GoldenDragonThe FN-6 personal SAM and the KS-1A area defense system.
GoldenDragonI was just thinking that the picture of the “093’s sail and diving planes” that Huitong has on his site is not of the 093, but of the Yuan, that was misidentified early on.
Possibly. But still too early to tell. IIRC, there was a huge amount of buzz in the boards of the 093 being on sea trials when HT put the 09X photo on his site. So it could still turn out to be the SSN.
But, you’re right, the sail and diving planes do look like that on the “Yuan.”
GoldenDragonIndigenous in case by case basis or indigenous as an industry?
Case by case comparisions are inane.
In a globalized world, a country would often buy overseas for components it could make them itself because of politics, sales consideration and simple price differences. Both Airbus and Boeing have massive subcontracting deals with China on their newest models. It would be stupid to say the 7E7 or A380 could not be indigenously produced in the US or the participating EU nations if they so choose.
Now, an indigenous industry could produce aircraft for one’s own market and for export even if parts and ideas from the outside world stopped. Most industries outside those of the aviation majors (which is synonomous with the UNSC P5) don’t have this capability.
China’s is probably the weakest of the P5 aviationwise. But it’s still a fully autonomous industry that can build everything from the nut to wing to engine to radar with or without the world’s cooperation.
Countries outside the P5 simply can’t do this.
For example, in an average year, say 1997 – there was no major export deal that year like 60 F-7PGs or 80 K8Es to blow things out of proportion – China still exported 39 aircraft (Y-12, N5, etc.) I don’t think the rest of Asia combined even exported a single aircraft that year (beyond maybe a few microlights from Japan).
It’s like shipbuilding oceanliners and bulk carriers, there are only a few nations that can build these machines from end to end.
The Super 7 had US components and consultancy because it was available. The FC-1 didn’t because the US was no longer a viable option but the Chinese industry still went out and built it.
GoldenDragonEnough photos and postings to believe that it is real.
Very interesting especially since the 039A(or 039G, depending on who you read) is the midst of a major production run that saw four boats launched with at least two more coming.
There is already a report that another yard, Jiangnan, has a non-Song looking boat in the making. So this might be more than an one-shot prototype.
That is an awful lot of SSK types in the PLAN. Surprising too since the shipbuilding industry (unlike China’s aircraft building one) doesn’t have any underutilized capacity at all.
Civil orders are backlogged for years on end and they’re scrambling to open a series of giant yards in the next decade. Each yard building warships, even those of Wuhan (which specializes in SSKs but has a massive civilian component), is impacting the bottom line of the shipbuilding corps, CSIC and CSSC.
So it’s almost inconceivable they would try to mass produce two new types of SSKs under these conditions (most countries have a hard enough time building one.) In fact, the large Kilo buy in 2002 (8 Project 636 boats) is supposed to supplement capacity shortfalls.
Most likely an insurance policy against the 039’s failure. I say they’ll have to switch to either one or the other in the coming years.
GoldenDragonJ-7G fan, you’re right. None of the photos show the MK41 VLS.
According to SIPRI (1) the Netherlands is supposed to installed 2 LW-08 surveillance radars and 4 STIR FC radars on two Naresuan class. But there is no confirmation on whether those systems were ever installed – SIPRI listed the orders in parens () indicating undetermined delivery.
Interesting. Maybe there were financing problems. I find it doubtful there would be a political problem.
But I think we need a recently dated photo to be for sure.
NOTE:
(1)Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; peaceniks 🙂 But these folks track arms transfers and has a great database.
http://www.sipri.se/
GoldenDragonI think the class had kept the Chinese 37mm. Or at least, as far as I know. But the two Naresuan had been around since 1995 (I think the pictures and the rednderings are from the 1990s) so there might have been further changes.
There hasn’t been a lot news from the Thai navy recently. Well, no news except for the inactivity of their carrier. The Thai VSTOL carrier, Chakri Nareubet, turned out to be a drain on the naval service and has been basically piered except for short training cruises once or twice a year. In fact, it hasn’t done any patrolling for years. At least that was the case from what I last read of it.
GoldenDragonNice pictures!
Especially of the Superbug and the Swiss F-18!
GoldenDragon3D renderings of the Naresuan from Thales who installed the fire-control system. Nice looking artwork and a pretty ship, I must say.
Weapon systems include Mk 45 127mm gun, Harpoon SSMs and a Mk41 VLS SAM launcher (Sea Sparrow.)
