antiterror13
Brigadier
Would mixed load require also extra radar?, radar to guide YJ-8X and YJ-18/12 are different
PLAN Type 051B/C Class Destroyers
- Thread starter supertran
- Start date
Would mixed load require also extra radar?, radar to guide YJ-8X and YJ-18/12 are different
They all need OTH radars for target data, not guidance as they don't receive target updates.
I don't think the radars to support each missile need to be different. As a matter of fact the Type 051B does not have an OTH ASuW radar like the Type 366 you see on the Type 054A and on the Type 052B/C/D. Ship targeting data could have been done completely cooperative, fed by external sources through network. Type 366 works on both YJ-8X and YJ-18, not to mention YJ-62 (Type 052C only) and there is no reason it would not work on YJ-12 --- assuming YJ-12 is used in the VLS of Type 052D, or is fitted on refit Project 956, which has Type 366 and might use YJ-12s to replace the Moskits. In turn Type 366 is copied or inspired from the Bandstand radar used on the Project 956. There are PLAN ships that support YJ-8X but lack onboard OTH radars, such as Type 052, 054, 056 and Type 022, unless we assume that Type 364 radar has OTH capability, which can also explain and supply this function for the Type 051B.
Very long range ASMs like these are likely to receiver mid course updates, possibly cooperatively through networked assets.
Most ships in Western type navies don't have dedicated OTH radars for OTH antiship warfare and rely completely on cooperative assets. Soviet Navy has doctrine that assumes you cannot rely completely on cooperative assets and needs to be able to function on their own, which is why they develop radars like Bandstand and Garpun for this purpose both of whom has no Western equivalent.
Should be noted that Type 055 does not have Type 366 radar.
Last edited:
There are two sets of arrays that appear alternating, the first set are the ones on top of the Type 346B radar, and the second set that alternates around the first set, which includes an array over the CIWS and facing the main gun.
The first array appears related to the Type 346B, and it can either be IFF or missile guidance illumination, assuming the HQ-9s are SARH guided (and if active, then these panels are likely IFF). The second array is likely related to gun fire control. ASM missile functions can either be dualed into this radar, or the possible X-band on top of the mast, which is likely intend to search and scan for surface targets and skimmers. The purpose of this however is not for OTH engagement, but against targets within LOS and the radar horizon, particularly with smaller targets like fast moving FAC. Whether the radars are capable of OTH surface wave propagation and/or atmospheric backscatter are another thing, and if so, the best position for that would be the possible X-band on the top mast.
Passive radar awareness of targets, which is a function of Bandstand and Type 366, can be passed to the EW suite.
Last edited:
I don't think you have any evidence for this claim. Gun fire control can easily be performed by the (alleged) X-band panels on the mast or even the S-band panels, so there is no obvious need for an entirely separate series of 4-panel radars for the purpose of gun fire control. As for the positioning of the (possible) OTH targeting radar, these bars are at about the same position as the Bandstand radars. Not only that, surface wave propagation does not at all depend on the height of the radar off the surface of the water, so whether the radar is sitting on top of the bridge or mounted higher on the mast is irrelevant. On top of that, the Mineral ME in passive mode receives in FIVE bands, something the X-band radar will obviously not be able to easily replicate. So if there is a candidate for an OTH radar, it's going to be one of those bar sets.
Gun fire control radar tends to be just above the bridge, and so does missile guidance illuminators. It would not be the panels on top of the Type 346 because those panels have to be directly related to that and by association, the air defense function. That means the alternate set. The alternate set is designed to have a large arc coverage that matches the main gun, in which case, it cannot see what's the back of the superstructure.
ASM support radar is also on top of the bridge, and in fact, in one case, the fire control system on the Perrys, gun, SAM illumination and ASM fire control are all in one set, that has two dual radars, one of them is a Thales STIR which the Type 344 in Chinese ships resembles. But gun fire control radars tend to be smaller than ASM fire radars, as because some of these radars function in the K band. ASM fire control radars are in the X-band and are bigger then gun fire control radars. If both radars are X-band, the smaller one is likely to be for gun fire control while the larger one will have surface search capability. It would be natural to pair ASM targeting ability to the longer surface search radar but remember this is line of sight mode only.
And no, gun control cannot be performed with the S-band panels which is just way too imprecise. X-band yes, but there has been a preference to using Ku-bands for gun fire control which allows for even greater precision. Having two X-band radars on the superstructure this close to each other is somewhat dubious due to interference, and I don't think you would put Ku-band on top of the mast, and its not likely that the larger of the two potential radars would be a Ku-band but rather the smaller of the two, as Ku-bands make for smaller arrays.
