New A-aircraft\A-missiles system, new AESA searching radar, new universal VLS for Yakhont\Brhmos\Club\Caliber\Kh-101 missiles, CODAG propulsion, double straighted steel corpus, stealth design new gen net-centric FCS new 130 mm gun new active sonar anti-torpedo complexes (Udav-M and Paket)
To be serious the numbers I have seen for SAMs range between 24, 32 and 36 missiles in the front central SAM VLS bin. That is either the upgraded Shtil-1 or the Redut system. Personally I think the Redut system is probably most likely but as the bins are easily replacable as a block it would only take one trip to port to change if they have designed it right.
Is that the new short range SAM based on a new lock on after launch AAM (for T-50) unified with a land based IIR SAM called Morfei?
It is just that the RVV-AE designation is linked with the R-77 ARH AAM, but its body diameter is 200mm. If this launcher bin is related to the S-400 I assume it could use the new 400km range AAM big missiles as well as the two smaller missiles of 120km and 40km with the latter two missiles fitting 4 to a single tube the larger missile fits into. This would mean the launcher could carry, say 8 x 400km range missiles, which leaves 24 tubes which with the smaller missiles means 4 missiles per tube, so say 24 x 120km range missiles, 48 x 40km range missiles, and 24 x 10km range 9M100 missiles, so 96 small missiles and 8 big ones would equal 104 missiles in total in one load?
The gas-turbine part is M90FR a 27500 hp marine gas-turbine engine developed by NPO Saturn in cooperation with Zorya-Mashproekt State Enterprise (Ukraine). http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=94
The diesel part includes 4 6000 hp D49 diesels agregate. http://www.kolomnadiesel.com/eng/productions/diesel_engine/d49/
I notice that unlike all previous Russian warship designs including the Talwars the 22350 frigate appears to have discarded the RBU-6000/RPK-8 ASW mortars. Does the Russian Navy no longer consider them necessary?
The system that launches Clubs and Brahmos missiles can also fire the ship launched replacement for the SS-N-16 for anti submarine use which is called 91RTE2 (the sub launched 91RE1 is launched directly from a subs torpedo tube), while the anti torpedo function of the mortars is being replaced by the Paket-E/NK small size anti torpedo torpedo. Both are vertically launched so don't add to RCS.
to Gautam Medvedka-2 (SS-N-29) with VLS and RPK-9M missiles will be installed instead of RBU-6000. In addition Paket anti-torpedo will be installed too both on 22350 and Steregushchy class corvettes .
to Austin: Russian sources said about 4-grids AESA on 22350 as searching radar.
However the Medvedka has only 4 missiles per unit as opposed to 12 rockets plus 4 reloads for the RBU-6000. Is the tradeoff in ammo capacity worth it? What about prolonged sub-hunting operations?
Also have you been able to glean any details about the operating performance of the Gorshkov's AESA radar(Poliment-K?)? For instance is the range comparable to Fregat-MAE5?
Medvedka 1 is a 20km range rocket that deploys a torpedo that homes on on the target submarine. Don't know what improvements Medvedka-2 brings.
RBU-6000 fires 3 different types of rockets that include decoy, depth charge and static mine with a max range of 6km. The decoys are obviously fired to distract torpedoes and the mines are also used to lay in the path of incoming torpedoes, while the depth charges can be fired at torpedoes and subs.
The Medvedka normally has two sets of 4 rockets for a total of 8, but could have three sets with 12 rockets. The RBU-6000 series depends on the ship and can have hundreds of reload rockets of different types.
Medvedka with the anti torpedo system Paket together should be rather more effective than the RB-6000 because their range is greater, though they are individually more expensive they should be cheaper because less munitions will be used to do each job. Fof longer range anti sub use as I mentioned above the replacement for SS-N-16 can be loaded into the Club/BrahMos/Kh-101/102 launcher and it has a (ballistic) range of about 40km at the supersonic speed of about mach 1.5. The payload is a guided torpedo.
Medvedka-2 on Gorshkov will have 2x4 launchers, donno about reload capacity. But remember, Club has option for ASMs, and 2x4 330 mm torpedo launcher with AS torpedoes, is pretty enough.
Igor I have doubts if Gorshkov class will have AESA antenna , this class of Frigate is suppose to be cost effective mass produce frigate , An AESA system is a very expensive bit of equipment.
Russians have experience with advanced and mature PESA system which are very much cost effective and capable.
Considering the SAM's of Gorshkov will have ARH , they just need to be guided till the point they can take over and PESA can track while scan hundreds of target.
