Talk:Type 348 Radar

TVM???
I've read the discussion below and I'm still having trouble picturing how the HHQ-9 could possibly be guided by the Type 348 using the TVM method. The Aster can use the Sampson because it is ARH in the terminal stages and doesn't need a more precise radar, while the Sampson used with an SM-2 needs a separate FCR in the end game because the SM-2 is SARH. If the Type 348 is S-band, it CAN'T provide terminal stage illumination for the TVM-guided HHQ-9. Either the missile or the radar has got to possess detailed tracking information, so if the HHQ-9 has no emitter and the Type 348 is S-band, you've got nothing other than the blind leading the blind. IMO, if the Type 348 is S-band, there is no other choice than to conclude that the HHQ-9 is ARH. Of course if the Type 348 is X-band, then the HHQ-9 can be anything. I don't see how it could be any other way. 146.74.216.98 08:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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?

Type 348 has nothing to do with the SAPARS on Luyang II hulls. Type 348 is on Luyang 1 hulls and is the search and target acquisition radar associated with the LR66 fire control system for the Type 730 CIWS. Unlike Phalanx, which has integrated search and tracker, Type 730 only has integrated tracker and relies on mast head search for initial target acquisition.

The SAPARS, designated H/LJG-346 is otherwise known as TYPE 346. It was originally believed that it would have been desigated Type 382 being a major 3D search system, and 382 would have been the next designator in the current sequence. However, it Type 346 also a target acquisition and weapon control system thus it get a weapon control designator.

I have yet to see anything to confirm its operating frequency band. Whilst I agree there are sound arguments for "believing" that it might function in NATO E/F-Band (old S-Band) there are equal arguments that suggest it might function in NATO G-Band (old C-Band), because that is a good compromise between range (S-band) and definition (I-Band).

Editor of Jane's Fighting Ships has been advised.

John Wise Dec07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Wise (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions part 2
''The Type 348 system as installed on the Type 052C Luyang Class does not have any additional continuous wave illumination radars such as the AN/SPG-62 slaved to the AN/SPY-1. Instead, additional fire control radars with continous wave illumination capability were installed separately, and they were linked to Type 348 radar via combat data systems. The combat data system was needed because the Type 348 itself operates in the S - band thus lacking in accuracy for terminal guidance''

OK, Where are the additional fire control radars stated in the above edit?

Among the possible approach is to utilize the Type 364 Radar as the primary search radar in an engagement scenario while the Type 348 to be use for fire control and missile guidance. But the obvious pitfall is the under utilizing advanced phased array system in a combat situation and a cheaper alternative of installing FCRs.

Koxinga CDF 03:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)