Re: DDG 052C Thread
Is it possible to have a combination system, or would that have too much interference?
Is it possible to have a combination system, or would that have too much interference?
052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Re: DDG 052C Thread
The PLAN ships have a double approach. Notice they have the SR64 and/or Fregat/Sea Eagle on top of the mast or both masts. These radars have even better radar horizon look down capability to detect and track sea skimmers than any superstructure mounted radar. And better yet, since many ships have both of them, which really becomes advantageous if the results from both radars are integrated. Which still makes the articles wrong about the detection capability. In fact, they may even have better look down range on the radar horizon.
The European approach of putting the radars on top of the mast has its big points, but it does limit the range of the radars since these radars are going to be limited in size and weight to fit on top of the mast. You're going to have structural issues later on. In any case, the European ships have another radar in the second mast.
Putting large radars on the superstructure have their own issues. It makes the ship top heavy, and requires deeper drought to counter. That limits the ports you can use. Japan has enough deep sea ports, but China still has issues on that. There is not enough in China, and it can be a factor why many of the deeper drought ships like the 051B/C, the 052/B/C are all in the NSF and SSF where the ports are deeper but not in the ESF, where the deep pier space is limited. The ESF faces a very complex and extensive littoral environment and I suspect is the reason why the Sovs are used in that area.
What's really being limited on the height of the 052C's phase arrays is the guidance of the missiles, plus target tracking and illumination. But we don't know to what extent, since the SPYs themselves don't illuminate, they use separate FCRs to do this. The 052C does not have separate FCR.
But we know the real issues with the 052C lies in the less than optimal rounded launchers, and we should expect the 052D will go with the squared configuration. Another issue has nothing to do with field of view, but the arrays having an issue of not being able to generate very long frequency, hence this is the only PLAN ship of recent vintage forced to use the Yagi.
The PLAN ships have a double approach. Notice they have the SR64 and/or Fregat/Sea Eagle on top of the mast or both masts. These radars have even better radar horizon look down capability to detect and track sea skimmers than any superstructure mounted radar. And better yet, since many ships have both of them, which really becomes advantageous if the results from both radars are integrated. Which still makes the articles wrong about the detection capability. In fact, they may even have better look down range on the radar horizon.
The European approach of putting the radars on top of the mast has its big points, but it does limit the range of the radars since these radars are going to be limited in size and weight to fit on top of the mast. You're going to have structural issues later on. In any case, the European ships have another radar in the second mast.
Putting large radars on the superstructure have their own issues. It makes the ship top heavy, and requires deeper drought to counter. That limits the ports you can use. Japan has enough deep sea ports, but China still has issues on that. There is not enough in China, and it can be a factor why many of the deeper drought ships like the 051B/C, the 052/B/C are all in the NSF and SSF where the ports are deeper but not in the ESF, where the deep pier space is limited. The ESF faces a very complex and extensive littoral environment and I suspect is the reason why the Sovs are used in that area.
What's really being limited on the height of the 052C's phase arrays is the guidance of the missiles, plus target tracking and illumination. But we don't know to what extent, since the SPYs themselves don't illuminate, they use separate FCRs to do this. The 052C does not have separate FCR.
But we know the real issues with the 052C lies in the less than optimal rounded launchers, and we should expect the 052D will go with the squared configuration. Another issue has nothing to do with field of view, but the arrays having an issue of not being able to generate very long frequency, hence this is the only PLAN ship of recent vintage forced to use the Yagi.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
It's also interesting to note that the US solution to mounting the radar sensors higher, is to simply reduce the size:
SPY-1F:
SPY-1K:
Main:
So, another factor to consider here is the size vs. height in efficiency, except for smaller ships where you don't have much of a choice.
Interesting historical note -- ROC navy had at one point considered building their own Aegis ships. From the artist conception drawings, you can see how high they wanted to mount the AN-SPY-F sensor arrays:
Perhaps there's a possibility that the PLAN may developer smaller versions of their phased-array sensors, and mount them on top of future ships?
It's also interesting to note that the US solution to mounting the radar sensors higher, is to simply reduce the size:
SPY-1F:
SPY-1K:
Main:
So, another factor to consider here is the size vs. height in efficiency, except for smaller ships where you don't have much of a choice.
Interesting historical note -- ROC navy had at one point considered building their own Aegis ships. From the artist conception drawings, you can see how high they wanted to mount the AN-SPY-F sensor arrays:
Perhaps there's a possibility that the PLAN may developer smaller versions of their phased-array sensors, and mount them on top of future ships?
Re: DDG 052C Thread
The -F means SPY for Frigate, and -K means SPY for Corvette, although the spelling is not directly correct.
I think we have discussed this many times before in the past, and if you note I have mentioned it quite a number of times myself. It also has been drawn up as fan art in a number of forums, this one included. I seem to be inclined that if this happens, the ship may sport a 054x number instead rather than a 052x.
The -F means SPY for Frigate, and -K means SPY for Corvette, although the spelling is not directly correct.
I think we have discussed this many times before in the past, and if you note I have mentioned it quite a number of times myself. It also has been drawn up as fan art in a number of forums, this one included. I seem to be inclined that if this happens, the ship may sport a 054x number instead rather than a 052x.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Either the missiles are fully active and autonomous radar homing, or the illumination is being done by the PARs themselves. If the latter, the guidance is likely to be Track via Missile or Command Guided. This way the missile acts more like an S-300 or PAC rather than the Standard, which is SARH, or semi-active radar guidance.
I find the TVM+PAR illumination method to be rather serious work, especially since it's never done on a four faced 360 degree system like this. If a missile is being controlled by one face, then moves to the FOV of the next face, how is the pass over done? More than sensor fusion, this is fire control fusion, the ability to merge four arrays to act like a single, multitasking, fire control system. Both the PAC and S-300 ground radars never had to face this issue, and the RIF-M is single faced only, all on a rotating table. Illuminators like the Orekhs for example, are fully mechanically movable, so each of them have a greater FOV coverage individually. Each of these PARs are fixed and only have a 90 degree coverage. Another problem to this system is that the arrays need to time slice between search, tracking and illumination modes. That's some serious multitasking, but if you notice naval radar systems usually prefer to be designed specially for exclusive single tasking for specific purposes.
So either you accept that the PARs represent some brilliant feat of engineering or the simpler and most common sense scenario is that the missile heads are fully radar active.
Addendum.
Ships usually have some surface search radar perched on top of the highest mast. In the Arleigh Burkes and its close relations there is a small surface search radar called the SPS-67, and in addition to ship search, it should have secondary aerial detection capabilities as well. This radar, and the equivalent SPS-55 for the Ticos, should be able to spot sea skimmers way better down the horizon than the SPY-1s can, because they are placed on a much higher mast, higher than most other warships in fact. The only thing about them is that they're rather small, so that limits their power and range, particularly if the target might be stealthy.
So the location height of the SPY-1Ds may be more critical than on the 52C's, as the 52C can still rely on the SR64 on top of the mast. But the Fregat/Sea Eagle with SR64 seems to work very well for the PLAN, especially seems the Fregat is both an air to sea search radar that is definitely a lot more powerful with much greater range compared to most mast located ship search radars. The SR64 is a great compliment to the Fregat/Sea Eagle because it has the much higher spin and data transfer rate (1 rps vs. 12 rpm). In fact I suspect that this combination may even work in favorable comparison over the 52C PAR/SR64 combination.
Especially of note is the often criticized 051C layout. The Fregat in that ship happens to be the flagship of the series, the phase array MA-710. When it comes to searching and detecting, these ships should have no problem in range and in big spades. What's more the problem is the fire control coverage and horizon look down from that single turntable PAR.
Which finally brings you to the 054A, as the third and final experiment for an AD configuration. This probably works out very well in my opinion. The Fregat clone with the SR64 on top for search and track, with separate illuminators doing the fire control. Its a fairly straightforward and simple system.
Either the missiles are fully active and autonomous radar homing, or the illumination is being done by the PARs themselves. If the latter, the guidance is likely to be Track via Missile or Command Guided. This way the missile acts more like an S-300 or PAC rather than the Standard, which is SARH, or semi-active radar guidance.
