Matrix Games Forums

Hello,

I would like to open this thread in favor of adding some information to the database's entries on the topic of Chinese surface combattants, which still have some gaps here and there.

First of all, I'd like to point to the lack of OECM/DECM suites onboard of the 052C/D and 054A/A++ in the database.

If we compare the Type 052 Luhu-class 2012 MLU's two Type 984 active jamming devices placed on the forward positions where their Type 76A twin 37mm autocannons used to be, to the devices that can be seen on the masts of the 052C/D and 054A classes, we can actually see that two Type 984 active jammers, each one pointing towards one side of the ship, are indeed present.

Secondly, the same ships as mentioned above possess the new standard PLAN ASW suite, comprising four things: A hull sonar (described as being either the MGK-335 Platina or a "improved SJD-9" according to a lengthly chinese propaganda article of 2008), A TASS (possibly SJG-206), a VDS (possibly Bronza-ME-Lugan or their chinese variants) and a towed acoustic torpedo decoy system.

All these systems actually could be discerned from photos showing their respective openings in the aft of the 052C/D and 054A ships.

Furthermore, there's a fairly tougher nut to crack:

The HHQ-9A/B system onboard the Type 052C/D ships are set in the database to have an maximum target speed of 1600 kts, which is actually quite low, especially for a strategic SAM system based on the S-300PMU-1/2 that was also sold to China and whose technologies pretty much kickstarted the HQ-9 project, after its development stagnated due to technology bottlenecks for quite a while before.

While I dont know where these numbers come from (maybe the database editors have a better source than me), I could only point towards the successful terminal-phase interception of a ballistic missile in 2009 (possible DF-11, as these SRBMs are getting quite old and are increasingly used as targets by the PLA), by a fairly standard HQ-9, indicating the long rumoured limited terminal ballistic missile interception capability of this system.

Secondly, the 2014 buzz about the Turkish T-LORAMIDS SAM tender, where, surprisingly, the HQ-9's export variant, the FD-2000, took part in and was even initially selected.

While the true reasons of its selection are shrouded in mystery, ranging from simple reasons of price and tech-transfer, to rumours that it indeed performed the best compared to the others (PAC-3, Aster 30, S-300PMU-2), the fact that this system was actually submitted to a contest probably tells us, that the Chinese system was at least capable of fulfilling the basic requirements of this tender, that was long-range anti-air and anti-ballistic missile.

This also leads us to another problem in the DB, where also the land-based HQ-9A doesnt have ABM capability, or even the radar to detect ballistic missiles.

From the official brochure from the most recent Zhuhai Airshow in November 2014, we could read that the FD-2000 SAM with its standard HT-233 Radar has indeed ballistic missile interception capability at the last 7-25km, with an altitude of 2-15km. This heavily implies that the HQ-9, its domestic brother, has terminal ballistic missile interception capability as well, and likely also a much higher target engagement speed than the 1600 kts in the database.

While this doesnt directly point to a similiar capability onboard of the 052C/D DDGs equipped with the naval variants of this missile system, the official nickname for these ships in the Chinese state media, calling them "China's Divine Shields/ÖлªÉñ¶Ü", a name that is synonymous with missile defense in chinese military semantics, does indicate at least an ATBM capability.

tl;dr

1. Please add to Type 054A (all ships) and 052D Luyang-III:

-Type 984 OECM/DECM
-SJG-206 TASS
-SJD-X VDS
-Towed Acoustic Decoy

For the Type 052C Luyang-II:

- only add the Towed Acoustic Decoy
(it already has the TASS after checking the DB again)


2. Please review the 1600 kts maximum target speed of the naval HHQ-9A/B and land-based HQ-9A and add limited ATBM capability to both missile and radar systems (HTT-233 on land and Type 346/A on ship) due to the reasons stated above.


Anyway, these are all gaps or inaccuracies I've identified so far.

As always, a thank you to the devs for the hard work!

Now that I can finally post links; here some evidence:

FD-2000/Export HQ-9's Anti-TBM capability:

Interesting of note - the FD-2000 seems to be active radar guided in terminal stage

The ASW suite onboard the 054A, 052C etc.

https://clashofarms.com/files/PLAN_Towe ... _Decoy.pdf

Type 054A retrofitted to 054A flight III standard with VDS openings:

http://www.janes.com/article/42550/chin ... 56-vessels

054A flight III CNS 576 "Daqing" with Type 1130 CIWS and VDS opening, along with the two other openings for TASS and acoustic decoys:




VDS opening quite hard to see in this picture, but refer to the Jane's article above.

The aft of the 052D:

We can see here; the biggest opening near the center is for the VDS, while the left-most hole is for the decoy and the one right of it for the TASS.



052D and 052C side by side. The 052D has a TASS and towed decoy in addition to its VDS, while the 052C only has TASS and decoy

About the ECM onboard of the different Chinese destroyers.

First, ECM onboard the Type 052 Luhu-class (post MLU):


Then, the ECM onboard the Type 052C and 052D, which look very similiar in both shape and arrangement:

On the Type 054A it looks quite similiar in terms of arrangement (one big emitter on the super-structure, another smaller one on the mast), only the difference is the type and shape of the ECM emitter.




It seems that China uses a different ECM for Frigate sized ships, as compared to the DDG ECM systems we saw above.

But still, the 054A sports ECM systems in real life.

Any clue with the designation of the acoustic decoys are? Any pictures of these anywhere?

Thanks!

Mike

Very interesting stuff guys

But still, the 054A sports ECM systems in real life.

According to this PDF , a little dated and not sure how accurate or its source, but states "HZ-100 ECM & ELINT system" for 054A, page 46

Lists Radars, ESM, ECMs, etc. for other PLAN ships also

Any clue with the designation of the acoustic decoys are? Any pictures of these anywhere?

At this point, there is only information that this system actually exists and is equipped on the modern Chinese surface combattants. Unfortunately, the designation isnt known but a schematic drawing of a related decoy system for submarines is available:



Picture reads that this is a "self propelled sub-surface anti torpedo towed array", suggesting that this one is for submarine (sub-surface) use.

Furthermore, semi-official articles confirmed as well that China uses towed decoys to protect their surface combattants from torpedo attacks:

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2014-07-02/1527788096.html

This part:

中国海军反鱼雷水声对抗武器系统主要有鱼雷报警声呐、拖曳式声诱饵、火箭助飞式声诱饵、火箭助飞式声干扰器、显示及控制装置和绞车等组成。

Google translate:

Chinese naval combat anti-torpedo torpedo weapon system mainly alarm sonar, towed acoustic decoy, rocket propelled Acoustic bait, rocket propelled Acoustic jammers, display and control devices and winches and other components.

In the end, I guess, there's no other option but to give them "[generic acoustic decoy] - average/advanced" (depending on the ship) or something.

Interestingly, that excerp also mentions 'rocket propelled acoustic baits and jammers', that probably are part with the decoy MRLS launching system or the ASW mortars.

Some more on the towed acoustic decoys:

http://www.guokr.com/post/585850/

拖曳声诱饵能发射宽带噪声信号、主动扫频信号和组合信号，其声场能掩盖舰艇的噪声强度。鱼雷报警声呐能对来袭的鱼雷进行探测、跟踪、分辨和测定方位。水声对抗系统在发现来袭鱼雷之后，可发射声诱饵或声干扰弹进行抗击。中国海军将水声对抗发射装置与电子对抗装置进行了融合，726-4型电子对抗发射装置可共架发射水声对抗诱饵弹和干扰弹，减少了舰面装置的数量。拖曳式声诱饵及拖曳式鱼雷报警声呐因其收放口与拖曳线列阵声呐非常相似，故而外表上较难分辨。发射式声干扰的干扰频段能覆盖声呐和鱼雷的使用频段，声场超过本舰辐射噪声强度。干扰鱼雷时，干扰器工作时间需大于15分钟，干扰声呐时，工作时间需大于40分钟，干扰器应能在水中悬浮或自航。气幕式声干扰的气幕分布面应大于本舰；通过气幕应使舰船的声强度衰减10dB以上，拖曳式干扰的诱饵声强应超过本舰的噪声和目标强度。

Towed acoustic decoy can transmit broadband noise signal, active sweep signal and the combined signal, the sound field can mask the noise intensity ship. Alarm torpedo sonar capable of attacking torpedo detection, tracking, resolution and determination of position. Acoustic warfare system after discovering torpedo struck, can emit sound or acoustic decoy flares were to fight. Chinese Navy underwater acoustic warfare and electronic warfare devices emitting devices were fused, 726-4 type electronic warfare aircraft emitting device can transmit a total of acoustic warfare decoys and decoy, reducing the number of surface-ship devices. Towed Decoy and towed torpedo sonar alarm port and its retractable towed array sonar is very similar, and therefore difficult to distinguish appearance. Acoustic emission interference band interference can cover the use of sonar and torpedo band, the sound field over the ship radiated noise intensity. When interference torpedo, jammers work time must be greater than 15 minutes, when the sonar interference, working time must be greater than 40 minutes, jammers should be suspended or self-propelled in the water. Air curtain side air curtain distributed acoustic disturbances should be greater than the ship; by air curtain should make sound intensity attenuation of 10dB above the ship, towed decoys interference sound intensity should exceed the noise and target strength of the ship.

Hongjian...... Whata guy.....

Regarding the HQ-9/FD-2000 system; in general, the official brochure posted above does indeed bring up a few new questions about the HQ-9/A/B system.

First of all, the most striking thing it reveals, aside of its anti theatre ballistic missile capability, is that it apparently has an active radar terminal seeker.

This doesnt correlate with the information that wikipedia gives us, but it is not the first time for wikipedia to have inaccurate information about Chinese systems...

My theory: There is a huge difference between HQ-9, the FD-2000, which seems to be based on an more advanced variant of the HQ-9 (HHQ-9 or HQ-9A?) and the naval HHQ-9 variants.
If we look at the land-based HQ-9 system and its HT-233 PESA engagement radar, we know from most sources that this system is basically a Chinese copy of the Patriot's AN/MPQ-53 operating in G-Band and not actually a copy of the X-band 30N6E1 Tomb Stone of the S-300P series. This indeed correlates with the information we have about the early HQ-9s being basically a Patriot-inspired system, with slanted launchers and all, until the S-300PMU sales to China changed it and helped that system to overcome its technological bottlenecks - thereby turning into a S-300 styled system with VL missiles. But it seems that the Patriot-styled G-band PESA radar was retained from the original project.
The land based HQ-9 missile is, like the MIM-104 Patriot system, a Track-via-Missile system. This has been confirmed in most sources.

Now, lets move on to the naval systems of interest:
The HHQ-9 series onboard the 052C and 052D should actually have been paired with a similiar G-band engagement radar, if they have any relation with the land-based HQ-9, that is.
But if we research about the 052C and 052D, we actually do not see any eligible FCRs that would fit the bill. Nothing, at least, like on the 051C Luzhou-class DDGs which have those imported S-300FMs onboard and that large 30N6E1 Tomb Stone on the non-functional 'helo hangar'.

That layout is quite simple and clear: The radome ontop of the first mast houses the SR-64 high-rate search radar (associated with CIWS sea-skimmer defense, hence always placed on the very top), Type 381 Rice Screen on the second mast is for the 3D air-search, and the Tomb-Stone on the rear superstructure is for the FCR:



Now, let's look at the 052C/D:



This time, there's something different:
We have the SR-64 still on the top of the main-mast, the new Type 348 (also known as Type 346 "Dragon Eye") Shipborne AESAs are for 3D airsearch, A Type 517H Yagi VHF-band volume search radar for long range 2D air-search...
But no dedicated FCR.

What happened?

IMHO, the naval HHQ-9/A/B do not actually require a FCR in the traditional sense, as they utilize a guidance mode that is completely independent of off-board targeting/illumination, as it would have been required in the TVM or SARH guidance techniques.

There are a few clues which could be the evidence for my theory:

First; the Type 346/348 Shipborne AESA's name: Type "34X" indicate that is is a radar that is capable of fire-control.

From this, unfortunately dead, webpage of the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST), we can see the meaning behind the different radar designations:

http://www.cast.org.cn/n435777/n435799/ ... 32893.html

下面是我整理的我国部分雷达型号的数字序号分类，也是我认为385雷达就是舰载三坐标警戒雷达的依据之一。
当然，里面除有个别雷达喜欢串门外，绝大多数雷达都还是遵循这个雷达分类序列的。

33X系列：航天测控雷达
34X系列：火控雷达，346型舰载多用途有源相控阵雷达使用这个序列编号说明其火控功能和搜索功能一样强大
35X系列：搜索-攻击雷达（导弹艇、潜艇的综合火控雷达）
36X系列：对海/低空警戒兼目标指示雷达，有一个512型的异类，这雷达是早期快艇雷达改进而来的。
37X系列：陆军炮兵校射侦察雷达
38X系列：三坐标警戒雷达
51X系列：远程对空警戒雷达
65X系列：敌我识别器
70X系列：未知功能舰载雷达
71X系列：测雨雷达
75X系列：导航雷达
77X系列：潜望镜测距雷达
84X系列：测台风雷达
18X系列：船载精密测量雷达

At the "34X系列" entry, it is said that it is a "fire contol radar 火控雷达".
And fortunately, they even have the Type 346 radar as an example; saying:

346型舰载多用途有源相控阵雷达: 346-Type (346型) Shipborne (舰载) Multirole (多用途) Active (有源) Phased Array (相控阵) Radar (雷达)

This correlated with what Jane's etc. say about it as well.

"34X" being the designation of a fire control radar also correlate with other 34X radars onboard Chinese ships, for example the Type 347 Rice Lamp DP-gun FCR we see in that picture of the 052C above, and the Type 344 FCR, typically associated with all PLAN CIWS systems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_344_Radar


Now, we might say; "well, looks like the HHQ-9 indeed has an FCR, what are you talking about?"

Then, we need to see the second clue, that it might really doesnt need or have one:

The Type 346/348 Dragon Eye Shipborne Multirole AESA actually hardly can qualify as an FCR, as it is operating at S-Band (2-4 GHz).
Remember, we have established that the HT-233 and AN/MPQ-53 are operating at the more high frequency G/H-Band (4-6/8 Ghz), while the 30N6E1 even operates at X-band (8-12 GHz). It seems to be clear that the TVM/SARH variant of the HQ-9 needs a FCR operating in the higher frequency bands that are typcially associated with Fire Control Radars due to their accuracy and resolution, ideal to paint airborne targets for the SARH seekers to follow. On the other hand, S-band is kinda too low-frequency and too low resolution to generate suitable, weapon quality tracks - but it can easily have the extreme range.

So, the 3rd clue would be the range of the S-band Type 346/348 compared to the G-band HT-233: The Type 346/348 is cited to have nearly 400km range (ingame, it is 175nmi like the SPY-1 series), which is quite hard to attain with a G/H band FCR. We know as well, that the HT-233 FCR for the land-based HQ-9 has just 120-150km range, depending on source. This comparably low range is in line with the performance of some AN/MPQ-53 radars, cited with 140-170km range (90nmi in game).

Something's not right. The 346/348 radars arent too much larger than the land-based HT-233 to be able to generate FCR quality tracks at 400km or 175nmi range.

So, most sources, including the "Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems" by Norman Friedman agree that the Type 346/348 is, despite its "34X"-designation, not entirely an FCR, but infact something akin to the "SPY" designation for the SPY-1 radar.
Here, the "FCR-quality" of this radar isnt its illumination capability, but actually its two-way datalink capablity.
While the "34X" would be the Chinese equivalent to the american "SPG"-designation (example: SPG-62 FCR for SM-1/2/ESSM etc.), the Type 34X in the "346/348" here is basically the "Y" in the "SPY-1".

So, we are back to square one: The naval HHQ-9 series still doesnt have a dedicated FCR.

This brings us to one single conclusion, supported by the official data given by the brochure of the DF-2000: The HHQ-9 series are active guided missiles, supported by mid-course datalink correction (hence, the need for the 346/348 radar's two-way datalink capability).

The HHQ-9A and HHQ-9B have no other differences than that the "A" has some guidance and signal-processing improvements, while the "B" has an additional passive-IR seeker and extended range, latter according to the The 2014 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to the US-Congress:

http://defensetech.org/2014/12/03/repor ... z3PP6moRE4

Conclusion:

HHQ-9A/B arent TVM or SARH, but have active radar guidance, just like their export variant FD-2000.
HHQ-9A is basically like the land-based HQ-9, just with active radar, while the HHQ-9B has extended range and is additionally equipped with an IR-seeker.
As shown on the FD-2000, all HQ-9 variants have limited TBM defense capability, hence their radars (HT-233, Type 346, 346A) should receive the [ABM & Space Search] trait as well.


In addition, the FD-2000 brochure also says that the system has 85% PoH vs Aircraft, Cruise Missiles and A-G Missiles, as well as 50% vs Theatre Ballistic Missiles. Make of it as you want, but maybe the ingame PoH could be adjusted as well from the current 80% to 85%. They would still be lower than the advanced variants of the SM-2 or SM-6, but this would reflect their active radar seekers and their improvements of guidance/software/signal-processing over the S-300PMUs imported from Russia.

Thanks for reading.

Some tibits on the HHQ-9A:

http://www.akjunshi.com/wuqiku/fangkongdaodan-HHQ9.html

“红旗9”是我国自行研制的中远程防空系统，是为了弥补我国引进的S-300远程防空导弹(“红旗15”)数量方面不足而研制的。“红旗9”在国内外都属于第三代防空导弹系统，杀伤空域大、抗干扰和抗多目标饱和攻击能力强。但是由于研制时国内的导弹推进技术尚不发达，所以导弹的性能相对较低，而导弹的雷达电子设备则相对比较先进，因此该导弹并没有大量制造进入军队服役，只装备了几支试验部队。后来，国内对其进行了改进，并采用HTPB高能燃料，换装了高质量纤维/环氧复合材料发动机壳体，并将高质冲比技术实用化，改进后的导弹称作“红旗9A”。“红旗9A”的性能特别是在反导弹作战的性能和优势方面相当突出，配合适当改良的电子设备和升级软件，将一跃成为世界先进的双重用途先进防空导弹系统，“海红9”就是在其基础发展来的。现在，关于通用型的VLS发射系统的研制已经提上日程，该系统不但可以反射舰载防空导弹，同时还可以发射对地攻击巡航导弹，系统具有很强的通用性。

Software/Guidance/Signal-Processing improvements on the HHQ-9A.

For the HHQ-9B:

http://mil.huanqiu.com/observation/2014-05/4996808.html

　据中国当地媒体报道称，052D型驱逐舰配备了一部346型有源相控阵雷达和一部518型L-波段雷达，并配备了中国精密机械进出口总公司的红旗-9B地对空导弹防御系统。据称红旗-9B导弹的有效射程约为200公里，约合108海里。文章指出，虽然受红旗-9B导弹的有效射程影响，针对希夫科夫主张的质疑很快就扑面而来，但希夫科夫的评估也可能并非完全错误，特别是如果346型有源相控阵雷达是一种与美军“宙斯盾”战舰所配SPY-1雷达相似的S波段雷达。

HHQ-9B has extended range of 200km or 108nmi, Type 346 AESA operates in S-band.

excellent, thanks Hongjian

Added Generic Chinese decoy but modeled it similar to Nixie as its likely close.

Updated missile stuff. We're always super cautious about this stuff but definitely appreciate the information.

Mike

Thanks for the good work!

I found a system named NRJ6A,052b looks like use this system.EW has a lot of subsystem,we have pictures but do not have type name.At least,better than sonar system. Maybe 052C(D) also use this system but change jammer ,warning receiver....
i[]imgur[]com/TLjzmht[]jpg
i[]imgur[]com/RkHTTcS[]jpg
Replace [] to .

Wow Hongjian, nice post & info, thanks!

ORIGINAL: mhemh

I found a system named NRJ6A,052b looks like use this system.EW has a lot of subsystem,we have pictures but do not have type name.At least,better than sonar system. Maybe 052C(D) also use this system but change jammer ,warning receiver....
i[]imgur[]com/TLjzmht[]jpg
i[]imgur[]com/RkHTTcS[]jpg
Replace [] to .

Thanks for those pics. I do recognize some of these mounts on the masts of thr 052C/D, and I've always wondered whether they are also part of the EW suite as well. Now, the answer is positive.

In general, I think that every modern chinese surface ship since the 054A/052B has an EW suite.