055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[ougoah]

So the 346B on the Type 055 is the only sandwiched dual band in existence? Surprised Australia doesn't just use a Raytheon radar. I suppose the government is expected to support such a niche organisation but I wonder how it compares with the Americans.

 

[Blitzo]

So the 346B on the Type 055 is the only sandwiched dual band in existence? Surprised Australia doesn't just use a Raytheon radar. I suppose the government is expected to support such a niche organisation but I wonder how it compares with the Americans.

No... it is the type 346 on the original 052C which has that configuration.

We don't know if type 346A and type 346B retain the C band arrays of the original type 346.

 

[Chish]

Dalian update.

Bridge and helm.

What does the chinese characters say?
Never mind, I saw the video.

 

[Tam]

I think that is the wrong way to approach it.

The first question should be -- do we consider the relevant details of a post/rumour to be credible?
The second question should be -- does what we physically see correspond to the relevant details of a post/rumour?

And third and lastly -- is suggestion of a post/rumour technically possible?

Not entirely when the subject is no longer of any interest to most watchers.

For question one, I consider the answer to be yes. Specifically I don't think there is any reason to within the post itself to doubt the assertions of a dual C band array sandwiching the main S band array
For question two, I also consider the answer to be yes. We know what the array configuration of the Type 346 looks like underneath its cover and it is exactly as the post describes it.
For question three, I also consider the answer to be yes as well. The fact that other radars have not adopted such an arrangement does not mean it is technically impossible, it could just mean that there were better solutions and the type 346 ended up with its configuration to suit their own requirements at the time.
There is a difference between "this is a strange way of doing things" versus "this is a configuration which is technically impossible".

For me, more than just rumor, you need analysis based on precedent. Physics, technology and purpose dictate form. There are three rules of precedents used in this case. The first is technological precedents in the West, looking for similar items with the US, UK, Europe and so on. The second is precedents within the Soviet and Russian arms industry. The third is to find precedents within the Chinese defense industry itself. In all three precedents, the idea of using twin strip arrays to be used as some kind of illumination tool falls flat, with no precedent in all three levels. Technically possible does not mean wise, design is always aimed for the optimum.

Yes, there is an round or octagonal main array, with two strips of arrays that might be in C-band. The written lore if I remember, pointed to them as "missile guidance".

But missile guidance does not necessarily mean its SARH type illumination. What can also describe guidance is command guidance, wherein the strips are communication strips that are guiding the missiles digitally via datalink. Here is something you need to know about C-band: its commonly used as a data transmission band. Your Wifi router uses it --- 2.5Ghz mode is S-band and 5Ghz mode is C-band. Guess who also uses C-band? 5G telecom, especially with China's. Communication arrays don't have the same power requirements as radars and can afford to be smaller.

For communication, you don't need two strips. Only one strip would suffice, The other strip, the one on top is most likely an IFF array which is absolutely essential for any air defense for telling friend or foe. Unlike the 052D, there is no physically and externally visible IFF array on the 052C. When the 052D was introduced, the panel shaped changed to a regular square one and the external IFF panel appeared only for the first time on top of the bridge. So you might as well guess, that on the 052C, the IFF strip was buried with the array underneath the covers, and it should be the strip on top of the array. Thus the strip array above is IFF and the strip below is communication. It perfectly matches the land base HT233 radar's configuration which by the way is used as the fire control for the land based HQ-9. This configuration also matches the radar system for the KS-1 SAM which is derived from the HT233. The top strip is for IFF and the bottom panels is for communication, with the main array sandwiched between both.

 

[Tam]

What does the chinese characters say?
Never mind, I saw the video.

We probably won't see any meaningful updates for a while, since I would believe that shipyards have temporarily stopped working, and the photo papparazzi are going to stay mainly indoors during this time period.

 

[Blitzo]

Not entirely when the subject is no longer of any interest to most watchers.



For me, more than just rumor, you need analysis based on precedent. Physics, technology and purpose dictate form. There are three rules of precedents used in this case. The first is technological precedents in the West, looking for similar items with the US, UK, Europe and so on. The second is precedents within the Soviet and Russian arms industry. The third is to find precedents within the Chinese defense industry itself. In all three precedents, the idea of using twin strip arrays to be used as some kind of illumination tool falls flat, with no precedent in all three levels. Technically possible does not mean wise, design is always aimed for the optimum.

Yes, there is an round or octagonal main array, with two strips of arrays that might be in C-band. The written lore if I remember, pointed to them as "missile guidance".