I find the TVM+PAR illumination method to be rather serious work, especially since it's never done on a four faced 360 degree system like this. If a missile is being controlled by one face, then moves to the FOV of the next face, how is the pass over done? More than sensor fusion, this is fire control fusion, the ability to merge four arrays to act like a single, multitasking, fire control system. Both the PAC and S-300 ground radars never had to face this issue, and the RIF-M is single faced only, all on a rotating table. Illuminators like the Orekhs for example, are fully mechanically movable, so each of them have a greater FOV coverage individually. Each of these PARs are fixed and only have a 90 degree coverage. Another problem to this system is that the arrays need to time slice between search, tracking and illumination modes. That's some serious multitasking, but if you notice naval radar systems usually prefer to be designed specially for exclusive single tasking for specific purposes.
So either you accept that the PARs represent some brilliant feat of engineering or the simpler and most common sense scenario is that the missile heads are fully radar active.
Addendum.
Ships usually have some surface search radar perched on top of the highest mast. In the Arleigh Burkes and its close relations there is a small surface search radar called the SPS-67, and in addition to ship search, it should have secondary aerial detection capabilities as well. This radar, and the equivalent SPS-55 for the Ticos, should be able to spot sea skimmers way better down the horizon than the SPY-1s can, because they are placed on a much higher mast, higher than most other warships in fact. The only thing about them is that they're rather small, so that limits their power and range, particularly if the target might be stealthy.
So the location height of the SPY-1Ds may be more critical than on the 52C's, as the 52C can still rely on the SR64 on top of the mast. But the Fregat/Sea Eagle with SR64 seems to work very well for the PLAN, especially seems the Fregat is both an air to sea search radar that is definitely a lot more powerful with much greater range compared to most mast located ship search radars. The SR64 is a great compliment to the Fregat/Sea Eagle because it has the much higher spin and data transfer rate (1 rps vs. 12 rpm). In fact I suspect that this combination may even work in favorable comparison over the 52C PAR/SR64 combination.
Especially of note is the often criticized 051C layout. The Fregat in that ship happens to be the flagship of the series, the phase array MA-710. When it comes to searching and detecting, these ships should have no problem in range and in big spades. What's more the problem is the fire control coverage and horizon look down from that single turntable PAR.
Which finally brings you to the 054A, as the third and final experiment for an AD configuration. This probably works out very well in my opinion. The Fregat clone with the SR64 on top for search and track, with separate illuminators doing the fire control. Its a fairly straightforward and simple system.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Combining volume search and fire control in a single radar is always a compromise, due to different frequences optimal for each task. APAR and Sampson which do this lack in search range, SPY uses separate illuminators to boost the search range. Rif-M FCS should be considered more like single-face of SPY radar, as they have several similarities - both provide midcourse up-date for missile (although by different algorithms) while capable of volume search (Rif-M can act as a stand-alone system with no input from Fregat or other 3D radar). Both have limits on number of SAMs simultaneously handled (Rif-M: 6 targets-12 missiles, roughly the same numbers for single face of SPY)).
I still have some doubts that PARs on 052C represent a fully fused radar system. In case it is, China should be congratulated as being much more advanced technologically as generaly considered. Soviet Union was unable to solve the problem of radar beam fusion for 4 panels to provide 360 degree sweep, each face was working fine on it's own only.
Combining volume search and fire control in a single radar is always a compromise, due to different frequences optimal for each task. APAR and Sampson which do this lack in search range, SPY uses separate illuminators to boost the search range. Rif-M FCS should be considered more like single-face of SPY radar, as they have several similarities - both provide midcourse up-date for missile (although by different algorithms) while capable of volume search (Rif-M can act as a stand-alone system with no input from Fregat or other 3D radar). Both have limits on number of SAMs simultaneously handled (Rif-M: 6 targets-12 missiles, roughly the same numbers for single face of SPY)).
I still have some doubts that PARs on 052C represent a fully fused radar system. In case it is, China should be congratulated as being much more advanced technologically as generaly considered. Soviet Union was unable to solve the problem of radar beam fusion for 4 panels to provide 360 degree sweep, each face was working fine on it's own only.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
When you have a radar that is capable of both volume search and fire control modes, these modes cannot work simultaneously. They have a segment of time to operate before you switch the other. An emitter cannot produce two different wave forms simultaneously. In AESA with multiple emitters, while they can produce different waveforms simultaneously, you still cannot emit them simultaneously because they will spoof and counteract each other.
Hence its advantageous to have dedicated radars to do each specific tasks when you have the space for it. Aircraft is a different matter, they're tight in weight and space, so multimode multirole radars are a must.
