054/A FFG Thread II

[nlalyst]

Assertions? You showed a link and a text, and the description of ICW there does not match your description of multiplexing targets. The I simply means Interrupted, and the phrase is a paradox because you cannot have Interrupted and be Continuous. Thus ICW is a form of pulse radar just as the text describes.

Not talking about SPG-60 either. I am talking about the Soviet FMCW systems used for tracking and missile targeting. They are not separate systems. The beam used to track the target is the same beam used to illuminate the target. Once again, you see this in a number of Western systems too, such as the MPQ-53 for the Patriot. There is also the STIR by Thales whose design is used in a wide number of navies.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You made the claim that ICW is superior in range to CWI. I pointed out that it doesn’t make sense to compare the two, for
reasons given above.

And furthermore, I made the claim, given a transmitter of equal power, that CWI is likely to have greater SARH guidance range than ICWI, because the former doesn’t have interruptions.

Finally, the time multiplexing assertion was not related to the link, but rather as an example where ICWI would deposit even less energy on target in tradeoff for increased firepower compared to a mechanical CWI system that illuminates a single target until missile detonation.

 

[Tam]

You made the claim that ICW is superior in range to CWI. I pointed out that it doesn’t make sense to compare the two, for
reasons given above.

And furthermore, I made the claim, given a transmitter of equal power, that CWI is likely to have greater SARH guidance range than ICWI, because the former doesn’t have interruptions.

Finally, the time multiplexing assertion was not related to the link, but rather as an example where ICWI would deposit even less energy on target in tradeoff for increased firepower compared to a mechanical CWI system that illuminates a single target until missile detonation.

That's not a claim. Its a fact that pulse radar is superior in range over CWI. Its a fact that goes along with the invention of pulse radar. Isolation of transmission and reception greatly improves the signal to noise ratio by removing interference and noise.

Its not about "depositing" less energy since pulse and ICW can peak additional power into the waveform at certain intervals, which greatly increases signal to noise ratio. That's called frequency modulation. Again, something that's been around for decades.

I don't see how time multiplexing is asserted into this as it is totally unrelated and can apply to any waveform (pulse, CW).

 

[banjex]

OT, guys!

 

[nlalyst]

That's not a claim. Its a fact that pulse radar is superior in range over CWI. Its a fact that goes along with the invention of pulse radar. Isolation of transmission and reception greatly improves the signal to noise ratio by removing interference and noise.

Superior to CW radar not CWI. Please use the correct terminology.

I looked up the Dutch STIR 1.2: that one uses a separate and optional solid state CWI transmitter for guidance of SARH missiles:
“And finally, the optional capability to guide ESSM missiles, is currently being developed. We can now offer STIR 1.2 CW in combination with the new CWITX transmitter to support missile engagements instead of only gun fire control support.”, from a 2021 statement by Thales Nederland.

 

[sndef888]

The more I think about it the more I realise it was probably the right decision to build 20 more 054As

China needs more ships and fast, especially in this 4000 ton category, large enough for independent warfare, ASW and some air defence but small enough that it's not a waste of resources (certainly don't need 055s to hold off the Filipino navy)

The only issue with this ship is the "old" weapon configurations like lack of standard VLS, lack of HQ-10, anti sub rockets. They must have weighed the benefits of reusing this design vs designing a new ship with updated configuration and decided the improvement was not worth the cost.

Now I can only hope the future 054B comes with the rumoured 555 missile and ~32 standard VLS in total

 

[Tam]

Superior to CW radar not CWI. Please use the correct terminology.

I looked up the Dutch STIR 1.2: that one uses a separate and optional solid state CWI transmitter for guidance of SARH missiles:
“And finally, the optional capability to guide ESSM missiles, is currently being developed. We can now offer STIR 1.2 CW in combination with the new CWITX transmitter to support missile engagements instead of only gun fire control support.”, from a 2021 statement by Thales Nederland.

Still not seeing how CWI is superior over ICWI as duration isn't much of a factor over peak power. Once again, isolation allows for better signal to noise ratio so the system can exploit even weaker and farther ranged signal. Where ICWI isn't superior over CWI is precise measurement of rate of closure.

