to the 054A, and they even provide better capabilities in some important areas like ASW and littoral ASuW. Even in AAW, while it looks from the number of FCRs that the 054A is a more capable platfrom, it is not really clear that it is indeed that much more capable than the OHP when it comes to stressing low altitude targets, where time to detect and track are factors just as critical as fire channels.
YourFatherIADT in FFG-7 case is just a compromise when you don’t have a multi-role radar. Already shown here is that the Sea Eagle Double band, double antenna 3D radar can do your SPS49/55 jobs all in one, what you showed to us is the speed upgrade on the SYS 2 Integrated Action Data System which 054A FFG doesn’t need , instead 054A FFG benefits zero time lagging on such a system by using all-in-one detecting & tracking 3D radar. IADT in FFG7 is just a layer of processing you need when you bring multiple radars into a more competence system. No matter how fast the IADT system can be, it still consumes time to go through this layer when the single multi-functional radar can accomplish and skip this layer and directly cue Fire control radar for missile’s terminal interception. Such a SYS 2 Integrated Action Data System only needed when you want to combine data from different radar platforms for the same function, either SPS55 or SPS49 or any other. Sea eagle radar is just a all in one, what you get is what you want, you no need Sys2 to integrate anymore. The multiple function Radar represents the trend in the new age ship airdefense, which is centered on Phased array radar, rotated type like Sampson or non rotated type like SPY-1.
If the Sea Eagle was a MFR, why the need for the SR-64 and Orekh radars? The Sea Eagle simply doesn’t provide the required refresh rate to provide low level tracking. MFRs like APAR and SPY-3 are indeed the future, but sorry, Sea Eagle isn’t a MFR. Calling it a MFR is a joke on yourself.
But you mean after IADT/MPU, the FFG no longer needs SPS-55?
SPS-55, like the other radars, feeds its plots to the IADT, resulting in a much higher data rate than relying on any single radar. This ensures far less false alarms, high probability of detection, and much more robust holding of track against a violently maneuvering low altitude target in clutter, especially compared to a combat system relying on independant radars (with a comparatively lower update rate like the Sea Eagle, or even the SR-64) to hold a track.
SPS49 is just a cheap and reliable backup of SPY-1, to use SPY-1 doing daily surveillance is totally overkill, when you can find a low cost, cheap but reliable search radar, SPS49 comes into play, PLAN 052C has similar arrangement where you can find round dome alike search radar on top of the mast. BTW, how slow do you think the solid state phase shifter of Sea eagle will be if compared to really faster SPY-1?
What’s your point?
Sea eagle has 2 antennas in a back to back arrangement which means every half round there will be an antenna facing the target instead of SPS49’s per round.
That still doesn’t provide a comparable data-rate to the SPS-49, SPS-55 and CAS fed IADT.
YourFatherWhere did I say that? Point to one place where I said Long range radar is an indication of how capable the platform is against low altitude target. I compared the two long range radars to show that in surveillence/searching mode, 054A’s radar provides more information due to the fact that it’s using an electronically scanned 3D radar.
For low altitude targets, if you have ever read any of my posts on Chinese sensors, you would know that the key is SR-64. Whose role (as you can see by it’s position especially on the front mast of 052B/C) is to track supersonic sea-skimming missiles. That’s what the 60 RPM is for.
Lol, why do you assume that China is not capable of combining information from its sensors. Do you know how Chinese air defense work? How much redundancy is built into the land based air defense involving different types of surveillence and fire control radar? Why would you think 054A would have such a rough time at it? Remember, the hardware (computers) on 054A is far newer than stuff on OHP and Type 23. Nothing against those ships, that’s just how fast COTS technology has progressed.
What makes you assume that the 054A has a radar integrator? just because it is newer? Or because you wish it to have one? Show us proof. And the OHP is able to handle 2 air targets simultaneously, not one.
why would it not be? SR-64 have sufficient refresh rate (1 hz), they are using LAN on the ship, they have modern computers and modern displays. The bigger problem in these ships is to train people to fully utilize the tools.
No, Radar technology is never as simple as just comparing RPM. Sea eagle is truly a 3D radar that not only mechanically scans at azimuth but also more importantly, it electronically scans at elevation, show me which radar for the volume search role in your SYS-2 can do this? In a whopping scan round of Sea eagle will have much more profound and précised information than your 2D SPS49, no matter it’s 12 RPM than the Seaeagle’s 6 RPM. The electronically scanned narrow beam that seaeagle used for elevation will not only give much faster update on altitude and also much better resolution,the slower rotating rate of Seaeagle also let the radar has a longer average detection time in every direction thus better detection, it’s not the faster the better, Even the new E-3 does not rotate that fast. Now, talking about low fly, sea skimming targets or early warning, see which one performs better, 2D @12RPM or 3D@6rpm?
You might want to find out what a radar integrator like IADT actually does, and what bearing that has on ship-self defense capability. The constant comparisons of radar vs radar shows a lack of understanding of the contributions of a radar integrator to ship self defense. And Pinko does not seem to understand how RPM affects data-update rate, as well as how IADT dramatically increases update rate as a result of integrating plots from almost every onboard radar.