I will be surprised if Gorshkov carried a 4 Faced AESA.
to Austin: I have some doubts too for the same reason of cost despite unanimous reports about AESA. Although there were reports about big investment in AESA modules serial production on Svetlana plant in San-Petersburg. Let's wait till clearing the situation.
The thing that makes AESA radars so expensive is the cost of the T/R modules. Very simply where there is one T/R module on a PESA, there is an array of thousands on an AESA. It is not just the ability to make enough to go on all the radars, but also the ability to make them in enormous numbers as small and as efficient as possible with the lowest number of rejects as possible. Faulty modules cost the same as the good ones. If they are investing in mass production of the modules... if they have standardised that production so that aircraft and ships and even SAMs and other applications can benefit then they have already spent a large portion of the money needed. The simple fact is that a good PESA is probably better than a poor AESA.
The high expense of AESA naval radars is best illustrated by the fact that most AESA-equipped frigate and destroyer designs, both in China and the West, cost close to a billion dollars each. For the Gorshkov I guess the Russians are aiming for a $400-500 million unit cost, so a PESA derived from the many land-based PESA systems developed for the S-300/400 SAMs would be more cost-effective.
Gautam, China has no AESA-equipped ships. The 4-grid searching radar on type 052C destroyers is a PESA radar derived from Soviet 'MARS-PASSAT' PESA radar with Ukrainian help.
Where from did you get that idea? The water-cooling systems on the 52C next to the antennas alone should be enough to show that they are AESAs. Even most Western and Russian experts have made that conclusion!
And Mars-Passat? That's outlandish. Even if the Chinese could somehow get their hands on it(unlikely) that system was huge, designed for aircraft carriers solely, and was ultimately a failure.
Gautam, China has no MMIC technology, otherwise they already would have produced not only radars for a destroyer but also (and in the first hand) the radars for fighters. "Cooling system" is not an argument since MARS-PASSAT on Kuznetsov has a decent cooling system too. Most probably they have started to learn MARS-PASSAT constructive peculiarities with Varyag purchasing and further took help from the MARS-PASSAT OEM Ukrainian 'Kvant' institute in Kiev.
China very obviously does have MMIC technology, or they wouldn't have developed the AESA radar sets for the Y-8 and KJ-2000 AWACS. In fact I'd say they actually have more experience than Russia in this field. Or are you suggesting those are also PESA?
And there have been reports of assistance from the Kvant bureau, but that hardly means the radar is a ripoff of Mars-Passat. In fact the reports spoke of a new C-band AESA developed by the Kvant bureau as a reference.
Gautam, MMIC technology in full have only two country - the US and Russia, while Russia is somehow lagging in GaN technology. European and Israeli AESAs are partially based on the American MMIC technology. Then I would started from the point that China has no such technology, otherwise why they never demonstrated their MMICs like they have demonstrated their 'indigenous' processors?
It is not that difficult to develop the technology for a purpose-built platform. India also indigenously developed L-band and S-band T/R modules using indigenous GaAs technology provided by an Indian firm. If India can do it so can China. Maybe not the GaN type but the older GaAs MMICs that are widely in use.
Igor, sounds more like you don't want to believe it than anything else. The US is actually a little behind on naval AESA tech, because their SPY-3 next-gen AESA radar(developed for DDX) is too expensive for serial production. Instead look at the large number of AESA systems deployed in Europe and Israel: SMART-L, S1850, RAN40L, MF-STAR, APAR, Herakles, SAMPSON, ARTISAN, SMILE, Sea Giraffe etc.
And China has already developed and deployed at least 2 AESA systems for its AWACS programmes. It wouldn't be difficult to translate that to a ship-based system. Even the Rajendra-2 AESA radar for the Indian Akash SAM upgrade will be based on T/R module technology developed for the Indian AEWC program.
Gautam, are you argue that the newest Reytheon SPY-5 - is actually PESA? If not, tHink why the latest Germany stealth corvettes (Braunshweig) have PESA TRS-3D searching radar and not APAR. Is not it because naval AESA technology is very pre-mature even in Europe and Israel? To say that for China it 'would not be difficult to translate' AWACS to the ship system while it seems to be so difficult even for Reytheon - is hypocrisy in some degree.
Your argument here basically amounts to 'If USA can't do it, China definitely can't.' which is a flawed analogy. I don't know why USA isn't doing it, but lots of others have done and this technology is no longer some Holy Grail. China has had past experience in AESA tech that's comparable to the likes of Israel and Sweden and it is well within their capabilities to develop a shipborne AESA radar.
