PLAN Sovremenny DDG 136, 137, 138 & 139 Thread


nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
That does not mean well beyond, it only means beyond.
If the authors wrote "well beyond" then that's what they meant. No need for gymnastics.

I will summarize and conclude my comparative assessment of the ROC's Kidd and PRC's 956EM air defense capability.

I have provided evidence that the Kidd class destroyers received NTU upgrades, which consisted of the following:
  • updating the search radars to 3D S-band SPS-49E and 2D SPS-49 L-band radar. Both radars can detect small fighter aircraft at ranges exceeding 400km
  • search radar fusion via AN/SYS-2
  • updated fire control system and radars/illuminators to SPG-15D Baseline 15 with auxiliary CWAT X-band antenna
  • updated FCR X-band missile uplink to interface with new long range SM-2 missiles for midcourse guidance
  • Added S-band missile downlinks via 4 AN/SYR-1 phased arrays to track missile progress to target
  • Support for SM-2MR Block III missile with max range of 166km
  • Based on a published assessment that the ships can track and illuminate small anti-ship missiles (RCS < 0.5m2) at ranges of at least 77km, by simple inference they can track and illuminate targets with at least 16x higher RCS, such as a Su-27 class target with RCS=10-15m2 at double the range (quadratic root relation: 16^(1/4)=2), i.e. 154km+.
They have 2 dual-arm dual-purpose Mk26 missile launchers, with a published sustained fire-rate of 4 missiles every 9-10s. Each arm of the Mk26 is roughly equivalent in fire-rate to the single-arm Mk13, so the Kidd destroyers had 4 times the fire-rate of the Perry FFGs. However, based on unsubstantiated rumors of a single-arm Mk13 ripple firing SM-2s every 5s, 2xMk26 could optimistically fire 4 missiles every 5s. This is not excessive given that the single arm Uragan launcher could ripple fire missiles at 5s intervals.

On the other hand, the 956EM exported to the PRC has the following AA capability:
  • 3D search Fregat MAE radar
  • Cross Dome Pozitiv short range search radar for the Kashtan CIWS
  • 6x MR-90 Orekh illuminators
  • 2x single-arm launchers for 9M317E(?) SAMs with range of 32km-50km depending on which variant was exported.
The newer 9M317 may have inertial midcourse guidance. The original SA-N-7 were home-all-the-way missiles.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
If the authors wrote "well beyond" then that's what they meant. No need for gymnastics.

I will summarize and conclude my comparative assessment of the ROC's Kidd and PRC's 956EM air defense capability.

I have provided evidence that the Kidd class destroyers received NTU upgrades, which consisted of the following:
  • updating the search radars to 3D S-band SPS-49E and 2D SPS-49 L-band radar. Both radars can detect small fighter aircraft at ranges exceeding 400km
  • search radar fusion via AN/SYS-2
  • updated fire control system and radars/illuminators to SPG-15D Baseline 15 with auxiliary CWAT X-band antenna
  • updated FCR X-band missile uplink to interface with new long range SM-2 missiles for midcourse guidance
  • Added S-band missile downlinks via 4 AN/SYR-1 phased arrays to track missile progress to target
  • Support for SM-2MR Block III missile with max range of 166km
  • Based on a published assessment that the ships can track and illuminate small anti-ship missiles (RCS < 0.5m2) at ranges of at least 77km, by simple inference they can track and illuminate targets with at least 16x higher RCS, such as a Su-27 class target with RCS=10-15m2 at double the range (quadratic root relation: 16^(1/4)=2), i.e. 154km+.
They have 2 dual-arm dual-purpose Mk26 missile launchers, with a published sustained fire-rate of 4 missiles every 9-10s. Each arm of the Mk26 is roughly equivalent in fire-rate to the single-arm Mk13, so the Kidd destroyers had 4 times the fire-rate of the Perry FFGs. However, based on unsubstantiated rumors of a single-arm Mk13 ripple firing SM-2s every 5s, 2xMk26 could optimistically fire 4 missiles every 5s. This is not excessive given that the single arm Uragan launcher could ripple fire missiles at 5s intervals.

On the other hand, the 956EM exported to the PRC has the following AA capability:
  • 3D search Fregat MAE radar
  • Cross Dome Pozitiv short range search radar for the Kashtan CIWS
  • 6x MR-90 Orekh illuminators
  • 2x single-arm launchers for 9M317E(?) SAMs with range of 32km-50km depending on which variant was exported.
The newer 9M317 may have inertial midcourse guidance. The original SA-N-7 were home-all-the-way missiles.

