crobatoWrong. CLC-2 is a PAR. SLC-2 is not the same as CLC-2. SLC-2 tracks artillery projectiles and incoming missiles at the lowest altitude possible to determine where their launching source is. CLC-2 is a low altitude search radar. CLC-2 is a PAR, SLC-2 is an active array. Check with NRIET brochures.
I mean CLC-3 is PAR. CLC-2 is a parabolic. I hate the way these designations can be confusing.
CLC-2
http://www.nriet.com/product/en/clc-2.htm
CLC-3
http://www.nriet.com/product/en/clc-3.htm
crobatoAnd comparing MESAR with the Fregat-MA is comparing apples to oranges. It’s like comparing a SPS-52 to a SPY-1A.
Fregat-MA is normal, mechnically steered 3D search radar using frescan with a planar array element, not even close to a PPAR like SPY-1A.
No. Fregat is not mechanically steered. It is a phase array.
crobatoUse another alternative to GaAs MMIC, such as Si based MMICs.
How you expect to generate 8 to 14 gigahertz with Si?
crobatoOh, CLC-2 is not a PPAR. It is a multi mode S-band PD radar, but definately not a passive phased array. That is stretching it.
Wrong. CLC-2 is a PAR. SLC-2 is not the same as CLC-2. SLC-2 tracks artillery projectiles and incoming missiles at the lowest altitude possible to determine where their launching source is. CLC-2 is a low altitude search radar. CLC-2 is a PAR, SLC-2 is an active array. Check with NRIET brochures.
crobatoCrobs, wasn’t is as high as 30,000 USD per T/R module? I believe there was an article posted about it. They were struggling to bring down the cost of it.
30,000 is too much. That will be like 30 million alone for a 1000 element array. There is also about the size of each module of course.
crobatoYeah, but only 48 missiles? And I guess that means no reloads either. That’s not a very potent anti-air platform, but it’s a step.
Makes me wonder if this ship has the wrong designation- that the 052C is reserved for a bigger class?
There is still reserved space on the ship for another system. I believe that would be for a smaller VLS system, perhaps based on the HHQ-7 or even a naval SD-10.
Clearly the ships, like all the other PLAN ships, are not intended to stay in deep water too long, and is meant to return back to base to reload.
crobatoPassive? Active? Who knows, but I too think they are probably passive, possibly equivalent to first generation SPY-1A/B arrays. The similarities, at least superficially, are apparent. The recent photos have been a windfall for the missile arrangement, and regardless of the array’s, this class is a major step forward for a PLAN that has been lacking a serious AAW capability for some time.
With large active-seeker guided missiles, even with only 48 of them, clearly this Destroyer is designed to operate as the primary anti-air sheild for a task force. And one would assume beyond the range of land-based air cover, or well outside Chinese territorial waters. The PLAN is going places, and they need to be equipped to handle that mission, they still have some way to go, but this ship will help.
The reason why I think it’s passive is because I believe the arrays are likely based on the HT-233/H-200 arrays used to support the HQ-9 and KS-1A SAMs. These arrays are more of a mutant of PAC/MPQ-53 technology than AEGIS. Still, the performance figures for these arrays sound impressive in paper—490km search (H-200 for HQ-9)/190km search (HT-233 for KS-1A), 100 targets tracked, 50 targets engaged (HQ-9). If such performance figures are true, at least in Chinese oerception, I don’t see any need to replace these technologies. The speed which the destroyer is developed suggests a modification of existing (land based) systems rather than the creation of brand new ones.
Also the active modules are costing the Chinese 3000 to 4000 dollars a pop. I think that’s a bit gold plated for their tastes. The only active array in Chinese service now is the SLC-2, which is a ground based radar used to search and track incoming missiles and artillery shells, which is then used to direct artillery and MLRS against the source of such incoming fire. But that’s the PLA Army stuff which usually has a bigger budget than the Navy’s.
crobatoThis is all assuming that everything has to be done in the exactly way the Burke & Congo are set up.
China could be using vacumn tube technology. How do you know it’s not active but passive?
Why would you assume there isnt very specific technical reasons why SPY-1 ships are the way they are???.
SPY-1 is a PPAR. SPY-1 has SIGNIFICANT power requirements and require very significant installations to support each array. This forces a superstructure mounting and not the optimal masthead mounting that a real active array like APAR/MESAR can take.
Very simply put the air defence threat facing these warships is exactly the same as that which has driven warship design in other navies. The need to counter saturation subskimmers and the occaisional supersonic inbound. To do this most of the rest of us have arrived at the idea that sticking a lighter array, when technology allows it, on the masthead pushes back the radar horizon and allows your MFR to develop a track as early as possible in the engagement cycle – this allowing for a greater engagement window as a natural byproduct.
Now, unless the miracles of Chinese technology has allowed them to repeal several fairly solid laws of physics, the arrays on the new PLAN DDG are too low to be able to replicate the radar-horizon trick a masthead can do. The point becomes therefore IF these arrays ARE APAR’s the Chinese are spectacularly stupid for siting them where they have on the ship. Your call!?
We’ll call it a PAR for now
Fair enough – call it what you will! 😀 .Its still a passive scanned array!.
