Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread


Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
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.
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.

Oh? What do you know of Top Plate radars?

Do you see the IFF there?

View attachment 57735
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. :)

For the Type 054A it might be the bar on the back.

View attachment 57737

It is an unusual design for an IFF, but the wavelength in space per segment is consistent to IFF.
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.

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?
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 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.
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.

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

Navigation radars. Maybe weather radars.

View attachment 57736

Oh. If the Type 052D has the IFF bars on top of the 346A arrays, then why do you still need the Y shaped rotators to be IFF?
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. :)

You are the one constantly making straw man attacks? You seem to be desperate. Can you distinguish between a linear array and an IFF?
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 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.
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.

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.
What are you even talking about here? This is an example of a red herring fallacy. Look it up.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Captain
Registered Member
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.
Oh? These arrays also change direction.

Never showed any rotating IFF and there is none that exist that looks like a navigation radar.

The kind of arrangement used for four panel arrays with Western ships are ringed type. It does not turn around. With a ringed type IFF, there are always a panel turned directly towards a target.

images (11).jpeg

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.
There is no such thing as rotary IFF that looks like a navigation radar. Go ahead and find a Western or Russian one the Chinese would find as its inspiration or model to ape from.

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. :)
Wrong ID. That's Top Plate. You certainly don't know your radars. Tombstone is the FCR used for the S-300 complex. That is so totally in a different category. Given that Top Plate rotates, the IFF array will be directly on square with the target at one point in time. The perception that the array is offset is due to the main arrays being arranged a little offset.

Top Plate is the main search radars found on the 052B, 051C and 054A.

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. [/quote]

Screenshot 2020-02-27 at 9.10.39 AM - Edited (1).png

You don't seem to be familiar what High Pole is.

It is the mast on the back of the radar.

tarantul.jpg

There are masts like that in those ships you mentioned. Guess what, they are far more likely to copy a Russian IFF system that exists than a non existent Western rotary IFF.

Oh and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

APX-72 IFF transponder.

halifax_as177_iff_antenna.jpg

halifax_winnipeg_whips.jpg

I told you that not all IFF look like bars.

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.
What photo of Tombstone? I showed a picture of HT233 --- IFF mounted on top of the array, and MPQ-53, IFF mounted on the bottom of the array. Tombstone also has a subarray on top of the octagonal main array, and its likely to be IFF. The model for those is the Type 346 radar itself. They partly derive their naval systems from land systems, much like the Russians.

Plus once again, you don't know what Tombstone is. The picture I brought was Top Plate, and its used by the PLAN, along with its copy.



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.
Damn, so you can't prove rotary IFF either. I am asking for Western examples if you don't mind.


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
Umm. The arc towards the mast would have significant interference, and in particularly so with high frequency radars. What I see is one or two X-band radars, and two S or C band radars. Where their arcs meet, they can also double to quadruple the tracking update time of the target.

Having multiple navigation + weather radars isn't uncommon.

1415439540_2d04744110_b.jpg

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. :)
Actually I have never see any Chinese commenting the Y shaped rotary IFF as IFF.

Even if there is rotary IFF, it would always present a face directly on the target at one moment in time.

Show me a Western or Russian rotating IFF that the Chinese could copy.

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.
Really. I think you are just paranoid. Correcting you does not constitute an attack against you. In the meantime you are constantly berating other posters. It should be more than high time the moderators need to examine your actions.

In the meantime you use 'size' as the reason why one thing should be an IFF because its similar to the size of another, without any actual measurement. Then you go around saying this other thing is an IFF despite it does not have the same size at all with the other.

I showed you pictures of the Shandong with the long IFF bars on top of the Type 346 arrays, and along with the 052D having their IFF arrays on top of its Type 346 arrays, that the bars on the Type 055's main arrays should be IFF. That should be the default argument, and its up to you to provide the direct and extraordinary evidence that it is not.
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
I have a question if someone can answer.

One of the most troubling existential threat based on public literature that the USN is concern with are sea skimmers. They are a problem because detection distance at best is limited by OTH limitation which means defensive reaction window is measured in minutes. You overlay this problem with a LRASM which is VLO, ESM guided and can cooperate autonomously in numbers present an even bigger problem. In all the writings I have seen out there, I have never seen any one talking about IFF being the issue in the scheme of things relative to such threats. If IFF is the predominant feature please post the links.

All arguments need to come to some conclusion (eventually) and much more importantly how does IFF (if at all) help us to better understand the capability of the Type 055 in dealing with such threats.
 

Tam

Captain
Registered Member
I have a question if someone can answer.

One of the most troubling existential threat based on public literature that the USN is concern with are sea skimmers. They are a problem because detection distance at best is limited by OTH limitation which means defensive reaction window is measured in minutes. You overlay this problem with a LRASM which is VLO, ESM guided and can cooperate autonomously in numbers present an even bigger problem. In all the writings I have seen out there, I have never seen any one talking about IFF being the issue in the scheme of things relative to such threats. If IFF is the predominant feature please post the links.

All arguments need to come to some conclusion (eventually) and much more importantly how does IFF (if at all) help us to better understand the capability of the Type 055 in dealing with such threats.
IFF is necessary to make sure you don't shoot your own airplanes or helicopter.

If you have a threat missile, it does not respond to the IFF, so that blip becomes a possible threat. Just because it does not respond to IFF does not mean you have reason to assume its a threat. You can check if the target has a civilian AIS transponder. You can track airplanes and ships alone all around the world, from your laptop with internet using their AIS transponders. Given that the 055 might be intended to operate with carriers, and facing threat carriers, it stands to reason it may need to identify a large amount of targets over an extended search space.

Having said that, there is also ATR or Automatic Target Recognition. The fact that you are coming in at this low altitude, at this speed, emitting an X-band CW radar signal --- as picked up by your ESM --- bingo that should be a threat. If the ESM has directional finding, it would also indicate the direction where the threat is coming from, and you can direct your radars on it. Hence it is also important to put your ESM up high for the radar horizon.

If the threat missile has ESM, its not a good idea to use a ship that uses AESA or digital state or frequency agile radars that have LPI. ESM will have a hard time distinguishing LPI from background noise, and the LPI signal can get filtered off by noise filtering algorithms. Even if you do assume you have this pseudo random waveform, you won't get any information where it maybe coming from. A ship that goes all AESA, all digital and solid state, all frequency agile, even on the navigation radars, you can't home in on via ESM, unless your ESM is able to break the LPI signal, which may require a severe amount of computing. The thing about LPI signals however, they are not good for weapons quality tracking, and the ship has to revert to good old FCR. However, FCR radar for guns and CIWS don't have long range for targeting ESM to depend homing on.

Another problem of using DF ESM is if the search radars have no to low sidelobes with narrow beamwidths. The search radar is virtually undetectable until it is directly illuminating the vehicle with the ESM. Then you only have this small window to analyze where the signal is coming from, and there is no assurance that you will get the signal again and how long it will take to receive another one. Now even if you try to home in on search radar, if you are tracking something with a low pulse rate with a long wavelength, both of which most search radars do for range, there is a large degree of imprecision and error, which is why this method is only okay for stationary targets, but not moving ones. I would really doubt that LRASM is ESM guided in the terminal stage. Antiship missiles can be directed by DF ESM onboard the firing ship (COBLU for example) via datalink towards a specific area where the target might be, but once it reaches that specific area, it still has to go autonomous via its own active radar seeker. This is where the ESM on board the targeted ship will sound its own alarm.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
I have a question if someone can answer.

One of the most troubling existential threat based on public literature that the USN is concern with are sea skimmers. They are a problem because detection distance at best is limited by OTH limitation which means defensive reaction window is measured in minutes. You overlay this problem with a LRASM which is VLO, ESM guided and can cooperate autonomously in numbers present an even bigger problem. In all the writings I have seen out there, I have never seen any one talking about IFF being the issue in the scheme of things relative to such threats. If IFF is the predominant feature please post the links.

All arguments need to come to some conclusion (eventually) and much more importantly how does IFF (if at all) help us to better understand the capability of the Type 055 in dealing with such threats.
The USN is not concerned with subsonic sea skimming missiles, as per their comments made in public.
There's 2 minutes of flight time from the radar horizon, which means the defender can launch more than 4 SAM salvoes, which is enough to deal with all the missiles.

But with a supersonic sea-skimming missile, there is only enough time to launch 1-2 SAM salvoes
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
The upcoming type 055A ddg. The type 055 should have 128 silos to begin with. Somehow they decided against it, for some strange reasons.
We know little about 055A.

We also don't have any reason to have "expected" 055 to have 128 VLS cells -- some of us hoped 055 would have 128 cells so it could match a Sejong or a Tico, or because it seemed like a logical number (double that of an 052D, a nice round number).
But there was never a reason to think 128 VLS cells was ever a PLA requirement.
 

Top