Naval launchers, guns and others

[Iron Man]

Illuminators are generally arrays with similar width to height ratios.

Why are the alleged C band illuminators thin strips? (If i can tell correctly, there seem to be gaps in each strip, making up 3 smaller strips, still several times longer than they're high) If they're not separate, why have such very very long strip? If they're indeed separate, why have 6 of them for each large array? Can the quite short vertical dimension be able to offer what a C band illumination waveform needs at high angles? What if the rumors of C band are not true and it's in fact a X band array?

Maybe they're thin strips so they can fit both types of arrays into a square shape with the S-band array roughly octagonal. This way both the S-band and C-band arrays can share the same air cooling system. Also, the alleged "gaps" are only present in the top strip, and not seen on the bottom strip, so it's possible these gaps are illusory. As for "high angles", this is not really a concern since a fighter or missile would have to be almost directly on top of the ship to achieve a high angle of incidence WRT the panel face; I'm pretty sure the radar designers have already thought about that kind of contingency. And if the "rumors" are not true and it's actually a pair of X-band illuminators, then for the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't matter at all, since then the HHQ-9A is still SARH.

There are also other function array radars should have, like the MPQ53 radar set example: IFF array, sidelobe canceller/s, multiple ECCM arrays. MPQ53 also has a dedicated TVM array. Something that HH9Q may or may not have, despite using or not using TVM. (because, hey, we don't know if it has active guidance, we don't really know if it uses pure SARH or TVM either)

Only other, non organic so to say, array visible on 052c is the long rod thingy underneath the main array. People usually label it as sidelobe canceller. So how plausible is that some of the other required functions are taken by the small arrays above and below the main array?

Then again, there is SPY1 radar face, which has absolutely no other visible separate arrays besides the main array (or even additional arrays right near the main radar face) and yet it does search, track, missile comm, (possibly IFF), ECCM and sidelobe cancellation. Burke does use some IFF system that is separate from the SPY array but may well be linked to Aegis, meaning possibly no need for integrated IFF to the SPY1 array.

We know for a fact that both 346 and SPY-1D do not perform IFF functions. Both ship classes have dedicated IFF arrays. As for the rest, who is to say that the S-band portion of 346 cannot perform any or all of those functions? And if it cannot, who is to say that the C-band portion cannot perform them while simultaneously providing terminal illumination? As for SARH vs TVM, both methods require a terminal radar with the resolution to provide weapons-quality tracks, which the C-band portion of the 346 can provide regardless of the tracking method.

 

[FORBIN]

The original HQ-9 is supposedly based on the S-300 30N6E system, which is TVM. I believe the HHQ-9A naval variant extended the range and was converted to SARH. The HHQ-9B added IR and possibly extended the range some more.

Can't be 30N6E missile don' t exist China have buy S-300PM/PMU1/2 use 48N6 missiles family i think you have confused with 48N6 exist 48N6E2 etc...
S-300FM is a naval variant of the S-300PMU1, use this 48N6 missile 150 km

But many S-300 with several missiles and radars very complicated !!!

But your posts are interesting few post than you and objective also...

 

[Iron Man]

Can't be 30N6E missile don' t exist China have buy S-300PM/PMU1/2 use 48N6 missiles family i think you have confused with 48N6 exist 48N6E2 etc...
S-300FM is a naval variant of the S-300PMU1, use this 48N6 missile 150 km

But many S-300 with several missiles and radars very complicated !!!

But your posts are interesting few post than you and objective also...

The 30N6E is the engagement radar for the S-300PMU2/48N6E missile, which is TVM.

 

[FORBIN]

Turet with two 100 mm guns

 

[Iron Man]

I've been meaning to draw this for a while:

I forgot who, but somebody earlier drew a rough sketch of a dual-packed missile which I wanted to draw on Paint. Here each box is 85cm x 85cm. The two upper tubes have 10cm width peripheral exhaust vents represented in red. This allows for a maximum missile diameter of about 32cm. The bottom dual-packed configuration allows for a maximum missile diameter of about 45cm. This was somewhat eye-opening for me, as I did not expect such a large diameter would be possible with dual-packing. This opens up the possibility that a missile like the CY-5 or the Yu-8/missile booster or even a modified HHQ-16 with folding fins and strakes, could all be dual-packed in a 7m UVLS tube.

 

[Jura The idiot]

I've been meaning to draw this for a while:
View attachment 42685
I forgot who, but somebody earlier drew a rough sketch of a dual-packed missile which I wanted to draw on Paint. ...

cool, LOL I had been thinking of looking at it myself, after (I don't say members' names)
#4480
and
#4481 (in connection with this post, now added the green line to your chart, to quickly check on you LOL):

 

[Iron Man]

cool, LOL I had been thinking of looking at it myself, after (I don't say members' names)
#4480
and
#4481 (in connection with this post, now added the green line to your chart, to quickly check on you LOL):

You don't need that green line to see that this is about the most compact that a dual-packed missile can get inside a VLS tube. Incidentally, both the quad-packed and dual-packed missiles can use the entirety of the red-colored vents by careful design of the bottom exhaust manifolds.

 

[Jura The idiot]

You don't need that green line to see that this is about ...

OK OK I just wanted to see if your diagonal line (in yellow below) connects the edges (also in yellow below):

LOL it does

 

[Iron Man]

Another graphic:


The 32 and 61cm tubes are somewhat arbitrary given we don't know what the exhaust venting requirements are for any of the missiles, but the 45 and 77cm tubes are close to the maximum size that is physically possible.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Another graphic:
View attachment 42692

...

I noticed late in the evening yesterday, before I fell asleep, I had been thinking about the blockbuster in bottom-right which might fit something like a Tochka

...

​

(minus the wings LOL) so I had been thinking about dozen of AShBMs launched in the middle of Pacific which would be the ultimate plunging fire, like one century after the US and Japanese Navies came out with the requirement for plunging fire in the middle of Pacific