055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[AndrewS]

I think the correct way to think about this is that 12 MW is not necessarily a "compromise" for the Flight III. What is the actual compromise is that the USN wanted to install a 20' AMDR panel instead of a 14' panel. It is entirely possible that more power could have been installed on the Flight III had the hull been able to accommodate a 20' panel. Also, keep in mind that a 20' panel is what the USN felt was needed for its BMD requirements. Does the PLAN have the same BMD requirements for its 055? The answer is clearly NO, because the 055 is a clean sheet design and yet the radar face is very similar in size to the 14' SPY-6. It may actually be smaller because the SPY-6 cover according to depictions occupies about 2.5 decks of height while the 346B cover occupies slightly less than 2 decks of height. If the PLAN had actually wanted a similar 20' AMDR BMD capability, then they would have built such a radar (and the additional power generation capacity). But they clearly didn't. So the power question clearly isn't one of the PLAN compromising or not compromising on radar panel size.


It may, but I think the exact size of the panel is not going to be helpful, and not only because the actual radar is smaller, but also because it still doesn't tell us about how the T/R modules are arranged on the radar face, and therefore we have no way to estimate the number of modules present, to speak nothing of the fact that we don't know what size each module is. Really the only way for us is to get a very detailed shot of an open panel as they are installing the modules so we can estimate both the size of the modules as well as how they are arranged on the panel face, something like the 052C panel photo in my post above but at a much higher resolution.


Negative I don't buy that (underlined part). Unless you want to substitute your HPM panel for this super-duper jammer, in which case your jammer becomes just another pie-in-the-sky stand-in for the HPM, in which case we are back to total conjecture.

@Iron Man

3 points

1. Conceptually, there is no reason why they couldn't build a 4mw jammer. But with 4mw, it could fry the electronics of older missiles, and possibly newer ones as will. It has been speculated that the AMDR has this capability.

2. Just because they have the HQ-26, doesn't mean they have a requirement for BMD. Whose ballistic missiles would China be facing? In comparison, there is a clear requirement for ASAT, which uses the same tech.

3. The Flight 3 Burke has 3x 4MW electrical generators for 4x 20MW gas turbines.

So it is certainly possible for the larger Type-55 to have 4x 5MW generators for its bigger 4x28MW gas turbines

 

[Iron Man]

1. Conceptually, there is no reason why they couldn't build a 4mw jammer. But with 4mw, it could fry the electronics of older missiles, and possibly newer ones as will. It has been speculated that the AMDR has this capability.

I'm not sure if you understand the scale of a "4MW" jammer. Even an entire SPY-6 GaN panel couldn't possibly require more than 1.5MW of power consumption (and probably it's less than that). Four SPY-6 panels operating at 1.5W at the same time means just the SPY-6 panels would suck up half of the 12MW power generation capacity of the Flight III, and you still need power left over for the 3 AMDR-X panels and the rest of the entire ship's power needs. Even if each of those X-band panels required only 1MW power each, you would end up with 6MW being used for SPY-6, 3MW being used for AMDR-X, and 3MW left to power the entire rest of the ship. But somehow, a massive "4MW" "jammer" is a realistic expectation for the 055? If a SPY-6-sized panel consumes less than 1.5MW, what size panel would you need to consume 4MW? I don't really know, but I think either of those mystery panels on the 055's sides aren't nearly big enough to require anything close to 4MW at a time. Anyway, like I said to Bltizo, a hypothetical massive jammer is just a stand-in for the hypothetical HPM as a potential power-sucker, and while either is certainly not impossible, the actual plausibility of either is highly doubtful in my mind.

2. Just because they have the HQ-26, doesn't mean they have a requirement for BMD. Whose ballistic missiles would China be facing? In comparison, there is a clear requirement for ASAT, which uses the same tech.

I have already stated that ASAT would be a primary use for the HHQ-26, while BMD would be a secondary use. People seem to love to talk about future-proofing the power requirements for the 055, but all of a sudden, just because there is no current nation that is building SRBMs or IRBMs that realistically threaten China directly, means there also won't be any in the future? Russia has already stealthily and unilaterally withdrawn from the IRBM (INF) treaty since their deployment of the R-500, and there are rumblings within the US military that they should no longer be constrained by this treaty either. So what the future holds for China's potential ballistic missile threats in the Western Pacific, me, you, and nobody else knows. In either case, that discussion was in the context of a 14' vs 20' BMD radar; this difference would apply equally to satellite targeting as it would to BMD.

3. The Flight 3 Burke has 3x 4MW electrical generators for 4x 20MW gas turbines.

So it is certainly possible for the larger Type-55 to have 4x 5MW generators for its bigger 4x28MW gas turbines

I have no idea why you think engine output is or should be tied to power generation capacity and why they should scale up or down together. Again, I have not been saying "20MW" is impossible. From a future-proofing POV, it is certainly a possibility. I had been having a much narrower discussion about CURRENT requirements of the 055 for 20MW, which I don't find plausible unless the also implausible HPM is a current reality on the 055, or some other massively power-draining system.

 

[Iron Man]

the discussion became pure fun now LOL I also had felt I might become your
Iron Man
"punching bag" (expression from
#3956 latenlazy, 46 minutes ago)
when I estimated the size of the panel based on the height of people on the deck (LOL I didn't know if they weren't 7 ft tall, no), but later I just posted Yesterday at 3:18 PM


anyway I looked at the numbers from Today at 2:10 AM


and the comment made Today at 3:00 AM


the difference would be the length-to-beam ratio, when rounded to integers, "approaching" 8:1 or 9:1

just saying

Just as a comparison, the Daring has a L:B ratio of 7.2:1, the Zumwalt is 7.3:1, the Horizon is 7.5:1, the Burke is 7.7:1, the Atago is 7.9:1, the 052D is 9.2:1, and the Tico is 10.3:1. So either 8:1 or 9:1 for the 055 is not going to raise any eyebrows, though clearly the trend is a lower L:B ratio with many of the more recent ships.

 

[Blitzo]

"A bit off" and "wrong" mean exactly the same thing, so let's not try and parse words here. You weren't saying the CGI number was "a bit off" as in "maybe right maybe wrong", you were just saying it was wrong. As if you already had that crystal ball. Thus the pretension. It's not rocket science here, mang.

"A bit off" is among the weakest form of casting doubt on its length estimate, especially considering I also wrote "I think" at the front, which taken in totality "I think the dimensions are a bit off" is a weaker expression of doubt than "I think it is wrong" or even "It is wrong".

"Maybe right and maybe wrong" would suggest that I believe the number it put out was as equally likely to be right as it was unlikely, which is not the position I hold. In the end this disagreement is about how accurate we think we can claim or perceive estimates of 055's length to be. I'm not sure how that is an exercise of pretentiousness.

 

[Iron Man]

"A bit off" is among the weakest form of casting doubt on its length estimate, especially considering I also wrote "I think" at the front, which taken in totality "I think the dimensions are a bit off" is a weaker expression of doubt than "I think it is wrong" or even "It is wrong".

"Maybe right and maybe wrong" would suggest that I believe the number it put out was as equally likely to be right as it was unlikely, which is not the position I hold. In the end this disagreement is about how accurate we think we can claim or perceive estimates of 055's length to be. I'm not sure how that is an exercise of pretentiousness.

While "I think" may ameliorate the strength of a conviction, "a bit off" is just a polite way of saying "you're wrong", not a weaker form of casting doubt. "I think you're a bit off" and "I think you're wrong" mean EXACTLY the same thing, sorry man. The pretension comes in that the quibble between differences is so small and yet you felt compelled to invalidate another similar estimate, which you didn't need to quibble with given what you currently have to go on, but you did anyway.

