I wanted to add at the end of my post a summary of the message in the linked PDF. When SPY-1 is scanning with its 1.7 degree pencil beams its likely using its entire 4300 element array. To get a narrower beam you would normally need a larger array. There are some tricks like dual density arrays that could give you a narrower beam, but it's not without tradeoffs.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I am not sure if its that important to pursue a narrower beam as a goal. A wider beam with much less, to zero side lobes, is preferable to a narrower beam that's plagued with side lobes which makes it detectable by ESM and vulnerable to SEAD.
Jura The idiot
General
this thread for
La marine chinoise a admis au service actif, en Février cette année à priori, son 11e destroyer Type 052D (119 Guiyang) et sa 30e frégate Type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).
Translated from French by
The Chinese navy admitted to the active service, in February this year a priori, its 11th destroyer type 052D (119 Guiyang) and its 30th frigate type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).
La marine chinoise a admis au service actif, en Février cette année à priori, son 11e destroyer Type 052D (119 Guiyang) et sa 30e frégate Type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).
Translated from French by
The Chinese navy admitted to the active service, in February this year a priori, its 11th destroyer type 052D (119 Guiyang) and its 30th frigate type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).
It does not excuse glaring basic errors.
346 is the one with the 4m wide octagon, then arrays on top below to create a rectangular shape. 346A is said to 4.3 meters.
The problem is not the beam width in the horizontal. If you have more elements on the horizontal, your beam is narrower on the horizontal. Its that the beam will be wider on the vertical, so its taller than wider. With less elements on the vertical, its also how you steer the beam on the vertical.
TVM would still require an illuminating source. The illuminating source would traditionally come from a fire control radar on the ground, but what if its made possible that it can be on the missile itself like an active component. But instead of being fully autonomous, the missile still communicates to station control via the TVM link.
The text in the FD2000 marketing information speaks of "composite guidance system" along with active radar homing. This suggests the missile may have more than one guidance mode.
The narrower the beam the farther the range.
But range is not everything. A longer ranged radar but has a substantial side lobe presence is more of a detriment than a shorter ranged radar with ultra low side lobes. ECM resistance has become more important than anything.
Not sure what you meant in the last sentence, but I think we are in agreement. The steering comes from being able to control the phase shift of each element in a phased array. How fine (think of smallest step) you can steer depends on the fidelity of your phase shifters. The beamwidth is proportional to the antenna gain, which is again proportional to antenna size and number of elements.
For illumination, you want the beam to be narrow. How narrow depends on the range to target. What you normally don't want is to paint two targets with the same beam. If you do, your missile might decide to pass in between the two targets!
The advantage with PESA/AESA is that you can tune the beam properties dynamically and of course steer the beam electronically. The downside is that your offbore beamwidth deteriorates with the cosine of the beam angle.
Now, at extreme range you have no choice but to make the beam narrow. That's why AN/SPG-62 illuminators have beamwidths of about 0.8 degrees. The fact that it steers mechanically allows it to maintain the beamwidth regardless of pointing direction.
Getting back to the Type 346. It seems many of us lean towards it being a search and tracking radar only, not unlike the SPY-1. Another forum member mentioned that the HQ-9 design was finalized two years after the 052C was launched. I would like to think that this points to very ambitious design targets.
You have to define narrow whether its both in azimuth and elevation, azimuth mainly, or elevation mainly. . I think the chances of illuminating two targets on the same beam is extremely small, and you will still likely head to the nearest or bigger or faster target due to having a stronger return.
Yes. AESA though, still has a long list of advantages over PESA, ranging from improved antenna gain, to the ability to alter frequencies across the array face.
Still, MPQ-53, roughly 70 x 70 elements, and Thales APAR, with a 60 x 60 elements is still able to handle up to 150 km plus. On closer ranges, dividing the array into multiple beams enables the MPQ-53 to engage as many as 9 targets simultaneously, and 16 targets for the Thales APAR.
The SPG-62 has its own issues. Any form of reflecting unto a mechanical array is bound to create scatter that leads to side lobes, no matter what shape is the parabolic. You are limited in the face of saturation attack, optimally, one illuminator handles one target, guiding two missiles to the same target. A mechanical illuminator is subject to mechanical stress and wear, and it can break down. A digital illuminator has the ability to track and illuminate a target at electronic speeds, which is a crucial advantage against extremely fast and agile targets, but a mechanical illuminator is still subject to the maximum speed allowed by its mechanisms, that may not be able to keep up against a very fast moving target. 6aq2
True. Its a very ambitious direction for the PLAN.
Jura The idiot
General
Yesterday at 5:02 PM
now just:this thread for
La marine chinoise a admis au service actif, en Février cette année à priori, son 11e destroyer Type 052D (119 Guiyang) et sa 30e frégate Type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).
Translated from French by
The Chinese navy admitted to the active service, in February this year a priori, its 11th destroyer type 052D (119 Guiyang) and its 30th frigate type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).