052C/052D Class Destroyers

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
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).

Pulse length depends on the range, because you have to wait for the echo before you can transmit again. You need enough time to receive the echo. You do this by calculating the pulse time against the speed of light divided by two (send and return). If the pulse cycle and the receive period is too short, you will miss the echo. Shorter range, faster PRF. Longer range, lower PRF. More than just a strict limit, range directly determines the length of your duty cycle, and its universal to all radars.
Plus: Shorter PRF gets you better accuracy about its speed but you get greater ambiguity about range. Longer PRF gives you more ambiguity about its speed but greater accuracy about range.
 
Last edited:

DDr

Just Hatched
Registered Member
CMANO is a very impressive engine and relatively intuitive for simulations all things considered.

However the pitfall it suffers -- as with basically all wargaming simulators or even discussing conflict scenarios in words -- is the performance and relative performance of the systems it seeks to simulate, which naturally we do not know. Unfortunately that makes CMANO next to useless for simulating scenarios involving systems whose performance cannot be agreed upon by differing groups.

Still better than "my radar is better than yours".
 

DDr

Just Hatched
Registered Member
CMANO database is quite full of shit. Still a good game, tho.
You guys could go to their forums and ask the devs to update their Chinese entries with our assembled knowledge here. Might or might not work.

Or you could do that yourself.

When they ask for credible sources, don't neglect to tell them that it was distilled from anonymous posters on this here forum, so they know it's reliable stuff.
 

jobjed

Captain
Or you could do that yourself.

When they ask for credible sources, don't neglect to tell them that it was distilled from anonymous posters on this here forum, so they know it's reliable stuff.

The opaque nature of the PLA and its systems means what traditionally counts as credible often isn't. PLA-watching is unorthodox, deal with it.
 

jobjed

Captain
Go ahead and ask the CMANO devs to change a Chinese system because an anonymous forum post says so.
CMANO's developer is an ardent upholder of the traditional sourcing dogma. To ask them to throw away everything they hold sacred is a tall ask.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
CMANO's developer is an ardent upholder of the traditional sourcing dogma. To ask them to throw away everything they hold sacred is a tall ask.

Leave them playing with the rope to hang themselves. They have no idea what LDSD is and why the hell it has no business with naval radars. LDSD stands for Look Down Shoot Down. That applies to fighter jet radars. For all these years they perpetuated and never corrected this obvious glaring error?

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!
 

DDr

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Leave them playing with the rope to hang themselves. They have no idea what LDSD is and why the hell it has no business with naval radars. LDSD stands for Look Down Shoot Down. That applies to fighter jet radars. For all these years they perpetuated and never corrected this obvious glaring error?

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!

Thanks for confirming you have no idea how that flag (which signifies that a radar uses pulse-doppler, which has explicit consequences also for non-LD radars) is used by the database and the simulation :)
 

canniBUS

Junior Member
Registered Member
Still better than "my radar is better than yours".

Or you could do that yourself.

When they ask for credible sources, don't neglect to tell them that it was distilled from anonymous posters on this here forum, so they know it's reliable stuff.

What is credible?

Go ahead and ask the CMANO devs to change a Chinese system because an anonymous forum post says so.

Thanks for confirming you have no idea how that flag (which signifies that a radar uses pulse-doppler, which has explicit consequences also for non-LD radars) is used by the database and the simulation :)

LOL we triggered another snowflake.
 
Top