This type of arrangement is "common" for single-face arrays, and is unnecessary for 4-panel arrays. Note that single-face fixed or rotating arrays are the ONLY examples you have provided thus far with an aligned IFF, which as I said makes total sense from a practical point of view.What's difficult for you to grasp is that the default hypothesis is that the array on top or bottom of a radar is the IFF. This type of arrangement is so common. You have to prove that the array on top of the Type 346B is NOT.
Plus it is not just about coverage, but the gain and range.
Yeah, man, I see the IFF there. What I don't see is that thing on top of any PLAN version of the radar. LOL This once again leaves your universe with absolutely NOTHING in terms of IFF for the 054A, 051B, 052B, and 052C.
You also just provided an example of a dual-face rotating array (Tombstone) which CLEARLY does NOT have the IFF aligned with the main radar. I would not have posted that particular photo if I were you.
Nice try, but no. You're reaching for the stars here but falling far short. There's no bar anywhere in the back that could even remotely pass for an IFF.
Yeah, the PLAN. You provided a totally irrelevant photo of a Tombstone that does not have anything matching it within the PLAN, that in addition is a self-goal due to the non-aligned IFF which I'll bet is probably either fixed in position or rotating independently of the Tombstone, and would be an example of a navy with rotating IFF besides the PLAN.Do you know of any navy with ROTATING IFF?
Do you like to put up any example of such on any navy and on any ship?
Unfortunately you and I both know that "Chinese documentation" is frequently non-existent wrt to both hardware and software systems on board its ships, so the astute watcher is left to figure out things on his own, in this case by process of elimination.Do you have any proof (Chinese documentation) or any thing that says they are rotating IFF?
You made an extraordinary claim. You have to prove that.
Each rotating radar covers a quadrant. Each cannot provide full coverage of their down due to the mast blocking them.
Besides, IFF is generally on L-band. Do you see any L-band antenna there? The IFF transponders are set half a wavelength apart in L-band.
As for the alleged blockage, that is total hogwash. Unless you don't have mental facilities to picture the geometries in your head, a single rotating radar covers almost an entire 360 degrees, somewhere on the order of 300+ degrees, so 2 radars is more than enough coverage. Not only that, that is only visual line of sight. Radar actually bends so that radar horizons are greater than visual horizons, which means that mast may not even pose any kind of obstruction at all. In fact you essentially never see double coverage for navigation radars since there are usually only two of them on larger ships, as I said one in X-band and one in S-band. I guess for you the other 2 'navigation radars' are for redundancy in case the others break down? LOL
LOLOLOLOL exactly how long did it take you to find this laughably erroneous fan CGI while managing to miss all the real photos of real 052Ds??? Did you even bother to look at the real thing and check to see if there actually were any rotating Y-shaped rotating bars on REAL 052D photos? Come back with a real photo of this (if you would like to embark on a fool's errand). In the meantime, answer me which bands the FOUR navigation radars would be in. I already suggested X, Y, Z, and Sirius. Maybe you can correct me.
LOL do you even understand what a straw man attack is? In just this conversation alone I have pointed out 2 intellectually dishonest instances of you employing straw man attacks against me, while this example you have cited here clearly shows you must have no idea what a straw man attack actually means. Lack of understanding the term does not seem to have prevented you from committing them nonetheless, however.You are the one constantly making straw man attacks? You seem to be desperate. Can you distinguish between a linear array and an IFF?
No, no kapisch, son. Again you have failed to acknowledge (or perhaps even just understand) that targets will be equally as likely to be found massively off-axis as they are to be found on-axis, which means the exact placement of a set of 360-degree-covering IFF arrays can be independent of the facing of the main radar arrays and have NO effect on the functioning of the IFF system. This is something you have repeatedly fail to address because you and I both know it is TOTALLY FATAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT, which of course is why you're ignoring it over and over. And over.You don't seem to understand those examples, because those are radars with IFF transponders embedded directly on the radar face. Do you know why it is done so? Can you explain?
Here is something about if you rotate the IFF. At least with that, or with a ring, there is always a surface that is directly in boresight of the target. That the reason why Western navies are using ring like IFF. There is always antenna that is pointed straight at the target at all times.
Having the IFF arrays on top of the Type 346B would also give 360 degree coverage, and the larger, more powerful arrays would give better range, kapisch? This would match the more powerful Type 346B radars.
What are you even talking about here? This is an example of a red herring fallacy. Look it up.Being able to attain 360 degree coverage is NOT the argument why the smaller arrays are IFF. The same can be said of the bigger arrays. They also have 360 degree coverage. Not only that, the bigger arrays would also better gain and range if the beams are steered off angle from the plane of the array. Not only that, the bigger arrays have a segmented structure we have seen with many IFF. With IFF being in L-band, you will get a narrower beam width and a stronger receive and transmit gain with a longer antenna.
So far the whole time, you have not disproven why the bigger arrays are not IFF.
Just because you think the smaller arrays on the 055 are the same size --- not measured exactly in all dimensions including depth for any proof --- with the IFF arrays on the 052D that you think those arrays are IFF? Never mind the 052D IFF bars are NOT the same size as your "rotating IFF" (my weather radars), and are far shorter than the IFF bars on the Liaoning and Shandong.