055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Jura The idiot
General
in fact recently another member predicted 300 destroyers, not kidding you:Oh come on ... based on what?
#7274 AndrewS, Dec 26, 2019
"As I reported previously, naval analysts have noted a number of design flaws in the first-of-class Type 055 destroyer, including the low positioning of its flat-array radar system, which will likely affect the ship’s range of detection, and the use of light aluminum alloy in the upper decks, which can reduce the Type 055s survivability in naval combat."
Is this true?
Is this true?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Check his sources. Who's he citing? Is it Minnie Chan? If he's got no sources, then your take is as good as anybody's.
Every design is an improvement over the last design; I have no doubt that the next 055 upgrade will be enhanced over the current one. One can always view that as an enhancement to be celebrated or say that this version finally corrected the "flaws" of the last version. And then you can use the same logic again when the next 055 variant is introduced. To me, a "flaw" is an unintended consequence that causes a machine to miss its design parameters or to produce a highly undesirable tertiary effect. If something performs up to spec but designers noticed a way to get it to achieve a higher spec, it's not a "flaw." At this point in China's naval technology, those 2 things (radar position and deck material) sound a little too basic for the PLAN to overlook or make a mistake on.
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
Obviously a lower-mounted radar like 346B 055 has a reduced radar horizon compared to e.g. SAMPSON on the UK's Type 45, but it is also far larger and more powerful. You can't mount a powerful radar like 346B in the same position as SAMPSON because the weight of the superstructure required to support the load would unbalance the ship. It is an inherent trade-off, not a flaw. And its the same "flaw" that all the Burke derivatives have.
As for aluminium vs. steel superstructure, is there any real evidence that 055s superstructure is aluminium? It is true that most nations have moved away from using aluminium superstructures in high-end combat vessels following experience with combat damage in the Falklands, but the motivation for its use in the first place was the same as the reason for not mounting powerful radars like Type 346B up high in the first place -- the challenge of managing top weight!
As for aluminium vs. steel superstructure, is there any real evidence that 055s superstructure is aluminium? It is true that most nations have moved away from using aluminium superstructures in high-end combat vessels following experience with combat damage in the Falklands, but the motivation for its use in the first place was the same as the reason for not mounting powerful radars like Type 346B up high in the first place -- the challenge of managing top weight!
Last edited:
The placement level of a ship's main radar is not ever really a design "flaw" because the higher you place it the smaller the array size with reduced total power but with the benefit of increased radar horizon. If you place it lower you can have a greater array size with greater total power output but with lower radar horizon. 055's placement of its arrays is not too different to the many Burke derivatives of their main arrays.
So no, it's not true. It is an oversimplification of a design choice that many ships have.
And no, we have no evidence to suggest 055's superstructure is made of aluminium, there's been nothing credible giving us any info regarding what any part of 055 is using that deviatives from the norm.
Not a problem when the Type 055 can have it both ways.
The big radar with the reduced radar horizon with the much greater power.
The smaller radar on the mast with the increased radar horizon with the relatively lesser power.
The Type 055 has it both, with a set of four fixed faces of X-band radar on embedded on the pyramid mast.
And finally there is a small rotating navigation radar nearly right on top of the mast, set higher than the X-band, which is seen only with sharper pictures or one that is overhead. Navigation radars on warships are dual use; not just used for navigation they have the ability to spot low flyers.
But its not over yet. It has ESM units situated even higher than the top X-band radar. That means if there is a sea skimming missile coming up the radar horizon with its active radar seeker on, the ESM will pick up on its signals, locate and warn the threat even before the radars do. Functionally these are passive radars. The photo on the previous post conveniently shows it.
Likewise as we have seen with the Type 052C and D, they always have the Type 364 search radar that makes up the sphere on top of the mast. The height of it is even higher than the 055's X-band (I estimated it at 34 meters high vs. 30 meters but correct me if I'm wrong). You can also see other radars, like the Type 344 and 366 situated higher than the main radars, a small navigation radar above these two radars, along with ESM units along the sides of the mast. So there are multiple levels of sensor redundancy.
I have no problems if they are using aluminum to reduce the weight on the superstructure even though I do not know if they actually do. Everything has a trade off and its a deliberately calculated one. They can be using steel or composite, who knows?
the planned number is not known (it's a secret) all you hear is pure speculation (including my own numbers) also it's still not guaranteed wether there will be a type 052E or not or wether the type 052D will continue production or not, so we will have to wait like max 3 years just to know what kind of warships will be built, is it gonna be a combination of different DDGs or may be nothing but type 055 DDGs, that is why as I always say in general the safest bet for us now is to say that the number of DDGs that China will have will be comparable to that of the US (ie: any where between 70-140% of the USN) ,in general the size of a navy is directly tied to economic development, usually most of the members here who speculate on the PLAN tend to take the most pessimistic possibilites either because they simply follow the saying "prepare for the worst", they don't want to be optimistic for fear their optimism may be misplaced so they don't want to be disapointed if China doesn't aquire as many DDGs as they thought, or they are China haters (at least in secret) & always hope that China will remain bellow the US , needless to say that kind of thinking is flawed because that's what led them (around 8 years ago) to say that China will make do with 12 type 052D.
- Status