The incompetence of 2D SPS49 force they to bring in SPS55 for dedicate low altitude target tracking & detection. But Aegis never relies so many individual systems to accomplish the same role.
Prior to IADT installation and the MPU upgrade to the SPS-49, the FFGs required the SPS-55 and CAS. With both IADT and MPU, the ability to detect, form and maintain track of low flying, violently maneuvering targets in clutter has been dramatically increased.
edit: The SPY-1 of the AEGIS has a far higher data rate, hence it performs better than the Perry class. But even the Aegis combines radar data input. It combines information from the SPS-49V(7) and the SPS-67. Right back at you, Pinko. :rolleyes:
YourFathercom’on now, Golly.
this is Type 23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H…igate%2 9.jpg
This is 054
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surf…iangkai_07.asp
Stealthy looking vessels may be less stealthy than they look, with the inverse also true. The Type 23 is an example of the latter.
YourFatherI was just comparing strictly the long range radar here. So, I have no idea what you are blabbering on about. I’m not sure where you got the 5 RPM from, since the recent Sea Eagle radar are significantly upgraded from the previous version. I don’t think they are even operating on the same frequency. If you want to include radar capable of tracking, then we can factor in SR-64, which should be rotating at 60 RPM. If you want to compare the resolution/frequency of FCR, then we can compare CAS to the FCRs on 054A(probably something similar to MR-90). But then again, I was never talking about that.
Simply comparing the characteristics of the long range radar and using that as a determinant of how capable the platform is against low altitude targets betrays your ignorance. As I said, IADT combines the output from all the radars to form a composite track similar in fashion to an intra-ship CEC. What indication is there of an analogous system aboard the 054A? Combining multiple radar outputs to form a track ensures quicker track initiation and a more robust track than multiple radars operating independently.
who the heck told you that 054A can’t detect targets on time? They got 4 FCRs operating on I-Band. They got SR-64 (operating on H-Band) as the tracking radar with extremely good reliability vs mach3 sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. Just looking at Type 730 alone, it has OT-3 E/O tracker and TR-47C FCR. Again, developed to be able to track/encounter multiple supersonic sea-skimming missiles.
I only questioned if it could formulate a response faster than the IADT equipped OHP.
What kind of ability do you think SM-1 has against multiple supersonic sea-skimmers? or even 1?
according to my sources, it’s range is longer than that of HQ-2, around 50 km. What ability does SM-1 have against low skimming missiles? It wasn’t designed for that.
Check up all the FFG Vandalexs.
right, USN is going to do that work on retired OHP for PN that they are giving away. Brilliant.
And is China giving away 054As now? Or upgrading theie sonar suites for free?
YourFatherit can track low and supersonic anti-ship missiles (like Brahmos and Klub) and engage them effectively (something that can’t be said about OHP)…..it can detect targets in much finer detail and better resolution considering that it is a electronically scanned 3D radar compared to AN/SPS-49.
Sure? The OHP’s SYS-2 IADT track correlation system serves to integrate all the radars aboard the OHP. This greatly reduces track initiation time and increases the target update rate. The Sea Eagle’s scan rate of 5 RPM is woeful compared to the IADT system on the OHP which combines all inputs from the CAS (60RPM), SPS-55 (16RPM) and SPS-49 (12RPM). Even the Phalanx’s radar is theoretically able to be integrated into the system, and with the Field Change upgrade bringing it up to the TMS system as on Taiwan’s OHPs, even ESM, IFF and EO/IR data can be integrated. The IADT as a system served to cut reaction time by more than half, and the SPS-49 MPU specifically greatly enhanced small, low altitude target detection.
As the Eilat incident shows, having the best engagement capability is useless if the system cannot detect the target, or cannot detect it in time. The OHP’s IADT gives it very quick reaction capability which allows the OHP to make use of the range of the well-tested SM-1 Block VI. The bigger magazine of the OHP also gives it better combat endurance.
The OHP also has hangar space for 2 helicopters, giving it far better versatility over the 054A. In terms of littoral ASuW capability, having 2 helicopters gives the OHP better capability than the 054A. ASW is also greatly imprived, with a heli available more often, or two helis to decrease submarine prosecution time.
HH-16 has longer range, should be better reliability against low skimming anti-ship missile, faster reaction time since it’s launched through VLS.
You know the HH-16 has longer range than the SM-1 and has better reliability against low skimming missiles? How so? The SM-1 Block VI’s range is equivalent to that of the SA-N-12, and moreover, the SM-1 has been extensively tested, with it being in service in multiple navies.
More advanced sonar can be fitted in the future version depending on the customer specification.
And the OHP can be upgraded to Mk-92 mod 12, fitted with WDS Mk 14 and VL ESSM banks to give it a NTU-like capability.
YourFatherPLA already knows how to fight with what you have not what you want.
LOL. So says those who hath not. :rolleyes:
Sign In