Let me add something.
Bandstand/Mineral ME and by extension, Type 366, work with 5 bands, but that's only for passive mode. In active mode, it only works in the X-band. Any replacement on the Type 055 in terms of radar functionality, is only for the active mode that works in the I band (NATO) or X band (IEEE).
The passive OTH mode is a task that can be delegated to the Type 055's EW, which has dedicated radar receivers that is open on all bands (its pretty standard for RWRs to cover a wide range of potential threat bands). The ship's EW suite appears related to the kebob like antenna on the top of the mast, and two large panel arrays on the side of the ship. EW's job is for the detection of signals, the triangulation of their location, and the identification of those signals. To have such functionality on the Mineral-ME or Type 366 is essentially a duplication.
The question is where you want to locate the active part, in the X-band at the mast, or the three arrays on top of the the bridge (alternating from the ones on top of the Type 346).
The standard PLAN gun fire control radar up to and before the Type 055, has been the Type 344 radar, that resembles the Thales STIR. This radar works in the I/J band, which means X and Ku band in IEEE. The Type 344 is physically much smaller than the Type 366, once again I wish to point out that gun control radars tend to be small, and smaller than ASM fire control radars.
Bandstand/Mineral ME and by extension, Type 366, work with 5 bands, but that's only for passive mode. In active mode, it only works in the X-band. Any replacement on the Type 055 in terms of radar functionality, is only for the active mode that works in the I band (NATO) or X band (IEEE).
The passive OTH mode is a task that can be delegated to the Type 055's EW, which has dedicated radar receivers that is open on all bands (its pretty standard for RWRs to cover a wide range of potential threat bands). The ship's EW suite appears related to the kebob like antenna on the top of the mast, and two large panel arrays on the side of the ship. EW's job is for the detection of signals, the triangulation of their location, and the identification of those signals. To have such functionality on the Mineral-ME or Type 366 is essentially a duplication.
The question is where you want to locate the active part, in the X-band at the mast, or the three arrays on top of the the bridge (alternating from the ones on top of the Type 346).
The standard PLAN gun fire control radar up to and before the Type 055, has been the Type 344 radar, that resembles the Thales STIR. This radar works in the I/J band, which means X and Ku band in IEEE. The Type 344 is physically much smaller than the Type 366, once again I wish to point out that gun control radars tend to be small, and smaller than ASM fire control radars.
Last edited:
You have obviously never seen this photo:
The plain fact is that BOTH bar sets have FULL 360 degree coverage around the ship, and have absolutely nothing to do with the gun's limited firing arc. Second, where gun FCRs and missile FCRs tend to be on other ships is totally irrelevant on a ship with a consolidated MFR providing multiple functions including gun and missile guidance. Perfect examples of this are the De Zeven Provincien class frigates, Sachsen class frigates, and Daring class destroyers, all of which use MFRs to guide gun rounds. I'm probably forgetting other examples.
No, this is just wrong. The Sampson S-band MFR provides the radar illumination for the Daring's main gun, especially at ranges past the performance envelope of the EOGCS or in adverse weather conditions. S-band (wavelength 7.5-15cm) is definitely too imprecise to attack small targets like maneuvering missiles, but against ships this is not even remotely a problem.
You have no idea whether or not this is actually the case or is even achievable, at least for the purpose of long range fire control for antiship missiles.
Then you need to take a look at this photo.
There is no bridge radar that faces completely to the back, since the mast spine occupies it. The one set that covers a full 360 degree arc are the sets above the Type 346 which is likely indicative of missile targeting guidance. I am referring to the three smaller arrays, with one directly above the CIWS. They simply don't have a 360 look around.
Only if the MFRs are X-band, like APAR which all these ships use except for the Darings. You can't use SAMPSON on the Darings for this, not just because its an S-band, but also gun support is never mentioned in any of its documentation.
No. Its not fast against against fast moving ships, nor has the ability to discriminate tightly against small ships from a rock outcropping. One important reason why Ku-bands are preferred for gun control is for target discrimination, which also helps discriminate targets against surface scatter.
OTH can work good enough especially because the antiship missiles tend to have very large catch baskets, definitely much larger than an AAM, where even infrared can have a catch basket around 20km. The purpose of mid phase update guidance is to put the missile close enough for the radar seeker to catch the target, and that can be as much as over 50km. The bigger the missiles, the larger the radar seekers and the larger the catch baskets or terminal active homing range.
Last edited: