052C/052D Class Destroyers

[weig2000]

Type 346 radar was developed during the 1990s where the program for a "Chinese Divine Shield/ 中华神盾" aka first the program of 海之星 was started in the late 1980s and then the Type 346 onboard Type 052C was completed put into service around the turn of the century - officially introduced in early 2000s but by then all the 346 programs were completed and well past trials.

The 346/ 中华神盾 has taken over a decade from conception to service. Lots of changes, programs, new technologies. It made use of AESA in fact it is the first major ship based search radar and fire control radar that used AESA. This series was also the first to make use of dual bands. Came out before the Sampson and well before the IAI's EL/M 2248 aka MF-Star.

Point is China was never that backward in radar technology. Certainly back in the 1980s was behind but not backwards. After all China developed all types of radars since the 1950s, even major phased arrays for early warning back in the 1950s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would probably characterize the level of Chinese radar technology somewhat differently. You're right about China has had quite a long history of developing large scale radar and was not as far behind the US/West as, say various engine technologies. But there are different types of radars, from large land-based radar, ship-based radar, to aircraft radar, with increasing challenges in that order. USSR/Russia also had a very long history in radar, but Russia today still struggles to develop AESA for its fighter aircraft.

A couple of tidbit stories may help illustrate the level and development of Chinese radar technologies, particularly AESA radars.

A lot of people are probably aware of the story of the development of Type 346 for 052C in the '90s, which was told by one of the lead engineers working on the project at the time who later immigrated to Canada. So China started developing ship-based AESA back in the 1990s.

In the early 2000s, China had contracted Israel to equip Israelis AESA-based system on its first batch of AWACS aircraft (IL-76). Israel canceled the project later under US pressure. The Chinese later said that although they did not get the radar from the Israelis but they did learn from Israelis to do quality control on mass production of the modules. I suppose this tells us that Chinese experiences before were mostly limited to large radars with limited quantity. Mass production of the modules with consistent quality was a challenge they learned to overcome later. So China successfully developed the aircraft-based early warning AESA radar in the 2000s.

Finally, when the Project 718 (J-20) was officially approved, it was said there were two potentially most critical barriers to success. One is obviously engine, the other radar. I remember reading comments from some key members of the CAC team that "it looked like AESA radar is no longer a concern" back when J-20 was still under active development. Cearly, China solved the fighter aircraft AESA problem in the early 2010s.

It's just that in the 1980s and 1990s Type 346 would be behind SPY-1 but made use of AESA which is superior to SPY-1 in that department (a generalisation in the technology base). Each iteration and new radar after simply was developed and completed faster and made larger leaps of technology compared to American counterparts where they are still using SPY-1 with PESA technology (even SPY-1D and latest SPY-1 radars except for the SPY-1E) and GaA today. SPY-6 is still in development or trials and hopes to reach the general tech levels of Type 346B with AESA and GaN. I doubt China would be behind the US at all in any other subsystems radar related, certainly with far superior communications technologies which fall into CEC and IFF domains.

China was never that behind the US in radars. Since Type 346B (and many other land, space, sea based radars) China has actually shown far greater radar capabilities. US has not got any real specialised counter stealth radars (sure they never thought they'd need them back in the 1990s since these take a while to develop and improve over time), early warning, phased radars are peers and have been since the turn of the century. China was allegedly able to jam and spoof Taiwan's new American Pave Paws type radar as soon as it became operational with what was suspected by Janes to be a EW large phased array based in Fujian, directed in an electronic attack on the American tech early warning radar in Taiwan.

The US is yet to put into service something equivalent to Type 346A which was completed and on PLAN service by 2012. Nevermind the Type 346B onboard the 055 destroyer - a ship that puts out more than twice as much power as a Maya class and nearly twice as much available power as a Burke Flight II. All that going into electromagnetic weapons and sensors... those 346B radars are pretty much weapons at this point.

I'd agree with you that Chinese radar technologies are largely on par with the US today.

 

[ougoah]

I would probably characterize the level of Chinese radar technology somewhat differently. You're right about China has had quite a long history of developing large scale radar and was not as far behind the US/West as, say various engine technologies. But there are different types of radars, from large land-based radar, ship-based radar, to aircraft radar, with increasing challenges in that order. USSR/Russia also had a very long history in radar, but Russia today still struggles to develop AESA for its fighter aircraft.

