Type 054B/next generation FFG thread

[Tam]

The integrated mast on 20385 has S-band rotating single-face Furke for volume search of surface/air targets on the top, fixed four-face X-band Zaslon (derived from MiG-31 fighter radar) for SAM/artillery fire control in the middle and the lowest set of four faces is passive/active ESM (S, C, X, Ku band)/ECM (X, Ku band) set also used for OTH of AShM.

That's the smaller version of Furke from the one on the Gorshkov. I think there are three different versions.

The Zaslon here only shares one thing with the Zaslon on the MiG-31 and that is the name. The MiG-31 Zaslon is a PESA, with a very circular array.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This one here has a modular block like face, with the radar divided into subarrays, as you can see from the image, and this points to be a much more advanced AESA.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The lower set of faces is also an AESA, not ESM. You can see the face divided into four sections, that's a monopulse radar.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It may work in a passive mode, but there is definitely an active mode which is straight out radar targeting. And it needs it, since the ship needs a gunnery fire control radar for the AK-630s and the main gun, as the Puma FCR used on the Gorshkov class is omitted in this ship.

Directional finding and signal collection ESM is the pair you see on twin arms on the upper part of the mast, and the three panels of different sizes behind the radars are the ECM. These are all a brand new set not seen in the Gorshkov class or in any previous Russian ship.

 

[snake65]

That's the smaller version of Furke from the one on the Gorshkov. I think there are three different versions.

The Zaslon here only shares one thing with the Zaslon on the MiG-31 and that is the name. The MiG-31 Zaslon is a PESA, with a very circular array. This one here has a modular block like face, with the radar divided into subarrays, as you can see from the image, and this points to be a much more advanced AESA.

The lower set of faces is also an AESA, not ESM. You can see the face divided into four sections, that's a monopulse radar. It may work in a passive mode, but there is definitely an active mode which is straight out radar targeting. And it needs it, since the ship needs a gunnery fire control radar for the AK-630s and the main gun, as the Puma FCR used on the Gorshkov class is omitted in this ship.

ESM is the pair you see on twin arms on the upper part of the mast, and the three panels behind the radars are the ECM.

Yes, it is the smaller version Furke-2, 22350 has Furke-4.

No, Zaslon on 20385 also is PESA, Russians prefer to call it quasi-AESA, but that doesn't make it real AESA. It has inherited quite a lot from Zaslon-AM of later MiG-31s.

The lower 4 arrays are for ESM/ECM. Actually, not only the 4 larger faces, but the set of 3 smaller arrays as well. It makes no difference for their function if they use PESA or AESA. If you prefer to disbelieve what the Russians provide in booklets and videos at the exhibitions, it's your choice.

Artillery fire control is one of the functions of Zaslon MFRLS (Multifunctional Radiolocation System).

 

[Tam]

Yes, it is the smaller version Furke-2, 22350 has Furke-4.

No, Zaslon on 20385 also is PESA, Russians prefer to call it quasi-AESA, but that doesn't make it real AESA. It has inherited quite a lot from Zaslon-AM of later MiG-31s.

Illustration given is not consistent to a PESA since it would require a large analog transmitter on the back of the array that is connected to the array with line feeds of equal length. Equal length linefeed to every element is essential to prevent frequency steer. The illustration on the back of the array looks more like a cabinet where the TRMs are housed and can be pulled out for servicing or replacement. See Thales integrated mast below.

The lower 4 arrays are for ESM/ECM. Actually, not only the 4 larger faces, but the set of 3 smaller arrays as well. It makes no difference for their function if they use PESA or AESA. If you prefer to disbelieve what the Russians provide in booklets and videos at the exhibitions, it's your choice.

Artillery fire control is one of the functions of Zaslon MFRLS (Multifunctional Radiolocation System).

You cannot do artillery fire control just by pure ESM as in directional finding passive radar alone. That's unheard of. What if your target isn't emitting radar? Common sense will tell you what you have on the ship is obviously a fire control radar. The array would have to be multi-modal, switching between active FCR and passive (ESM) modes. FCRs are monopulse by the way.

The two units on the two arms on the higher mast are also ESM, though their primary purpose is to passive detect and directional find incoming sea skimmer threats, but the question is whether they can do DF of OTH targets, similar to Mineral ME2 which is also set like two small units on a pair of arms.

3 smaller arrays on each side are definitely ECM. Similar to RAMSES, each panel is meant for jamming at a different frequency. Future Canadian surface combatant has a similar arrangement where they have four dimple shaped arrays of different sizes at each side. You set ECM on the side because that's where you expect the antiship missile to be heading to the side of the ship, giving the jammers the best possible arc at the attacking missile. ECM is dependent on a separate ESM unit to collate threat signals for analysis, determination and directional finding, and that has to fall to those two units you see on the mast arms.