STIR -- the one most navies use --- has two transmitters, an X-band transmitter for the CWI and a K band transmitter for the gunfire control. The licensed ones used by the Korean and Japanese navies can support SM-2 as well as the one that is inside the Mk 92 FCR (OHP frigate). The K-band is way too short ranged to track targets set for missile engagement.

 

[Tam]

The more I think about it the more I realise it was probably the right decision to build 20 more 054As

China needs more ships and fast, especially in this 4000 ton category, large enough for independent warfare, ASW and some air defence but small enough that it's not a waste of resources (certainly don't need 055s to hold off the Filipino navy)

The only issue with this ship is the "old" weapon configurations like lack of standard VLS, lack of HQ-10, anti sub rockets. They must have weighed the benefits of reusing this design vs designing a new ship with updated configuration and decided the improvement was not worth the cost.

Now I can only hope the future 054B comes with the rumoured 555 missile and ~32 standard VLS in total

There was a clique among the Chinese PLA watching netizenry (fanboi), which spread to the outside world, that wanted the 054A to end for good and make only 052Ds and 055s.

Let use remind ourselves that what some PLA watchers want isn't PLAN official policy or doctrine.

I am not sure how non-standard the AJK-16 VLS is because somehow U-VLS called itself "Universal" and should be the standard. As far as observed missile support, both VLS systems are even with two each; AJK-16 has the HQ-16 and the YU-8 ASROC and the U-VLS with HHQ-9 and YJ-18. The fact that the AJK-16 can use another missile other than the HQ-16 signifies it is not a one missile specific system like some British and Russian VLS. And yes, the ASROC means the 054A uses an antisub rocket. Whatever was the original intention for the AJK-16 was in the past, that views about it could have changed and evolved after years of reliable service though this isn't to say that the U-VLS also appears reliable.

The Type 054A still needs a better search radar than what it has now to deal with stealthier objects. For that the 054A/P likely has it better, and combining its search radar set up, which also has a VHF radar, with the new target illuminators, would make an even better ship.

The question now for me is where the 054A can add high speed digital datalinks that can be used for direct ship to ship communication and CEC engagement. The CEC system introduced with the 055, and also used with the carriers, also needs to be on this ship, although we have seen this system tested on no. 515 before, field tested even on a Gulf of Aden escort mission.

One thing I noticed applied to the entire fleet is that they didn't hesitate to add more SATCOMs for the ships, so there must be something to the functionality of these SATCOMs and whatever satellites they are talking to above, that makes these upgrades so important.

The other thing it needs is a longer helo deck for Z-20 naval helicopters.

 

[Blitzo]

Which part in particular? Type 054As seemed reasonably well modeled in CMO last time I checked (1 year ago) and their anti-air capabilities were not downplayed. One feature that I found missing was the anti-surface mode on the HQ-16.

I wasn't specifically talking about 054A so much as the general principles of how the parameters and capabilities of individual systems are estimated guesses.
In particular the "scaling" of ECM/EW systems and sensors. Even if the all abide to the same laws within the simulator, the comparative qualitative effectiveness are guesses.

 

[nlalyst]

I wasn't specifically talking about 054A so much as the general principles of how the parameters and capabilities of individual systems are estimated guesses.
In particular the "scaling" of ECM/EW systems and sensors. Even if the all abide to the same laws within the simulator, the comparative qualitative effectiveness are guesses.

Well of course. None of us civilians can really guage how effective such non-combat proven systems are because we lack the data available to military intelligence.

My impression was that the developers are fair in their approach, but hampered with lack of data, and not just for PLA systems. PL-15 is currently tied for the best AAM missile in the game (with Meteor) and J-20 tied for the most lethal fighter in 1v1 BVR engagements (with F-22).

 

[Blitzo]

Well of course. None of us civilians can really guage how effective such non-combat proven systems are because we lack the data available to military intelligence.

My impression was that the developers are fair in their approach, but hampered with lack of data, and not just for PLA systems. PL-15 is currently tied for the best AAM missile in the game (with Meteor) and J-20 tied for the most lethal fighter in 1v1 BVR engagements (with F-22).

I mean, seems like in essence you agree with me that the capabilities of the individual comparative systems are educated guesses at best?