SinoDefence Forum

challenge

170/171 unlike 169/168 carry far more advance ESM/ECM,picture obtain thru website,show the ship sporting multi-lens antenna ESM/ECM similiar to SLQ-32 or Russian "Wine cask" EW system.
is there any more info regarding the EW?

eecsmaster

this is by Dylan from CDF

"August Kanwa says 052C carries NRJ6A ECM/ESM system. Western sources disclosed earlier that the technology of this system came from Israel, but a source from Israeli military industry said that it was all designed and manufactured independently, and only the microwave switch was from Israel. ESM's noise power output is 150W, and deceptive power output is 1KW. The deceptive frequency coverage of the system is 7.5-16.5GHz, noise frequency coverage 8-16GHz. The minimum interference distance of the system for terminal guidance radar is 4km, and minimum interference distance for tracking radar 10km. The modes of interference include consecutive noise interference, AGC interference, and combinational interference. ESM's reaction time from receiving signals to sending out warning is 1 second. "

challenge

I been suspecting that the technology may come israel's Elistra Ns9005ESM/ECM.but there's possibility that PLAN uses Israel system and link it with local design system, example the upper and middle mast monopulse DF ESM do not appear in Israel defense products.but the lower which is unmistakenly Elistra MBAT system.
(USN SLG-32.V-4 can simultaneosly jammed 34 hostile emitter )

tphuang

just because something looks like it, does't mean it is it. It could be that China got a copy of it and came up with a local version that has similar performance and appearance.

tphuang

this is that article mentionned above, although it's written in Chinese. Since it's translated already, I don't think I need to say anything.

Jeff Head

Well, I believe the 170 and 171 have extensive ESM/ECM capabilities based on earlier PLAN standards. Exactly what their capability is, we still do not know, but I would be shocked if there weren't significant improvements given the mission of the vessels.

You can see the extensive attennae in this picture.



By the way...this pic does not have a hull number shown. It is one of the same pic that SD has, so I wonder which Type 052C it is?

challenge

kanwa got it wrong, 168/169,054 frogate were fittyed with NRJ6a,while 170/171 use israel (or hybrid version)
NRJ6A look like SLQ-503 Ramses ,during the mid 80's China imported one sample of SLQ-503 RAMSES from Canada,according to sales brochure,it was design to protect small ship frigate and corvette,byt not large destroyer.
it is possible that chinese engineers may make additional improvement ,using israel,russia or local design system.

tphuang

I think you need to be a little more consistent. The above part, you just said that upper and middle mast do not appear to be Israel, but lower one is MBAT. Now, you are just saying 170/171 uses israel. Looks can be deceiving, 170/171 has something that looks like Bandstand, but is it really Band stand?

Jacey

Hi Guys,

I'm a new boy on the block but I do profess to know a little about EW. Are you aware that the NRJ6A has been promoted for some time by Almaz for their Project 1234EM corvette?

Based on available pics, it appears to be a mixture of wide and narrow band Rx with coarse and fine azimuth resolution. Additional pics to help analysis would be most welcome.

Meantime, on the main mast of Luyang II and other Chinese hulls, there appears to be two MATILDA RWR type antenna arrangements - This was a system to warn of homing radar signals, i.e. those that represented an immediate threat - like active missile heads and gunnery control systems -any comments on their true identity please ?

Jacey

p.s.
Come now, 170/171 antenna arrangements are nothing like Wine Flask or Slick 32, the former of which is a jammer the latter a poor tactical ESM - because it was original designed by a bunch of strategic EW specialists - which is a path the USN has always preferred to follow. And I would very much doubt it comes from Israeli NS9000 series for that was born in the mid 1980s.

For tphuang, the lower antenna pair which you claim to be like Elisra's MBATs are almost certainly quadrant ESM DF arrays, that is why they are set at the four quarter bearings, and they give a coarse intercept azimuth. They simply do not appear to have the guts to handle more than a few milliWatts.

Just because there is an increased number of antennas (note: not antennae - that for beetles and the like) does not mean that it is a better system. Take a close look at the UAT series on RN warships. They probably have the most power tactical ESM system in the world bar none, and all you see is an integrated bunch of DF antennas - no IFM Omnis, no spinning dishes.

Incidentally, Lockheed have stated that they did not sell any EW kit to China. My guess is that, Thales having acquired MEL -> Thorn-EMI -> Racal EW expertise in UK and HSA (Signaal) in Holland, who between them designed and built the first Scimitar for global sales and Ramses for NATO sales only, prior to ECM control being given to another sister company, MEL/DSL in Canada, and knowling that they were increasingly strong with radar sales in China, Thales gave China Rapids, Scimitar (not Ramses) [the first fit of which was Harbin which I identified in 1994 from Japanese phots] and Matilda. And, if you care to look at what ships have Scimitar and Ramses, especially the latter, you will find there are some big boys out there, because Ramses was a clever bunch of nuts, software driven, whose techniques generators can be easily updated to meet new threats.

Jacey

tphuang

are you talking to me? I did not state anything. I simply posted that one kanwa article. Read over my post again, I was trying to figure out what challenger was trying to say.

Jacey

Hi tphuang,

Apologies if I appeared to pull the wrong thread, its the subject which counts. Challenge made a specific statement which would be impossible to back up. I have been working for some time to figure out exactly how China got the ex-MEL, MEL/DSL, HSA EW kit. I am certain it was as a result of Thales taking over the assets, which previously would not have been offered to China due to imbargoes, but France (and Israel) ignore such intangibles. The questions are exactly how and when.

Jacey