PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
Its very interesting that they are putting in two separate launchers. One would think that if they were just testing out the same missile, there would be no need to go to the trouble of installing two different launcher types. The presence of the HK-CL43 on top of the bridge is also interesting, as there is not such radar for the aft launcher.
Can the HK be used as a fire control radar for radar homing missiles? If it could, then it may well be that they are test out two competing short range missile configurations, one with IR IR/passive radar homing like the RAM, and another with semi-active radar homing.
The most mature of the two may have been fitting the Varyag out of operational necessity, but they will test the two competing designs to decide which becomes the standard issue for future warships as well as possible retrofitting of the existing fleet.
Its very interesting that they are putting in two separate launchers. One would think that if they were just testing out the same missile, there would be no need to go to the trouble of installing two different launcher types. The presence of the HK-CL43 on top of the bridge is also interesting, as there is not such radar for the aft launcher.
Can the HK be used as a fire control radar for radar homing missiles? If it could, then it may well be that they are test out two competing short range missile configurations, one with IR IR/passive radar homing like the RAM, and another with semi-active radar homing.
The most mature of the two may have been fitting the Varyag out of operational necessity, but they will test the two competing designs to decide which becomes the standard issue for future warships as well as possible retrofitting of the existing fleet.
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
You don't need to have two different turret (or whatever you call the launcher) for different homing methodology. It's pretty clear that the one installed in the front is the one used for Varyag. The different HQ-10 configuration is probably designed for different platforms.
The ability to track 4 targets is actually pretty good when you consider that it's a continuous wave radar. This system is purely meant to accurately track small + fast targets at short range and quickly respond with firing HQ-10. It should be a generation ahead of the current configuration of HHQ-7 + Type 345 radar.
Not sure about what the mysterious dome beside the satcom dome. Varyag is full of these mysterious domes right now. It will be interesting to see how well they will operate together. Electronic interference could be an issue.
Also, interesting part is that the radar on the aftmast was only installed very recently after the first 892 picture was taken. It was installed along with the HQ-10 SAM installations. Although for me, it seems to be more of a search radar.
You don't need to have two different turret (or whatever you call the launcher) for different homing methodology. It's pretty clear that the one installed in the front is the one used for Varyag. The different HQ-10 configuration is probably designed for different platforms.
The ability to track 4 targets is actually pretty good when you consider that it's a continuous wave radar. This system is purely meant to accurately track small + fast targets at short range and quickly respond with firing HQ-10. It should be a generation ahead of the current configuration of HHQ-7 + Type 345 radar.
Not sure about what the mysterious dome beside the satcom dome. Varyag is full of these mysterious domes right now. It will be interesting to see how well they will operate together. Electronic interference could be an issue.
Also, interesting part is that the radar on the aftmast was only installed very recently after the first 892 picture was taken. It was installed along with the HQ-10 SAM installations. Although for me, it seems to be more of a search radar.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
Well that's assuming that both guidance methods use the same missile airframe. This may not be the case, especially if there are two companies competing for the same contract.
It would seem strange to go to the trouble to set up a second launcher on the helopad if they are just testing the same missile on a different launcher, since the launcher is the simplest part of the whole system, and there is no reason launchers of different size and configuration could not be fully tested out on land even.
Although looking at the aft launcher again, it does remind me of the decoy launchers installed on 052Bs and Cs. Maybe we all have HQ10 in the head and are assuming both are HQ10 related when one may be for testing of new decoys and chaff. Maybe that is what the radar on the top mast is for.
Radomes are frequency selective, how probable would it be to develop chaff/decoys that will be opaque to certain radar wavelengths but transparent to others? Would be pretty useful if you could block, say, x-band which is usually used on terminal homing missile warheads, but at the same time not interfere too much on the L-band, which is what is often used for long range volume search. So you could counter incoming missiles without also blinding yourself to what the enemy is up to.
Well that's assuming that both guidance methods use the same missile airframe. This may not be the case, especially if there are two companies competing for the same contract.
It would seem strange to go to the trouble to set up a second launcher on the helopad if they are just testing the same missile on a different launcher, since the launcher is the simplest part of the whole system, and there is no reason launchers of different size and configuration could not be fully tested out on land even.
Although looking at the aft launcher again, it does remind me of the decoy launchers installed on 052Bs and Cs. Maybe we all have HQ10 in the head and are assuming both are HQ10 related when one may be for testing of new decoys and chaff. Maybe that is what the radar on the top mast is for.
Radomes are frequency selective, how probable would it be to develop chaff/decoys that will be opaque to certain radar wavelengths but transparent to others? Would be pretty useful if you could block, say, x-band which is usually used on terminal homing missile warheads, but at the same time not interfere too much on the L-band, which is what is often used for long range volume search. So you could counter incoming missiles without also blinding yourself to what the enemy is up to.
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
That might be difficult. If you have chaff that is fine enough to block x-band it will also block L-band. To interfere with radar signal the particle size needs small compared to it's wavelength and x-band have smaller wavelength than L-band.
That might be difficult. If you have chaff that is fine enough to block x-band it will also block L-band. To interfere with radar signal the particle size needs small compared to it's wavelength and x-band have smaller wavelength than L-band.
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
since it operate at high RF,indicate her primarly purpose was missile alert/warning. probably like french Arabel radar,rotate at 60 rpm,,it could cue HQ-10 or provide command link to radar guide missile.
USN also emploed missile arning radar,example raar install on USS new York and San Antonio LPD. (forget the designation)
( may be HQ-10 come in two version,one IR,the other radar,(MMW?))
since it operate at high RF,indicate her primarly purpose was missile alert/warning. probably like french Arabel radar,rotate at 60 rpm,,it could cue HQ-10 or provide command link to radar guide missile.
USN also emploed missile arning radar,example raar install on USS new York and San Antonio LPD. (forget the designation)
( may be HQ-10 come in two version,one IR,the other radar,(MMW?))
antiterror13
Brigadier
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
my apologies for this stupid question ... what does this mean " MTBG is over 300 hours and MTTR is < 1 hour" ?
Is it a good statistic, compared to the best one in the world ?
my apologies for this stupid question ... what does this mean " MTBG is over 300 hours and MTTR is < 1 hour" ?
Is it a good statistic, compared to the best one in the world ?
sealordlawrence
Junior Member
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
tphuang,
4 targets for a naval search radar is poor- I suspect it can do much better than that.
The radar on top of the mast looks far too small to be a search radar which is why I am wondering whether it is a missile director.
tphuang,
4 targets for a naval search radar is poor- I suspect it can do much better than that.
The radar on top of the mast looks far too small to be a search radar which is why I am wondering whether it is a missile director.
Re: The PICs every PLAN enthusiast is waiting for
shouldnt that radar with two arrays be a targeting radar, not a search radar? that way it can guide several missiles at once. Not just two but more, using interrupted CW illumination, pretty much the same way S300's targeting radars can target more than one plane at the same time.
shouldnt that radar with two arrays be a targeting radar, not a search radar? that way it can guide several missiles at once. Not just two but more, using interrupted CW illumination, pretty much the same way S300's targeting radars can target more than one plane at the same time.