DDG 052C Thread

[Londo Molari]

Originally Posted by Engineer

SM-2 seems to have three times the range than HQ-16, is there any truth in it?

Yep, but it was designed as anti-aircraft missile, so its maneuverability is less than ideal for anti-missile defense.

Gotta compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Standard missile is like HQ-9 (on Type 52C), which is also much bigger and has longer range. These missiles can provide wide area air-defense umbrella for a whole group of ships. They are usually found on specialty AAW ships of bigger navies.

On the other hand you have ESSM, which has a size and range similar to HQ-16. The ESSM provides a more airtight defense (can intercept missiles very effectively) but its range is not big enough to protect a whole fleet.

The real issue is that Russian and U.S. ships tend to have both long-range anti-aircraft missiles AND short-range anti-missile missiles on the same ship, while the rest of the world ships only have 1 or the other.

[Wolverine]

Originally Posted by tphuang

Trying to spin this away from my original one-sentence rebuttal which never mentioned Shtil is not scoring you any points here. But I suppose you just feel like continuing to debate here. So, to answer the part on shtil, we don't have enough published info to say one way or the other for the longest engagement scenario.

I fail to see how you being unable to understand my own post to which you responded is any kind of attempt on my part to spin the discussion away. My mentioning of the Shtil is nothing more than an explication of MY point that I was making that YOU responded to, namely that ESSM and SM-2 are not limited in range by their illuminators (while Shtil possibly is). You responded with a point that is completely a non-issue because pointing out that radar LOS limits missiles is like pointing out that the sun shines during the day. A far more interesting question when considering a missile/radar combination is which component is the weaker partner? So who's arguing for nothing? Don't accuse me of bad motives just because you are not getting your way in this thread.

Originally Posted by tphuang

And frankly, I don't think it matters. Who really cares whether the limiting factor is the radar or the missiles?

You don't think it matters because you're not thinking hard enough. A missile limited by its illuminator is a completely different issue from a missile limited by its fuel. Take the example of 054A. If the Orekh is the limiting factor, increases in range are made by upgrading the illuminator. If the Shtil/HQ-16's fuel is the limiting factor, by designing a new missile. If the flight profile is the issue, possibly programming modifications. Obviously some of these upgrades are easier to achieve than others. In the case of the 052C, it is still not proven what radar band the AESA operates at. If the radar is X band, it may very well be that the radar is the limiting factor in the HQ-9's range, as X band is good for fire control tracks but bad for range. If the radar is S band, it won't matter as much because that would mean that HQ-9 guidance is probably command or semi-active until end phase when it becomes active, since S band cannot provide fire control quality tracks, but has very good range compared to X band, in which case the HQ-9 is probably limited only by its fuel stores and flight profile.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

I fail to see how you being unable to understand my own post to which you responded is any kind of attempt on my part to spin the discussion away. My mentioning of the Shtil is nothing more than an explication of MY point that I was making that YOU responded to, namely that ESSM and SM-2 are not limited in range by their illuminators (while Shtil possibly is). You responded with a point that is completely a non-issue because pointing out that radar LOS limits missiles is like pointing out that the sun shines during the day. A far more interesting question when considering a missile/radar combination is which component is the weaker partner? So who's arguing for nothing? Don't accuse me of bad motives just because you are not getting your way in this thread.

maybe it's a non-issue to you, but not to a lot of novice poster on this forum. And, I don't find your missile/radar combination question to be interesting at all. But please, keep on talking about your theories.

You don't think it matters because you're not thinking hard enough. A missile limited by its illuminator is a completely different issue from a missile limited by its fuel. Take the example of 054A. If the Orekh is the limiting factor, increases in range are made by upgrading the illuminator. If the Shtil/HQ-16's fuel is the limiting factor, by designing a new missile. If the flight profile is the issue, possibly programming modifications. Obviously some of these upgrades are easier to achieve than others. In the case of the 052C, it is still not proven what radar band the AESA operates at. If the radar is X band, it may very well be that the radar is the limiting factor in the HQ-9's range, as X band is good for fire control tracks but bad for range. If the radar is S band, it won't matter as much because that would mean that HQ-9 guidance is probably command or semi-active until end phase when it becomes active, since S band cannot provide fire control quality tracks, but has very good range compared to X band, in which case the HQ-9 is probably limited only by its fuel stores and flight profile.

