052C/052D Class Destroyers

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wanted to add at the end of my post a summary of the message in the linked PDF. When SPY-1 is scanning with its 1.7 degree pencil beams its likely using its entire 4300 element array. To get a narrower beam you would normally need a larger array. There are some tricks like dual density arrays that could give you a narrower beam, but it's not without tradeoffs.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I wanted to add at the end of my post a summary of the message in the linked PDF. When SPY-1 is scanning with its 1.7 degree pencil beams its likely using its entire 4300 element array. To get a narrower beam you would normally need a larger array. There are some tricks like dual density arrays that could give you a narrower beam, but it's not without tradeoffs.

I am not sure if its that important to pursue a narrower beam as a goal. A wider beam with much less, to zero side lobes, is preferable to a narrower beam that's plagued with side lobes which makes it detectable by ESM and vulnerable to SEAD.
 
this thread for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





La marine chinoise a admis au service actif, en Février cette année à priori, son 11e destroyer Type 052D (119 Guiyang) et sa 30e frégate Type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).

Translated from French by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Chinese navy admitted to the active service, in February this year a priori, its 11th destroyer type 052D (119 Guiyang) and its 30th frigate type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).

D1ORDvRVYAIkmR8.jpg
 

Interstellar

Junior Member
Registered Member
Indeed, but the FD2000 may not be the base or initial or original version of the HQ-9. HQ-9 was first introduced in 1999, but the FD2000 didn't show up until 2010 in the 8th Zhuhai exhibition, so we can assume this was when the ARH version of the HQ-9 was introduced. The first 052C was launched in 2003, but Type 052D was launched in 2012, so the FD2000 and its ARH seeker lines up well in chronology with the 052D.

Not really. HQ-9 did not reach design finalization until 2005. LRIP begins only after design finalization is completed.

I would also believe that the ARH technology is connected or rooted in connection with the PL-12, and only until the PL-12 proved the Chinese rendition of this technology to work, before it would spread to other missiles. The SD-10 was also introduced around 2010 in the same exhibit as the FD2000, so 2010 is a good time point to mark when Chinese ARH technology has matured.

The seekers of HQ-9 and PL-12 were developed by No.25 Institute of the Second Research Academy of CASIC and CAMA of AVIC separately.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tam, let's not dwell on the cmano db. It's just one of several sources out there. But let me say this : the per-platform data that you see in the online browser is just a small subset of the actual in-game data. They use a rather elaborate EM propagation model(for a game). If you're curious, check out the excel sheets in this thread:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It does not excuse glaring basic errors.

As for the radar panel photo, you might have a point there!
But be that as it may, my speculation is about the Type 346, not Type 346A. If the latter is 4m wide, then the former is clearly narrower. If you have some data/measurements on the Type 346 face dimensions please share.

346 is the one with the 4m wide octagon, then arrays on top below to create a rectangular shape. 346A is said to 4.3 meters.

As I said before, I have reservations with the veracity of the data in the Wiki article. In particular with the claim that the the FCR comes in form of 2 rectangular arrays of dimensions 4m by 0.2m:
"
The original Star of the Sea design consisted of two active arrays: an octagon S-band array with diameter of four meters for search and track, and a much smaller C-band active array with diameter of 60 centimeters for missile control. With an area approximately 0.3 square meter, the small C-band array could not effectively control the HHQ-9 SAM with the increased range and reduced tracking signal. A larger C-band array was needed. The 14th Institute design team abolished the small C-band array, and adopted two larger 0.2 meter by four meter rectangular arrays, and in terms of area, each C-band array is more than two and half time of the original small array with diameter of 0.6 meter. "

The problem is not the beam width in the horizontal. If you have more elements on the horizontal, your beam is narrower on the horizontal. Its that the beam will be wider on the vertical, so its taller than wider. With less elements on the vertical, its also how you steer the beam on the vertical.

What I find interesting is that on several places in the article there is mention of a tracking signal being handled by C-band arrays.
"
Two of the major changes are the weakening of HHQ-9 tracking signal and the tracking range of HHQ-9 respectively. For the signal tracking, the signal is greatly reduced ostensively to reduce the probability of being intercepted by enemy. For the tracking range increase, it was ostensively due to the range of HHQ-9 has being increased by several dozen kilometers, so tracking range must be increased accordingly."

This sounds to me like 2-way communication between the missile and Type 346 C-band arrays. I could interpret this as a component of inflight midcourse guidance. For reasons that I explained above, this makes much more sense than these arrays serving as illuminators.

But I see that you are drawing a similar conclusion. I trust that you understood the point of my thought exercise.

TVM would still require an illuminating source. The illuminating source would traditionally come from a fire control radar on the ground, but what if its made possible that it can be on the missile itself like an active component. But instead of being fully autonomous, the missile still communicates to station control via the TVM link.

The text in the FD2000 marketing information speaks of "composite guidance system" along with active radar homing. This suggests the missile may have more than one guidance mode.


