Tughril-Class (Type 054A/P) Frigate | Updates & Discussion

[DDG-80]

These systems in Chinese hands have since gone through more than 20 years of indigenization and improvement, and the end product today, the HHQ-16 missile and the H/AJK-16 VLS system are all but unrecognizable. If anyone is to blame, blame the Russians for basically creating a 20-year gap in naval intermediate-range SAM development.

2D guidance radar of HQ16 typically provides azimuth and range information but lacks altitude data. This limitation can make it more challenging to accurately track and engage targets that are flying at different altitudes, particularly in complex air defense scenarios where vertical coverage is crucial. The drawback of using a 2D active phase array is that it typically offers limited spatial coverage and may struggle to detect and track targets with high precision.

Upgrading to a 3D or 4D array would enable the radar to gather altitude information as well, enhancing its ability to detect and engage targets effectively across all dimensions.

 

[Harbyharb]

2D guidance radar of HQ16 typically provides azimuth and range information but lacks altitude data. This limitation can make it more challenging to accurately track and engage targets that are flying at different altitudes, particularly in complex air defense scenarios where vertical coverage is crucial. The drawback of using a 2D active phase array is that it typically offers limited spatial coverage and may struggle to detect and track targets with high precision.
View attachment 42965
Upgrading to a 3D or 4D array would enable the radar to gather altitude information as well, enhancing its ability to detect and engage targets effectively across all dimensions.

Read the show board more carefully. It's not a 2D radar as in a 2D early warning radar where it detects and tracks targets only in 2D bearing and vector.

What it meant is that the tracking and guidance radar array combines 2D electronic phase scan and 1D mechanical scan, where the radar antenna itself is responsible for electronic phase scanning in a 120-degree horizontal cone and 3-80 degrees vertical scan pitch, aka 2D phase scanning, while 360-degree coverage relies on mechanical actuation.

Think of it as the spinning antenna on an AEW aircraft, or more accurately the 30N6 series "tombstone" radar you would see in S-300 batteries.

Not only that, this only applies to land-based HQ-16 batteries, the naval variant HHQ-16 relies on a completely different set of early warning, tracking, and illumination antennas on PLAN frigates.

 

[DDG-80]

Read the show board more carefully. It's not a 2D radar as in a 2D early warning radar where it detects and tracks targets only in 2D bearing and vector.

What it meant is that the tracking and guidance radar array combines 2D electronic phase scan and 1D mechanical scan, where the radar antenna itself is responsible for electronic phase scanning in a 120-degree horizontal cone and 3-80 degrees vertical scan pitch, aka 2D phase scanning, while 360-degree coverage relies on mechanical actuation.

Think of it as the spinning antenna on an AEW aircraft, or more accurately the 30N6 series "tombstone" radar you would see in S-300 batteries.

Not only that, this only applies to land-based HQ-16 batteries, the naval variant HHQ-16 relies on a completely different set of early warning, tracking, and illumination antennas on PLAN frigates.

●The vertical coverage is stated to be from 3° to 80°. This means the radar cannot detect or track targets directly overhead (90°) or very close to the ground (below 3°), which could limit its effectiveness against low-flying or high-altitude targets at certain angles.

●The use of mechanical scanning for 360-degree coverage means that there could be delays in target tracking as the radar rotates. Mechanical systems can also be more prone to wear and failure compared to fully electronic systems, potentially impacting reliability and maintenance needs.

●The radar can intercept up to 8 batches among 12 different targets. This indicates a limitation in handling large-scale, simultaneous attacks. If the system is confronted with more than 12 targets at once, it might struggle to effectively track and engage all of them.

 

[Harbyharb]

●The vertical coverage is stated to be from 3° to 80°. This means the radar cannot detect or track targets directly overhead (90°) or very close to the ground (below 3°), which could limit its effectiveness against low-flying or high-altitude targets at certain angles.

Well duh, it's a medium-area SAM system, not a bloody SHORAD, anything short of a sub-orbital object that attempts to fly directly above it would've been shot several times over. As for terrain skimming targets, the Tombstone-esque radar isn't the only radar in an HQ-16 battery, there's also a 76N6-esque low-altitude compliment radar.

●The use of mechanical scanning for 360-degree coverage means that there could be delays in target tracking as the radar rotates. Mechanical systems can also be more prone to wear and failure compared to fully electronic systems, potentially impacting reliability and maintenance needs.

Dude, it's a tracking and guidance radar, it's supposed to receive info from early surveillance radar and command vehicle, furiously beam a "narrow" cone and guide missiles at baddies till they all bite the dust.
Also, "mechanical systems more prone to wear and failure", is not wrong, but it's 2024, we can make things spin for a few thousand hours without breaking, okay?

●The radar can intercept up to 8 batches among 12 different targets. This indicates a limitation in handling large-scale, simultaneous attacks. If the system is confronted with more than 12 targets at once, it might struggle to effectively track and engage all of them.

...which is why there should be multiple such radars in each battery

I think what you are trying to suggest is that SAM batteries should carry their own little fixed array AEGIS-like systems, strapping multiple radars on a single platform. Sure you get higher refresh time with no gaps, sure you don't need to mechanically spin anything, and sure the system would be able to simultaneously track and engage more targets, but the downside is obvious, you are sticking multiple phased array radars on a single platform.

People seem to forget that there's a difference between putting systems on a truck chassis and putting systems on a truck trailer. A truck chassis system can actually go off-road, while a trailer system would have to stick to 2-lane roads without tight turns or rough bumps. To stick a multiple array system on trucks, each individual array would either have to be small, and you are essentially trading effective range for reaction time and flexibility.

So yes, you can make something like the GBMMR for your NASAM-esque, IRIS-T-esque short-ranged systems, but for something like S-350, PAC-3, and HQ-16, you are gonna need a more traditional radar set-up.

And that's before we consider the fact that none of these have anything to do with HHQ-16 on 054A frigates, completely different systems except the missiles themselves!

 

[Broghil]

Well duh, it's a medium-area SAM system, not a bloody SHORAD, anything short of a sub-orbital object that attempts to fly directly above it would've been shot several times over. As for terrain skimming targets, the Tombstone-esque radar isn't the only radar in an HQ-16 battery, there's also a 76N6-esque low-altitude compliment radar.

Dude, it's a tracking and guidance radar, it's supposed to receive info from early surveillance radar and command vehicle, furiously beam a "narrow" cone and guide missiles at baddies till they all bite the dust.
Also, "mechanical systems more prone to wear and failure", is not wrong, but it's 2024, we can make things spin for a few thousand hours without breaking, okay?

...which is why there should be multiple such radars in each battery

I think what you are trying to suggest is that SAM batteries should carry their own little fixed array AEGIS-like systems, strapping multiple radars on a single platform. Sure you get higher refresh time with no gaps, sure you don't need to mechanically spin anything, and sure the system would be able to simultaneously track and engage more targets, but the downside is obvious, you are sticking multiple phased array radars on a single platform.

People seem to forget that there's a difference between putting systems on a truck chassis and putting systems on a truck trailer. A truck chassis system can actually go off-road, while a trailer system would have to stick to 2-lane roads without tight turns or rough bumps. To stick a multiple array system on trucks, each individual array would either have to be small, and you are essentially trading effective range for reaction time and flexibility.

So yes, you can make something like the GBMMR for your NASAM-esque, IRIS-T-esque short-ranged systems, but for something like S-350, PAC-3, and HQ-16, you are gonna need a more traditional radar set-up.

And that's before we consider the fact that none of these have anything to do with HHQ-16 on 054A frigates, completely different systems except the missiles themselves!

Just leave it bro.

It's just tahada kutta kutta, sadha kutta Tommy.

 

[Waz]

Well duh, it's a medium-area SAM system, not a bloody SHORAD, anything short of a sub-orbital object that attempts to fly directly above it would've been shot several times over. As for terrain skimming targets, the Tombstone-esque radar isn't the only radar in an HQ-16 battery, there's also a 76N6-esque low-altitude compliment radar.

Dude, it's a tracking and guidance radar, it's supposed to receive info from early surveillance radar and command vehicle, furiously beam a "narrow" cone and guide missiles at baddies till they all bite the dust.
Also, "mechanical systems more prone to wear and failure", is not wrong, but it's 2024, we can make things spin for a few thousand hours without breaking, okay?

...which is why there should be multiple such radars in each battery

I think what you are trying to suggest is that SAM batteries should carry their own little fixed array AEGIS-like systems, strapping multiple radars on a single platform. Sure you get higher refresh time with no gaps, sure you don't need to mechanically spin anything, and sure the system would be able to simultaneously track and engage more targets, but the downside is obvious, you are sticking multiple phased array radars on a single platform.

People seem to forget that there's a difference between putting systems on a truck chassis and putting systems on a truck trailer. A truck chassis system can actually go off-road, while a trailer system would have to stick to 2-lane roads without tight turns or rough bumps. To stick a multiple array system on trucks, each individual array would either have to be small, and you are essentially trading effective range for reaction time and flexibility.

So yes, you can make something like the GBMMR for your NASAM-esque, IRIS-T-esque short-ranged systems, but for something like S-350, PAC-3, and HQ-16, you are gonna need a more traditional radar set-up.

And that's before we consider the fact that none of these have anything to do with HHQ-16 on 054A frigates, completely different systems except the missiles themselves!

You're wasting your time with him friend. The original piece was put up by an Indian contributor on some site and then republished/regurgitated as some sort of concrete proof that the Type O5AP's lacked suitable radar. It was torn to shreds by Chinese posters and even Western writers for lacking a basic understanding on how the system worked. He still goes around posting it.

 

[DDG-80]

Well duh, it's a medium-area SAM system, not a bloody SHORAD, anything short of a sub-orbital object that attempts to fly directly above it would've been shot several times over.

Sub-orbital targets often require specialized systems designed for extreme speeds and altitudes, such as those used in BMD. The HQ-16FE, being a medium-range SAM system, may not be optimized for such scenarios.

