What could the PLAN bring up against this baby? - the Thales APAR multifunction radar

[Eurofighter]

as you all probably know, the Dutch navy's newest destroyer (the LCF class) has got some really impressive equipements onboard. The most remarkable system should be its APAR multifunction radar, which makes the LCF class to be the first navy surface combatants ever in the world to field such a sweet technology. (for more info on the LCF class and the APAR please visit http://www.amiinter.com/samples/netherlands/NL1301.html)

I know that the shipborn radars fielded by the chinese destroyers would be in no way even close to what the Thales APAR can do (tracking up to 250 targets simultaneously, which means that it is even much more powerful than
the AWACS china is only going to have in the near future).

Nonetheless I am still very interest in the capabilities of the shipborn phased array radars operated by the newest PLAN surface combatants such as the 052c and 051c (since not much about this could be found on sinodefence).

In addition I am hoping that someone could tell me about the future developements of the chinese shipborn radars. For instance, is it possible for the PLAN to have something similar to the Thales APAR multifunction radar in the near future?

[tphuang]

actually, 052C has been speculated to be using APAR rather than PPAR. Similar to many other Chinese systems, the exact specs are far from conclusive.

Actually, now that I thought about it again, I would say that it's not fair to assume Chinese AWACS cannot track more than 250 targets. I think it's tracking capability should be at least as good as A-50E (which is 300).

[Su-34]

China's future destroyers must not only track a lot of targets simultaneously, but also be able to engage lots of targets simultaneously. Imagine a PLAN DDG having the capability to engage nearly 100 targets in the future........

[MIGleader]

according to the main site, the israeli phalcon system could only track 60-100 targets. so is this implying that the esa on the kj-2000 is superior to the mighty phalcon? it would be quite an accomplishment for nanjing...

[vincelee]

I thought the German F-124 was the first to deploy an operational APAR.

Anyway, I don't think even AEGIS can track 250 targets. I'm curious, can the Thales Netherlands' APAR actually illuminate? Because the SPY-1 can't.

[tphuang]

according to the main site, the israeli phalcon system could only track 60-100 targets. so is this implying that the esa on the kj-2000 is superior to the mighty phalcon? it would be quite an accomplishment for nanjing...
I'm not sure about the phalcon part, but other huge AWACS like E-3 sentry and A50 Mainstay all can track over 300 targets. Look at the track number of Erieye hawkeye, do you think phalcon equipped on a much larger aircraft would not be able to track as many?

I think engage 100 targets is not possible with 48 VLS launchers.

[Su-34]

I think engage 100 targets is not possible with 48 VLS launchers.[/QUOTE]

That is why future Chinese destroyers need to be big enough to have 128 VLS launchers carrying 128 HQ-9 SAMs. I hope future PLA Navy destroyers weigh 10,000 tons like JMSDF's Kongo Destroyers, being able to fit in 128 VLS launchers capable of engaging nearly 100 targets simultaneously.

[MIGleader]

I'm not sure about the phalcon part, but other huge AWACS like E-3 sentry and A50 Mainstay all can track over 300 targets. Look at the track number of Erieye hawkeye, do you think phalcon equipped on a much larger aircraft would not be able to track as many?

I think engage 100 targets is not possible with 48 VLS launchers.

sure it is. its not saying it can shoot all 100 down. its just implyimg the radar can detect, track, and prioritize the 100 targets, and then direct missles at the 48 most threatening targets. mathematically speaking, the radar can "pick 48 out of 100"

[tphuang]

sure it is. its not saying it can shoot all 100 down. its just implyimg the radar can detect, track, and prioritize the 100 targets, and then direct missles at the 48 most threatening targets. mathematically speaking, the radar can "pick 48 out of 100"
From a physical point of view, you probably want to have two SAMs per target when you are attempting to shoot something down. Considering that Aegis directs 24 missiles against 12 targets, I think it would be unrealistic to think that 051C or 052C can achieve better than that. Both of them are at 12 missiles against 6 targets right now. That is not bad, but will be improved with better software.

[Eurofighter]

From a physical point of view, you probably want to have two SAMs per target when you are attempting to shoot something down. Considering that Aegis directs 24 missiles against 12 targets, I think it would be unrealistic to think that 051C or 052C can achieve better than that. Both of them are at 12 missiles against 6 targets right now. That is not bad, but will be improved with better software.

At this moment I think that the question of whether or not China's modern DDGs are capable of engaging a great number of aerial targets simultaneously, really shouldn't deserve so much attention. The fact is that there are much more important issues waiting to get addressed.
From what I have read on the internet, the AAW abilities of China's modern warships (such as the 052c) are still limited only to point defence, while it should have been a true area defence force capable of providing air cover for the entire fleet or other surface ships.

I will quote couple of lines from the article "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for
Congress" (which I probably got it from strategycenter.net).According to this article:

"A comparison [of the AAW system on the Luyang II class destroyers] to
[the] U.S. Navy Aegis [combat system] is inevitable, but Aegis was on [the U.S. Navy test ship] Norton Sound for nine years of development testing prior to the first installation on the USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) 20 years ago. Developing the software for signal processing and tracking a hundred air, surface and submarine targets will take even longer for China. Integration to various indigenous ship guns and missiles and other sensors, as well as other ships’ data management and weapons, will take longer. These Chinese “Aegis” ships may be limited to 1940s era radar tasks of detecting and tracking air and surface targets for their own ship weapons. Further in the future will be an 8,000-ton DDG that is predicted to be a true area control warship with additional Aegis capabilities. It is now in early construction stages in the new Dalian shipyard."

[tphuang]

At this moment I think that the question of whether or not China's modern DDGs are capable of engaging a great number of aerial targets simultaneously, really shouldn't deserve so much attention. The fact is that there are much more important issues waiting to get addressed.
From what I have read on the internet, the AAW abilities of China's modern warships (such as the 052c) are still limited only to point defence, while it should have been a true area defence force capable of providing air cover for the entire fleet or other surface ships.

I will quote couple of lines from the article "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for
Congress" (which I probably got it from strategycenter.net).According to this article:

"A comparison [of the AAW system on the Luyang II class destroyers] to
[the] U.S. Navy Aegis [combat system] is inevitable, but Aegis was on [the U.S. Navy test ship] Norton Sound for nine years of development testing prior to the first installation on the USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) 20 years ago. Developing the software for signal processing and tracking a hundred air, surface and submarine targets will take even longer for China. Integration to various indigenous ship guns and missiles and other sensors, as well as other ships’ data management and weapons, will take longer. These Chinese “Aegis” ships may be limited to 1940s era radar tasks of detecting and tracking air and surface targets for their own ship weapons. Further in the future will be an 8,000-ton DDG that is predicted to be a true area control warship with additional Aegis capabilities. It is now in early construction stages in the new Dalian shipyard."
That's mistaking quite a bit. 052C is China's first area defense DDG. It has the entire active phased array + controlled system software integration. No body knows for sure how capable it is at handling targets. In terms of air coverage, it has to be considered area defense.

[Su-34]

That's mistaking quite a bit. 052C is China's first area defense DDG. It has the entire active phased array + controlled system software integration. No body knows for sure how capable it is at handling targets. In terms of air coverage, it has to be considered area defense.

I guess the fact that nobody knows the true specifications and capabilities of the 051C is why "certain nations" are demanding more "transparency" by China in regards to the PLA.:rofl:

[MIGleader]

From a physical point of view, you probably want to have two SAMs per target when you are attempting to shoot something down. Considering that Aegis directs 24 missiles against 12 targets, I think it would be unrealistic to think that 051C or 052C can achieve better than that. Both of them are at 12 missiles against 6 targets right now. That is not bad, but will be improved with better software.

i thought the 52c could direct 16 on 8...
by the way, is the radar on board china's new 52 seiries capable of directing the ciw 730s against ships??

china needs to shrink its vls sizes, and bunch then into squares rather than circles. circles just waste space. that might let the ships hold up to twice as many missles with the same space, meaning the new destryers could hold as many missles as a burke.

[sumdud]

The type 730 CIWS is an independent system. As for the VLS, wouldn't it be better to leave the launcher as circles and then put them into triangular configuration?

[tphuang]

I was under the impression that type 730 is part of the "Chinese Aegis" system. As for 052C, it could be 16 engage 8. I'm not sure where I got the 12/6 from. I know that 052B's SAM can engage 8 targets.

[vincelee]

730 is more or less close looped with its own tracking sensor. There might be some feeds from volume search, but the engagment is done by the dedicated radar on the CIWS itself.

[MIGleader]

you mean the rice lamp radar?
i think the 730 is a fully autonomous system, just like phalanx.

8 targets for the grizzly? i thought just 3 could aimed at a time, with 3 seconds in between each firing

[tphuang]

Well, you can read about it in this article, it talks about the radar for 956EM and 052B.
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3731/200542894523473690qf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)