 

[snake65]

Once again, Artillery control is managed by the middle set of four, the same which provides for Redut missile guidance. Bottom four are ESM/ECM. This is the third time I am writing this. There are four frequency bands monitored and two can be actively jammed.

"llustration given is not consistent to a PESA since it would require a large analog transmitter on the back of the array that is connected to the array with line feeds of equal length. Equal length linefeed to every element is essential to prevent frequency steer."

Ever heard of digital antenna arrays?

 

[Tam]

Once again, Artillery control is managed by the middle set of four, the same which provides for Redut missile guidance. Bottom four are ESM/ECM. This is the third time I am writing this. There are four frequency bands monitored and two can be actively jammed.

Yeah right. Except that is not how ESM/ECM looks. They look like this, both the units on the top and the bottom.




And I already told you that a flat array divided into four quadrants is the signature appearance of a monopulse radar. That is what you see on the lower set of this Zaslon MF. The middle set mind you would also be a monopulse radar. Monopulse can be parabolic, slotted array, PESA or AESA.




Which is typical of a fire control radar that is meant to engage and track targets with a high amount of ECM resistance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"llustration given is not consistent to a PESA since it would require a large analog transmitter on the back of the array that is connected to the array with line feeds of equal length. Equal length linefeed to every element is essential to prevent frequency steer."

Ever heard of digital antenna arrays?

Digital antenna arrays are AESA, not PESA. A PESA means a single analog transmitter like what you see below feeds the entire array.

Both middle and lower sets of arrays on Zaslon MF are AESAs working on monopulse.

 

[Tam]

It doesn't need to spin very fast constantly. It can slow down, so the face is allowed to dwell on the target longer. If the radar is turning in one direction, the tracking beam can contra rotate, which also allows a longer dwell time on the target. Remember the array allows an X and Y scan, compared to search radars that only electronically scan vertically, and need to be mechanically turned around for horizontal scan, like the Type 382.

This video explains it best. NS100 or NS200 is new Thales rotating S-band AESA. It is similar to the two new radars but its only one sided. But you get the general idea. The PDF on the NS100 and NS200 are copy and paste clones of each other, the difference is the range, with the NS100 at 280km and the NS200 at 400km. This radar is being considered for the RN's Type 31 frigates instead of the Artisan 3D that will be used on the Type 26.

If you are dealing with farther range or stealthy target, your rotation needs to slow so you can put more dwell time on the target.

If you are dealing with fast moving target, the rotation will speed up so you can more frequent updates on fast targets.

But what if you are dealing with both threats at the same time. If the array is turning fast in one direction, the beam can steer to the other direction in contra rotation. This puts the beam longer on the far ranged or lower RCS target, while keeping track of other fast moving targets.

The problem I see is that even if the beam is contra rotating to keep its track on the threat target as long as possible, the face will still inevitably rotate away, and you need to quickly recover the track of the target as soon as the face rotates back.

With a dual face, as soon as one face turns away from the target, the other face will be turning around to face it. The beam will first steer in the same direction as the rotation, so it can quickly catch and track the target, then slows down the steer to allow the face to catch up, then as the face starts to turn away, the beam will contra rotate to keep on the target longer until the face completely steers away and the other face retakes the target track. This allows the system to keep track on the target at all times.

 

[Josh Luo]

No, Zaslon on 20385 also is PESA, Russians prefer to call it quasi-AESA, but that doesn't make it real AESA. It has inherited quite a lot from Zaslon-AM of later MiG-31s.

Just a common sense question. What is the PESA to AESA jump so difficult? How come only a few defense giants were able to make this jump successfully?

 

[Tam]

Just a common sense question. What is the PESA to AESA jump so difficult? How come only a few defense giants were able to make this jump successfully?

Its not. I don't know why some people in these Russian defense forums are so obsessed about PESA and why they, or some others, think it would be difficult to do AESA, even with Russian radar companies have been working on AESA designs and modules since the 2000s. That's a long time ago. Plus there are many smaller companies in Australia, Israel, India, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, and Spain that already have produced operational AESA designs for some years now or working on them.

This is the Zaslon MF radar in display, and you can see the back of it, you can see access panels and is divided into subassemblies.





Now compare those with the Thales SeaFire 500.

 

[snake65]

Just a common sense question. What is the PESA to AESA jump so difficult? How come only a few defense giants were able to make this jump successfully?

Technology wise it's not difficult, just more expensive. And with Russian post-2014 hysteria of "self-reliance" production of modules for AESA is one of the choke points. Similar to trouble they have in marine propulsion - they can produce a nuclear powertrain for icebreakers and submarines but are stuck with gas turbines and reduction gear for them.