The PARs on the 052C should have sensor fusion and its not particularly hard to dom as essentially you're taking all the radar tracks from the different radars, put a time tag on each, and then display them all in a single screen like they're one contiguous system. The SU may have started working on such---they're generally if not seriously behind the West when it came to electronics---but the end of the Cold War put a stop to that. However, modern times have plenty of cheap and exponentially greater computing power for pennies, so if they seriously want to do this again, there is a good possibility, it will work out this time.
The 3 faced arrays on the KJ-2000 is another example of sensor fusion, and if they are able to put that up, then what you have on the 052C is the sea born equivalent. Both were introduced and coming into service at about the same time.
What's I'm questioning is about fire control fusion with all four panels, so an illumination beam can move from one panel to another so it will contiguously light a target as the target flies across the sky. PAC, S-300 and RIF-M are all on turn tables, so the faces can mechanically follow the target. Not here. So far no one has done that with a TVM or even a SARH system, which makes me seriously question that the guidance of the SAMs are TVM or SARH. The simplest way to deal with it would have been using active guidance. Given that the HHQ-9 started appearing service in just about the same time as the actively guided PL-12, I suggest its not hard to imagine that the two may even be sharing the same seeker.
When you have a radar that is capable of both volume search and fire control modes, these modes cannot work simultaneously. They have a segment of time to operate before you switch the other. An emitter cannot produce two different wave forms simultaneously. In AESA with multiple emitters, while they can produce different waveforms simultaneously, you still cannot emit them simultaneously because they will spoof and counteract each other.
Hence its advantageous to have dedicated radars to do each specific tasks when you have the space for it. Aircraft is a different matter, they're tight in weight and space, so multimode multirole radars are a must.
The PARs on the 052C should have sensor fusion and its not particularly hard to dom as essentially you're taking all the radar tracks from the different radars, put a time tag on each, and then display them all in a single screen like they're one contiguous system. The SU may have started working on such---they're generally if not seriously behind the West when it came to electronics---but the end of the Cold War put a stop to that. However, modern times have plenty of cheap and exponentially greater computing power for pennies, so if they seriously want to do this again, there is a good possibility, it will work out this time.
The 3 faced arrays on the KJ-2000 is another example of sensor fusion, and if they are able to put that up, then what you have on the 052C is the sea born equivalent. Both were introduced and coming into service at about the same time.
What's I'm questioning is about fire control fusion with all four panels, so an illumination beam can move from one panel to another so it will contiguously light a target as the target flies across the sky. PAC, S-300 and RIF-M are all on turn tables, so the faces can mechanically follow the target. Not here. So far no one has done that with a TVM or even a SARH system, which makes me seriously question that the guidance of the SAMs are TVM or SARH. The simplest way to deal with it would have been using active guidance. Given that the HHQ-9 started appearing service in just about the same time as the actively guided PL-12, I suggest its not hard to imagine that the two may even be sharing the same seeker.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Here's another thought.
To increase the FOV of the array, you have to abandon the stationary flat form and go with an outward curve. Either the panel itself has an outward curvature, or the array itself may be moving inside the panels. This may explain why the covers have a rounded shape. This can also increase the FOV of each panel, so there is less need for side scanning (which weakens the beam) in order to look at the side. The array is tilted to the side to bring the target closer to the center of the array where the beam can be strongest.
Here's another thought.
To increase the FOV of the array, you have to abandon the stationary flat form and go with an outward curve. Either the panel itself has an outward curvature, or the array itself may be moving inside the panels. This may explain why the covers have a rounded shape. This can also increase the FOV of each panel, so there is less need for side scanning (which weakens the beam) in order to look at the side. The array is tilted to the side to bring the target closer to the center of the array where the beam can be strongest.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
052C technically speaking has a volume search radar, although it's more used for detecting stealthy targets. So, I guess it's half way between AB and PAAMS ships. One case where I think you see PLA fuses data is in the Y-8 that have the side array radar. KJ-2000 is also fusing data from the 3 faces. I think if China can do with the air force, it should also be able to do it with naval radar.
052C technically speaking has a volume search radar, although it's more used for detecting stealthy targets. So, I guess it's half way between AB and PAAMS ships. One case where I think you see PLA fuses data is in the Y-8 that have the side array radar. KJ-2000 is also fusing data from the 3 faces. I think if China can do with the air force, it should also be able to do it with naval radar.