 

[Blitzo]

While "I think" may ameliorate the strength of a conviction, "a bit off" is just a polite way of saying "you're wrong", not a weaker form of casting doubt. "I think you're a bit off" and "I think you're wrong" mean EXACTLY the same thing, sorry man. The pretension comes in that the quibble between differences is so small and yet you felt compelled to invalidate another similar estimate, which you didn't need to quibble with given what you currently have to go on, but you did anyway.

In that case, our disagreement is in two parts.

First, whether "a bit off" is of equal strength in expressing doubt to "wrong".
Second, whether the difference in length that I brought up was "small".

The first issue I have no interest in discussing further, because that could be due to how we've used those kinds of terms in real life and the perceived strength of those terms in real life by others.

But for the second issue, I think a difference of almost 5 meters between their estimate and my own is not trivial, and while it is obviously not the biggest scandal in history, I felt it was worth mentioning. You can think it was a quibble, but I think it was not. I rest my case.

 

[Iron Man]

In that case, our disagreement is in two parts.

First, whether "a bit off" is of equal strength in expressing doubt to "wrong".
Second, whether the difference in length that I brought up was "small".

The first issue I have no interest in discussing further, because that could be due to how we've used those kinds of terms in real life and the perceived strength of those terms in real life by others.

But for the second issue, I think a difference of almost 5 meters between their estimate and my own is not trivial, and while it is obviously not the biggest scandal in history, I felt it was worth mentioning. You can think it was a quibble, but I think it was not. I rest my case.

Alright then, you rest that case.

 

[AndrewS]

I'm not sure if you understand the scale of a "4MW" jammer. Even an entire SPY-6 GaN panel couldn't possibly require more than 1.5MW of power consumption (and probably it's less than that). Four SPY-6 panels operating at 1.5W at the same time means just the SPY-6 panels would suck up half of the 12MW power generation capacity of the Flight III, and you still need power left over for the 3 AMDR-X panels and the rest of the entire ship's power needs. Even if each of those X-band panels required only 1MW power each, you would end up with 6MW being used for SPY-6, 3MW being used for AMDR-X, and 3MW left to power the entire rest of the ship. But somehow, a massive "4MW" "jammer" is a realistic expectation for the 055? If a SPY-6-sized panel consumes less than 1.5MW, what size panel would you need to consume 4MW? I don't really know, but I think either of those mystery panels on the 055's sides aren't nearly big enough to require anything close to 4MW at a time. Anyway, like I said to Bltizo, a hypothetical massive jammer is just a stand-in for the hypothetical HPM as a potential power-sucker, and while either is certainly not impossible, the actual plausibility of either is highly doubtful in my mind.


I have already stated that ASAT would be a primary use for the HHQ-26, while BMD would be a secondary use. People seem to love to talk about future-proofing the power requirements for the 055, but all of a sudden, just because there is no current nation that is building SRBMs or IRBMs that realistically threaten China directly, means there also won't be any in the future? Russia has already stealthily and unilaterally withdrawn from the IRBM (INF) treaty since their deployment of the R-500, and there are rumblings within the US military that they should no longer be constrained by this treaty either. So what the future holds for China's potential ballistic missile threats in the Western Pacific, me, you, and nobody else knows. In either case, that discussion was in the context of a 14' vs 20' BMD radar; this difference would apply equally to satellite targeting as it would to BMD.


I have no idea why you think engine output is or should be tied to power generation capacity and why they should scale up or down together. Again, I have not been saying "20MW" is impossible. From a future-proofing POV, it is certainly a possibility. I had been having a much narrower discussion about CURRENT requirements of the 055 for 20MW, which I don't find plausible unless the also implausible HPM is a current reality on the 055, or some other massively power-draining system.

Rebuttals

GaN modules make a huge difference in power requirement

1. One third of the size of a GaA module (Cree example), so you could fit 9x more in the same area.
2. Twice? the power input per module
3. 10x radar output per module

So the panel becomes a jammer/EW weapon, and the more power, the better.

---

Russia shares a land border with China, so ballistic missiles launched from Russia will be flying over land, rather than passing over Type-55s on the coast. Plus Russia is mired in a war in the Ukraine against Europe/US influence. Going by past frozen conflicts on Russia's borders, that is not going to resolve itself for decades.

