PinkoAs the Aegis can be qued from offboard sensors it’s detection range is almost irrelevant however it has been used to track ICBMs in addition to the shorter range ballistic missiles. The missile is the limiter, not the radar as is apparent by the fact that the SM-3 Block IIs will have MUCH more range while using the same radars. The SM-3 does not need to “climb to a preset height”. Not sure where you got that idea. It DOES have to be high enough that the atmosphere is not a factor but that’s about it. Also not sure what “point” you’re trying to make re: how long does it take an SM-3 to flyout vs how much distance does the “hyper speed ASBM” :rolleyes: travel. It’s irrelevant pretty much because they don’t wait for the incoming missile to be IN the envelope to fire the SM-3. That would be idiocy. As for THAAD it’s designed to have enough range for a shoot-look-shoot scenario. In other words if the first shot misses the target they still have enough time to shoot another THAAD at it to take it out.
Can you elaborate what offboard sensors can cue the SM-3 other than the Aegis radar itself? Or you want to suggest here USN can fire the SM-3 into the thin air like festival fireworks when the crew receiving any non-real time ASBM briefing from offboard sensors?
For the rest of it, do you really have any quantitative idea on how high should the SM-3 climb before dive? 5kms? 10 kms? 30 kms? Or many kms more? Only you can have some basic data correct, then you can have a précised picture.
PinkoIf don’t believe a hyper speed TBM can’t hit a relatively stationary & big A/C carrier, then how come people so easily buy the scenario that another intercepting missile can hit a much smaller yet much much faster target like TBM?
Could anyone review how the SM-3 works in its incepting profile before so easily being lured by its marketer’s words? Is the SM-3 launched all the way directly head on the incoming hyper speed TBM or it actually climbs 1st to almost outside the atmosphere before diving down to do real interception? What’s detection range for an Aegis to 1st capture an incoming ASBM? What’s reaction time for an SM-3 to do an interception? How long it takes for the SM-3 climbing to the preset height? How long it takes for the diving SM-3 capture the also diving ASBM? For the same period from the Aegis 1st detection of the ASBM to the time SM-3 launched, climbed and dived, how far the hyper speed ASBM has already traveled, is it time enough? Does the THAAD tests cover all these scenarios?
PinkoExcept South China Sea, water around Chinese coast is deemed to be too shallow for SSN operation. For sea trial, it’s too hard to believe 093 SSN never went to the water where the 1st island chain lies. The nature of sea trial is to test the Nuclear submarine’s operational readiness in all kinds of area it deemed to operate in. If any Chinese submarine reaches that sensitive area, the Japanese/Taiwanese/or US will try their best to locate it. Any such detection especially the joint one, may well be broadcast to fuel the sentiment of “China threat”. Like the 039 SSK surfaced near the US A/C carrier, although it’s in international water, it still became the headline news. Of course, 093 SSN may be detected by accompanied US SSNs, but for the equal secrecy of the USN’s SSN operation, the 093 SSN seldom catch the notice. I mean, if it’s been detected by air borne or surface platforms in a area like east Taiwan or near Okinawa, it surely will catch the media attention.
PinkoUS Navy seldom reveals its SSN operations either, so equally unlike the 110db claim is from USN, and one SSN in operation state is hard to measure another SSN’s accurate noise level. But we do know, if Western Navies does detect a Chinese Submarine, usually, it will catch the headline, for example, when a PLAN 091 SSN being detected near the Japanese controlled isles in 2004, it did stir the western media for quite a while.
PinkoI would suggest we should put a suspicious view on the so called 110 db noise level of PLAN’s type 093. I doubt PLAN will ever reveal such data to outside world in the 1st place. Only recently we see the declassified images of the 093 SSN built many years ago. How come you are able to know the numbers of such a highly classified Nuclear Submarine? One thing we may notice is the 093 SSN, doesn’t like its precedent the 091 SSN, has so far not been caught any attention from western snifters, despite there are the world most intensified Sonar network in the seas surrounding China for the same many years. In 2001, a US EP-3 was sent to Hainan to recon the sea trail of 093 SSN, which later crashed with the PLANAF’s J-8. No news from west is good news, at least we don’t hear the old sayings like that the 091 SSN can be heard in Hawaii when it sailed in Hainan.