You’re talking of weight here. APAR and PPAR do not have a weight advantage from one or the other. Many of the arrays fitted on top of masts are PPARs including Top Plate, as well as the air search radar on the 167 Luhai. The Chinese have low altitude air search PPARs used on the ground which they put on top of long masts. An example is the CLC-2.
The thing here is the SIZE of the arrays, regardless whether its APAR or PPAR. The bigger, the farther it can search. Not only is your radar receptivity higher with more reception surface area, but you need search beams that can go just as far. Hence the power requirements.
Not only is a bigger array naturally heavier, it’s more subjected to the buffeting of the wind. This also requires a lot of mast strengthening. Putting them on the mast does not help with coverage unless they’re on a movable servo. Even then, you cannot cover all directions at once and scanning in all directions puts you in the mercy of how fast the servos can turn the array around (read slowly).
If you’re talking about real long distance search (400-500km) at least, you’re going to need big and bigger antennas. APAR/MESAR is designed for what, Aster missiles, and with that you’re talking of about 70-80km range at most. SPY-1/SN-2 is looking to engage targets about 150-160km.
The thing is, putting the array on a mast helps you deal better with low flying targets such as the radar on the Kidds (forgot its name) as you can snoop down the horizon better. But against numerous inbound high flying targets, you’re going to need bigger antennas that cover all zones simultaneously.
Personally I think the arrays are passive, but not for the reasons you stated.
crobatoI honestly can’t find any thing that appears to serve as illuminators on this ship. The SAMs are active radar guided perhaps.
crobatoOMG, stealth LACM.
crobatoArthur:
T10M-3 the 3rd of the 12 has been listed as ‘the first series produced Su-35’. Fomin distinguishes ‘series’ from ‘prototypes’ like the T10M-1/2(Bort 701/702) which were designated as modified Su-27M. The Su-35 designation started with the 703. So I still dont get your reference to constuction # (source??) and how NON-sequential a/c can hae sequential construction #.Crobato:
I thought your discussion was about the expense of adding canards to the robust Su-27/30 airframe and how adding the TVC with better avionics would do the trick. Now you state that its a feeling better suited for a totally different airframe? Well thats not exactly what you had inititally implied. On a radically different airframe with engines like the F119 EACH putting out 35,000 lb of thrust it does make for a fuzzy feeling but that does not translate well to 25,000 lb engine on a circa 86 airframe.
No. Weight and aerodynamics isn’t a factor and has nothing to do with it. You can make a barndoor agile with TVC. It is NOT necessary to have canards with TVC.
crobatoOne thing we have completely no information is concerning any sub-launched CM. It would be a natural evolution and probably the most dangerous.
It could already be in reach using a land based missile based on the YJ-83 type. The Yuan if it has torpedo tubes the size of a Kilo would allow an even larger missile of the size of the 3M14E in the other thread—if the 3M14E itself is not chosen.
crobatoI am glad that its only your ‘feeling’ coz I dont think many others would share the same feeling of having TVC but no triplane (canards).
I’m sure many others would share my feeling, like the engineers at Lockheed Martin designing the F-22.
crobatoTo be frank, my knowledge of naval weaponry is rather poor. The point was that Brahmos/Yakhont/Sunburn have been called “Aegis-killers” due to their high speed, manuvering in terminal phase etc.
China’s C-80x class is subsonic, a strange thing, considering that famous Taiwan election and American carrier issue.
No it’s not. The size and weight of supersonic AshMs means you’re going to fire fewer of them.
It becomes a supersonic vs. saturation issue. What is better, 8 Moskits (ala Sovremanny) or 16 YJ-83s (ala 052B)? Which do you think would have a better change of penetration?
The Russians like to go big and fast, but the US thinks the other way around, and so do most Western nations. The only nation other than China, India, and Russia developing supersonic AshMs is Taiwan with the HF-3.
China does appear loggerheads in this issue and appears undecided. They have supersonic AshMs like Moskit and Kh-31A, and the new AshM in the 052C might be supersonic based on its size. They will have supersonic on terminal missiles like the Clubs on their Kilos.
At the same time they still ordered the Kh-59MK from the Russians, which is not supersonic, and the YJ-83 now appears to be their standard issue.
Personally I like the saturation approach better.
crobatoNationalistic???
IMHO, the management of CMF is in it more for the bragging
rights of it (to be deemed as the first to be credited with listing of new
Chinese pics and infos) rather than they are nationalistic.But, there indeed are members over there (victims of the CMF
establishment I call them, because they are unfairly being picked upon
and attacked constantly simply because they dare to speak their mind) who does
deserve the credit of making CMF the interesting site that it is.The management of CMF must do something about the likes of
clowns who calls themselves Clones and sore losers that acts like groundhogs
(at least issue warnings rather than appeasements 😀 ) if it wants to regain the respect
and prominence it once commanded and which are well deserving.Otherwise, CMF will always have this huge question mark hanging over it.
:p
When posters call people from a certain nation “dwarves” (a nearly two thousand year old derigatory term towards that neighboring country—and you know what I mean) and the moderators of that forum let it fly and stick, yeah, I can call that forum nuts.
Sign In