But missile guidance does not necessarily mean its SARH type illumination. What can also describe guidance is command guidance, wherein the strips are communication strips that are guiding the missiles digitally via datalink. Here is something you need to know about C-band: its commonly used as a data transmission band. Your Wifi router uses it --- 2.5Ghz mode is S-band and 5Ghz mode is C-band. Guess who also uses C-band? 5G telecom, especially with China's. Communication arrays don't have the same power requirements as radars and can afford to be smaller.

For communication, you don't need two strips. Only one strip would suffice, The other strip, the one on top is most likely an IFF array which is absolutely essential for any air defense for telling friend or foe. Unlike the 052D, there is no physically and externally visible IFF array on the 052C. When the 052D was introduced, the panel shaped changed to a regular square one and the external IFF panel appeared only for the first time on top of the bridge. So you might as well guess, that on the 052C, the IFF strip was buried with the array underneath the covers, and it should be the strip on top of the array. Thus the strip array above is IFF and the strip below is communication. It perfectly matches the land base HT233 radar's configuration which by the way is used as the fire control for the land based HQ-9. This configuration also matches the radar system for the KS-1 SAM which is derived from the HT233. The top strip is for IFF and the bottom panels is for communication, with the main array sandwiched between both.

View attachment 57420 View attachment 57421

... So you agree that the 346 could be a main S band array sandwiched between two C band arrays?

Whether it is used specifically for illumination or for communication is not that important to my argument, so much as that the type 346 features a main S band array sandwiched between two C band arrays as described by the post.


The question is fairly simple -- is there anything in our technical understanding which would invalidate the statements from that post stating the type 346 is an S band array sandwiched with two C band arrays?

 

[Brumby]

The question is fairly simple -- is there anything in our technical understanding which would invalidate the statements from that post stating the type 346 is an S band array sandwiched with two C band arrays?

IMO, so what? Technical understanding is of value if it can actually help to formulate some idea of its capabilities. Does anybody really care whether it is a sandwich or a hotdog? So after all the numerous post on it, can anyone actually articulate something resembling technical performance? .

 

[Blitzo]

IMO, so what? Technical understanding is of value if it can actually help to formulate some idea of its capabilities. Does anybody really care whether it is a sandwich or a hotdog? So after all the numerous post on it, can anyone actually articulate something resembling technical performance? .

If you're not interested in the configuration of the radar, that is fine, but I am.

It's not like this is a minor detail being quibbled over either; whether 346 is a S band with C band arrays or not, will have consequences for what kind of guidance the original HHQ-9 has, as well as consequences for what kind of configuration the subsequent 346A and 346B radars may have as well as subsequent PLAN SAMs after the original HHQ-9s.

 

[Tam]

... So you agree that the 346 could be a main S band array sandwiched between two C band arrays?

Whether it is used specifically for illumination or for communication is not that important to my argument, so much as that the type 346 features a main S band array sandwiched between two C band arrays as described by the post.


The question is fairly simple -- is there anything in our technical understanding which would invalidate the statements from that post stating the type 346 is an S band array sandwiched with two C band arrays?

I would agree that you have an S-band array sandwiched by two arrays. I am not sure if the IFF array is a C-band though, this might be an L-band array as that is what IFF typically uses. The observation that the two strips are C-band could just be a misinterpretation, the top one would be an IFF L-band, the the lower strip which is the communication strip, would be C-band.

The communication array might be in C-band, and if it is so, I have to say that is very high data throughput as that is a higher frequency with greater information density than your 4G phone which is adequate to control a drone. Rather than tell the missile with course corrections in periodic times, the missile would be sending back data from its radar receiver in real time back to the ship, which sends back data that can be controlling the missile in real time. This is consistent with TVM, which prefers trust on the larger computers onboard the ship or land station to determine the best course of flight for the missile than rely on onboard intelligence which is limited to a small microprocessor packed in the seeker head. That is cabinets of computers versus a small chip. It can be at some point, the missile also has its own radar seeker that in case if this datalink is jammed, it would go self homing. The missile might also be transmitting data back from its onboard seeker to the ship which sends back control instructions to the missile, sort of like an active TVM arrangement. Think of all the target tracking and track predictive algorithms used with the combat computer on board the ship, which determines an optimum flight path for the missile.

Its possible, but I am speculating at this point, the later version of this missile (HHQ-9B) that works with the later version of the radar (346A) that has removed the communication array, and moved the IFF strip out of the main panel, to be mostly autonomous and relies only on periodic updates from an external datalink. This assumes the onboard intelligence you can put on a seeker has grown rapidly, if not exponentially, due to more modern microprocessors. Think of Moore's Law. This allows the missile to extend its range, since at some point, the missile will exceed the datalink's range after a final uplink, and at this point will require its own autonomous intelligence.

 

[Jura The idiot]

years ago I wondered if it wasn't a triple-band radar on the Type 055 mast

Jun 28, 2017