Talk:Type 348 Radar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Contradictions

"Chinese warships have similar radar arrangements to American warships in that the long range phased array radar are augmented with additional fire control (illuminator) radars to compensate for its lack of higher accuracy, instead of having a short range multi-functional phased array with the elimination of fire control (illuminator) radars."

The above paragraph is contradictory because on the Type 052C destroyers and AGE 970 test ship, there is no evidence of fire control radars similar to the MK99 on the AN/SPY-1.

The second part of the paragraph regarding the long range vs accuracy are generally correct, but when inferred with the first statement, implies the need for a FCR like the MK99. This may not be necessary true as the SAMPSON, the other S-band APAR does not require such a FCR.

The reason for this is that it really depends on the type of missile used. In the case of the SAMPSON, when it is used with the ASTER missile, there is no need for continuous illumination as the missile is an active homing missile and while offered with semi-active missiles like the Standard it has been proposed to use the CEAMOUNT illuminator.

Find out more about the HQ-9 missile, we might know more about the guidance principle.

EDIT:Koxinga CDF 03:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have removed the paragraph and replaced it with a new section called Mode of Operation.
  • I have replaced the references to the the Erieye with the SAMPSON as it is a more appropriate comparison as both are S-band naval phased array systems.
  • I have added the additional links below to the references.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm http://www.cea.com.au/products/cwi/ceamount.html


Koxinga CDF 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the HQ-9, it uses TVM. The land version has them controlled by a G-band, MPQ-53 like radar. However, I'd disagree with your statement that TVM (which is really just a modified SARH system) will solve the problems with using search radars for fire control. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
My statement in this talk page is based on the reference link from the SAMPSON system and represents what is apparently implemented on the 051C, in lieu of other evidence that the radar might be operating on a narrower band such as X or C. This implementation seems to have few comparable Western systems as they typically uses the X or C-band or like the DDX, S-band search radar with a X-band radar for fire control. I do not have literature to indicate whether which one is a better approach. For the article itself, I have kept it as neutral as possible, paraphrasing the approaches from the other Wiki articles on ARH, SARH and TVM.

On the other matter of references that the Americans find S-band is better than X-band, it could also be due to the SPY-3 design of the DDX. As far as I know, they are still retaining S-band for volume search while X-band for fire control using one antenna. Why is and why the Europeans chose to use a traditional air search radar for volume search I don't know. Perhaps cost?

Koxinga CDF

[edit] Citations and comments

Normally, I'm not big on citations in pages other than important science and lit topics - I prefer people adding information, with citations being added later. But when the only Reference provided contradicts the article, one has to say something. At the very least find a webpage that supports what you said. Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've seen 128.170.136.277's contributions. Interesting info but still only vague references to Chinese official information or Chinese sources. Surely, "Chinese official information" would have made their way into some Chinese military journal by now? The only site provided still contradicts the reference directly.

For citation requests, to avoid shooting through the article with ugly "citation required" tags, I chose to only emphasize the sentences asserting that the Chinese choice of the E/F band as correct. Certainly, some other countries, not only the Ukraine, but also the French/Italian/Germans (G-band for EMPAR) and the Dutch (X-band for APAR) had different conclusions. Some justification and attribution of this position is required not only as a citation, but also to avoid an NPOV problem.

But really, put up as many citations as possible. Please. Kazuaki Shimazaki 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Type 382

Jane's list this radar as the Type 382 and that the Type 348 as a fire-control radar.

Any objections to redirect?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/y/p/Talk%7EType_348_Radar_d431.html"