Small antiship missiles are likely to have RCS < .3m2, even if BQM-74 has a similar diameter. BQM-74 has straight wings and a vertical rudder while a missile like Exocet or Harpoon has highly swept wings, and X shaped tail with swept fins.

Range of SPS-48E instrumented range is 400km which means this is the range of its longest pulse cycle without incurring ambiguous range. Doesn't mean it detects small fighter aircraft at that range. US brochures never publish information about the RCS size of the target they detect at certain ranges unlike the Russians. Latest SPS-48G has a detect range of 370km (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

In contrast the Russians don't publish instrumented range but range versus different RCS targets. For example, Fregat has maximum range of 300km, but it doesn't say instrumented range, with 230km for fighter detection. For Russians that means a clean MiG-21 (RCS < 3m2) or MiG-29 (RCS < 5m2) unless specified differently

Information about the range of the Shtil or Buk is detailed enough that 50km has a context that is 95% kill of an F-15 sized target that didn't maneuver.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It doesn't say how far you can engage a bomber sized target, or a range where you can accept a lower probability, say 50% or, if you want to engage a bomber sized target at a 50% PK per missile. A higher PK becomes available if two or more missiles are used. AGAT missile seeker alone has a range of 70km against a 5m2 target.

Orekh can guide up to 2 or 3 missiles with two channels. Does not explain whether that is missile following illuminated target + second missile on midcourse update or two beams, each on a different channel.

Orekh runs on FMCW. Unlike CWAT, which allows for both track and illumination, the use of FMCW allows the radar to range the target. CWI does not range. Because of FMCW, the Front Domes may also be more ECM resistant.

Forgot about the SPG-60 on the Kidd. That adds a third illumination dish on the Kidd, but with lower range. However it does have a higher altitude than the SPG-51 which makes it better for sea skimming targets for longer radar horizon.

Gun radars are also used to search and track sea skimming targets, in this case SPQ-9A and SPG-60 on the Kidd and MR184 on the Sovremenny. The Sov can use both MR123 on the sizes of the ship as well. SPQ-9A covers the front of the Kidd, while SPG-60 covers the back. MR184 covers the front while the two MR123 covers both sides and towards the rear. Pozitiv completes the rear arc for the 956EM but its not present on the 956E.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now if you want to compare how beefed up the refit is to the original Sov.

Type 382 increases the rate of rotation over the Fregat from 12 rpm to 30, with S-band on one side and C-band on the other. Power is up from 90 kw to 100 kw.

Type 364 has no equivalent on the 956E, but roughly equivalent to the Pozitiv ME on the 956EM. Difference is that the Pozitiv runs on X-band while 364 runs on C-band, Pozitiv has 3D scan but the Type 364 can use pulse compression, which is an issue with frescan arrays (that's probably why they keep SPS-49 parabolic on the Kidd or why the back array on Top Steer uses a parabolic). Type 364 plugs the rear arc on the 956E.

Type 366 radar is similar to the Mineral ME but has better geolocation. It also has added active aircraft detect that goes beyond the radar horizon via atmospheric ducting. The arcs are such that the 366 covers the front of the ship, while the 364 covers the rear.

Type 344 replaces the MR184 in its function, while the Type 349 replaces the MR123.

Orekh illuminators are down to four from six, but the third pair is replaced by a couple of Type 726-3 ECM. The ship also utilizes the ESM units from the 052D.
 
Last edited:

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Range of SPS-48E instrumented range is 400km which means this is the range of its longest pulse cycle without incurring ambiguous range. Doesn't mean it detects small fighter aircraft at that range. US brochures never publish information about the RCS size of the target they detect at certain ranges unlike the Russians. Latest SPS-48G has a detect range of 370km (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
According to Friedman, SPS-48E detects a 5m2 target at 220nm. 5m2 RCS is what a F-16 fighter would present to the radar.