- It's worth to think why. Have no doubts Reytheon can do it from technologically point of view. So the answer could be: 1) it's yet mature technology 2) it doesnt give sensible advantage in performance comparing with PESA (see comparing characteristics of APAR with Fregat-MAE) 3) it have other unexpectable problems (in maintenance, sensibility against maritime conditions etc)
Which still doesn't mean China can't and won't do it. Just because it isn't mature enough for the US doesn't speak for the rest of the world.
I maintain that the Type 348 radar is, as reported, likely an AESA, just like all the AESAs that are and will be in service in Europe and Asia despite the concerns you raised for Raytheon.
I wasn't thinking of you specifically, but I wonder why you come to this site.
I personally come for the very good information Igor graciously provides... it is not like he gets paid for this.
If you don't believe him when he replies then either come up with some hard evidence or simply agree to disagree.
People who know me will laugh out loud to here me say this because I am probably the most stubborn SOB around, but this is not a forum this is a BLOG. There is a difference.
Due to the official secrecy surrounding Chinese defence programmes it's mostly impossible to get hold of 'hard evidence' that the Type 348 is an AESA. But all the reports, even from reputed sources, point to that probability, which I consider valid enough.
I think you'll also agree, GarryB, that in this particular instance discounting China's progress on AESAs using an example like 'America uses PESA so China couldn't have developed AESA' does not work.
Gautam, look pls on the last 'Varyag' picture with a Top Plate clone above. this is the evidence that Chinese navy is still confident in Russian PESA copies, not AESA.
Did you mean the last pic of a T-90 in a Russian tank unit with different turret and ERA? This photo was leaked via soldier's personal blog, which proves that the Russian tank program is rather covert. Such design was no shown before publicly, while already it is on the service. I can guess it's Relict ERA variant on the molded turret there. The chassis is of the last T-90A version, but the turret is seemingly different.
Yes, I have seen some comment that the turret looked upside down... though except for a joke I don't know why they would do that. Of course I have seen crews put R-60M missiles in the ATGM pylons of Mi-24s just for a hoot so I can't completely dismiss that idea. The large tower structure under canvas could be related to a new type of ARENA that can engage Javelin types diving top attack weapons as that was a criticism directed at the T-90 with the new strangely angled ERA being new munition charges. Hope that soldier doesn't get in too much trouble, but it is good to know Russian tank development has not been killed.
@Gautam I must admit when arguments are based on... "American can't afford it and are leaders in the field so how could the Chinese afford it and also develop the technology"
Do really annoy me, but in this case with the Chinese not even able to copy Russian jet engines from the 1980s (ie RD-33) that they certainly can replicate lots of stuff but the more complex stuff they have problems with. This is not to suggest they can only copy or are idiots, but getting your hands on something and taking it apart can only get you so far. I am sure in time they will master the technology, I just don't think they would bother taking the jump because a poor new AESA would probably be worse that a good PESA and the price difference would be enormous.
Would they do it anyway for ego? I don't think they are that arrogant... but they could surprise us.
There are obviously good reasons why the Americans didn't bother with AESA and the question is do those reasons apply to China or would those reasons be unimportant to them.
Pankaj, the rumors about selling Su-35 to China I heard even 10 years ago when it was a previous version of Su-35 which spoken. Now indeed the non-officially negotiations occurred in Chou-Hai airshow about an 'export version', which is yet ready BTW. Can remember you that the export version of S-400 they promise to China not before 2017 due to manufacturer 'busyness' with works for the Russian forces , while the negotiations are under way starting from 2003-2004 roughly. So I guess, if they started to negotiate about Su-35 now, till 2018 China has little chance to get it. I guess, the common sense of this politics is to influence on Chinese AF programs, to become it more predictable. The factor of time is deciding, If China gets Su-35 after Russia and India is starting to get PAK FA\FGFA, what bad in this?
Whether or not the Russians sell or irrelevant because China is not going to buy the Su-35. They already have comparable technology at hand. They'd rather spend the money on developing the J-10B, J-11B or J-20.
Igorr, I don't see how having Top Plate in addition to Type 348 means Type 348 is PESA. And Garry, I also don't see what reverse-engineering of engines has anything to do with indigenous development of a new radar. Are the Indian AEWC radar and Rajendra-2 are daydreams by Indian scientists because thus far we have neither developed nor reverse-engineered successfully any jet engine?
Do you have official declaration that it is PESA? With China there are hardly any official details on anything. But as I pointed out all sources including Chinese defence experts point to AESA, which is as close as you can get for China.
Gautam, since we lack officially information the PESA is more likely considering the current level of China technology and more opportunity for import PESA tech from the abroad.
The 'current level of technology', judging from the KJ-2000 and 200, is higher than you seem to believe it is. It doesn't matter that PESA is easier to import/develop, if they want an AESA they have the capability to develop one, and that is what appears to be the case from reports.
Pankaj, 1) Tu-22 were not leased to India. The negotiation occurred, and India has asked life-long service warranty. Russia didnt agree but offered to buy them instead leasing, the offer was confirmed publicly, however the sides didn't come to a common point.
2) Indeed there were signals from India about such negotiations but no confirmation followed from the Russian side.
I think the controversy between AESA and PESA , Russia should just stick what they know best and is cost effective to develop.
Russia has wide experience in PESA development and has developed different generation of PESA almost matching AESA on some parameters.
Right now the plan is to develop 2 Gorshkov class frigate and then put it through extensive test and see how the ship and the entire system works.
The serial production will only start from 2015 as per latest report , so there is long time to develop technologies like mature AESA and other missile in S-400 series and new system that will go with Gorshkov.
Indeed, I agree Austin. A rush to AESA would just make the vessels more expensive without improving their performance by a significant amount. Let the technology mature and the costs come down a bit... this is only a frigate. For an upgrade of the Kuznetsov, or if the Kirovs are upgraded then it might be worth looking at AESA but even then it could be prepared for AESA but fitted with PESA will do no harm. If the threat of WWIII was high then there might be more pressure to rush AESA into service in as many areas as possible, but for the moment there is no threat. Unification of AESA elements from ships, aircraft and SAMs etc will improve cost efficiency through standardised production and enormous volume production. Making one offs wont cost so much because you are not making many. Making enormous numbers will cost less because of volume production savings. Anything in between is more expensive and right now unnecessarily so.
I don't know which way the negotiations went, but I do remember seeing at least 2 TU-22's at INS Rajali, Arakonam. I think the period was 1995/1996 or maybe 1996/1997. The 22's along with the 142's could be heard from miles away though the 22 was a lot less noisy. Humongous is not the word to describe both these beauties.
The first ship of Russian pr. 22350 FFG was launched in October 29 in San-Petersburg
hi igor,what is the combat system and armament fit going to be?Any new weapons to be added?Like her sleek lines..unlike Soviet-era warships!
ReplyDeleteto anon:
ReplyDeleteNew A-aircraft\A-missiles system,
new AESA searching radar,
new universal VLS for Yakhont\Brhmos\Club\Caliber\Kh-101 missiles,
CODAG propulsion,
double straighted steel corpus,
stealth design
new gen net-centric FCS
new 130 mm gun
new active sonar
anti-torpedo complexes (Udav-M and Paket)
Do you know type and numbers of AAM?
ReplyDeleteTo be cheeky there will be zero AAMs.
ReplyDeleteTo be serious the numbers I have seen for SAMs range between 24, 32 and 36 missiles in the front central SAM VLS bin. That is either the upgraded Shtil-1 or the Redut system.
Personally I think the Redut system is probably most likely but as the bins are easily replacable as a block it would only take one trip to port to change if they have designed it right.
it must be Redut with SAMs identical with S400 and a new searching radar, which could be seen on the sketch.
ReplyDeletethe number of SAMs is 32 missiles from S400 (ЗУР 9М96Е/М) or 128 10 km range 125-mm 9M100 (ЗУР РВВ-АЕ)
ReplyDelete???
ReplyDeleteThe 125mm 9M100 ZUR RVV-AE?
Is that the new short range SAM based on a new lock on after launch AAM (for T-50) unified with a land based IIR SAM called Morfei?
It is just that the RVV-AE designation is linked with the R-77 ARH AAM, but its body diameter is 200mm.
If this launcher bin is related to the S-400 I assume it could use the new 400km range AAM big missiles as well as the two smaller missiles of 120km and 40km with the latter two missiles fitting 4 to a single tube the larger missile fits into.
This would mean the launcher could carry, say 8 x 400km range missiles, which leaves 24 tubes which with the smaller missiles means 4 missiles per tube, so say 24 x 120km range missiles, 48 x 40km range missiles, and 24 x 10km range 9M100 missiles, so 96 small missiles and 8 big ones would equal 104 missiles in total in one load?
Igor , the radar is not a AESA but a PESA derived from its S-400 system
ReplyDeleteto Garry B:
ReplyDeletethe little missile is indeed common with Morphei system. About using 400 km range AAM I'm not sure coz didnt find information, but it seems logical.
CODAG plant
ReplyDeleteIgor are their plans for marine derivatives of PS-14 to make a LM 2500+ type of a unit or maybe even WR-21
The gas-turbine part is M90FR a 27500 hp marine gas-turbine engine developed by NPO Saturn in cooperation with Zorya-Mashproekt State Enterprise (Ukraine). http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=94
ReplyDeleteThe diesel part includes 4 6000 hp D49 diesels agregate. http://www.kolomnadiesel.com/eng/productions/diesel_engine/d49/
I notice that unlike all previous Russian warship designs including the Talwars the 22350 frigate appears to have discarded the RBU-6000/RPK-8 ASW mortars. Does the Russian Navy no longer consider them necessary?
ReplyDeleteThe system that launches Clubs and Brahmos missiles can also fire the ship launched replacement for the SS-N-16 for anti submarine use which is called 91RTE2 (the sub launched 91RE1 is launched directly from a subs torpedo tube), while the anti torpedo function of the mortars is being replaced by the Paket-E/NK small size anti torpedo torpedo.
ReplyDeleteBoth are vertically launched so don't add to RCS.
to Gautam
ReplyDeleteMedvedka-2 (SS-N-29) with VLS and RPK-9M missiles will be installed instead of RBU-6000. In addition Paket anti-torpedo will be installed too both on 22350 and Steregushchy class corvettes .
to Austin:
Russian sources said about 4-grids AESA on 22350 as searching radar.
correction: RBU-9 is the name of the launcher, the missile's name is 87R
ReplyDeleteHowever the Medvedka has only 4 missiles per unit as opposed to 12 rockets plus 4 reloads for the RBU-6000. Is the tradeoff in ammo capacity worth it? What about prolonged sub-hunting operations?
ReplyDeleteAlso have you been able to glean any details about the operating performance of the Gorshkov's AESA radar(Poliment-K?)? For instance is the range comparable to Fregat-MAE5?
Medvedka 1 is a 20km range rocket that deploys a torpedo that homes on on the target submarine. Don't know what improvements Medvedka-2 brings.
ReplyDeleteRBU-6000 fires 3 different types of rockets that include decoy, depth charge and static mine with a max range of 6km. The decoys are obviously fired to distract torpedoes and the mines are also used to lay in the path of incoming torpedoes, while the depth charges can be fired at torpedoes and subs.
The Medvedka normally has two sets of 4 rockets for a total of 8, but could have three sets with 12 rockets. The RBU-6000 series depends on the ship and can have hundreds of reload rockets of different types.
Medvedka with the anti torpedo system Paket together should be rather more effective than the RB-6000 because their range is greater, though they are individually more expensive they should be cheaper because less munitions will be used to do each job.
Fof longer range anti sub use as I mentioned above the replacement for SS-N-16 can be loaded into the Club/BrahMos/Kh-101/102 launcher and it has a (ballistic) range of about 40km at the supersonic speed of about mach 1.5. The payload is a guided torpedo.
to Gautam:
ReplyDeleteMedvedka-2 on Gorshkov will have 2x4 launchers, donno about reload capacity. But remember, Club has option for ASMs, and 2x4 330 mm torpedo launcher with AS torpedoes, is pretty enough.
Insufficient for prolonged operations, but I guess these frigates will mostly be operated for defensive/patrol roles.
ReplyDeleteAnd on the radar?
For prolonged operations there is resupply and also it will hardly be operating alone.
ReplyDeleteIgor I have doubts if Gorshkov class will have AESA antenna , this class of Frigate is suppose to be cost effective mass produce frigate , An AESA system is a very expensive bit of equipment.
ReplyDeleteRussians have experience with advanced and mature PESA system which are very much cost effective and capable.
Considering the SAM's of Gorshkov will have ARH , they just need to be guided till the point they can take over and PESA can track while scan hundreds of target.
I will be surprised if Gorshkov carried a 4 Faced AESA.
to Austin: I have some doubts too for the same reason of cost despite unanimous reports about AESA. Although there were reports about big investment in AESA modules serial production on Svetlana plant in San-Petersburg. Let's wait till clearing the situation.
ReplyDeleteIgor Can you identify the radar on top of the AESA radar and the purpose of it , it exist at the very top of the mast
ReplyDeleteHere is a model picture of Groshkov and export variant
http://i64.servimg.com/u/f64/15/54/62/79/admira11.jpg
Gorshkov 22350
http://i64.servimg.com/u/f64/15/54/62/79/22356_11.jpg
22356
Are you sure Project 2235 is an export version of Gorshkov? Because it has a different radar and SAM system(Fregat and Shtil with Orekh illuminators).