It certainly doesn't matter to you or me whether the limiting factor is the missile, the flight profile or the radar. This is only a factor for the people working on the product. And we certainly don't have evidence either way.

As for 052C, it's definitely not using X-band. I would say that it's most likely operating on S band, we really don't know. It's using AESA, this has been confirmed by many Chinese sources. Believe what you must.

[crobato]

You don't think it matters because you're not thinking hard enough. A missile limited by its illuminator is a completely different issue from a missile limited by its fuel. Take the example of 054A. If the Orekh is the limiting factor, increases in range are made by upgrading the illuminator. If the Shtil/HQ-16's fuel is the limiting factor, by designing a new missile. If the flight profile is the issue, possibly programming modifications. Obviously some of these upgrades are easier to achieve than others. In the case of the 052C, it is still not proven what radar band the AESA operates at. If the radar is X band, it may very well be that the radar is the limiting factor in the HQ-9's range, as X band is good for fire control tracks but bad for range. If the radar is S band, it won't matter as much because that would mean that HQ-9 guidance is probably command or semi-active until end phase when it becomes active, since S band cannot provide fire control quality tracks, but has very good range compared to X band, in which case the HQ-9 is probably limited only by its fuel stores and flight profile.

Has to be an S-band, otherwise the ship has no other S band source. A ship has to have some form of S band for volume search. The APAR ships, which uses X-band on the AESA is backed by an S-band set. The 051C, which uses X-band on the fire control PAR, is backed by an S-band set on the Fregat MA710. The 054s get their S-band from the Fregats.

If the 052C PARs are X-band, it is natural they must have the S-band Fregat type radar, like the 051C or 054s. Instead, what you got on top is the C-band SR64. Its a requirement that S and X-band sets go together to create a search-fire control pair, and if you have one, there must be the other. If a PAR acts as both fire control and search, it has to be a C-band, which sits between the two and can accomplish both like the MPQ-53 for the Patriots. But in the 052C, you got a C-band already operating on the top mast as the SR64, which is indicative the PARs are not C-band either.

Deduction points to the PARs on the 052C as being S-band.

[challenge]

there is not yet official confirmation by the PLAN ,that 052C is operational, consider this it took the USN 9 years to developed the AEGIS,for the soviet Sky Watch radar system,all but abandone when soviet implode.
back in 2004,report that the radar system will be fully operational in 2006.to date ,I still waiting for the news.
instead of using x band illuminator,it is likely it may use data link operate in s band.

[Wolverine]

Originally Posted by crobato

Has to be an S-band, otherwise the ship has no other S band source. A ship has to have some form of S band for volume search. The APAR ships, which uses X-band on the AESA is backed by an S-band set. The 051C, which uses X-band on the fire control PAR, is backed by an S-band set on the Fregat MA710. The 054s get their S-band from the Fregats.

If the 052C PARs are X-band, it is natural they must have the S-band Fregat type radar, like the 051C or 054s. Instead, what you got on top is the C-band SR64. Its a requirement that S and X-band sets go together to create a search-fire control pair, and if you have one, there must be the other. If a PAR acts as both fire control and search, it has to be a C-band, which sits between the two and can accomplish both like the MPQ-53 for the Patriots. But in the 052C, you got a C-band already operating on the top mast as the SR64, which is indicative the PARs are not C-band either.

Deduction points to the PARs on the 052C as being S-band.

X band can do volume search as well as S band, the only caveat being that X band is shorter ranged than a comparably powered S band. Incidentally, the SMART-L radar you are referring to is D/L band, not S band. This same radar is used by the De Zeven Provinciens, Type 45's, Sachsen's, and Horizon's. So it's not always an X/S band combination. An X/L band combination seems to be preferred over in Europe. This raises the interesting possibility of an X band/UHF combination on the 052C, with the Yagi providing volume search (or more accurately, just early warning). If the X band has some decent range, this may work.

But in any case, I agree the 052C PAR's probably use S band, if for no other reason than for the range it affords. Which means the HQ-9 must necessarily be active-guided in the terminal stage.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

X band can do volume search as well as S band, the only caveat being that X band is shorter ranged than a comparably powered S band.

Its more than that. For missile guidance, you need to be in continuous wave mode + X-band. X-band in pulse mode isn't enough, and less so in long range, since pulse lengths have to be longer, resulting in higher speed ambiguities.

