Ask anything Thread

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The Liaoning mounts the Type 346 radars you see on the Type 052C, set on four fixed arrays, and then on top of that, you have the Type 382 Fregat style radar you see on the Type 054A, plus two Type 364 surface search radars.

That's a lot of radar for ship, even when compared to other carriers. You certainly need the radars to detect and track both friendly and threat aircraft, direct and vector friendlies to the threats. In the case of the Liaoning, it inherits the layout of the Kuznetsov which has the set of fixed PARs, plus the Fregat on top. Liaoning simply placed Chinese equivalents onto the same holes and mounts, and the Shandong inherits the same basic layout but modified the direction of the PARs and placed the Type 346A of the Type 052D on it. Carrier #3 is likely to use the radars off the Type 055.

SPY-4 on the Gerald Ford is a go, but the next carriers are switching to EASR or SPY-6.

In addition to acquiring and tracking targets all over the sky, the carrier also shares the radar sensor data with its escorts which also shares its radar sensor data back to the carrier. This creates a networked sensor bubble over the task group. The top height of the carrier enables the reach of an extended radar horizon that isn't possible with current destroyers, and for that reason the Kuznetsov design pushes the edge by adding the Fregat over the top even higher even if the ship already has four powerful fixed phase arrays already set on a high position.
 
...; what is the general distance spacing between ships in a CSG ?
well, now I can't find that conversation, but once I said I expected the USN CVGB to sail in a diamond formation under the circumstances, and the circumstances appeared to be the Chinese sailing close to that USN CVGB (at least I found the original tweet, and repost it below)

the reaction I got was (as far as I recall) the USN CVGB doesn't sail in a regular formation; if it's true (and it wouldn't be true during WW2), it'd mean there's no such thing like you asked


that tweet is
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Does anyone know a source of modern Chinese military photos (Navy, Air force or other) which are under public domain, copyright wise? Or at least that they're clearly marked as free to use with attribution? (Such as certain creative commons licences?)
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
thanks you both. May I ask one last thing; what is the general distance spacing between ships in a CSG ?

They can go as far as they go but to maintain the bubble sensor network best, that would be as far as the radar horizon possible with clear line of sight between the ship's communication antennas. You find the height of the communication antenna of this ship, vs. the height of the antenna of that ship, see as far as they go as long as they have a clear line of sight before the curvature of the Earth obscures it. That may actually depend ship to ship, depending on the height of the antenna.
 

AbuUmar

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Hello everyone, are the export variants of Chinese weapons less capable when compared to their domestic variants that the PLA, PLAAF & PLAN use.

My main interest is the defense cooperation between China & Pakistan, with Pakistan being China's largest customer. Like Israeli F-16s are unique & not on the same level of Egyptian F16s due to special Israeli-US relationship or like Russian cooperation with e.g. Indian Brahmos (based on P-800 Oniks) & FGFA/Su-57 where Russia is forced to India due to lack of funds so Russia can develop these platforms by sharing R&D costs with India.

Now JF-17 is co-developed by both countries with almost all the technology being of Chinese origin except the engine, so the does the SD-10 BVRAAM used by JF-17 have the same capabilities as the PL-12 or is SD-10 an under powered version of PL-12? Same question applies to other weapons say the CM-400AKG ( Pakistan ordered 60 of these missiles for 100 million $) with a Maximum range of 170 - 240 km being quoted online while as its domestic model YJ-12 is said to have a range of 250 - 400 km. Another AShM used by Pakistani JF-17 is the C-802 with a reported 120 km range which is the export variant of YJ-83 having 180 km range. (33% difference in Range of the export variant). It is also known that Pakistan will operate another export variant of YJ-12 ( i.e CM 302 ) on its 4 Type 054 frigates which are under construction at Hudong Zhonghua (HZ) Shipyard China.

Pakistan is arguably China's closest ally & it's long term partner ( mostly due to their shared common interests vis-a-vis India ) in the region. So i am wondering if Pakistan gets the same export variant missiles as say Yemen or Myanmar which also operates the C-802 or are they on par with the domestic variants, listening to the interviews of the Pakistani generals it does seems that the Chinese do indeed value Pakistani acquisitions as can been seen from the JF-17 program where multiple radars were made for it PAF was free to choose radars, engines etc. Any information regarding the differences between domestic & export variants when it comes to Pakistan would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
 

Tetrach

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hello. I found on the HQ-9 mdv.idv page (a well known chinese site for militarist enthousiasts->
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) this paragraph: "在2013年,一艘 052C導彈驅逐艦在東海試驗基地的海上射擊場進行實彈演習,在強電磁干擾環境下,透過艦上346型相控陣雷達捕捉目標並發射HHQ-9導彈攔截,成功擊落五枚飛行速度達3馬赫的掠海靶彈"

Traduced: "In 2013, a 052C guided missile destroyer conducted live ammunition exercises at sea of the East China Sea Test Base. Under strong electromagnetic interference, the ship's 346 phased array radar captured the target and launched HHQ-9 missile interception. It successfully shot down five. Sea skimming target with a flying speed of Mach 3. "

I've been trying to find infos about this interception, and also about its veracity, because it's the first time I hear about it and I've yet to found an another source about it beside mdv.idv.

So anyways, if anyone has infos about it and can share it, you would make one happy guy !
 

daifo

Major
Registered Member
Do you think the PLAN will invest in a few ship with similar roles as zumwalt destroyers or battleships for naval fire support for marine ground landing?
 
Do you think the PLAN will invest in a few ship with similar roles as zumwalt destroyers or battleships for naval fire support for marine ground landing?
sorry for asking instead of answering, but do you know
Dec. 3, 2018 / 1:15 PM
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?

more details are inside
Navy DDG-51and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress
Updated December 17, 2019
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(you may want to check Change in DDG-1000 Mission Orientation at p. 10)

hope that helps
 
Last edited:
Top