South Korea is already building ballistic missiles, and so could Japan. But so what? A land based battery is more suitable and cost-effective for the defense role rather than the Type-55.

---
Electrical generation capacity is tied to how many engines there are, and how much power they put out. I'm pointing out that the current Burke design only has space for 3 electrical gensets, whilst the Type-55 presumably has 4 gensets. And that the Type-55 gas turbines put out a lot more power which could be turned into electricity.

But as you say, we'll just have to wait for more details.

The last point is the default position should no longer be skepticism as to China's ability to build a hi-tech navy (in the medium-term) which would also be the largest (in the long-term)

In most commercial areas, China is already producing/consuming/investing on a larger scale that the USA. Plus China is already spending much more than the USA on commercially focused R&D.

 

[Iron Man]

GaN modules make a huge difference in power requirement

1. One third of the size of a GaA module (Cree example), so you could fit 9x more in the same area.
2. Twice? the power input per module
3. 10x radar output per module

So the panel becomes a jammer/EW weapon, and the more power, the better.

Umm, you know that SPY-6 is already GaN, do you not? I'm saying that given the total power generation capacity of the Flight III Burke, it is entirely unrealistic for each panel to consume more than 1.5MW of power as an upper bound, and IMO it is likely less than that. So the question remains, if a SPY-6-sized GaN panel consumes less than 1.5MW, what panel on the 055 is going to consume 4MW of power, whether or not it is used for EA?

Russia shares a land border with China, so ballistic missiles launched from Russia will be flying over land, rather than passing over Type-55s on the coast. Plus Russia is mired in a war in the Ukraine against Europe/US influence. Going by past frozen conflicts on Russia's borders, that is not going to resolve itself for decades.

South Korea is already building ballistic missiles, and so could Japan. But so what? A land based battery is more suitable and cost-effective for the defense role rather than the Type-55.

First of all, I'm not talking about Russia as an SRBM or IRBM threat to China (it is, but not via the sea). I only mentioned Russia in the context of mentioning that there are those in the US military who would like to withdraw from the INF Treaty and start producing their own IRBMs.

Second, your dismissal of SK and Japan-based ballistic missile threats to China could equally be used to dismiss China-based ballistic missile threats to US bases in SK, Japan, and Guam. Clearly the US military disagrees with your assessment, and has gone ahead with both sea-based and land-based BMD forces, just as I think China should and almost certainly is.

Electrical generation capacity is tied to how many engines there are, and how much power they put out. I'm pointing out that the current Burke design only has space for 3 electrical gensets, whilst the Type-55 presumably has 4 gensets. And that the Type-55 gas turbines put out a lot more power which could be turned into electricity.

But as you say, we'll just have to wait for more details.

The last point is the default position should no longer be skepticism as to China's ability to build a hi-tech navy (in the medium-term) which would also be the largest (in the long-term)

In most commercial areas, China is already producing/consuming/investing on a larger scale that the USA. Plus China is already spending much more than the USA on commercially focused R&D.

Electrical generation capacity has absolutely zero relation to how many engines there are UNLESS the ship uses IEP, which neither the 055 nor the Burke uses. Excess power generated from the engines not being used for propulsion is in general wasted (though there is some push lately to recycle some of the waste heat for use) and is definitely not put into the ship's electrical grid. This point is actually much more nuanced and interesting than at first it appears, because of the fact that GTs are most efficient at near their maximum output, and yet warships invariably have need for different speeds at different times. It's a careful, computer-controlled dance between throttling GT output (and number of active engines) and angling the variable-pitch propellers to achieve the desired speed at the most efficient use of fuel.

As for the last point, I'm not sure why you are even mentioning it in this context; China's ability to build a high-tech navy is not in doubt. Also, 3MW, 4MW, and 5MW GT and diesel generators have been around for decades. The question isn't one of technology, but of intended use.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I long for the days of Mig29 vs Engineer discussions!