You can't put a PAR or even an AESA in a simultaneous pulse and CW mode. If you're in CW, the range is even shorter because CW doesn't travel as fast as pulse.

Incidentally, the SMART-L radar you are referring to is D/L band, not S band. This same radar is used by the De Zeven Provinciens, Type 45's, Sachsen's, and Horizon's. So it's not always an X/S band combination. An X/L band combination seems to be preferred over in Europe. This raises the interesting possibility of an X band/UHF combination on the 052C, with the Yagi providing volume search (or more accurately, just early warning). If the X band has some decent range, this may work.

Not exactly. UHF is by magnitude longer than L-band. The sequence is logarithmic. Can't put any decent resolution with that. PLAN ships by tradition always has E/F band (S-band) of one sort or another.

But in any case, I agree the 052C PAR's probably use S band, if for no other reason than for the range it affords. Which means the HQ-9 must necessarily be active-guided in the terminal stage.

Yes.

Also, the PAR cannot be CW, which makes range shorter and makes an inadequate search radar.

If the PAR is CW, it must be able to generate simultaneous beams for tracking and illumination guidance. You can't do that with a PESA, as every setup involving PESA had primary and secondary radar sets. It would have to be an AESA in the nature of APAR, and no one has been able to accomplish this via testing until 2005, a year after the 052C went into service.

Even if its AESA, and the cooling systems spotted on the ship 891 suggests strongly it does, it would have been a much easier implementation as in technologically less complex, using an S-band pulse AESA + active guided SAMs vs. X-band Interrupted CW doing both tracking and terminal guidance.

[Finn McCool]

Originally Posted by tphuang

Trying to spin this away from my original one-sentence rebuttal which never mentioned Shtil is not scoring you any points here. But I suppose you just feel like continuing to debate here. So, to answer the part on shtil, we don't have enough published info to say one way or the other for the longest engagement scenario. And frankly, I don't think it matters. Who really cares whether the limiting factor is the radar or the missiles?

I don't have nearly as much technical knowledge as a lot of you guys, but here's a common sense question: Why design a missle with more fuel than necessary to take it out to the maximum range of its radar?

[ba12]

nowadays plain and simple, missiles don't do the line thing, they wig-wag, do the goose-step, the side-step and even the two step, anything but a straight line to the target. this is of course called complicated maneuvers.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I don't have nearly as much technical knowledge as a lot of you guys, but here's a common sense question: Why design a missle with more fuel than necessary to take it out to the maximum range of its radar?

There really is no proof that is the case here. I think Wolverine interprets that something like Shtil missile must have the ability to go farther because of how large it is. There is some validity to that. Could also be that the motor on shtil isn't as efficient as what's on SM-2. Could be that the path traveled isn't the most efficient. Could be a bunch of things. If you look at the specs for 9M38, the range against targets < 0.1 m^2 is noticeably less than the range vs targets > 1 m^2, probably due to the limitation of the FCR.

[Roger604]

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I don't have nearly as much technical knowledge as a lot of you guys, but here's a common sense question: Why design a missle with more fuel than necessary to take it out to the maximum range of its radar?

I guess it could get targeting data from the radars of another ship, extending its effective range.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I don't have nearly as much technical knowledge as a lot of you guys, but here's a common sense question: Why design a missle with more fuel than necessary to take it out to the maximum range of its radar?

Partly in dealing with maneuvering targets.

[adeptitus]

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I don't have nearly as much technical knowledge as a lot of you guys, but here's a common sense question: Why design a missle with more fuel than necessary to take it out to the maximum range of its radar?

This web site might provide some answers:
http://www.canit.se:8088/~griffon/av...siles/sam.html

Manufacturers probably list max missile range under ideal condition. But actual range varies by target altitude, speed, and other factors.

[tphuang]

This is interesting, pictures of 568, 170 and 171 from Sanya. The part i like about these pictures is that 052C is loaded with YJ-62 or whatever AShM it uses. Normally, it's traveling without them.

[Pointblank]

Originally Posted by tphuang

This is interesting, pictures of 568, 170 and 171 from Sanya. The part i like about these pictures is that 052C is loaded with YJ-62 or whatever AShM it uses. Normally, it's traveling without them.

This leads to wonder if maybe the 52C is a little top heavy... you normally don't keep removing and installing missile launchers without good reason.