055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[antiterror13]

I read the paper today myself. It is the best English language article I have read on the subject. I think the authors painted the overall context and strategic implications very well.

I understood the cutaways as useful illustrations: the source is clearly stated.

For some of the weapon loadout claims (like HQ-16B), they quoted Chinese sources.

What particular conclusions did you find questionable?

quad-pack HQ-16B? otherwise would be totally a waste to put smaller HQ-16B in the UVLS on 055

Also interesting to see a table in page 16 showing the tonnage of 052D is 8,500, fist time I saw it ... perhaps it is correct?

 

[Blitzo]

quad-pack HQ-16B? otherwise would be totally a waste to put smaller HQ-16B in the UVLS on 055

Also interesting to see a table in page 16 showing the tonnage of 052D is 8,500, fist time I saw it ... perhaps it is correct?

It's the first time I've seen 052D's displacement as that high as well, and I consider it to be another one of its mistakes, or at least one of the parts where it overreaches a bit. Full displacement of 052D should be about 7,000 tons imo.

With the dimensions of 052D being what they are, 8,500 tons doesn't make sense when compared to international peers.

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

But China has cultivated a corps of Hebrew speaking diplomats, journalists, analysts etc

And the level of expertise looks appropriate, given how Israel doesn't particularly matter to China.

And we can also see that China has a far greater understanding of the USA than vice versa.

In comparison, the US has no excuse for not developing the same level of understanding, given how China has/will surpass the US in most areas.

Even today, China has an economy that is 30% larger in terms of actual output.

So in the future, China will have a reasonable expectation that it is the US which should devote much more effort to understanding China.

And that such a course of action will be to the advantage of the US, because today, they are making so many stupid mistakes because they don't understand what is happening.

Sure, what you're saying is absolutely true. However, China is able to quickly develop her (non-Chinese) Arts/Humanities academia because China sent out millions of international students every year. The US, on the other hand, brags about the number of international student she takes in. Bragging rights doesn't really offer much real benefits.

 

[Iron Man]

I'll take his expertise per word. Until then, I prefer that you may find another expert opinion to the contrary. If you think that its something else, why don't you come out and fully explain what it is.

My original theory of the emitter arrays were different, thinking they might be horizontal scanning radars or something.

I will too. But not yours. No offense.

From what I can see this type of AESA uses linear elements, that means the modules are in the center of the array. That means all the elements per linear array are connected to one center module, and there is one center module for each linear array. The center modules are arranged stacked at the back of the array.

The moment you show an array that has all lines and guides like that, its clear that its a linear or planar array, which is a common type of surveillance radar. The photo is just plain stock photo, and stock photos are commonly used in advertisements and brochures, not necessarily that of the actual product itself.

I guess neither of us will know either way.

It won't have the same receive and transmit gain towards the same target the main radar array is facing if the IFF is not facing the same quadrant. In a phase array, if the signal is steered to the side from the bore center of the array, it loses transmission gain so the beam becomes weaker.

IFF does not receive like any radar per se. Transmission is one way and there is no reflection. When it interrogates a plane, its the plane's IFF that will responds and sends a coded signal. The IFF of a plane is much smaller and weaker. I see no reason why the designers would deliberately choose a less than optimal position when you have the choice and presence of an optimal position.

This is a total straw man argument. IFF arrays transmit an interrogation signal and listen for an automatic reply from a friendly IFF transponder. Whoever told you that IFF interrogators listen for a "reflection" signal? Nobody. Hence your straw man fallacy. Notice that the main radar array is not involved in the slightest in this transaction. The IFF array produces the interrogation signal AND listens for a reply signal; this is possible because the IFF is an AESA and by definition has both transmit and receive capability; your fallacy is trying to argue that someone in this universe claimed that the transmitted signal is what the IFF array is listening for after it interrogates an unknown target. This is the key to understanding why IFF arrays can be so small compared to a main radar array; it doesn't have to have any degree of resolution discrimination; it just has to transmit in the general direction of the target and listen for a coded response, which also doesn't need high resolution. Hence, a bar array arranged in a horizontal fashion to maximize azimuth resolution but couldn't give two shites about elevation resolution. Since the bar arrays cover 360 degrees and functions independently of the main radar array there is no need for IFF arrays to align with the main radar arrays.

 

[Iron Man]

The following article written by Dr. Sue Robertson and published by Mönch is a good summary of modern shipborne AESA radar out there. AFAIK, type of guidance is dependent on the missile and not the sensor.

This article very clearly delineates the common error found on this forum and others regarding the use of "APAR" as a synonymous term for AESA, and is obviously wrong. As similarly erroneous as calling the 726 an "LCAC" or the 052D an "Aegis".

 

[Iron Man]

Fourth, some older inaccuracies like suggesting 055 may be able to fit Z-18s when it's been established for over the last year that it cannot, or the old name of QC-280, whereas it has since been understood to be called GT25000 instead.

This is not correct. The GT25000 is the designation of the Ukrainian GT that the PLAN indigenized into the QC280, and subsequently further developed into the R0110 heavy GT.

 

[Tam]

I will too. But not yours. No offense.


I guess neither of us will know either way.


This is a total straw man argument. IFF arrays transmit an interrogation signal and listen for an automatic reply from a friendly IFF transponder. Whoever told you that IFF interrogators listen for a "reflection" signal? Nobody. Hence your straw man fallacy. Notice that the main radar array is not involved in the slightest in this transaction. The IFF array produces the interrogation signal AND listens for a reply signal; this is possible because the IFF is an AESA and by definition has both transmit and receive capability; your fallacy is trying to argue that someone in this universe claimed that the transmitted signal is what the IFF array is listening for after it interrogates an unknown target. This is the key to understanding why IFF arrays can be so small compared to a main radar array; it doesn't have to have any degree of resolution discrimination; it just has to transmit in the general direction of the target and listen for a coded response, which also doesn't need high resolution. Hence, a bar array arranged in a horizontal fashion to maximize azimuth resolution but couldn't give two shites about elevation resolution. Since the bar arrays cover 360 degrees and functions independently of the main radar array there is no need for IFF arrays to align with the main radar arrays.

Except that if the signal has to be traveling further, even a communication signal has to be beam formed to achieve the range. And when you use a phase array for that, if the beam is steered off center it loses gain, and won't have the gain as if the target is on center. You don't seem to understand that both the transmit and receive gain of an antenna depends greatly on the direction it is facing, and that is true even with mechanical antennas. That is why IFF arrays even with mechanical arrays also and always face and are fixed with the direction of the antenna.




This does not look like a small IFF array on the bottom. Even with communication, bigger arrays have better receive gain because a larger area catches more of the radio signals.

So even if I were to use a smaller IFF array, It would still rather go on top of the main radar array rather than an offset position, just like on the 052D. There is nothing stopping for the ship designers from doing so.

And lol, why do even you think the bar is one entire single array by itself, with mostly horizontal resolution and don't give a shite about elevation? What if I tell you the "bar" is a series of independent transponders. Its not a "single" array, but a number of square arrays, each with its own transponder.

IFF with a set of four transponders.



And each square you see is a transponder by itself.





If each transponder happens to be a mini phase array by ttself, it would be equal square with the equal ability to beam form for both the azimuth and the elevation. Each transponder would have its own beam form from one another.

I have already shown to you the larger bar arrays is clearly segmented.



Each segment is an transponder all by itself, and if there is a beam steering antenna in front of the transponder, it would be a square one that can scan both the horizontal and the vertical. Those are pretty large transponders.

I cannot see close enough if the smaller quarter of arrays are also segmented on the back. Two things are possible. First is that if they are radar, they are LPI AESA X-band surface scanning and navigation array that is used by the ship as it goes around. They would be in the right position for it. Second, if they are IFF, they would be the IFF for the X-band arrays on the integrated mast as they are in the proper quadrant for them, and in the right position for it. IFF are either above or below the main radar they serve for.

 

[jobjed]

This is not correct. The GT25000 is the designation of the Ukrainian GT that the PLAN indigenized into the QC280, and subsequently further developed into the R0110 heavy GT.

No, QC280 failed and GT25000 (now GT25) won the competition. Original Ukrainian GT is called UGT25000.
This thread makes everything a lot clearer; Chinese Marine Propulsion

 

[Tam]

This is not correct. The GT25000 is the designation of the Ukrainian GT that the PLAN indigenized into the QC280, and subsequently further developed into the R0110 heavy GT.

Dunno. 110MW stationary power plant gas turbine is a huge leap from a 28MW gas turbine in terms of sheer size.

 

[Tam]

No, QC280 failed and GT25000 (now GT25) won the competition. Original Ukrainian GT is called UGT25000.
This thread makes everything a lot clearer; Chinese Marine Propulsion

Isn't "QD" a designation for stationary electrical power plant application or generator set of the gas turbine? I don't think "QC" designation ever existed at all.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!