052C DDG Radar take off "BAR"
- Thread starter myskykk
- Start date
1) You can't tell by just looking at pictures
2) Aegis was first developed over 40 years ago. (USS Longbeach ran the legacy system) I really really doubt that China has got a PAR that is anywhere close to a current generation PAR like 1D when they haven't been able to develop their own PESA systems without Israeli assistance from the Phalcon Project.
Slab panels doesn't = a PAR system.
2) Aegis was first developed over 40 years ago. (USS Longbeach ran the legacy system) I really really doubt that China has got a PAR that is anywhere close to a current generation PAR like 1D when they haven't been able to develop their own PESA systems without Israeli assistance from the Phalcon Project.
Slab panels doesn't = a PAR system.
what makes me doubt is that the russian never had the SkyWatch (Mars Passat) working. On the Gorshkov, the panels remained filled with cement.
Subsequent ship was fitted with "conv" rotating radars.
I doubt China can do better the the russians on this, esp using their stuff.
Subsequent ship was fitted with "conv" rotating radars.
I doubt China can do better the the russians on this, esp using their stuff.
Currently, we got information/news/rumors from all sorts of places. Until China successfully exports a PAR radar, It's up to everybody's judgement. So let's keep our doubts/believings and wait. I mean, keep it as a simple discussion until we have a proof that can be verified.
BTW, I guess I need to say something on the topic rather than the just above suggestion:
1. If these slab panels are not PAR or they are not working at all, why bother to install them? Just look at what Russian did, they simpley reverted back to the traditional ones. Has anybody ever seen a non-PAR radar installed like this?
2. If it's some kind of PAR, it has to have a fairly powerful integrated combat management system due to the fact that PAR provides far more volume of information than traditional ones. (There are other sensors and weapons on abord 052C which also require a very powerful management system, but to keep the discussion simple, let's only talk about the radar). Put it this way, if you already got PAR, without a good brain, that PAR is useless, and you'd better off using other types of Radar. You can have a good brain without a good eye, but if you only have a good eye, you are almost dead.
3. This China Aegis term is completely started by people outside china, blame them if you feel unease about this term. It's not a good idea to compare it to US Aegis.
According to an engineer from the manufacturer, the PAR on 052C's technology is definitely more advanced than the early AB's radar, but the performance is still lagging behind the later versions. And the real worry (or the real reason why there's no point in comparing it to Aegis) is not some specific parameters of the radar. It's the fact that the whole combat system of AB has been at least Excersie Proven for many years, whereas 052C is still a completely new system to China. Although PLAN finally got this 052C hardware now to trial all the great ideas they've been imagining, it's going to be a long way for them to make it fully operational. Currently, the first ship of 052C, 170 is in the hands of PLAN's South Fleet for several months now, and although HHQ-9 had been tested with the PAR on 970 test ship, new problems still arise on 170. This is understandable, that's why it's not appropriate to jump so quickly to compare it to Aegis. Same thing can be said to that latest Jf-17 04 prototype, yes it has something similar to F18, F35, but just don't compare it to F18 or F35 seriously.
4. 052C's PAR is Active. Don't ask me for any evidence, because I've been in discussion about this topic for more than 4 years. That's just my conclusion, I really have no interest in going into the details any more. Let's wait and see.
BTW, I guess I need to say something on the topic rather than the just above suggestion:
1. If these slab panels are not PAR or they are not working at all, why bother to install them? Just look at what Russian did, they simpley reverted back to the traditional ones. Has anybody ever seen a non-PAR radar installed like this?
2. If it's some kind of PAR, it has to have a fairly powerful integrated combat management system due to the fact that PAR provides far more volume of information than traditional ones. (There are other sensors and weapons on abord 052C which also require a very powerful management system, but to keep the discussion simple, let's only talk about the radar). Put it this way, if you already got PAR, without a good brain, that PAR is useless, and you'd better off using other types of Radar. You can have a good brain without a good eye, but if you only have a good eye, you are almost dead.
3. This China Aegis term is completely started by people outside china, blame them if you feel unease about this term. It's not a good idea to compare it to US Aegis.
According to an engineer from the manufacturer, the PAR on 052C's technology is definitely more advanced than the early AB's radar, but the performance is still lagging behind the later versions. And the real worry (or the real reason why there's no point in comparing it to Aegis) is not some specific parameters of the radar. It's the fact that the whole combat system of AB has been at least Excersie Proven for many years, whereas 052C is still a completely new system to China. Although PLAN finally got this 052C hardware now to trial all the great ideas they've been imagining, it's going to be a long way for them to make it fully operational. Currently, the first ship of 052C, 170 is in the hands of PLAN's South Fleet for several months now, and although HHQ-9 had been tested with the PAR on 970 test ship, new problems still arise on 170. This is understandable, that's why it's not appropriate to jump so quickly to compare it to Aegis. Same thing can be said to that latest Jf-17 04 prototype, yes it has something similar to F18, F35, but just don't compare it to F18 or F35 seriously.
