055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marjohn

New Member
Registered Member
The radar height is about detect a sea skimming anti ship missile flying low like 10 meters above the water. Due to the radar horizon, a radar at a height of 25 meters will detect the antiship missile flying 10 meters above the water at 33 km. If the missile is flying close at Mach 0.9. lets say 300 meters per second, you have about 110 seconds to respond to that threat. If the radar is at 35 meters, the detection range is extended to 37.44 km, and your response time is up to 124 seconds, at 40 meters height, the detection is at over 39km, the response window is now at 130 seconds. If the missile is flying at 1000 meters per second, or near Mach 3, cut all those response windows to only a third.

Of course, you don't need your main radar to be sitting high, you can put a smaller radar high above the mast to do the job of scanning the surface to the edge of the radar horizon. That makes all arguments about how low your main radar is, completely moot.

Well said. But not totally complete.
It is not to be believed that wave propagation is such a simple thing that it can be described in a single sentence.
There is something called the layer effect that sometimes means that a radar placed at an altitude of 35 metres will not detect the missile at an altitude of 10 metres. And if it had been lower (the radar of course), at 20 meters for example, it would have detected it...
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Well said. But not totally complete.
It is not to be believed that wave propagation is such a simple thing that it can be described in a single sentence.
There is something called the layer effect that sometimes means that a radar placed at an altitude of 35 metres will not detect the missile at an altitude of 10 metres. And if it had been lower (the radar of course), at 20 meters for example, it would have detected it...

Those numbers I gave already took account of wave propagation. For example, at 25 meter radar height, the direct visual range is only 29km, the radar range is 33.6km. Lowering the radar does not improve sea skimming detection that is why everyone tries to put radars as high as allowed by the radar's weight.

Radars that are sea skimmer spotters tend to have a high frequency, C (Type 364, Kronos) or X band (SPS-67, SPQ-9B, 055's mast radar, APAR) with a high pulse rate, so they can differentiate and track smaller objects with a higher resolution, which gives them an advantage to let's say, high mounted radars with S-band (Fregat, Elta Star, SAMPSON, Empar, etc,.) Also note that navigation radars can also spot sea skimmers, so that's another factor if such radars are high mounted.
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
Something like the 055 might be price impossible if done in the West; the US took out the S-band AESA SPY-4 radars from the Zumwalt --- the functional analog to the 055's main Type 346B sets --- and which are originally part of the Zumwalt's sensor set, to save on costs.
IMO there is no dispute that the Zumwalt program is somewhat problematic in many ways and they did cut corners eventually to bring cost down. The question I have for you based on your comments (if I understand it correctly) is that China is able to achieve a cost competitive approach on AESA implementation on ships not doable by USN approach. I am interested in any empirical data that supports such an assertion as I have always wonder how China is able to afford all these "stuff". As you rightly pointed out, they do cost an arm and a leg based on generally known comments but I have never seen any specifics even on USN programs. I have seen comments like the SPY-1(v)D plus the VLS collectively cost a Billion dollars but they are rather rubbery in nature. The issue with AESA to my knowledge is basically a software driven product. This means tons of money are spent on development, testing and implementation. If I were to guess, the cost would be 1/3 hardware and 2/3 software. The hardware piece is predominantly electronics and subject to global pricing and China would be hard pressed to derive cost competitive advantage. The software piece is the big unknown as the development cycle and correspondingly cost is dependent on features, capabilities and robustness of product testing cycle. .
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
IMO there is no dispute that the Zumwalt program is somewhat problematic in many ways and they did cut corners eventually to bring cost down. The question I have for you based on your comments (if I understand it correctly) is that China is able to achieve a cost competitive approach on AESA implementation on ships not doable by USN approach. I am interested in any empirical data that supports such an assertion as I have always wonder how China is able to afford all these "stuff". As you rightly pointed out, they do cost an arm and a leg based on generally known comments but I have never seen any specifics even on USN programs. I have seen comments like the SPY-1(v)D plus the VLS collectively cost a Billion dollars but they are rather rubbery in nature. The issue with AESA to my knowledge is basically a software driven product. This means tons of money are spent on development, testing and implementation. If I were to guess, the cost would be 1/3 hardware and 2/3 software. The hardware piece is predominantly electronics and subject to global pricing and China would be hard pressed to derive cost competitive advantage. The software piece is the big unknown as the development cycle and correspondingly cost is dependent on features, capabilities and robustness of product testing cycle.
Software engineers aren’t paid as much in China as they are in the US.

