Well, it's automated, so the benefits of that are obvious.
But more importantly, it's not just "sprinklers" it's part of a NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) washdown system.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Well, it's automated, so the benefits of that are obvious.
But more importantly, it's not just "sprinklers" it's part of a NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) washdown system.
Anyone else notice that they seem to have moved the main electro-optic turret on the top of the bridge superstructure onto a higher platform compared to its previous position at the beginning of sea trials?
In the past, it was at a level where it could peek over the arrays mounted atop the bridge superstructure, but they've obviously changed it and moved it on top of a dedicated slim platform that's higher up now. Makes a lot of sense, and is probably one of those things picked up on during navy trials that they would've asked the shipyard to change and likely alter for future ships as well.
Past:
Current:
In the past, it was at a level where it could peek over the arrays mounted atop the bridge superstructure, but they've obviously changed it and moved it on top of a dedicated slim platform that's higher up now. Makes a lot of sense, and is probably one of those things picked up on during navy trials that they would've asked the shipyard to change and likely alter for future ships as well.
Past:
Current:
The funnier part, is that the next-gen 5G base station would all be AESA. And China would make most of them. Considering the current number of 4G base stations (6m in the whole world and 4.5m of them in China), the 5G base stations would be manufactured in the number of more than 10m.
What does this whole thing mean? It means China's AESA module would be cheaper then dirt in the future.
AESA modules are different from antenna to antenna. AESA module for YLC-20 isn't the same as the ones used on Type 346 radar on destroyers and different from the modules used on the radar of the FC-1 Block 3. They vary in power, in frequency, hence in size and the antenna design. What's developed for the radar of the J-20 isn't going to affect that on the Type 055. What's developed for the J-20 radar can however, benefit the J-10C's radar, the J-11D's radar, the J-16's radars, should all aircraft use a common module. That greatly lowers the cost of the modules and therefore the radar itself. Logistics is simplified because an airbase only needs to stock one module type for maintenance.
Because the module in the J-20 is an X-band, it won't do anything on the Type 055's main radars which are S-band, and which are much larger modules with different circuitry and antenna design. The other potential benefit would be instead on the Type 055's smaller X-band radar set, which may end up using a similar design with common parts.
China's large use of AESA across its radars may see a bigger impact on the components used for these modules. If you have a low production volume, you maybe forced to use FPGA, which is large, expensive, gives off lots of heat and often imported like Xilinx. If you have a high production volume however, SoC inside the module can be mass produced as an ASIC, which is smaller, cheaper, cooler and faster, and can be domestically fabbed.
AESA on telecom has been around since 4G, or even 3.5G. But this AESA is different from radar with things like MIMO, Adaptive Array or Smart Antenna technologies. They are far more relevant in high speed data communication, like CEC, and in ESM. These antennas also include things you don't see in radar like interleaving elements that allow the antenna to send and receive in low and high frequency at the same time. What an adaptive or smart array does is it takes an emitter somewhere, then the array uses techniques like TDOA to determine its location and range based receiving the emitter's signal, then digitally beamforms its reply towards the emitter. It needs to do this with hundreds of emitters (the cellphones) simultaneously in great speed.
The volume impact on China's AESA radar modules already happened long before when planes like J-10B/C and ships like 052C/D were mass produced. It didn't need the mass production of telecom phase arrays, or the arrays used in its vast fleet of satellites. What the telecom phase arrays do demonstrate is a very high level of RF engineering talent present in the country that can be dual use into the defense industry.
NRIET or Institute 14, is to the radar industry what Huawei is to telecom. Same institute is responsible for the development of both air and naval AESA.
I dont think you can compare the two..
5g is divided into two freq ranges, FR1 and FR2.
FR1 is basically 4g with new software based network technology like SDR etc.
FR2, otoh, although being related to nominal X band Aesa, would use low power density base stations with reach less than a km and power less than 50w.
Compared to this, the military grade radar requires high power density for long range lookout and lock on.
Mass producing Toyota doesnt make Ferrari any cheaper.
FR1 extends from the C-band to the L-band. That means around 6Ghz to 700Mhz.
FR2 is way way shorter than X-band. X-band is only 8 to 12Ghz, MM starts around 30Ghz to 300Ghz.
I like to call FR2 or MM 5G as DOA or Dead on Arrival. But that's another topic for elsewhere.
It is completely plausible that the first major item of a new weapon class is commissioned without reaching full capability status over its whole sensor and weapons suite.
Actually, it is not only plausible but probable too that the destroyer was inducted in an IOC state. Especially if you think of the time taken for sea trials as well as the leap in capability and new items that have to be brought to a high TRL.
This is how things just work, in all major navies.
- Status