antiterror13
Brigadier
HQ-9 is not an equivalent to SM-3 ... and HQ-9 IS NOT a clone of S-300 ... totally different technology
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
HQ-9 is not an equivalent to SM-3 ... and HQ-9 IS NOT a clone of S-300 ... totally different technology
antiterror13
Brigadier
It would need new type of radar. YJ-83 is a very good AShM, perhaps upgraded to a new variant of YJ-83 much more sense .. why would you want to put YJ-18/12 on 054A ? YJ-18/12 is way bigger than YJ-83
Regarding 054B ... as it is bigger and will have new radar sets .... there is a possibility to have more VLS tubes and also to have YJ-18 ...
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Would it be possible for other ships such as the newer destroyers to provide guidance to anti ship missiles launched from ships with less powerful radars such as 054As?
Two words -- radar horizon.
HQ-9 is not an equivalent to SM-3 ... and HQ-9 IS NOT a clone of S-300 ... totally different technology
I won't say totally different, and for that matter, with PAC. These three have similar technologies and concepts.
Yup. After 599 is used up in one of the fleets, the next ship might be 601, followed by 542 as the last. That is according to the person who updates the Chinese wiki, which seems to have a surprising amount of information. Note the production of the Type 054A is separated into four batches.
The main radar for the Type 054A already stretches up to 300km on the air, but the radar horizon would limit it to maybe 40 or 50km. If you have helicopter, drone or aircraft flying high above, these can have a much farther radar horizon. A destroyer would not help here, since they would be in the same "boat" as the Type 054A.
The Type 054A uses the Type 366 radar for antiship. That is this large white dome on top of the bridge. This can scan all surface targets directly within the radar horizon and another component provides OTH passive detection, ID and targeting beyond that. A Type 052C/D also has the same Type 366 so no advantage here over the Type 054A. Basically the Type 366 is a copy and derived from the Mineral ME radar that came with the Sovremenyy. The large white dome is the active component, the two white spheres on the funnel of the Type 054A below the Type 364 radar should be the passive component.
I should mention that passive targeting for the Harpoon is via the AN/SLQ-32 EW suite. So potentially, OTH passive targeting for YJ-83, YJ-12 and YJ-18 can be done through the EW suite, which can matter for the Chinese warships that does not have the Type 366, and should use another radar for actively engaging ship targets within the radar horizon.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
from what I figured, times changed:
super-refraction
(in brief, surface combatants of some navies should be able to track a surface target over-the-radar-horizon, and correct an AShM in-flight)
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
So all you're saying is generically that the 056 has a combat data system, like every other warship in existence. In which case your statement lacks all relevance to the discussion.
No, you have no evidence that ATECS doesn't have long range air defense capability. What you are doing is presuming that it doesn't on the basis that current ATECS ships use ESSM rather than SM-2. In fact the best that you can achieve is to say that you have no idea what ATECS full capability is, which is unambiguously a fact.
Nah. If a steel mast disrupts the function of a radar, then the obvious solution is an aluminum mast. And given the location of the mast directly behind the rotating radars, I would make aluminum the default assumption rather than steel. Also, even if the EW system interfered with the radar, which you do have any evidence that they actually do, they would only cause interference when they are actually active, which would only be in the setting of an inbound missile that is close enough to be influenced by the ship's EW system. That should almost never happen in the first place, and if it by chance does happen, then long range air surveillance would be the very last of your worries.
Wrong. First of all, there is no "time-sharing" with mechanical illuminators. None at all. The Aegis Mk 99 FCR is mechanical CWI (continuous wave illumination), which means the ESSM or SM-2 rides a continuous beam all the way in until impact. Only ESAs are agile enough to perform ICWI (interrupted CWI), and only high C-band (or higher) ESAs, since they need to have enough resolution to qualify as FCRs in the first place. Second, "time-sharing" (i.e. ICWI) only applies specifically to APAR, which first pioneered the technique, and probably to later ESAs like EMPAR, Sampson, and SPY-6 (the X-band portion); it is likely that 346A's C-band portion is also capable of ICWI. Earlier radars like the FCRs used on the Murasames and the Orekhs on the 054As, do not "time-share", if by that you mean ICWI.
I think it is ludicrous to believe that Chinese missile sensor technology of the 1990's is on par with Japanese missile sensor technology of the 1990's. This is such pure fantasy that even a hardcore PLA fanboi should be ashamed to claim this. Regardless, your assertion that certain PLAN ships are "strong" in ASuW is utterly surreal in the face of modern naval combat where advanced combat data systems that can track hundreds to thousands of targets simultaneously will simply laugh at the difference between one ship's 8 vs another ship's 16 missiles, or 180km range missiles vs 150km range missiles, or even supersonic vs subsonic missiles. These ships' missile complements may be "strong" against Royal Thai Navy ships, but against adversaries like the USN and JMSDF, and even RAN and ROCN ships, they are certainly not strong. Against modern navies you literally need a swarm of ASCMs, on the order of hundreds of simultaneously inbound missiles, attacking from multiple directions. Something that can only succeed with a coordinated launch by ships, subs, fighters, and shore-based batteries.