Also, look at the profit margins of US defense suppliers compared to the margin cap for Chinese defense suppliers. How strict your contract cost controls are are very strong drivers of cost efficiency. A lot of the hyper expensive sectors in the US, whether it’s healthcare, infrastructure, or defense, comes out of poor program management.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
IMO there is no dispute that the Zumwalt program is somewhat problematic in many ways and they did cut corners eventually to bring cost down. The question I have for you based on your comments (if I understand it correctly) is that China is able to achieve a cost competitive approach on AESA implementation on ships not doable by USN approach. I am interested in any empirical data that supports such an assertion as I have always wonder how China is able to afford all these "stuff". As you rightly pointed out, they do cost an arm and a leg based on generally known comments but I have never seen any specifics even on USN programs. I have seen comments like the SPY-1(v)D plus the VLS collectively cost a Billion dollars but they are rather rubbery in nature. The issue with AESA to my knowledge is basically a software driven product. This means tons of money are spent on development, testing and implementation. If I were to guess, the cost would be 1/3 hardware and 2/3 software. The hardware piece is predominantly electronics and subject to global pricing and China would be hard pressed to derive cost competitive advantage. The software piece is the big unknown as the development cycle and correspondingly cost is dependent on features, capabilities and robustness of product testing cycle. .

Its not a hardware vs. software kind of costing. The operations needed for radar to work are so fast they need to be hardwired via programmable FPGAs or discrete logic. Even if you account for software, you still have the Chinese advantage because of the sheer number of high quality coders, and more engineers, both software and hardware, coming out from the universities than the rest of the world. The economics favor China because of the combination of the Chinese electronics industry and its immense volume, and the rare earths industry, areas that the Chinese are globally dominant. China dominates Gallium Arsenide, Gallium Nitride and Yttrium (used for phase shifters like on the SPY-1D). There is a thin line, more like gradients of grey between civilian and military applications of electronics, for example, 5G base network stations are also going to use GaN AESAs. I am not saying they are going to be more advanced than in the West, but cheaper. So much Gallium refining was done in China in such volumes that prices crashed, and they have to cut down on production. So cheap that Gallium Nitride --- the essential semiconductor for the next generation of AESAs --- are powering up those Made in China LED flashlights. Ironically, the Chinese government subsidies on GaAs and GaN has something to do with wanting to replace all lighting in China with power saving LEDs to cut down on energy costs and consumption. The Chinese defense industry does not need to rely on expensive boutique fabs like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman does, they just farm their production to the many numerous firms in Nanjing and Shenzhen.

When Trump announced tariffs on Chinese imports, they included rare earths and stuff like Gallium. Immediately the US defense industry complained that it would hurt them.

If you remember, Russia is the top Titanium producer in the world, and they exploited this heavily for military applications, even if it sounds extravagant to the West. China dominates in the elements such as Gallium and rare earths, its no surprise they are exploiting these heavily --- the railgun, the IPS, permanent magnet motors you also hear China wants to put on ships, are heavily reliant on these.

Even as early as when the Type 052C was first introduced --- China isn't as rich then as it is now --- its probably enough to tell you they have found a way to suddenly manufacture the AESAs in a manner so cost effective. It took many years to drive down the cost of the transceivers on the SPY-1 to the SPY-1D(V), and then suddenly you got a ship that has more transceivers than a Burke; Type 346 has over 5,000 transceivers per face, or over 20,000 for the entire ship, while SPY-1D(V) has about 4,300 to 4,500 per face. The 052D and the 055 has even bigger faces than the 052C. On top of that for the 055, you got that new X-band AESA, though I don't know the dimensions for it, using APAR as a reference, each face on the APAR is about 3,500 transceivers. So potentially the X-band radar on the 055 mast adds another 3000 to 3,500 transceivers per face or 12,000 to 14,000 elements over the 20,000 plus elements on the main radars. And then you still have the 8 arrays lining up on top of the bridge like a ring. For an current modern warship, this number of transcievers is unheard of and unprecedented. Much less you decided to manufacture around 8 to 10 of them. And cost what? For just a billion dollars per ship? A new Burke would already cost over 1.5 billion US$ to make, maybe more, still with the SPY-1D(V).

When you decide to manufacture AESAs and their components in large volumes, that of course, would drive their prices down like any other electronic product. China trying to leverage this production not just in the navy, by making every ship use it in the future but also in the air force with every plane and army, and to the civilian commercial side, also helps drives down the cost for all.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I believe the US will solve its problems. It's biggest problems have been political centric and that is changing now. Wthether it cntinue or not is yet to be seen. But the US is defintely technically capable of producing the necessary components.

But you have to WANT them, and want them badlyy. when you do, your program managers work the programs like they want it badly and they end up coming up with program decisions that ensure that enough overall units are on the table to support the necessary R&D funding. You cannot do that with three vessels. Simply cannot be done...and when I saw the decision makers rolling it ever downward it was clear that they would not solve the issue with the Zumwalt...though if the new admin makes good use of the three vessels and really uses them as test vessel programs, they can still have a big impact.

As to the Type 055s, we really do not know what their capabilities are. China is also not nearly as open in terms of its testing or its characterization of its programs. But they clearly have the size and the technology to do GREAT things with them.

I am getting two of the new 1/350 scale Type 055s and intend to put them with my overall 1/350 scale PLAN Carrier Strike Group, which will contain two Type 054As, two Type 052Ds, two Type 055s, the Liaoning, and a Type 093 SSN. (I should have two and maybe will have another by then). I wish I had a better idea about the Type095 SSN...but all you can do is work with what you have.

In terms of the surface vessel escort capabilities, the PLAN is rapidly demonstrating it can put together a support group for its carrier that is only natched by the US. A US grouping with 2 Burke IIas, two Burke IIs and two Ticonderoga is still, I believe, stronger, particularly when you include 1-2 Virginia or one each Virginia and Sea Wolf SSN.

But the real difference comes down to the Air wing and MAXIMIZING the air Wing and the defense of the ships comes down to the AEW capability and the PLAN simply has to get a strong platform than the helo AEW they currently have. The Royal Navy, IMHO, made a HUGE mistake when they chose the Merlin and Crows Nest over the EV-22. China should nt make the same mistake.

Anyhow, I will show you guys those two new Type 055s when they get here in the next ten days or so from China.

@bd popeye @Air Force Brat @Deino @asif iqbal @duncanidaho @Equation @Brumby @TerraN_EmpirE @SamuraiBlue

By the way, THIS is simply a beautfilu ic of the Type 55 at sea. Soon there will be four...and then eight of them doing this and the US and its allies simply cannot take it lightly.

120506ai006dyiyiuh0qqb.jpg
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
The radar horizon gain from raising a shipborne radar higher is negligible under any sane set of assumptions. I don't know precisely how high above the waterline a Type 055's radar is (or even which of the radars he's talking about), but let's call it 25m. Let's say, for a fortiori argument's sake, than another ship's radar is 50m above the waterline. Let's assume further that both ships are scanning for targets flying at an altitude of 10km. More realistic numbers would be welcome here.
Do you know what gain in spotting distance the latter radar gets over the former? Less than 2%. Which also means a less than 4% gain in search area. This is militarily insignificant.
...

I did some height estimates a while ago at CDF for several of Type 055's radar panels. Here's a recap:

Type 055 346B (lower panels) center height: 15.6m
Type 055 346B (upper panels) center height: 20.6m

Type 055 X-band panel center height: 29.95m. This is almost identical to the height of the DDG-1000's SPY-3.

The primary reason to mount a radar high atop is to increase the radar horizon. This is critical for timely detection of sea-skimming ASCMs.

The X-band radar placement on the Type 055 provides a 31.8km radar horizon against an ASCM cruising at 5m altitude. (calculation method:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Assuming a 1000km/h missile velocity, that gives you a maximum of 114s to detect, classify and engage the threat.

The low height of Type 346 radars and its variants on Type 052 (C/D) might prove problematic if its SAMs are SARH/TVM guided as it further reduces their engagement range against sea-skimmers. However, there are strong arguments to assume that HHQ-9 are ARH guided (based on the assumption that Type 346 is an S-band radar and not C-band).
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
Software engineers aren’t paid as much in China as they are in the US.

Also, look at the profit margins of US defense suppliers compared to the margin cap for Chinese defense suppliers. How strict your contract cost controls are are very strong drivers of cost efficiency. A lot of the hyper expensive sectors in the US, whether it’s healthcare, infrastructure, or defense, comes out of poor program management.

Its not a hardware vs. software kind of costing. The operations needed for radar to work are so fast they need to be hardwired via programmable FPGAs or discrete logic. Even if you account for software, you still have the Chinese advantage because of the sheer number of high quality coders, and more engineers, both software and hardware, coming out from the universities than the rest of the world. The economics favor China because of the combination of the Chinese electronics industry and its immense volume, and the rare earths industry, areas that the Chinese are globally dominant. China dominates Gallium Arsenide, Gallium Nitride and Yttrium (used for phase shifters like on the SPY-1D). There is a thin line, more like gradients of grey between civilian and military applications of electronics, for example, 5G base network stations are also going to use GaN AESAs. I am not saying they are going to be more advanced than in the West, but cheaper. So much Gallium refining was done in China in such volumes that prices crashed, and they have to cut down on production. So cheap that Gallium Nitride --- the essential semiconductor for the next generation of AESAs --- are powering up those Made in China LED flashlights. Ironically, the Chinese government subsidies on GaAs and GaN has something to do with wanting to replace all lighting in China with power saving LEDs to cut down on energy costs and consumption. The Chinese defense industry does not need to rely on expensive boutique fabs like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman does, they just farm their production to the many numerous firms in Nanjing and Shenzhen.

When Trump announced tariffs on Chinese imports, they included rare earths and stuff like Gallium. Immediately the US defense industry complained that it would hurt them.

If you remember, Russia is the top Titanium producer in the world, and they exploited this heavily for military applications, even if it sounds extravagant to the West. China dominates in the elements such as Gallium and rare earths, its no surprise they are exploiting these heavily --- the railgun, the IPS, permanent magnet motors you also hear China wants to put on ships, are heavily reliant on these.

Even as early as when the Type 052C was first introduced --- China isn't as rich then as it is now --- its probably enough to tell you they have found a way to suddenly manufacture the AESAs in a manner so cost effective. It took many years to drive down the cost of the transceivers on the SPY-1 to the SPY-1D(V), and then suddenly you got a ship that has more transceivers than a Burke; Type 346 has over 5,000 transceivers per face, or over 20,000 for the entire ship, while SPY-1D(V) has about 4,300 to 4,500 per face. The 052D and the 055 has even bigger faces than the 052C. On top of that for the 055, you got that new X-band AESA, though I don't know the dimensions for it, using APAR as a reference, each face on the APAR is about 3,500 transceivers. So potentially the X-band radar on the 055 mast adds another 3000 to 3,500 transceivers per face or 12,000 to 14,000 elements over the 20,000 plus elements on the main radars. And then you still have the 8 arrays lining up on top of the bridge like a ring. For an current modern warship, this number of transcievers is unheard of and unprecedented. Much less you decided to manufacture around 8 to 10 of them. And cost what? For just a billion dollars per ship? A new Burke would already cost over 1.5 billion US$ to make, maybe more, still with the SPY-1D(V).

When you decide to manufacture AESAs and their components in large volumes, that of course, would drive their prices down like any other electronic product. China trying to leverage this production not just in the navy, by making every ship use it in the future but also in the air force with every plane and army, and to the civilian commercial side, also helps drives down the cost for all.

My question was whether you have empirical data to support your assertions. If you don't have it is fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top