It’s about 2900 tons when fully displaced and does about 32 knots. Basically a Western warship in a Chinese shell.
Thailand gets cheap Chinese stuff from time to time but its westernized armed forces like US systems. Like with Pakistan, interaction with Thailand helps the Chinese military’s drive towards western standards.
There are reports that Thailand will get another batch of Chinese tanks for the latest crop of lichee nuts (which is basically a Asian strawberry and is just as popular in China as the strawberry is in western countries) 😀
GoldenDragonDoes 052B/C look like the 052A (112 and 113)? And does 051B (167) look like the 051(A)? :rolleyes:
You can tell that the lines of the 052B/C hulls are related to the 052A, inspite of the more stealthy attributes of the latter. When the rumors of the 051C are being made then we should imagine a larger, stealthier craft along the lines of DDG 167.
There is a reason why class familiies are so named. They’re related.
It seems to me that this “new” sub is very different from the 039 with different torpedo tubes arraignment, a VERY different bow section (this one is rounded like the Kilo while the Song is squared) and a VERY different hump and shelf. The hydrodynamics of the two shapes are different. The Kilo shape being much closer to the Albacore style of most SSNs.
So the hull of the design is entirely different from the Song and is very alike to the Kilo. I find it hard to believe such a different class would have the same project number.
Even the Romeo (Type 033) and Ming (Type 035) have different class numbers even though their hulls are very much the same.
GoldenDragonOnly about two meters longer but the plane is a major redesign. The inside is undergoing major changes and modernizing to a two man crew. Really a lot of changes to a 50 year-old design (just like the C130.)
The thought is why not just design a whole new plane? I think the biggest reason why they don’t is they don’t want to waste existing lines. They want to use as many of the old parts (and people) as possible in a new plane.
It is definitely economical when you see planes which are sometimes 2 or 3 times less than equivalents (like the J-7PG; $4m for a supersonic fighter – Kobe Bryant could buy 30 of them with his latest contract with the Lakers.) The problem is you’re keeping alive old concepts and old techniques.
GoldenDragonThere is some musing in the Chinese forum with a new SSK launched recently from Wuhan (maybe this one?) called Type 54. The features attributed to it borders on the amazing if not unbelievable so I left it in the speculation thread :p
but if you’re interested …
http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?p=414355#post414355
GoldenDragonBetter put this under speculation …
as opposed to the navy forum 🙂
According to a Chinese board posting.
on May 4, 2004; the lead boat of a new SSK class was launched at the Wuhan shipyard. It is called Type 054 (the new stealth FFG is also numbered 054.)
It is an advancement of the 039 but very different.
Main features of the 054:
1) Instead of the orthrodox T (or cruciform) tail, it used an “X” form tail and rudder ensemble.
2) AIP system (up to 70 days in succession without surfacing)
3) jet pumps propulsion (!)
4) new noise reduction techniques
5) new “Purple Gold” fire control
6) it will be armed with a SAM!
Sounds like science fiction and so it is filed under speculation.
GoldenDragonThe Y8X project
Not to be confused with the Y-8X MPA project for the navy which is based on the Y8C platform, the Y8X is China’s next generation lift project.
Almost forgotten under the more widely covered FC-1, JH-7A or even FTC2000 projects, the Y8X is actually rather ambitious with the C130J as a benchmark.
From Shaanxi:
In addition to developing all-round Y8F600 aircraft, SAC performs advanced development of new-generation transport—Y8X aircraft. The main technical index of Y8X aircraft is as follows.
Total body life is 50000 flight hours/20000 flight cycles/30 calendar years.
Max. take-off weight is 77t, overloading take-off weight is 81t and max. landing weight is 77t. Normal payload is 25t, max. payload is 30t, operational empty weight is 39t.
Turbo-prop engines are of advanced performance, such as large power, low weight, low consumption, high reliability and easy maintenance. Its mating propellers, which are made of advanced composite material, are of advanced performance, such as high efficiency, low noise and low weight.
Cruise altitude is 9000m, cruise speed is 600-650km/h, max. endurance is 12h, max. range is 7800km. It can realize quick cargo loading/unloading, and can load international standard pallets as follows: nine 108″×88″ or eight 125″×96″. It can airdrop cargo at over low altitude. Total airdrop weight is 20t and max. single weight is 10t once. It also can paradrop 132 parachuters once.
Advanced avionics for 2-crew includes advanced communication, navigation, radar, integral EFIS, integrated engine instrument system, FMS, AP, GPS/inertial navigation equipment, electrical and so on
Y8X specs:
Length: 36.8 meters
Wingspan: 42.8 meters
Machine high: 11.975 meters
Cargo hold length: 19 meters
Cargo hold altitude: 2.75 meters
Cargo hold width: 3.2 meters
Cargo space: 180 cubic meters
Most greatly total weight: 81 tons
Maximum landing weight: 77 tons
The maximum load: 30 tons
The maximum load range: 2,500 kilometers
16 tons ranges: 6,680 kilometers
Biggest fuel on board: 26.5 tons
Maximum level speed: 660 kilometers/hours
Cruising speed: 570 kilometers/hours
Cruise altitude: 9,000 meters
Service ceiling: 11,500 meters
Engine power: 4X6500 shaft horse-power
GoldenDragonNo it does not. It uses an inverse monopulse seeker working on the CWI principle.
CWI is used when you depend on a directional receiver. Doppler devices are needed if you don’t want to simply ignore signals from one direction. These are the two main ways to deal with the problem of differentiating echo from source.
Continuous wave is the more simpler of the two. Both AMRAAM and Phoenix from what I read are able to emit and receive pulse doppler radiation. In fact the AMRAAM was supposed to take ADVANTAGE of the new doppler radars coming out in the late 1980s and 1990s. The AWG-9 of the F-15 is a pulse doppler.
For the Sparrow, the AIM-7F added the ability to receive pulse doppler and expanded the range all the way out to 76 miles.
Wrong. Proximity fusing is a totally seperate device from the seeker. Explain to me then how proximity fuses work in IR missiles.
No one said it was the same. But calculating the doppler shift has been been used since the first modern proximity fuses in US artillery shells in WWII The AIM-9 proximity fusing system is an IR but it uses the same principle. You can’t measure distance between objects where there is at least one moving without calculating the doppler shift.
The IR proximity fuse doesn’t stick out a ruler and measure distance to target before exploding. It tracks light bouncing back from the target, measures it (usually between two separater receivers) and figures out closing speed before exploding.
Now, the only proximity fuse that doesn’t require calculating the doppler shift is a magnetic fuse on a torpedo. It is set off by the magnetic field around the target.
Wrong argument. The only difference SARH and ARH is the use of the illuminator on board the radar.
Nope, this is the argument. The difference between having the illuminator aboard and the illuminator elsewhere on another device is very different.
Let me tell you once again that missiles don’t use doppler shift.
All missiles do. If not for guidance then for proximity fusing. Again, the more advance missiles: AMRAAM, AIM-7F and the AIM-54 also have provisions for it for guidance.
Again, I’m not arguing the CWI is not used. It is used when you attempt to guide without bothering to differentiate echo from source.
Who told you it didn’t?
Now even the West is starting to use IRSTs in their planes, like the Typhoon.
It didn’t because the radar is still king.
The early F-14 had IRSTs. It was then and it is now, a good complement to the main show, the radar. But it nothing more than a complement. The IRSTs on the Fulcrums and Flankers that people feared never because the main show. They would still need to turn on their radars.
No, IR works surprisingly well over range. It is just that frontal aspect does not emit much heat, relying entirely on heat from air friction.
Okay, say it does work well over range. It doesn’t work well from the frontal aspect, so where does it leave us? 🙂
This is alerady a moot issue solved within the first generation of IR missiles. When I mean solved, that was like over forty years ago.
Nope, it was only partially solved 20 yrears ago when the AIM-9L all aspect came about and it’s still only partially solved today. IR is much more accurate within range. It’s probably has an extremely high kill percentage within in the 2.6 miles range that the first AIM-9 operated.
But the problems of different aspect, longer range and weather related externals are not solved and is still an ongoing process. Otherwise, we would freeze the AIM-9M design.
Differentiation is never a problem with modern IR seekers. You are only echoing issues that were concerns in the past and were dealt with.
Differentiation is a problem that occurs the further you are away from the target. Back in the past it, was a problem even when you had tone (or lock.) The problem is “solved” for the range we used in the past.
Differentiating between the target over extended range is currently better with radar energy than heat. And it will probably always be so.
No. IR has its place in the tail aspect. Radar, and doppler shift, has problems against receding targets. Range dramatically drops to a fraction of head on detection ranges and I mean really drop. The development of missiles like the R-27T apparently was intended to resolve problems radar has against tail aspect attacks. IR is much more efficient in tail attacks.
Granted, the IR is a good complement.
Anyways, a device can only tell if a target is receding by calculating doppler shift 🙂
GoldenDragonNo, the seeker is programmed to know the reflections in the first place.
And no, the Sparrow in its later versions DOES NOT use a pulse doppler. It uses an inverse monopulse seeker.
Guess what, neither does the AMRAAM nor the R-77 use a pulse doppler.
Both the AMRAAM and the AIM-54 has active pulse Doppler radar homing. Doppler gives you much more information and finer, more exact guidance. (1)
Not sure about the R-77.
The Sparrow does use a seeker able to take in pulse doppler.(2)
But the argument is not whether an AAM uses guidance from a doppler radar whether on its own or from the plane’s radar. We’re talking about the method of comparision, or doppler shift. (3)
The doppler method is needed to discern whether you are approaching or going away from source/reflection. It is used in fusing as well as homing.
You can’t just “program” a reflection for the missile to follow. You need to give instructions to the missile to find out what is the proper relection by the methods the missile has available. It’s like saying I can “program” a camera to take pictures of creatures at night. But if it doesn’t have the correct sensors, it can do it.
The bottom line is a SARH missile is much more dependent on a particular system and a particular radar than the ARH. This was my original argument.
A human programmed and designed these devices. Missile seekers work like directional RWR. They only need to know the bearing not the exact range of the target. They don’t need or use pulse doppler on the seekers.
Again, if you don’t use method that tells you the doppler shift, you use a directional receiver. You simply ignore signals coming it behind you. It’s simply another way of solving the problem of discerning between echo and source (in the directional receiver, the solution is to ignore the source entirely.)
Wonders of electronics. If you look at IR seekers now, they are pretty discerning. They happen to know the RIGHT kind of heat source, and not just its intensity. Radio receivers are the same. RWRs in fighters now are pretty discerning. They can tell if the one scanning you is a hostile or not.
Wonders are created by hard problem solving and solving problems that including constantly changing factors is very hard. They don’t just “know,” they need both software and sensors to “figure” these things out 🙂
Heat can still travel an awful lot of distance before it dissipates. Ask yourself why some AshMs use heat seekers as well.
The overwhelming majority of AshMs are active radar homers. Heat dissipates fast and in all directions.
No. IRSTs can go 50km to 100km. The one on the Su-30MKK can go as far as 100km. It was said that a Python 3’s seeker is still able to acquire a heat target as far as a 100km away, perhaps from a tail aspect.
We’ve heard about long ranged IRSTs for years. In the early 90s, a lot of people thought the Russians had lapped everyone else with their IRSTs on the MiG-29 and Su-27. A totally passive, undetectable aquisition unit rivaling radar, able to send long range IR missiles against unsuspecting western aircraft.
It never turned out that way.
At short range, IR works extremely well. But simply can’t match radar over distance. Otherwise, we would put huge IR aquisition units in heat-proof glass nose noses on our fighters and our BVR AAMs would be passive IR homers.
That said, an IRST is a great thing to have. Any passive system that allows you to acquire without giving yourself away is great.
No matter what. the heat source of an engine are EXPONENTIALLY greater in radiant energy than radio reflections.
But the sun and other things also give out a large amount of radiant energy. Surfaces heated by the sun do too.
The key to IR is the differential between a particular heat signature and its surroundings while the same time hoping that heat reflective and concealing things like clouds don’t get in the way.
So distance causes several major problems for IR. 1) heat attenuates (weakens as it radiates from center,) 2) chances of an interference of cloud becomes much greater and 3) heat radiating from far away becomes less intense than heat signatures radiating nearby. Or worse, you could have a near object radiating the same intensity and confusing the IR seeker.
You can’t focus a guidance beam for IR like you would for ARH so it could stay focus. Of course, we have IR imaging for the new IR missiles so they would remember what they are going after.
But currently, IR can’t match radar. Not currently and not in the diameter needed to place a seeker or aquisition unit. There is a reason why BVRAAM and planes use radar as their primary means of aquiring targets, not infrared.
Notes:
(1)http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/aa.html
“The AMRAAM /Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile/ was designed to replace the disappointing AIM-7 Sparrow. It is guided by an active pulse-doppler radar and propelled by a high-speed, reduced smoke rocket.”
(2) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-7.htm
“Raytheon semiactive on either continuous wave or pulsed Doppler radar energy”
(3)http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-7.htm
This is an example of using the doppler shift.
“Missile-to-target closing speed is derived by a comparison of the signals (doppler shift) received by the front antenna and the rear reference antenna.”
Sign In
