052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 052C Thread

tphuang said:

I'd love to see an illuminator that has greater tracking range than its radar horizon.

Click to expand...

Your assumption of radar horizon is that of a target that is at sea-skimming height. A hostile plane flying in at 9,000m altitude and 200km distance will certainly be illuminated and attacked. Radar horizon varies depending on target altitude.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Wolverine said:

Your assumption of radar horizon is that of a target that is at sea-skimming height. A hostile plane flying in at 9,000m altitude and 200km distance will certainly be illuminated and attacked. Radar horizon varies depending on target altitude.

Click to expand...

Of course i'm talking about sea-skimming targets. That was my point right from the start. So if you have a AShm skimming at at 30 m altitude 40 Km away, even if an AWACS tracked it and passed the targeting data to an Aegis ship, how would it be able to engage it if it's outside the tracking area of SPG-62.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

tphuang said:

Of course i'm talking about sea-skimming targets. That was my point right from the start. So if you have a AShm skimming at at 30 m altitude 40 Km away, even if an AWACS tracked it and passed the targeting data to an Aegis ship, how would it be able to engage it if it's outside the tracking area of SPG-62.

Click to expand...

No, actually the point was what crobato brought up, whether an air defense missile's range was limited by its flight profile/fuel or by its radar, and clearly the answer is the former in the case of ESSM and SM-2. The radar horizon for sea-skimming targets (when they're actually in their sea-skimming phase) is a total non-issue, since every last SAM on this planet has a radar horizon against your average modern sea-skimmer of about 25-30km. If sea-skimming targets were all anybody ever thought about, there would be absolutely no use in making missiles physically large enough to engage more than 25-30km out to sea, and yet there are many such missiles. And even if we were talking about sea-skimmers, you should know that those missiles don't fly a low profile the entire time. Depending on their programming and range, they may spend significant amounts of time at high altitude before diving down to their terminal flight altitude. If any of that time is significantly within SAM/radar range, they will get engaged. That's why 200kyd is no number to laugh off, whether it's for sea-skimmers or aircraft.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Wolverine said:

No, actually the point was what crobato brought up, whether an air defense missile's range was limited by its flight profile/fuel or by its radar, and clearly the answer is the former in the case of ESSM and SM-2. The radar horizon for sea-skimming targets (when they're actually in their sea-skimming phase) is a total non-issue, since every last SAM on this planet has a radar horizon against your average modern sea-skimmer of about 25-30km. If sea-skimming targets were all anybody ever thought about, there would be absolutely no use in making missiles physically large enough to engage more than 25-30km out to sea, and yet there are many such missiles. And even if we were talking about sea-skimmers, you should know that those missiles don't fly a low profile the entire time. Depending on their programming and range, they may spend significant amounts of time at high altitude before diving down to their terminal flight altitude. If any of that time is significantly within SAM/radar range, they will get engaged. That's why 200kyd is no number to laugh off, whether it's for sea-skimmers or aircraft.

Click to expand...

i didn't see you quote crobato or anything like that. Besides, and even if I suppose you are referring to the Crobato's post that Ambivalent is referring to, it doesn't nullify it. Since, when he talks about limited by FCR's line of sight, it doesn't say LOS at 10 km altitude or at 100 m altitude.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

tphuang said:

i didn't see you quote crobato or anything like that. Besides, and even if I suppose you are referring to the Crobato's post that Ambivalent is referring to, it doesn't nullify it. Since, when he talks about limited by FCR's line of sight, it doesn't say LOS at 10 km altitude or at 100 m altitude.

Click to expand...

Being limited by a radar's LOS is a non-issue; one cannot change the laws of physics. What's debatable (and being debated) is outside of LOS restrictions, is a missile limited by its programmed flight profile and or its fuel load, or is it limited by radar range? As I said, in the case of ESSM and SM-2, fuel is the limiting factor. From what I've read, in the case of the Shtil on the 052B and Sov's, the limiting factor is actually the Orekh illuminators, the Shtil's probably having enough fuel to go alot farther than their published range suggests.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Wolverine said:

Being limited by a radar's LOS is a non-issue; one cannot change the laws of physics. What's debatable (and being debated) is outside of LOS restrictions, is a missile limited by its programmed flight profile and or its fuel load, or is it limited by radar range? As I said, in the case of ESSM and SM-2, fuel is the limiting factor. From what I've read, in the case of the Shtil on the 052B and Sov's, the limiting factor is actually the Orekh illuminators, the Shtil's probably having enough fuel to go alot farther than their published range suggests.

Click to expand...

Trying to spin this away from my original one-sentence rebuttal which never mentioned Shtil is not scoring you any points here. But I suppose you just feel like continuing to debate here. So, to answer the part on shtil, we don't have enough published info to say one way or the other for the longest engagement scenario. And frankly, I don't think it matters. Who really cares whether the limiting factor is the radar or the missiles?

Re: DDG 052C Thread

One detail, a semi-active homer will burn up more fuel to intercept the same target than a missile that flies a more direct path to it's target. That is one of the advantages of something like S-300 or SM-2 which fly to an intercept point autonomously. Done right, the flight path can be more direct, improving the maximum range of such missles. In the old days, beam riders and command guidance missiles wasted a ton of fuel flying these wobbly corkscrew flight paths to their targets. Part of why modern missile systems have such great ranges is superior fire control. The ultimate solution is active homing to complete the intercept, dispensing with illuminators altogether.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

SM-2 seems to have three times the range than HQ-16, is there any truth in it?

Re: DDG 052C Thread

It's a larger missile, isn't it? (the HQ-9 seems to be more in the class of the SM-2 series)

Re: DDG 052C Thread

I thought SM-2 and HQ-16 are about the same size.