 

[DDG-80]

As for terrain skimming targets, the Tombstone-esque radar isn't the only radar in an HQ-16 battery, there's also a 76N6-esque low-altitude compliment radar.

The original point was about the limitations of the HQ-16FE specifically, while these additional systems mitigate the issue, the primary system's own limitations in this regard still stand.

 

[DDG-80]

Also, "mechanical systems more prone to wear and failure", is not wrong, but it's 2024, we can make things spin for a few thousand hours without breaking, okay?

Mechanical components still have more potential failure points compared to solid-state electronics. They require more maintenance and have more potential for downtime compared to solid-state systems. This can be a critical factor in high-intensity conflict scenarios where continuous operation is crucial.

 

[DDG-80]

...which is why there should be multiple such radars in each battery

I think what you are trying to suggest is that SAM batteries should carry their own little fixed array AEGIS-like systems, strapping multiple radars on a single platform. Sure you get higher refresh time with no gaps, sure you don't need to mechanically spin anything, and sure the system would be able to simultaneously track and engage more targets, but the downside is obvious, you are sticking multiple phased array radars on a single platform.

People seem to forget that there's a difference between putting systems on a truck chassis and putting systems on a truck trailer. A truck chassis system can actually go off-road, while a trailer system would have to stick to 2-lane roads without tight turns or rough bumps. To stick a multiple array system on trucks, each individual array would either have to be small, and you are essentially trading effective range for reaction time and flexibility.

So yes, you can make something like the GBMMR for your NASAM-esque, IRIS-T-esque short-ranged systems, but for something like S-350, PAC-3, and HQ-16, you are gonna need a more traditional radar set-up.

Your points about mobility and off-road capabilities are well-taken. However, saying that only truck chassis systems can effectively go off-road, whereas trailer systems are limited, is an oversimplification. Modern trailer-mounted systems can be designed for improved mobility, and advancements in suspension and chassis design have significantly enhanced their off-road capabilities.

You're arguing that putting multiple radars on a single platform is inherently problematic. While it’s true that there are challenges, modern design approaches can mitigate these issues. Modular systems and distributed architectures can provide the benefits of multiple radar types without compromising mobility or flexibility.

Modern SAM systems benefit from being part of a networked defense strategy where multiple systems share data in real-time. This networked approach can offset some limitations of individual radars by providing a more comprehensive situational awareness and faster reaction times. In a comprehensive Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), the ability to quickly share target data and coordinate responses across various systems is crucial. Phased array radars and advanced electronic systems enhance this capability significantly, providing a more resilient and flexible defense posture.

Recent advancements in radar technology, such as smaller and more powerful arrays, allow for better performance without significantly impacting mobility. Additionally, the development of sophisticated command and control (C2) systems ensures that data from various radars are integrated seamlessly, enabling more efficient and effective responses to threats.

Moreover, modern systems are designed with redundancy in mind, enhancing reliability even if one component fails. This, combined with economic and tactical efficiency, makes modular and networked systems a smart choice for contemporary air defense.

By leveraging these technological advancements and design philosophies, we can achieve a balanced and effective air defense capability that addresses the limitations and maximizes the strengths of current SAM systems.

 

[DDG-80]

And that's before we consider the fact that none of these have anything to do with HHQ-16 on 054A frigates, completely different systems except the missiles themselves!

You're right that land-based and naval systems like the HHQ-16 on 054A frigates have different deployment contexts. Still, it's important to recognize the commonalities in missile technology and capabilities, even if the deployment platforms and specific system components differ.

 

[Hussain]

You're wasting your time with him friend. The original piece was put up by an Indian contributor on some site and then republished/regurgitated as some sort of concrete proof that the Type O5AP's lacked suitable radar. It was torn to shreds by Chinese posters and even Western writers for lacking a basic understanding on how the system worked. He still goes around posting it.

Why cant he be banned ?

 

[Be dazzled]

2D guidance radar of HQ16 typically provides azimuth and range information but lacks altitude data. This limitation can make it more challenging to accurately track and engage targets that are flying at different altitudes, particularly in complex air defense scenarios where vertical coverage is crucial. The drawback of using a 2D active phase array is that it typically offers limited spatial coverage and may struggle to detect and track targets with high precision.
View attachment 42965
Upgrading to a 3D or 4D array would enable the radar to gather altitude information as well, enhancing its ability to detect and engage targets effectively across all dimensions.

Send in your assets to check if that's the case or not. Try something different other than the well-known and compromised Kalwari.

 

[DDG-80]

Send in your assets to check if that's the case or not.

Recall the main incident in Mian Channu, which revealed deficiencies in Pakistan's Chinese-origin air defense system. It relies on outdated semi-active radar guidance that is ineffective against modern high-speed projectiles

 

[Be dazzled]

Recall the main incident in Mian Channu, which revealed deficiencies in Pakistan's Chinese-origin air defense system. It relies on outdated semi-active radar guidance that is ineffective against modern high-speed projectiles

Same goes for many of your systems. Shtil based. Get the hint.