According to FAS, the SPS-49 has similar peformance: "In the long range mode, the AN/SPS-49 can detect small fighter aircraft at ranges in excess of 225 nautical miles". Maximum instrumented range is 250nm.
Orekh can guide up to 2 or 3 missiles with two channels. Does not explain whether that is missile following illuminated target + second missile on midcourse update or two beams, each on a different channel.
I am curious. Why would a home all the way system need separate channels for each additional missile, other than for ECCM reasons? According to Friedman, each Front Dome director can track two targets if they are reasonably close together. He claims this radar/illuminator is a phased array reflector illuminated from the front.
Orekh runs on FMCW. Unlike CWAT, which allows for both track and illumination, the use of FMCW allows the radar to range the target. CWI does not range. Because of FMCW, the Front Domes may also be more ECM resistant.
The SPG-51D is a C-band pulse-doppler radar and a X-band CWI. The Baseline 15 update added an additional dish to perform CWAT in X-band. According to FAS: "The Mod 15 adds X-Band Continuous Wave Acquisition and Track (CWAT) capability through a new 5-channel receiver, receiver antenna, and advanced signal processor." Does this mean that the additional antenna works as a separate receiver, similar to bistatic FMCW radars? The illuminator was upgraded to perform frequency modulation in order to transmit commands to SM-2 missiles, so there is no obvious reason why it couldn't support FMCW transmit. From Wikipedia, regarding the Mod 15 upgrade: "The MK 74 MOD 15 configuration includes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
tracking in addition to pulse-Doppler tracking. It provides illumination for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
operation associated with missile guidance in all configurations."
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
According to Friedman, SPS-48E detects a 5m2 target at 220nm. 5m2 RCS is what a F-16 fighter would present to the radar.

According to FAS, the SPS-49 has similar peformance: "In the long range mode, the AN/SPS-49 can detect small fighter aircraft at ranges in excess of 225 nautical miles". Maximum instrumented range is 250nm.

I am curious. Why would a home all the way system need separate channels for each additional missile, other than for ECCM reasons? According to Friedman, each Front Dome director can track two targets if they are reasonably close together. He claims this radar/illuminator is a phased array reflector illuminated from the front.

The SPG-51D is a C-band pulse-doppler radar and a X-band CWI. The Baseline 15 update added an additional dish to perform CWAT in X-band. According to FAS: "The Mod 15 adds X-Band Continuous Wave Acquisition and Track (CWAT) capability through a new 5-channel receiver, receiver antenna, and advanced signal processor." Does this mean that the additional antenna works as a separate receiver, similar to bistatic FMCW radars? The illuminator was upgraded to perform frequency modulation in order to transmit commands to SM-2 missiles, so there is no obvious reason why it couldn't support FMCW transmit. From Wikipedia, regarding the Mod 15 upgrade: "The MK 74 MOD 15 configuration includes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
tracking in addition to pulse-Doppler tracking. It provides illumination for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
operation associated with missile guidance in all configurations."

ECCM reasons are good enough for having two separate channels. As the Front Dome director cannot split the two beams into separate directions --- this is not AESA --- the two beams would be facing where the shared array is pointed at so it appears like one beam.

What CWAT means is that you can stop using the C-band pulse doppler radar to track the target once it is acquired and you are using the X-band illuminator. The array will continue to be pointed at the target and follow it using X-band and the illumination beam. Same with what Front Dome does. Previously, the C-band pulse doppler still has to work following and tracking the target, keeping the dish pointed at the target, so the illuminator is mechanically pointed at the target, the illuminator lacking the tracking ability. SM-2 probably relies on S or C-band for command updates, and the seeker is not compatible with FMCW modes. If you are using FMCW on the illuminator, you don't have a reason for having the C-band pulse doppler in the first place, because FMCW allows you to obtain range information on the target while pure CWI doesn't. CW will only give you heading and rate of closure but not range which FMCW obtains range by inserting marker peaks into the wave form, creating a pseudo-pulse. For this reason, FMCW allows the unit to be a self contained radar. For the same reason, the SPG-51 keeps the C-band pulse doppler to do the ranging job. I would think that you would want to close down the C-band pulse doppler at terminal range and do the X-band/CWAT do the job itself is to reduce the potential interference between the two bands and improve gain, while the previous SPG-51 iteration would still light the target with both at terminal. You still lose the ranging ability, but you do not need it at the terminal stage.
 
Last edited:

kriss

Junior Member
Registered Member
Do we have a nice photo of 136's new VLS yet? Only thing I can remember is the distant view with not so good angle back when she was still in shipyard.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Do we have a nice photo of 136's new VLS yet? Only thing I can remember is the distant view with not so good angle back when she was still in shipyard.


I don't think so. Plus it doesn't seem to be as easy to take a photo of the VLS on board the 136 as you can do on the other ships like a 052D or a 054A. Take a look closely to where the photographer has to stand onboard these ships to get a bird's eye view of the VLS, then compare that to where he has to stand on 136.
 

Top