As for your remark about the relation of array size and number of elements per axis, the pencil beamwidth (think of width as diameter per axis) is related to antenna gain. You can find a nice discussion with some formulas here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The narrower the beam the farther the range.

But range is not everything. A longer ranged radar but has a substantial side lobe presence is more of a detriment than a shorter ranged radar with ultra low side lobes. ECM resistance has become more important than anything.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
The problem is not the beam width in the horizontal. If you have more elements on the horizontal, your beam is narrower on the horizontal. Its that the beam will be wider on the vertical, so its taller than wider. With less elements on the vertical, its also how you steer the beam on the vertical.
Not sure what you meant in the last sentence, but I think we are in agreement. The steering comes from being able to control the phase shift of each element in a phased array. How fine (think of smallest step) you can steer depends on the fidelity of your phase shifters. The beamwidth is proportional to the antenna gain, which is again proportional to antenna size and number of elements.

For illumination, you want the beam to be narrow. How narrow depends on the range to target. What you normally don't want is to paint two targets with the same beam. If you do, your missile might decide to pass in between the two targets!

The advantage with PESA/AESA is that you can tune the beam properties dynamically and of course steer the beam electronically. The downside is that your offbore beamwidth deteriorates with the cosine of the beam angle.

Now, at extreme range you have no choice but to make the beam narrow. That's why AN/SPG-62 illuminators have beamwidths of about 0.8 degrees. The fact that it steers mechanically allows it to maintain the beamwidth regardless of pointing direction.

Getting back to the Type 346. It seems many of us lean towards it being a search and tracking radar only, not unlike the SPY-1. Another forum member mentioned that the HQ-9 design was finalized two years after the 052C was launched. I would like to think that this points to very ambitious design targets.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Not sure what you meant in the last sentence, but I think we are in agreement. The steering comes from being able to control the phase shift of each element in a phased array. How fine (think of smallest step) you can steer depends on the fidelity of your phase shifters. The beamwidth is proportional to the antenna gain, which is again proportional to antenna size and number of elements.

For illumination, you want the beam to be narrow. How narrow depends on the range to target. What you normally don't want is to paint two targets with the same beam. If you do, your missile might decide to pass in between the two targets!

You have to define narrow whether its both in azimuth and elevation, azimuth mainly, or elevation mainly. . I think the chances of illuminating two targets on the same beam is extremely small, and you will still likely head to the nearest or bigger or faster target due to having a stronger return.

The advantage with PESA/AESA is that you can tune the beam properties dynamically and of course steer the beam electronically. The downside is that your offbore beamwidth deteriorates with the cosine of the beam angle.

Yes. AESA though, still has a long list of advantages over PESA, ranging from improved antenna gain, to the ability to alter frequencies across the array face.

Now, at extreme range you have no choice but to make the beam narrow. That's why AN/SPG-62 illuminators have beamwidths of about 0.8 degrees. The fact that it steers mechanically allows it to maintain the beamwidth regardless of pointing direction.

Still, MPQ-53, roughly 70 x 70 elements, and Thales APAR, with a 60 x 60 elements is still able to handle up to 150 km plus. On closer ranges, dividing the array into multiple beams enables the MPQ-53 to engage as many as 9 targets simultaneously, and 16 targets for the Thales APAR.

The SPG-62 has its own issues. Any form of reflecting unto a mechanical array is bound to create scatter that leads to side lobes, no matter what shape is the parabolic. You are limited in the face of saturation attack, optimally, one illuminator handles one target, guiding two missiles to the same target. A mechanical illuminator is subject to mechanical stress and wear, and it can break down. A digital illuminator has the ability to track and illuminate a target at electronic speeds, which is a crucial advantage against extremely fast and agile targets, but a mechanical illuminator is still subject to the maximum speed allowed by its mechanisms, that may not be able to keep up against a very fast moving target. 6aq2

Getting back to the Type 346. It seems many of us lean towards it being a search and tracking radar only, not unlike the SPY-1. Another forum member mentioned that the HQ-9 design was finalized two years after the 052C was launched. I would like to think that this points to very ambitious design targets.

True. Its a very ambitious direction for the PLAN.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
You have to define narrow whether its both in azimuth and elevation, azimuth mainly, or elevation mainly.

For illumination purposes which I was talking about, it would be narrow in both. That way you get maximum gain and minimum spread.
 
Yesterday at 5:02 PM
this thread for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





La marine chinoise a admis au service actif, en Février cette année à priori, son 11e destroyer Type 052D (119 Guiyang) et sa 30e frégate Type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).

Translated from French by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Chinese navy admitted to the active service, in February this year a priori, its 11th destroyer type 052D (119 Guiyang) and its 30th frigate type 054A (542 Zaozhuang).

D1ORDvRVYAIkmR8.jpg
now just:
006FCqYVly1g0verqrolbj30o60ddq4e.jpg
 
Top