Pinko
Yes…its called the radar horizon.
CEAFAR/AUSPAR and APAR both are search sets with very high datarate horizon search modes. The Aussie mount so much so that it has a physically separate X-band FC installation.
Topweight. Why do you think the T45 has the beam it does?. You cant put high weight loads on top of an 150ft masthead on a ship. As for money do you know what we spent on MESAR/Sampson?. Putting in 4 fixed panels cost wise would have been a drop in the ocean compared to the development costs of the system. BAE also determined that they were unhappy with the 4 fixed panel array as it presented the opportunity for an attacker to concentrate a streaming attack on one bearing and saturate one panel. .
Cost is officially quoted by BAE as one of the reason and the weight issue is also rebuffed considering the rotating mechanism also adding pounds.
“BAE Systems says that employing two rotating active arrays, as opposed to four fixed arrays, is “better” because of the high cost involved in procuring the arrays and the problems associated of mounting the relatively heavy arrays as high as possible on the ship, to make maximum use of the available type of ship-defense missile. “
However, it should be pointed out BAE Systems has in practice primarily adopted a rotating array as a compromise solution driven by cost, and that the weight argument in favour is offset by the added structural weight of rotation-proof housing and, of course, drive motors. If phased arrays had zero cost, a multi-face fixed set-up would surely have been preferred be preferred as the advantages of a fixed set-up are so significant. The comment about saturation attacks against fixed arrays have more to do with the missiles that are guided than with the radar being fixed or not.”
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm
The only system that combines phased array technology with a need for a separate horizon-search set is the US SPY-1. This is because, as the US has admitted, SPY-1 wasnt optimised for low angle work…it was designed to manage large numbers of high altitude tracks. The SPQ-9B is installed in US ships not because its the better setup, but, to cover deficiencies in the primary radar!.
On the contrary, it’s quite popular for top notch navies, DDG1000 is another example– featuring the S-band VSR fixed array similar to the 052C’s AESA for volume search, while the separated X-band SPY-3, another fixed multi-faced AESA for horizon search. I wouldn’t be surprised that on top of the fixed S-band AESA, next PLAN DDG design will feature separated X or C-band AESA on top of the mast, at least in the rotating form, if not the SPY-3 fixed type, to provide horizon search while FC for ESSM/ HQ-16 type of AAM for close defense.
Do you want to have another look at the DDG1000?. Its radars are sited above the bridge and the uppermost panel is quite a distance up…its just that the design has filled in the superstructure between where the masts would be. Compare the radar layout between 052D, Burke/Tico and DDG1000 and you’ll see what I mean.
LOL, is the uppermost panel belongs to X-band SPY-3 , not the S-band VSR I asked you in my last post, don’t smoke around.
Anyway, if you’ll note, I’m asking if there is any confirmed proof that the set on the Chinese ships is an active array. I’m not being critical of the Chinese ship even if it IS a passive phased array as that would have some clear advantages given their strategic and tactical challenges. I’m saying that the installation looks odd for an AESA so is there confirmation anywhere that it actually is one
If it was asked 10 years ago, probably makes sense, but 10 years on, it’s declassified, most official chinese media confirm it’s active phased arrary, and major western media, probably reporting second hand by translating the official Chinese source, also commonly agree it’s AESA. Such information can be found in major DoD reports or Jane’s etc, do google it.
Sign In