ReplyDeleteAlso could you please show me the Russian article about the Gorshkov's AESA?
Gautam , yes it is the export version of Project 22350 Groshkov ,the displacement and weapons system remains the same wrt what can be exported.
ReplyDeleteThere is change in Sensor/Radars probably an indication they will not like to export the entire sensor suite right now.
The export version should also be cheaper with "build for not with" features something that can be added at a later stage.
The thing that makes AESA radars so expensive is the cost of the T/R modules. Very simply where there is one T/R module on a PESA, there is an array of thousands on an AESA. It is not just the ability to make enough to go on all the radars, but also the ability to make them in enormous numbers as small and as efficient as possible with the lowest number of rejects as possible. Faulty modules cost the same as the good ones.
ReplyDeleteIf they are investing in mass production of the modules... if they have standardised that production so that aircraft and ships and even SAMs and other applications can benefit then they have already spent a large portion of the money needed.
The simple fact is that a good PESA is probably better than a poor AESA.
The high expense of AESA naval radars is best illustrated by the fact that most AESA-equipped frigate and destroyer designs, both in China and the West, cost close to a billion dollars each. For the Gorshkov I guess the Russians are aiming for a $400-500 million unit cost, so a PESA derived from the many land-based PESA systems developed for the S-300/400 SAMs would be more cost-effective.
ReplyDeleteGautam, China has no AESA-equipped ships. The 4-grid searching radar on type 052C destroyers is a PESA radar derived from Soviet 'MARS-PASSAT' PESA radar with Ukrainian help.
ReplyDeleteWhere from did you get that idea? The water-cooling systems on the 52C next to the antennas alone should be enough to show that they are AESAs. Even most Western and Russian experts have made that conclusion!
ReplyDeleteAnd Mars-Passat? That's outlandish. Even if the Chinese could somehow get their hands on it(unlikely) that system was huge, designed for aircraft carriers solely, and was ultimately a failure.
Gautam, China has no MMIC technology, otherwise they already would have produced not only radars for a destroyer but also (and in the first hand) the radars for fighters. "Cooling system" is not an argument since MARS-PASSAT on Kuznetsov has a decent cooling system too. Most probably they have started to learn MARS-PASSAT constructive peculiarities with Varyag purchasing and further took help from the MARS-PASSAT OEM Ukrainian 'Kvant' institute in Kiev.
ReplyDeleteChina very obviously does have MMIC technology, or they wouldn't have developed the AESA radar sets for the Y-8 and KJ-2000 AWACS. In fact I'd say they actually have more experience than Russia in this field. Or are you suggesting those are also PESA?
ReplyDeleteAnd there have been reports of assistance from the Kvant bureau, but that hardly means the radar is a ripoff of Mars-Passat. In fact the reports spoke of a new C-band AESA developed by the Kvant bureau as a reference.
Gautam, MMIC technology in full have only two country - the US and Russia, while Russia is somehow lagging in GaN technology. European and Israeli AESAs are partially based on the American MMIC technology. Then I would started from the point that China has no such technology, otherwise why they never demonstrated their MMICs like they have demonstrated their 'indigenous' processors?
ReplyDeleteIt is not that difficult to develop the technology for a purpose-built platform. India also indigenously developed L-band and S-band T/R modules using indigenous GaAs technology provided by an Indian firm. If India can do it so can China. Maybe not the GaN type but the older GaAs MMICs that are widely in use.
ReplyDeleteGautam, even the last new Arley Burke DDG-109 has AN/SPY-1D PESA. So the idea that China produces `AESA Egis radars' is killing.
ReplyDeleteIgor, sounds more like you don't want to believe it than anything else. The US is actually a little behind on naval AESA tech, because their SPY-3 next-gen AESA radar(developed for DDX) is too expensive for serial production. Instead look at the large number of AESA systems deployed in Europe and Israel: SMART-L, S1850, RAN40L, MF-STAR, APAR, Herakles, SAMPSON, ARTISAN, SMILE, Sea Giraffe etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd China has already developed and deployed at least 2 AESA systems for its AWACS programmes. It wouldn't be difficult to translate that to a ship-based system. Even the Rajendra-2 AESA radar for the Indian Akash SAM upgrade will be based on T/R module technology developed for the Indian AEWC program.
Gautam, are you argue that the newest Reytheon SPY-5 - is actually PESA? If not, tHink why the latest Germany stealth corvettes (Braunshweig) have PESA TRS-3D searching radar and not APAR. Is not it because naval AESA technology is very pre-mature even in Europe and Israel? To say that for China it 'would not be difficult to translate' AWACS to the ship system while it seems to be so difficult even for Reytheon - is hypocrisy in some degree.
ReplyDeleteWhat SPY-5? I mentioned the SPY-3.
ReplyDeleteYour argument here basically amounts to 'If USA can't do it, China definitely can't.' which is a flawed analogy. I don't know why USA isn't doing it, but lots of others have done and this technology is no longer some Holy Grail. China has had past experience in AESA tech that's comparable to the likes of Israel and Sweden and it is well within their capabilities to develop a shipborne AESA radar.
==I don't know why USA isn't doing it==
ReplyDelete- It's worth to think why. Have no doubts Reytheon can do it from technologically point of view. So the answer could be: 1) it's yet mature technology 2) it doesnt give sensible advantage in performance comparing with PESA (see comparing characteristics of APAR with Fregat-MAE) 3) it have other unexpectable problems (in maintenance, sensibility against maritime conditions etc)
Which still doesn't mean China can't and won't do it. Just because it isn't mature enough for the US doesn't speak for the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteI maintain that the Type 348 radar is, as reported, likely an AESA, just like all the AESAs that are and will be in service in Europe and Asia despite the concerns you raised for Raytheon.
@Igor
ReplyDeleteAny info about the new upgrade standard for the T-90 for when they start producing them again?
And any further info on the AK upgrade?
BTW thanks for this site and taking the time to answer even the most silly questions.
IF you're referring to mine, I fail to see how they are silly because you disagree with me.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't thinking of you specifically, but I wonder why you come to this site.
ReplyDeleteI personally come for the very good information Igor graciously provides... it is not like he gets paid for this.
If you don't believe him when he replies then either come up with some hard evidence or simply agree to disagree.
People who know me will laugh out loud to here me say this because I am probably the most stubborn SOB around, but this is not a forum this is a BLOG. There is a difference.
I come here to learn about Russian defence programmes and such which he has far better access to than people like me.
ReplyDeleteHowever when I know a few things myself, and the argument in question above wasn't very valid, and I disputed that citing examples and reasons.
Due to the official secrecy surrounding Chinese defence programmes it's mostly impossible to get hold of 'hard evidence' that the Type 348 is an AESA. But all the reports, even from reputed sources, point to that probability, which I consider valid enough.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll also agree, GarryB, that in this particular instance discounting China's progress on AESAs using an example like 'America uses PESA so China couldn't have developed AESA' does not work.
Gautam, look pls on the last 'Varyag' picture with a Top Plate clone above. this is the evidence that Chinese navy is still confident in Russian PESA copies, not AESA.
ReplyDeleteGarryB:
ReplyDeleteDid you mean the last pic of a T-90 in a Russian tank unit with different turret and ERA? This photo was leaked via soldier's personal blog, which proves that the Russian tank program is rather covert. Such design was no shown before publicly, while already it is on the service. I can guess it's Relict ERA variant on the molded turret there. The chassis is of the last T-90A version, but the turret is seemingly different.
Yes, I have seen some comment that the turret looked upside down... though except for a joke I don't know why they would do that.
ReplyDeleteOf course I have seen crews put R-60M missiles in the ATGM pylons of Mi-24s just for a hoot so I can't completely dismiss that idea.
The large tower structure under canvas could be related to a new type of ARENA that can engage Javelin types diving top attack weapons as that was a criticism directed at the T-90 with the new strangely angled ERA being new munition charges.
Hope that soldier doesn't get in too much trouble, but it is good to know Russian tank development has not been killed.
@Gautam
ReplyDeleteI must admit when arguments are based on... "American can't afford it and are leaders in the field so how could the Chinese afford it and also develop the technology"
Do really annoy me, but in this case with the Chinese not even able to copy Russian jet engines from the 1980s (ie RD-33) that they certainly can replicate lots of stuff but the more complex stuff they have problems with.
This is not to suggest they can only copy or are idiots, but getting your hands on something and taking it apart can only get you so far.
I am sure in time they will master the technology, I just don't think they would bother taking the jump because a poor new AESA would probably be worse that a good PESA and the price difference would be enormous.
Would they do it anyway for ego?
I don't think they are that arrogant... but they could surprise us.
There are obviously good reasons why the Americans didn't bother with AESA and the question is do those reasons apply to China or would those reasons be unimportant to them.
My answer is I don't know.
Garry,where is the latest pics of T-90 with new ERA/Turret ?
ReplyDeleteIgorr
ReplyDeleteWill Russia really sell SU 35 to China. I hope not
The Chinese will CLONE it too.
Plus what about India's security .
Pankaj,
ReplyDeletethe rumors about selling Su-35 to China I heard even 10 years ago when it was a previous version of Su-35 which spoken. Now indeed the non-officially negotiations occurred in Chou-Hai airshow about an 'export version', which is yet ready BTW. Can remember you that the export version of S-400 they promise to China not before 2017 due to manufacturer 'busyness' with works for the Russian forces , while the negotiations are under way starting from 2003-2004 roughly. So I guess, if they started to negotiate about Su-35 now, till 2018 China has little chance to get it. I guess, the common sense of this politics is to influence on Chinese AF programs, to become it more predictable. The factor of time is deciding, If China gets Su-35 after Russia and India is starting to get PAK FA\FGFA, what bad in this?
Whether or not the Russians sell or irrelevant because China is not going to buy the Su-35. They already have comparable technology at hand. They'd rather spend the money on developing the J-10B, J-11B or J-20.
ReplyDeleteIgorr, I don't see how having Top Plate in addition to Type 348 means Type 348 is PESA. And Garry, I also don't see what reverse-engineering of engines has anything to do with indigenous development of a new radar. Are the Indian AEWC radar and Rajendra-2 are daydreams by Indian scientists because thus far we have neither developed nor reverse-engineered successfully any jet engine?
@ Austin
ReplyDeletehttp://img5imageshack.us/img5/1759/monstro90b.jpg
Just put the dot back between the img5 and the imageshack... ie //img5.imageshack
to Gautam'
ReplyDelete==Igorr, I don't see how having Top Plate in addition to Type 348 means Type 348 is PESA. ==
- Do you have an official declaration in the hand that Type 348 is AESA?
Do you have official declaration that it is PESA? With China there are hardly any official details on anything. But as I pointed out all sources including Chinese defence experts point to AESA, which is as close as you can get for China.
ReplyDeleteGautam, since we lack officially information the PESA is more likely considering the current level of China technology and more opportunity for import PESA tech from the abroad.
ReplyDeleteThe 'current level of technology', judging from the KJ-2000 and 200, is higher than you seem to believe it is. It doesn't matter that PESA is easier to import/develop, if they want an AESA they have the capability to develop one, and that is what appears to be the case from reports.
ReplyDeleteto Gautam
ReplyDelete==if they want an AESA they have the capability to develop one==
- It's a question of a personal belief. I'd not mess with.)
Dear Igor
ReplyDeletePlease Answer my questions
1. Has Russia leased TU 22 long range bombers to India .And if yes How many
2. Also on the internet it is found that India will be leasing TWO N SUBS .Is it true
Our govt does nt tell us any thing
Pankaj,
ReplyDelete1) Tu-22 were not leased to India. The negotiation occurred, and India has asked life-long service warranty. Russia didnt agree but offered to buy them instead leasing, the offer was confirmed publicly, however the sides didn't come to a common point.
2) Indeed there were signals from India about such negotiations but no confirmation followed from the Russian side.
Thanks Garry,I have seen the pictures before.
ReplyDeleteI think the controversy between AESA and PESA , Russia should just stick what they know best and is cost effective to develop.
Russia has wide experience in PESA development and has developed different generation of PESA almost matching AESA on some parameters.
Right now the plan is to develop 2 Gorshkov class frigate and then put it through extensive test and see how the ship and the entire system works.
The serial production will only start from 2015 as per latest report , so there is long time to develop technologies like mature AESA and other missile in S-400 series and new system that will go with Gorshkov.
Indeed, I agree Austin.
ReplyDeleteA rush to AESA would just make the vessels more expensive without improving their performance by a significant amount.
Let the technology mature and the costs come down a bit... this is only a frigate.
For an upgrade of the Kuznetsov, or if the Kirovs are upgraded then it might be worth looking at AESA but even then it could be prepared for AESA but fitted with PESA will do no harm. If the threat of WWIII was high then there might be more pressure to rush AESA into service in as many areas as possible, but for the moment there is no threat.
Unification of AESA elements from ships, aircraft and SAMs etc will improve cost efficiency through standardised production and enormous volume production. Making one offs wont cost so much because you are not making many. Making enormous numbers will cost less because of volume production savings. Anything in between is more expensive and right now unnecessarily so.
I don't know which way the negotiations went, but I do remember seeing at least 2 TU-22's at INS Rajali, Arakonam. I think the period was 1995/1996 or maybe 1996/1997. The 22's along with the 142's could be heard from miles away though the 22 was a lot less noisy. Humongous is not the word to describe both these beauties.
ReplyDelete