PinkoLoL, actually we see so many J11B under production in Hydropod’s images. Notably, the main focus is the black nose, J11BS 2 seat prototype. Those images confirm that SAC is producing B version of J11 heavy fighter in the full steam, after finishing that 105 kits provided by Sukhoi.
PinkoThat’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.
I think “never say no to customer” is every vendor’s basic skill, so what I value more is to see the final outcome, PAF is buying hundreds SD-10 alongside American made AIM-120C5 does clarify something, apparently, the foreign language particularly refer to American one, if it’s weapon then it’s American weapon, if it’s Mil standards, then it’s American Mil standards, How come a prototype stage aircraft even uncertain about what radar being selected, is able to talk about “ integrating American weapons” well?
Pinko1553B 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.
Pinko…
It probably means export possibilities, as with compatibility with foreign avionics and missiles through open standard architectures or buses.
IMO, “Sings in foreign language so well” means the 08 version modified J-10 will not only follow Chinese own GB military standards but also most likely the western particularly American MIL-standards ( As pointed by Hydropod, 美means America), which means the 08 Stealthier version J-10 could well be the 1st ( or 2nd after J-11B ?) to adopt western Mil-standards for design and development)
PinkoThanx a million for the translation……errr………..no wait……….its decryption 😀 😀
So J-10C prototype with AL-31FN-M1 (or was it AL-41##?) with 3D TVC and many more goodies will fly in 2008+? So when are going to get those leaks? 😀 😀
I think Hydropod didn’t interpret the meaning of 现在要飞 very correctly, it’s NOT “I want to fly”in English, but should be “fly now!” ,guess what? A new model of J-10 has already test flied very recently! Probably this model of J-10 is with Ws-10A, possible DSI? CFM tank? Most likely a multirole variant of J-10.We may call it 07 version J-10.
I think there’s also another upgraded version of J-10 which will test flight in late this year or coming 2008, most likely the 08 version upgraded J-10 will fly with the Salyut AL-31FN-M2, the AL-31-M2 design differences from the first engine of the upgrade stage consist of a new future combustion chamber, upgraded high pressure turbine ((TBD)) and low pressure turbine ((TND)) with spatially contoured blades. The Al31FN-M2 has a max thrust of 14.2 tons compared to Chinese own WS-10A of around 13 tons. The 08 version will be stealthier as well. Most likely with TVC? So basically there’s talking on 2 different prototypes of modified J-10 in the same post.
AL41 or now called 117 series engine is from another Russian firm NPO Saturn which is Salyut’s competitor, the NPO Saturn’s boss used to be very ambitious after he and his pro-western fraction swallowed & privatized NPO Saturn, he also wanted to take over the Salyut as well, but he was said apparently ignored one factor, the Chinese, it was said financial facilities from east prevent the Saylut from falling into Saturn boss’s hand. And now the Shenyang Limin engine plant will assemble Salyut’s 99M series engine after they signed agreement in Zhuhai Airshow last year.
PinkoPinko, tphuang etc…. small piece of advice. The others literally have the higher ground here. WARNING: I am gonna play devil’s advocate for a moment: :dev2:
..-.
Literally, there’s only one saying 054A even doesn’t have a sensor fusion( which is called radar integrating in his term), and some diagram is good enough to refute that.
PinkoIf this is the proof of sensor fusion, then almost all warships have sensor fusion.
There are many different types of sensor fusion – measurement/plot level fusion (SYS-2/TMS on various American, Canadian, German and Taiwanese ships and Australian CEA-MAST on Aussie FFG-7s), track level fusion (Outfit LFD Radar Track Combiner on UK Type 42 DDGs) and a combination of both (Franco-Italian Horizon).
In measurement/plot level fusion, radars send plot data to a central fusion system which forms composite tracks. This requires radars not to do local tracking.
In track level fusion, radars do local tracking and then just pass tracks to a central location for track-to-track correlation.
Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.
Below is from “Multi sensor tracking function on modern anti-air-warfare (AAW) frigates”
Fiorini, M.; Filoni, G.
Target Tracking 2004: Algorithms and Applications, IEE
Volume , Issue , 23-24 March 2004 Page(s): 39 – 50“In the frame of Horizon frigate each sensor provides target data as source track (ST). These data are composed by track data, estimated position and speed provided by the internal tracker of the sensor, and plot data, the real measures of the radar used to produce the estimates. Having both track and plot data the CMS has been designed as a mixed system, able to use tracks and/or plots according to the real need.”
Cheers,
Sunho
At least the rest of us recognize there’s data fusion capability existing in 054A CDS. But such data fusion ( as unilaterally called Radar integrating by Yourfather) is integrated at measurement level or at track level or both is still unclear.
Pinkothe target illuminators can then independantly illuminate the priority targets, with 3D designation capability for the trackers incorporated in phase III of the Mk92 upgrades.
So now we see it again, you still exactly require your CAS to do low angel horizon search of sea skimming AshM & high angel 3D volume search of any possible high flyer like Zenith approaching ARM, all at the same time. Your almighty CAS being required by u to perform both what the Sea eagle 3D radar plus SR64 tracking radar do together. Your CAS has a poor update rate on elevation 4-5 seconds vs Sea eagle’s 2.5Seconds. and everything is addressed in previously posts, no need to repeat here yet agian
The FCU-17 diagram only shows infromation console, fire control console and interface console, no ‘integrator console’. Neither does it show connection to any Sea Eagle radar. :rolleyes: Are you hallucinating as well? I think you are just incapable of rational debate based on facts, sorry, but you belong to the ignore list. 😀
Shown in that FCU-17 diagram, In between the Fire control system and main databus, there’s a white instructor console with computing power & memory which integrates data from different sensor in a common output to weapon system.
PinkoThen they are of equal priority, and illumination of them in any order is not important..
Lucky you are not in the Navy and good at talking only, show me which Navy has the doctrine enlightening you that Zenith attacking ARM is in the same priority of sea skimming AshM? Both missiles could be hundreds meters apart in altitude yet your poorly informed radar system still thinking there’s only 1 missile as your signal return on your 2D radar is still 1 , then soon your horizon search radar will find the KH-31A at low angel approaching and therefore confirm your VSR’s initial judgment is correct. The totally silent ARM therefore comes from your Zenith totally unnoted, destroying your VSR which sits high and you can assure what a massacre about to follow next.
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
I suggest you read more on shipborne IR surveillance system 1st before simply prompting up any more .such systems are common nowadays and on board the latest European and American warships. Refer to the FCR-17 diagram I posted, and open your eyes and tell us all: does the Main Gun & CIWS are plugged into the FDDI LAN directly or connected only indirectly to the main bus via the integrator console? All the IR17 optical device, Sea eagle 3D Radar and SR64 Tracking Radar are only accessible to the weapon system through this console as well. The console integrates data obtained from sea eagle radar @ 24 updates/min, SR64 @ 60 updates/min as well as data from IR 17 which can track 30 targets simultaneously, you like or not.
PinkoWhat? Trying to put up another strawman again? What has ARMs got to do with anything here? ARMs can be detected by radar. What makes you think velocity determination is not possible for ARMs?!
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?
:rolleyes: Are they not teaching you to read in primary school? Did I not post this – “The radar integration capability was upgraded with a data-fusion system provided by CAE.“? Radars connected to display consoles do not mean that radar output integration is performed. Showing a picture of the Chinese CDS does not prove in any way that a radar integration function is available.
Do you even understand the difference between radar output integration and integration of radars into a CDS? I had my suspicions, but it is now evident that don’t even understand this. Sorry, you’re just not on the same platform. At least tphuang seems to understand even that much.
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.
Sign In