4. 052C's PAR is Active. Don't ask me for any evidence, because I've been in discussion about this topic for more than 4 years. That's just my conclusion, I really have no interest in going into the details any more. Let's wait and see.
"No need anymore for propaganda"
Label my personal view as propaganda, that does not help you at all.
I thought people from the largest democratic country should know how to respect other people's view evenif you don't agree. As I said, let's hold our own view, this is not about winning or comparing something. This is to share everyone's opinion, any one can be wrong.
"all the chinese military pix are showing beautifull things"
That proves you have not seen many chinese military pix. Unforutunetely, most of the pics are on chinese language forums and I guess you don't know chinese.
At least you should say all the chinese military pix YOU HAVE SEEN.
Label my personal view as propaganda, that does not help you at all.
I thought people from the largest democratic country should know how to respect other people's view evenif you don't agree. As I said, let's hold our own view, this is not about winning or comparing something. This is to share everyone's opinion, any one can be wrong.
"all the chinese military pix are showing beautifull things"
That proves you have not seen many chinese military pix. Unforutunetely, most of the pics are on chinese language forums and I guess you don't know chinese.
At least you should say all the chinese military pix YOU HAVE SEEN.
WP, I would like to understand what is hurting you in my post.
First, I am not american, as I believe you call this country the biggest democratie (still wonder about the meaning though).
Second, that the Sov union used to make things to look better is not news to anybody, is it?
Third, I didn't call YOUR words as propaganda, but what can be seen and what is shown down here. Even heard from chinese officials about a military mishappening? I wanna hear that if yes!
You are right at some point, I can't talk about what I haven't seen. My knowledge of chinese characteres is enough to get the meaning of pix on the net.
You are getting irritate, sorry, didn't mean it.
I just tell what my experience/knowledge/in-sight is getting to me, with the data I can gather.
First, I am not american, as I believe you call this country the biggest democratie (still wonder about the meaning though).
Second, that the Sov union used to make things to look better is not news to anybody, is it?
Third, I didn't call YOUR words as propaganda, but what can be seen and what is shown down here. Even heard from chinese officials about a military mishappening? I wanna hear that if yes!
You are right at some point, I can't talk about what I haven't seen. My knowledge of chinese characteres is enough to get the meaning of pix on the net.
You are getting irritate, sorry, didn't mean it.
I just tell what my experience/knowledge/in-sight is getting to me, with the data I can gather.
I actually have the current Janes and a copy of the current Bakers in front of me. Where abouts does it say any of this?myskykk said:
Either that target is way up in the stratosphere or you've been smoking too much of the good stuff. Let me put it in the most un-complicated way possible.myskykk said:
Earth = round, not to mention other factors like atmospheric conditions, target RCS.
Last edited:
Yes but as I said before, you probably won't pick up anything beyond the horizon.aaaditya said:its possible for radars to have ranges in excess of 500kms ,isnt it?
because the european smart-l radar is advertised to have a range of 450kms ,
by the way do the sensors of a warship(like the radars )have seperate power generation facilities?
All systems on a vessel are powered by its engines. Take Canadian Halifax class frigates for example, its turbines can generate enough electricity to power 10,000 houses.
all critical sub systems on western warships are required to have redundancy built in as part of their milspec. that means redundant power systems, redundancy in discretion etc...aaaditya said:by the way do the sensors of a warship(like the radars )have seperate power generation facilities?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
A radar's practical (as opposed to possible) range is significantly related to it's height above the Earth's surface. Radar's can't "see" real well through Earth or water. I could be wrong, but I belive even the very best surface (of any type )radar systems are restricted to tens of kilometres, rather than hundres of kilometres.
The only way an AEGIS equipped vessel (for example) can target an SM-2 missile through to it's 180k plus range is through "handed off" targeting data from another platform, situated up high (like an AWACS) or situated, way on the other side of the horizon...
The only way an AEGIS equipped vessel (for example) can target an SM-2 missile through to it's 180k plus range is through "handed off" targeting data from another platform, situated up high (like an AWACS) or situated, way on the other side of the horizon...
doggychow14
New Member
I seriously doubt that the par on the 052C are used for prapoganda considering the 48 HQ-9s it houses. The RIF system uses a PAR. There's also a picture of the "slaps" removed floating around.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #20
Sorry: It's my fault. I confuse the manazine. the news is from Kanwa defence instead of Janes defence;Well you can't belive me what i said ; But i guess they reall use (ASEA) active radar/ISA /RISA ??? the radar is active?when i first saw them. Becase of the position of it's radar is too low! and the angle of the bake radar is not correct.
but the Kanwa said that china used a special /revoluationary technology(high power active radar)cleraly. I can't tell them from AEGIS .
Last edited: