055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

AndrewS said:

I was previously puzzled by the reports of the development of VLS launched ballistic missiles, but I think I understand now.

Taiwan has 2 mountain airbases and runways located on its East Coast, which means mountains are in the way of ballistic missiles launched from mainland China. So there is no quick way for China to launch a surprise missile attack against these airbases and shut them down in a few minutes.

But these 2 airbases are designed to shelter and operate the entire Taiwan Air Force fighter jet inventory, because they know how vulnerable their other airbases are to attack. Taiwan has close to 300 fighter jets in total worth $20Billion+

So it's worth having the Chinese Navy putting together a small task force of 4 Type-55 destroyers with a total of 200 ballistic missiles.
North Korea reportedly sold SCUD-C ballstic missiles with a range of 600km for just $3M each, so 200 ship-launched ballistic missiles would probably cost China less than $1Billion, which is far less than the $20Billion+ of Taiwanese fighter jets presumably inside those mountain airbases.

Then the Type-55 could be stationed say 500 km off the Eastern coastline of Taiwan, which should be far away enough to avoid E-2 AWACs detection and anti-ship missiles launched from Taiwan.

The Type-55 would be able to launch their ballistic missiles against those 2 mountain airbases, and the short time to impact would mean the vast majority of fighter jets would not be able to exit the mountain and scramble into the air before missiles started hitting the runways.

It would also force Taiwan to buy and build yet another PAVE PAWS radar for ballistic missile early warning facing EAST into the Pacific Ocean.
The existing one faces the opposite direction, towards mainland China.

The last PAVE PAWS cost $1.4Billion, and remember that Taiwan only has a military budget of $11Billion per year.

Comments?

Click to expand...

Why would a mountain affect short or mid range ballistic missile? If a mountain can shield an air base from enemy ballistic missile, wouldn't building ballistic missile launching site at a mountain valley make it untouchable to enemy ballistic missiles? If that's the case, wouldn't it be unnecessary to build SSBN in order to acquire second strike capabilities?

As far as I understand, those mountains should only be able to shield Taiwan's air bases from land attack cruise missiles flying at low altitude, or unguided long range rocket artillery MLRS attacks from across the straight. Ballistic missiles, as far as a know have a much larger tragectory (they involve atmospheric re-entry). I don't think a mountain could shield an airbase from a ballistic missile.

I maybe wrong, please enlighten me.

ougoah said:

I don't know a thing about AESA technicalities. With the assumed wiki data, the 125KW peak per array is compared to the SPY1D's 5-6MW peak? Do these output figures correspond directly with number of T/R elements?

Click to expand...

While 125kw sounds pretty low, the Type 054A's Type 382's 100kw already achieves a 300km range, and the Type 346 should have greater transmit and receive gain than the Type 382. I think 125kw on the Type 346 represents average power, not peak power. 6MW on the SPY-1D represents its main amp power, which has to be divided into four panels, and has considerable insertion loss so it does not represent transmitted power emitted at the face. There is a substantial inefficiency bringing the power from the main amp to the emitters, which has to travel some length or through a medium, whereas an AESA brings the amp, smaller as they are, far more closer to the emitter.

But the real fruit in AESA is because solid state is digital. The waveforms it can produce is extremely agile. A vacuum tube cannot change its frequencies, its waveforms as fast as a solid state transistor. This makes an AESA very difficult to jam, and its possible to make its waveforms difficult to detect by making them look like noise to a passive sensor. The tight narrow beams it can produce with little to no sidelobes makes detection by a passive sensor off axis from the beam unless the radar is directly shining on the passive sensor. This is why AESA is used on stealth fighters.

The whole stealth theme on the 055 is not just embodied with its ship design but also with its radars.

AndrewS said:

I was previously puzzled by the reports of the development of VLS launched ballistic missiles, but I think I understand now.

Taiwan has 2 mountain airbases and runways located on its East Coast, which means mountains are in the way of ballistic missiles launched from mainland China. So there is no quick way for China to launch a surprise missile attack against these airbases and shut them down in a few minutes.

But these 2 airbases are designed to shelter and operate the entire Taiwan Air Force fighter jet inventory, because they know how vulnerable their other airbases are to attack. Taiwan has close to 300 fighter jets in total worth $20Billion+

So it's worth having the Chinese Navy putting together a small task force of 4 Type-55 destroyers with a total of 200 ballistic missiles.
North Korea reportedly sold SCUD-C ballstic missiles with a range of 600km for just $3M each, so 200 ship-launched ballistic missiles would probably cost China less than $1Billion, which is far less than the $20Billion+ of Taiwanese fighter jets presumably inside those mountain airbases.

Then the Type-55 could be stationed say 500 km off the Eastern coastline of Taiwan, which should be far away enough to avoid E-2 AWACs detection and anti-ship missiles launched from Taiwan.

The Type-55 would be able to launch their ballistic missiles against those 2 mountain airbases, and the short time to impact would mean the vast majority of fighter jets would not be able to exit the mountain and scramble into the air before missiles started hitting the runways.

It would also force Taiwan to buy and build yet another PAVE PAWS radar for ballistic missile early warning facing EAST into the Pacific Ocean.
The existing one faces the opposite direction, towards mainland China.

The last PAVE PAWS cost $1.4Billion, and remember that Taiwan only has a military budget of $11Billion per year.

Comments?

Click to expand...

why so complicated? ... just launch some ballistic missile from inside mainland China. Taiwan Eastern coastline can be easily attacked by let's say DF-21,even DF-16 can do the job fine

Actually newer DF-15 can do the job as well from Chinese coast facing Taiwan

Another alternative is just with cruise missiles.

I wouldn't "waste" 5 055 to do this kind of role

AndrewS said:

I was previously puzzled by the reports of the development of VLS launched ballistic missiles, but I think I understand now.

Taiwan has 2 mountain airbases and runways located on its East Coast, which means mountains are in the way of ballistic missiles launched from mainland China. So there is no quick way for China to launch a surprise missile attack against these airbases and shut them down in a few minutes.

But these 2 airbases are designed to shelter and operate the entire Taiwan Air Force fighter jet inventory, because they know how vulnerable their other airbases are to attack. Taiwan has close to 300 fighter jets in total worth $20Billion+

So it's worth having the Chinese Navy putting together a small task force of 4 Type-55 destroyers with a total of 200 ballistic missiles.
North Korea reportedly sold SCUD-C ballstic missiles with a range of 600km for just $3M each, so 200 ship-launched ballistic missiles would probably cost China less than $1Billion, which is far less than the $20Billion+ of Taiwanese fighter jets presumably inside those mountain airbases.

Then the Type-55 could be stationed say 500 km off the Eastern coastline of Taiwan, which should be far away enough to avoid E-2 AWACs detection and anti-ship missiles launched from Taiwan.

The Type-55 would be able to launch their ballistic missiles against those 2 mountain airbases, and the short time to impact would mean the vast majority of fighter jets would not be able to exit the mountain and scramble into the air before missiles started hitting the runways.

It would also force Taiwan to buy and build yet another PAVE PAWS radar for ballistic missile early warning facing EAST into the Pacific Ocean.
The existing one faces the opposite direction, towards mainland China.

The last PAVE PAWS cost $1.4Billion, and remember that Taiwan only has a military budget of $11Billion per year.

Comments?

Click to expand...

thought mountains couldn't get "in the way of ballistic missiles"
LOL!

AndrewS said:

I was previously puzzled by the reports of the development of VLS launched ballistic missiles, but I think I understand now.

Taiwan has 2 mountain airbases and runways located on its East Coast, which means mountains are in the way of ballistic missiles launched from mainland China. So there is no quick way for China to launch a surprise missile attack against these airbases and shut them down in a few minutes.

But these 2 airbases are designed to shelter and operate the entire Taiwan Air Force fighter jet inventory, because they know how vulnerable their other airbases are to attack. Taiwan has close to 300 fighter jets in total worth $20Billion+

So it's worth having the Chinese Navy putting together a small task force of 4 Type-55 destroyers with a total of 200 ballistic missiles.
North Korea reportedly sold SCUD-C ballstic missiles with a range of 600km for just $3M each, so 200 ship-launched ballistic missiles would probably cost China less than $1Billion, which is far less than the $20Billion+ of Taiwanese fighter jets presumably inside those mountain airbases.

Then the Type-55 could be stationed say 500 km off the Eastern coastline of Taiwan, which should be far away enough to avoid E-2 AWACs detection and anti-ship missiles launched from Taiwan.

The Type-55 would be able to launch their ballistic missiles against those 2 mountain airbases, and the short time to impact would mean the vast majority of fighter jets would not be able to exit the mountain and scramble into the air before missiles started hitting the runways.

It would also force Taiwan to buy and build yet another PAVE PAWS radar for ballistic missile early warning facing EAST into the Pacific Ocean.
The existing one faces the opposite direction, towards mainland China.

The last PAVE PAWS cost $1.4Billion, and remember that Taiwan only has a military budget of $11Billion per year.

Comments?

Click to expand...

I think you are completely off track.

The VLS launched missiles appear to be primarily anti ship -- yes, they probably would have a secondary land attack function, but it's begun to be referred as YJ-XX for a reason.

As for the vulnerability of ROCAF mountain air bases -- mountain airbases still have runways and entrances. Simply being in mountains does not make an airbase invulnerable or make it impossible to mission kill it. This is ignoring PLARF bunker busting ballistic missiles.



Putting it another way, I believe existing PLARF ballistic and cruise missiles are already capable of crippling ROCAF airpower (mountain bases or not), as well as greatly degrading ROC air and missile defenses and interdicting overall ROC forces in conjunction with air based strike power and air based recce and EW/ECM.

The primary mission of this new VLS launched AShBM/HGV is for killing ships, and is meant to supplement longer ranged land based DF-21D and DF-26s in striking naval formations with advanced layered air and missile defenses.

Tam said:

While 125kw sounds pretty low, the Type 054A's Type 382's 100kw already achieves a 300km range, and the Type 346 should have greater transmit and receive gain than the Type 382. I think 125kw on the Type 346 represents average power, not peak power.

Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia article it is quite clear the reference is to peak power (per quad packed T/Rs module). The average power would be 5 times less (20% duty cycle), about 25kW. That's why in the 2000s western sources doubted the radar is S-band. To produce a more powerful and competitive radar they would've had to gone C-band (according to Jane's fighting ships).

I don't think the 052Ds have the electrical power to supply 4 AESAs with the average output of 125kW. You would need around 1.5-2 MW input power per panel for that. The 055 on the other hand should be able to handle that with its six power generators.

Max Demian said:

From the Wikipedia article it is quite clear the reference is to peak power (per quad packed T/Rs module). The average power would be 5 times less (20% duty cycle), about 25kW. That's why in the 2000s western sources doubted the radar is S-band. To produce a more powerful and competitive radar they would've had to gone C-band (according to Jane's fighting ships).

I don't think the 052Ds have the electrical power to supply 4 AESAs with the average output of 125kW. You would need around 1.5-2 MW input power per panel for that. The 055 on the other hand should be able to handle that with its six power generators.

Click to expand...

where did you get that ?
"I don't think the 052Ds have the electrical power to supply 4 AESAs with the average output of 125kW. You would need around 1.5-2 MW input power per panel for that"

your wild imagination?

Max Demian said:

From the Wikipedia article it is quite clear the reference is to peak power (per quad packed T/Rs module). The average power would be 5 times less (20% duty cycle), about 25kW. That's why in the 2000s western sources doubted the radar is S-band. To produce a more powerful and competitive radar they would've had to gone C-band (according to Jane's fighting ships).

I don't think the 052Ds have the electrical power to supply 4 AESAs with the average output of 125kW. You would need around 1.5-2 MW input power per panel for that. The 055 on the other hand should be able to handle that with its six power generators.

Click to expand...

Your words are confusing. 1.5 to 2MW panel is attainable with the 052D that has 2 GT at 28MW along with 2 diesels at 6MW each. That's a total of 64MW. A ship like the Arleigh Burke gets off from 3 x 2.5MW generators from four GTs at 18MW each. The 055 is also powering the four panels of X-band, and the octet of arrays around over the bridge. The amount of power needed, and the needed infrastructure to support that would already been part of the ship's design and blueprints before the steel is cut.

Do I need to tell you again that if you are going to use C-band, and with panels those size, you might be looking at around an astonishing 18,000 elements per panel then multiply that by four? Can you imagine the invoice for that? With China's 2005 economy? Technically its not impossible to build a C-band with that panel size and the roughly 18,000 elements that need to be there (or 4,500 quad transmit modules) for each panel. But how much will that cost? Cost is a hugely powerful incentive to keep things measured and rationed.

Furthermore, such C-band panels with 4x the element density, would mean 4 x the power density, or 4x the power for each panel. Finally, when a radar goes lighting up for a missile using a CWI technique --- FMCW, ICW --- it goes 100% duty cycle which pushes the power requirements even more. That's the nature of being Continuous in CWI --- its 100% non stop. You are going to have to ask yourself how you can power that with the 052C or D.

Here is a ship that actually has a C-band AESA, right next to an X-band AESA. This comes from the world's third largest economy. Why can't I make both radars even bigger? Or make the X-band, the smaller panel, big enough to fill the empty space next to the C-band? It all comes to cost, the line where I can afford it to the max, and the power that is available on the ship.

I also think that there is no point in keeping dual band AESAs under the same panel when there is no technical prohibition from doing it a simpler way, like just putting the two panels separately like this. After all if the deckhouse is designed for the radar, the deckhouse can be designed for two separate panels per face.

Tam said:

Your words are confusing. 1.5 to 2MW panel is attainable with the 052D that has 2 GT at 28MW along with 2 diesels at 6MW each. That's a total of 64MW.

Click to expand...

052D doesn't have IEPS. All those power sources you listed are directly attached to the propeller shafts. It needs seperate power generators, just like the Burkes.

As for the power input number I posted, that is guesswork. The actual numbers are classified for every system. But at the very least we can assume 20% efficiency from electric input to RF + extra power to cool the panels down to 60-70 degrees celsisus + conversion losses from electrical generator voltage to radar equipment voltages + some provision to handle the peak power ( at 125kW average the peak output RF is 625kW, but this is at efficiency close to 20%, so you shoot close to 3MW instantaneous input power for a few miliseconds).

Could 052D or further upgraded versions of it be built with IEPS similar to 055? Or would such a redesign just be too demanding to not start anew.