Same article also mentioned that AESAs are much more resistant to ECM. How did CMANO model that fact?
Its main evolution comes from improved signal processing to deal with the clutter of littoral environments. But its still a PESA.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Same article also mentioned that AESAs are much more resistant to ECM. How did CMANO model that fact?
Its main evolution comes from improved signal processing to deal with the clutter of littoral environments. But its still a PESA.
I don't understand the grounds for their conjecture. Its harder to make an element smaller than it is bigger, due to the need to miniaturize the components within the element. That's why the first AESAs had longer bands, such as the L-band OPS-24 on the Murasame class.
Well, that quote from Friedman dates to 2006, way before the info from the wiki article emerged. If I understood the argument, the Type 346 arrays appeared too small to package sufficient power using AESA style S-band Tx/Rx modules built with late 90s, early 2000s technology. Therefore, they found it plausible to assume the radar was closer instead to the X-band Russian Tombstone radar which is quite substantial in size (therefore not AESA?). Given how the 052C inherited the same SAMs from the 051C, the connection with Flap Lid/Tombstone seemed quite obvious at the time. Although the new radar would have to undertake a volume search function in addition to track and fire control.
You said that the S-band elements would have to be at least half the size of its bandwidth. What is the upper limit?
Well, that quote from Friedman dates to 2006, way before the info from the wiki article emerged. If I understood the argument, the Type 346 arrays appeared too small to package sufficient power using AESA style S-band Tx/Rx modules built with late 90s, early 2000s technology. Therefore, they found it plausible to assume the radar was closer instead to the X-band Russian Tombstone radar which is quite substantial in size (therefore not AESA?). Given how the 052C inherited the same SAMs from the 051C, the connection with Flap Lid/Tombstone seemed quite obvious at the time. Although the new radar would have to undertake a volume search function in addition to track and fire control.
The Type 346 arrays alone are huge even by today's standards. They only look smaller because the Type 346A arrays are titanic.
As for "sufficient power" why do you need that? The advantage of using S-band is that it loses less power traveling through the atmosphere compared to C-band or X-band. In other words, even if you have a more powerful C-band or X-band radar, the range won't get further because these bands loses more energy as they attenuate through the atmosphere. If you want more power, simply increase the size of the array so you can add more elements. Each module has a power ceiling anyway because Gallium Arsenide as a substance has a voltage breakdown limit anyway, and in order to get more power for each element, you transition to the use of Gallium Nitride that has a much higher voltage breakdown limit, By then that's 2015 technology at least. If heat is a problem due to the high power density, then you deal with it via cooling. Liquid cooling, like the Type 346A, will allow for more power per module than the air cooled Type 346.
You said that the S-band elements would have to be at least half the size of its bandwidth. What is the upper limit?
S-band is 7.5 cm to 15 cm in frequency. C-band is 7.5 to 3.75cm. X-band is 3.75 cm to 2.5 cm. The smaller elements would pose a greater technological challenge due to the miniaturization required.
As for Tombstone, if you're a member of CDF I made a long explanation of what type of phase array Flap Lid is in the PLAN Navy radars thread. Just the gist of it. There are four different kinds of phase arrays or PESA. The kind you see in Flap Lid, Tomb Stone, MPQ-53 and even the Chinese HT-233 is called a spaced phase array. Each element does not have a line feed from a central amp, nor does each element has a transmitter. Each element consists only of a receiver and phase shifter. The whole array acts like a lens, there is a large emitter on the back with an optical lens and four horns (monopulse feeds) that would project the beam to the array. You only need to power the array for the phase shifters, not for transmission.
Spaced Phase Array is a very different technology from AESA, where each element has a separate amp and TX emitter on its own.
PESA like SPY-1 or Russian BARS on the Su-30, is similar to an AESA where each element has its own TX emitter, but each emitter is connected via parallel (same length) line feeds to a single large amp (TWT, Klystron). You may refer to this as a parallel line feed phase array.
The other two phase array types is the frequency scan or serial line feed phase array, like Fregat radars, and the Reflective Spaced Phase Array, which is a rare type, as it works like the spaced phase array but instead of refraction, it works on reflection with the feeder in front of the array.
The Tombstone/Flaplid -> Type 346 does not succeed not just because its a spaced phase array vs. AESA, but because the Type 346 is a search radar and Flap Lid is a fire control radar. On the 051C, there is an S-band Fregat radar that acts as the main search radar. But on the 052C/D, there is no Fregat search radar, which points to something else acting as the ship's main search radar. That only leaves you with the Type 346 itself.
Search radars generally work on the L or S-band. Fire control radars on the C or X-band. X or C band can be recruited as search radars if a dedicated S-band radar is lacking but won't be as efficient. There are a few cases where warships don't have S-bands, the vast majority has S-bands, and every PLAN warship has an S-band. It would be absolutely weird if the Type 052C/D doesn't have an S-band when even Jiangweis do. The shape and location of the Type 346 arrays are clearly inspired from the SPY-1 radars, and the SPY-1 is S-band.
Last edited:
Too late to edit: type 052C and type 051C do not have the same SAM.
The HT-233 FCR for HQ-9 is an X-band or C-band, and in many aspects similar to Tombstone. Source:
Its a C-band. Very more like the MPQ-53, which is also a C-band, but the feeder is straight off Tombstone. One can say, its a very decent mix of both the MPQ-53 and Tombstone. MPQ-53 has its own search functions unlike Tombstone that is dependent on a separate search radar. HT-233 appears to work like MPQ-53, that it is capable of functioning on its own, with its own search as a backup, although in general, every HQ-9 battery is required to have its own search radar like the Type 120 which has two versions, a high end version that is an AESA, and a lower end version that is a FRESCAN PESA.