A couple of tidbit stories may help illustrate the level and development of Chinese radar technologies, particularly AESA radars.

A lot of people are probably aware of the story of the development of Type 346 for 052C in the '90s, which was told by one of the lead engineers working on the project at the time who later immigrated to Canada. So China started developing ship-based AESA back in the 1990s.

In the early 2000s, China had contracted Israel to equip Israelis AESA-based system on its first batch of AWACS aircraft (IL-76). Israel canceled the project later under US pressure. The Chinese later said that although they did not get the radar from the Israelis but they did learn from Israelis to do quality control on mass production of the modules. I suppose this tells us that Chinese experiences before were mostly limited to large radars with limited quantity. Mass production of the modules with consistent quality was a challenge they learned to overcome later. So China successfully developed the aircraft-based early warning AESA radar in the 2000s.

Finally, when the Project 718 (J-20) was officially approved, it was said there were two potentially most critical barriers to success. One is obviously engine, the other radar. I remember reading comments from some key members of the CAC team that "it looked like AESA radar is no longer a concern" back when J-20 was still under active development. Cearly, China solved the fighter aircraft AESA problem in the early 2010s.



I'd agree with you that Chinese radar technologies are largely on par with the US today.

Yeah I recall when the J-20 prototype was revealed that those comments were also revealed. That was when Chinese radar technology was considered by Chinese military observers as going from unsurprisingly behind the US, to world leading competitive. I recall the same comments from then and much more excitement and interest was around for Chinese radars as it became obvious then that China had long already made huge strides forward. What I don't subscribe to by the time that excitement and literature came out is that China only caught up to leading edge standards then. The reality with all these types of Herculean engineering projects which wealthy and industrialised nations still require a lot of effort and resources invested into, is that they have been done LONG before they are revealed to be done.

By the time CAC engineers were allowed to whisper to family and friends about roughly where the tech levels are at, they have been achieved and surpassed on the ground already in reality. You don't spend multibillions developing a J-20 project to that prototype level where there are engine options but you don't have the radar surpassing even the strictest of conditions and tests. After all the J-11D's radars continued failing PLAAF's requirements and that's a second gen AESA by the late 2010s since J-16's and J-10B's even J-10C's at that timeframe have been in service for years ie developed and completed long ago.

Early 2000s Chinese AWACS program wanted Israeli and Russian expertise. They did have Chinese programs. The way China does things is just playing it safe with many layers of redundancy and security. We have our own first gen but we definitely also want to see how Israelis did it and how Russia did it. How anyone does it. The US is no different. Anyone would take a close look to learn, copy, improve their own if there is anything to learn, copy, and improve. At the very least, you learn how a potential adversarial platform works and performs. The US steals Russian and Soviet equipment whenever they get a chance. It's not always because they want to copy it... in fact quite rarely because of that

Early 2000s Chinese AWACS AESA technology indeed would be not comparable to China's today about 20 years onwards. Today, Chinese AWACS have how many platforms? more than I can pay attention to. How many generations, improvements, and iterations? certainly more than we know about. There's nothing to learn from Israel and the old master Russia but if China has the opportunity to get any AWACS platform, they would take it if nothing more than to study a potential adversarial platform that could be exported and purchased by country xyz.

At least China's radar and electronics technology went from (compared to leaders) non-existent (pre 1950s) to backwards (1950s to 1990s) to behind (1990s to 2000s) to competitive (2010s) to world leading (2020s). World's largest democracy has none of the technology, none of the academic and industrial basis, and none of proven production and working examples they actually made. While they talk about China copying, others have yet to even demonstrate an ability to learn and copy which China has been done with in these domains for some time but the morons haven't caught on to that. Despite being in such a highly interdependent world, China is one of the very few which can do all this itself because it has the scientific and industrial means to make them. Cue the it's copied copes from usual bad losers.

 

[Rettam Stacf]

@ougoah and @weig2000 , two great summary posts to give us novices a brief summary and history about China's radar development. Much appreciated.

 

[broadsword]

I would probably characterize the level of Chinese radar technology somewhat differently. You're right about China has had quite a long history of developing large scale radar and was not as far behind the US/West as, say various engine technologies. But there are different types of radars, from large land-based radar, ship-based radar, to aircraft radar, with increasing challenges in that order. USSR/Russia also had a very long history in radar, but Russia today still struggles to develop AESA for its fighter aircraft.

A couple of tidbit stories may help illustrate the level and development of Chinese radar technologies, particularly AESA radars.

A lot of people are probably aware of the story of the development of Type 346 for 052C in the '90s, which was told by one of the lead engineers working on the project at the time who later immigrated to Canada. So China started developing ship-based AESA back in the 1990s.

In the early 2000s, China had contracted Israel to equip Israelis AESA-based system on its first batch of AWACS aircraft (IL-76). Israel canceled the project later under US pressure. The Chinese later said that although they did not get the radar from the Israelis but they did learn from Israelis to do quality control on mass production of the modules. I suppose this tells us that Chinese experiences before were mostly limited to large radars with limited quantity. Mass production of the modules with consistent quality was a challenge they learned to overcome later. So China successfully developed the aircraft-based early warning AESA radar in the 2000s.

Finally, when the Project 718 (J-20) was officially approved, it was said there were two potentially most critical barriers to success. One is obviously engine, the other radar. I remember reading comments from some key members of the CAC team that "it looked like AESA radar is no longer a concern" back when J-20 was still under active development. Cearly, China solved the fighter aircraft AESA problem in the early 2010s.



I'd agree with you that Chinese radar technologies are largely on par with the US today.

Why was it difficult? If they could test one, couldn't they test every piece on the conveyor belt?

 

[ougoah]

Why was it difficult? If they could test one, couldn't they test every piece on the conveyor belt?

Serial production and mass production are vastly different engineering problems. Some processes you can afford to do on a serial basis may not be available in a mass production line. It could be that to fabricate a part you need to use a certain material that is mass production prohibitive or use an oven or machining that takes days to complete and wears out parts for machines and require experts and engineers many hours to replace every time. Mass production means you often have to rethink the entire manufacturing problem. It could be to find alternative materials and manufacturing technologies that quicken the process without destroying the effectiveness. And of course keep costs down.

Early AESA modules were apparently very difficult to get right where rate of failure in manufacturing line means the costs were prohibitive. Then newer methods and technologies become available over time and the entire manufacturing line also improves over time as your engineers figure out more efficient ways to run a line. For example the US claims hypersonic weapons are far too expensive and take too long to make in order to justify their purpose and utility. China mentioned last year that it has made vast improvements to the manufacturing of hypersonic weapons (read improvements to manufacturing engineering processes NOT the actual product although that could be too but it's a different topic) where China is able to mass produce hypersonic weapons.

To simplify something that could be much more complex than we care to understand. Anyway the AESA modules production being expensive and difficult to mass produce as something of the early 2010 era. LONG ago has that been solved... clearly. I think China has by far more AESA equipped aircraft, ships, and land based systems than any other except the US. It also appears to have more types of AESA radars than the US and nearly the same number of units. If we ignore fighters, then even more AESA units since China has a fair bit of emphasis on land based ones as part of air defence sensors.

 

[antiterror13]

Since the power generation is a limit of 052C based hull - 052D and 052DL. The limits when put into context is still considerably superior to Kolkata class and peers of Mayas/Atagos, Horizons, Darings. Not far behind even Sejeongs and Burke Flight IIs. Type 055 having more than twice the power of Mayas, Darings, Horizons etc and far more than Burkes and Ticos, you have to wonder why the PLAN still commissions 052D/DL at about the same rate as 055s.

I understand this discussion has featured many times here but the conclusions reached surely are accurate. There just isn't that much need for 055 level of additional electromagnetic capability and available firepower. Kind of like a J-20 (055) paired with J-10C (052D). With how capable PLAN's CEC is (and has been for over a decade), I wonder if PLAN will introduce an arsenal ship just for missiles. No expensive and complex sensors, only networked and purposed for firing dozens of anti ship ballistic missiles and HGVs with maybe several dozen long and medium ranged air defence missiles and a few CIWS. Type 055s are surface fleet sensor nodes and master of all trades sort of ships but ultra complex, expensive, and resource demanding but you only need so many high tier sensor nodes on the surface. China uses space and HALE based dedicated sensor only platforms and if we consider ships like 052D and 055 as platforms which combine sensors and firepower against space, sea, subsurface, and land based targets, then the missing part of the puzzle would be firepower only platforms.

Arsenal ships as missile barges seem to be theoretically highly useful for PLAN given the current and anticipated military postures re US.

It would be nice to have big arsenal ship with 500 UVLS without complex sensor, it could be built reasonably cheaply and fast.

Perhaps $100M for the ship and 500 UVLS loaded perhaps $750M, so total $850M with only minimal size of crew

The risk is that this arsenal ship will be the main target for the US subs

 

[Michaelsinodef]

It would be nice to have big arsenal ship with 500 UVLS without complex sensor, it could be built reasonably cheaply and fast.

Perhaps $100M for the ship and 500 UVLS loaded perhaps $750M, so total $850M with only minimal size of crew

The risk is that this arsenal ship will be the main target for the US subs

Eh, if a smaller crew, maybe something like a 5k tons arsenal ship would suffice.

Would not reach 500 UVLS, but more of them can be made, and would also be less 'important' if sunk by say subs.

 

[Zichan]

The 346/ 中华神盾 has taken over a decade from conception to service. Lots of changes, programs, new technologies. It made use of AESA in fact it is the first major ship based search radar and fire control radar that used AESA. This series was also the first to make use of dual bands. Came out before the Sampson and well before the IAI's EL/M 2248 aka MF-Star.

You forgot about the Dutch APAR AESA onboard the De Zeven Provincien commissioned in 2002.

The US is yet to put into service something equivalent to Type 346A which was completed and on PLAN service by 2012.

You forgot about SPY-4. That's a naval AESA of roughly similar proportions as the Type 346A radar. Then there's also the massive Cobra King dual S and X band AESA radar that was declared operational in 2014 onboard USNS Howard O. Lorenzen (~13,000 tons) that probably blows away any other naval radar out there. Albeit, they are highly specialised missile and satellite tracking radars. X-band is the bigger radar of the two and judging by its size it has the potential to contain over 100,000 T/R elements:

Not sure if it qualifies as a naval radar, but the Sea Based X-Band Radar is an AESA and was put to sea in 2006:

Nevermind the Type 346B onboard the 055 destroyer - a ship that puts out more than twice as much power as a Maya class and nearly twice as much available power as a Burke Flight II. All that going into electromagnetic weapons and sensors... those 346B radars are pretty much weapons at this point.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but honestly we don't know how much electrical power the Type 055 has to make such statements. We don't even know exactly how much power the Maya has.

What we do know is that Maya has electrical propulsion, unlike the American parent design. It has 2x6MW gas turbine generators and 2xdiesel generators of unspecified power. Apparently the design sacrificed 2 LM2500 gas turbines to make room for larger and more numerous electrical generators. The ship can cruise at 18kts on full electric.

 

[ougoah]

It would be nice to have big arsenal ship with 500 UVLS without complex sensor, it could be built reasonably cheaply and fast.

Perhaps $100M for the ship and 500 UVLS loaded perhaps $750M, so total $850M with only minimal size of crew

The risk is that this arsenal ship will be the main target for the US subs

You forgot about the Dutch APAR AESA onboard the De Zeven Provincien commissioned in 2002.


You forgot about SPY-4. That's a naval AESA of roughly similar proportions as the Type 346A radar. Then there's also the massive Cobra King dual S and X band AESA radar that was declared operational in 2014 onboard USNS Howard O. Lorenzen (~13,000 tons) that probably blows away any other naval radar out there. Albeit, they are highly specialised missile and satellite tracking radars. X-band is the bigger radar of the two and judging by its size it has the potential to contain over 100,000 T/R elements:
View attachment 89708
Not sure if it qualifies as a naval radar, but the Sea Based X-Band Radar is an AESA and was put to sea in 2006:
View attachment 89710

SPY-1E, which I mentioned in my post, is the only radar that was AESA based that can be considered as put into service. SPY-4 never became a thing. In the Type 346 era - 1990s to 2010, there were no SPY series radars that used AESA. SPY-4 isn't even ready and won't be since it's a cancelled program where SPY-6 is the program that aims to "replace" SPY-1 series.

So in the in service SPY series radars, none are AESA except 1E and that was really more of a test and evaluation platform. Wasn't aware of the Dutch ship. That appears to be the world's first then? In any case my post about SPY series is correct when I said they don't use AESA technology. One offs don't really count but okay maybe I should have mentioned that. I thought I did make that clear enough by mentioning SPY-1E (AESA variant).

Sorry to rain on your parade, but honestly we don't know how much electrical power the Type 055 has to make such statements. We don't even know exactly how much power the Maya has.

We don't know exactly how much power any of these ships have but it is pretty much 100% Maya has A LOT less power than 055. It's most likely that at the moment, no in service naval destroyer comes close to available power of 055. Zumwalt again ... one off etc etc plus Zumwalt is a cancelled project. Maya may have more than half the power 055 has... perhaps I should have written that. The point stands, 055 for some reason has been packed with so much electrical power generation capability it makes one wonder what it's running in electronic weapons and sensors to require ROUGHLY about twice as much power as other modern large destroyers. 100% more or 80% more power, the point stands.

What we do know is that Maya has electrical propulsion, unlike the American parent design. It has 2x6MW gas turbine generators and 2xdiesel generators of unspecified power. Apparently the design sacrificed 2 LM2500 gas turbines to make room for larger and more numerous electrical generators. The ship can cruise at 18kts on full electric.

Yeah it's both a shame and a good thing we don't know even quite as much as this about the 055... except for the near certainty that its power generation capabilities are quite potent to say the least.

 

[Zichan]

SPY-1E, which I mentioned in my post, is the only radar that was AESA based that can be considered as put into service. SPY-4 never became a thing. In the Type 346 era - 1990s to 2010, there were no SPY series radars that used AESA. SPY-4 isn't even ready and won't be since it's a cancelled program where SPY-6 is the program that aims to "replace" SPY-1 series.

SPY-4 is “ready”. It’s installed on the Ford carrier. It’s just that its main platform, the Zumwalt class was cancelled and funding was redirected to the AMDR project which became the SPY-6.

The whole point of your exercise was to demonstrate China’s alleged technological advantage in naval radar technology. While China has made tremendous strides in the last 20 years, the evidence is simply not there yet that it is a world leader. The US has put several AESA radar designs to sea since the mid 2000s, therefore they’ve had the technological means to pull off a “Type 346A”, but for various reasons opted to wait for a GaN AESA instead for their Aegis ships.

One detail that’s not mentioned often is that SPY-1, unlike an AESA radar, can channel all its power through a single radar face, effectively quadrupling its power. This is what they’ve been doing for ABM defense. Perhaps they observed that a GaAs AESA would not be superior in ABM role going against that much emitted RF power?

We don't know exactly how much power any of these ships have but it is pretty much 100% Maya has A LOT less power than 055. It's most likely that at the moment, no in service naval destroyer comes close to available power of 055. Zumwalt again ...

Type 055 is not an electric ship. It has more installed total power than Zumwalt, but less electrical power. Another destroyer that has more electrical power is the British Type 45, yet another full electric ship.

one off etc etc plus Zumwalt is a cancelled project. Maya may have more than half the power 055 has... perhaps I should have written that. The point stands, 055 for some reason has been packed with so much electrical power generation capability it makes one wonder what it's running in electronic weapons and sensors to require ROUGHLY about twice as much power as other modern large destroyers. 100% more or 80% more power, the point stands.

I prefer to stick with what we know with a high degree of certainty. That is that there are 6 electrical generators onboard the Type 055, and based on vents that they are diesel engine based. We have no clue about their power output. They could be anywhere between 2MW to 6MW per unit, as Henri K explained 5 years ago. Again, because this is not an electric ship I lean towards the lower range. Even at the highest end of the spectrum that still puts it at less than half the electrical power of the Zumwalt.