HT-233 however, belongs to Institute 23, as opposed to Institute 14, which did the Type 346. HT-233 is also a spaced PESA, and yes, it requires an optical feed that would project the signal to the back of the array, very different tech from Type 346.
Thanks for the detailed answer Tam. That's a lot of information to digest.
I was reading the wiki page for the Type 346 radar. One thing that struck me as strange was the claim that 4 transceivers were grouped into a single 100W peak power module. Assuming around 5000 transceiver elements in the production version, this comes out to 125kW peak power per array. Now, the SPY-1 with a smaller 3.65m radius array is able to channel over 1MW peak power per panel (source: ) ( ). That's at least an 8x power advantage.
I looked up some basic equations (source: ) and I learned that for the same power, doubling your wavelength increases your detection range by 1.4 (square root law). So even if Type 346 would be at the bottom of the S-band range (2GHz) and SPY-1 at the top (4GHz), it would still be significantly outranged. This is assuming other parameters like Pmin and antenna gain are the same. But there is some advantage in the larger surface of the Type 346 radar in detection mode, so Pmin would be lower?
I was reading the wiki page for the Type 346 radar. One thing that struck me as strange was the claim that 4 transceivers were grouped into a single 100W peak power module. Assuming around 5000 transceiver elements in the production version, this comes out to 125kW peak power per array. Now, the SPY-1 with a smaller 3.65m radius array is able to channel over 1MW peak power per panel (source: ) ( ). That's at least an 8x power advantage.
I looked up some basic equations (source: ) and I learned that for the same power, doubling your wavelength increases your detection range by 1.4 (square root law). So even if Type 346 would be at the bottom of the S-band range (2GHz) and SPY-1 at the top (4GHz), it would still be significantly outranged. This is assuming other parameters like Pmin and antenna gain are the same. But there is some advantage in the larger surface of the Type 346 radar in detection mode, so Pmin would be lower?
Last edited:
Correction: SPY-1 diameter (not radius) is about 3.67m. In the latest link, the quoted dimensions for antenna populated section are 3.84m height by 3.67m width hexagon. Outer face is 4.06m height and 3.94m width octagon.
Too bad I cannot cluster my posts. Moderator can you please merge my last three posts?
After reading a bit more, I understand now that SPY-1D(V) can channel the full power of its 6MW amplifier per antenna face. That totally blows out of the water the 125kW peak power of the Type 346 face. My guess: the numbers in the wiki page are wrong. Or is there some mechanism that would explain the enormous power disparity?
What I learned is that radars operate in pulse mode and when they send out a pulse they need to wait many microseconds for the reflection. At extreme ranges this can even be a few miliseconds. This puts a hard limit as to how many pulses they can send out. Apparently the SPY-1 operates at a typical duty cycle of 1/100, or a bit higher in newer variants. I.e. it radiates only 1% of the time. This results in an "average transmitter power of at least 77 kW" per face for SPY-1D(V).
After reading a bit more, I understand now that SPY-1D(V) can channel the full power of its 6MW amplifier per antenna face. That totally blows out of the water the 125kW peak power of the Type 346 face. My guess: the numbers in the wiki page are wrong. Or is there some mechanism that would explain the enormous power disparity?
What I learned is that radars operate in pulse mode and when they send out a pulse they need to wait many microseconds for the reflection. At extreme ranges this can even be a few miliseconds. This puts a hard limit as to how many pulses they can send out. Apparently the SPY-1 operates at a typical duty cycle of 1/100, or a bit higher in newer variants. I.e. it radiates only 1% of the time. This results in an "average transmitter power of at least 77 kW" per face for SPY-1D(V).
Thanks for the detailed answer Tam. That's a lot of information to digest.
I was reading the wiki page for the Type 346 radar. One thing that struck me as strange was the claim that 4 transceivers were grouped into a single 100W peak power module. Assuming around 5000 transceiver elements in the production version, this comes out to 125kW peak power per array. Now, the SPY-1 with a smaller 3.65m radius array is able to channel over 1MW peak power per panel (source: ) ( ). That's at least an 8x power advantage.
I looked up some basic equations (source: ) and I learned that for the same power, doubling your wavelength increases your detection range by 1.4 (square root law). So even if Type 346 would be at the bottom of the S-band range (2GHz) and SPY-1 at the top (4GHz), it would still be significantly outranged. This is assuming other parameters like Pmin and antenna gain are the same. But there is some advantage in the larger surface of the Type 346 radar in detection mode, so Pmin would be lower?
100w is for a prototype module developed in 1993. That's over 10 years earlier than the final product and that is by no means, close to the final product and still in very early genesis stage. How many AESAs do you have in 1993? That alone is surprising to hear considering this is 1993.
By 1996 which is still very early in the AESA era, they boosted the range from the initial prototype made by Institute 14 from 375 km by 7% to over 400km. This is still in 1996 and is not the final product. Note the wiki entry has the number of greater than 450km for the final Type 346.
Diameter of Type 346 is 4 meters round number. 346A is even bigger. About over 5,000 elements would be correct for an S-band around that size, assuming an element size around 7.5 square cm.
Of course, they will never tell you the actual power of the operational radar. This give away will help you develop ECM equipment against it.
Of course certain numbers are fudged in Wiki. You go to the SAMPSON page here, and it says 25kw.
That is 5x weaker than 125kw. Despite that, it has a range of over 400km.
Here is the Type 382 "Top Plate" used with the Type 054A frigates. Wiki lists it at 100 kw already.
Last edited: