Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Discussion in 'Navy' started by FarkTypeSoldier, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    I think the Type 055 facing the Shandong is the sixth Type 055 that was recently launched. Its fitting there for the obvious reason there is no longer any more fitting space on the other yard.

    The Type 052D in the innermost pier of the Dalian shipyard closest to land should be future pennant 121 Qiqihar and scheduled for commission with the 10th Destroyer Division of the NSF early in 2020 and should be the next 052D to be commissioned after 156 Zibo. 121 Qiqihar will be the last of the non extended 052D. This squadron has been dragging its feet on the 052D adoption, maybe because of the huge transition from Ludas straight to 052D. This will be the second destroyer named after a Mongolian city.
     
  2. Rachmaninov
    Offline

    Rachmaninov Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2017
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    253
    Strategic Analyst and Deino like this.
  3. Max Demian
    Offline

    Max Demian Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    128
    Last year I did a calculation of the Type 346B panel heights, as installed on the Type 055:

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

    However, as Tam pointed out the main horizon search radar on the Type 055 sits much higher at an estimated 30m height (near identical to DDG-1000).

    One scenario where the relatively low placement of Type 346B panels may be an issue is if they are used to guide HHQ-9s in SARH/TVM mode. If true, then their operational range against sea-skimmers would be subpar. However, it could be argued that the HHQ-9 is a suboptimal type of weapon to engage sea-skimmers at ranges < 30kms.
     
  4. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,794
    Likes Received:
    17,006
    I have a feeling that if any HQ-9s were equipped on 055s that still used SARH/TVM guidance (doubtful sounding to me as I imagine they should have moved to ARH at least on 052D), it could probably be done by the X band AESAs instead.

    The lack of up to date information as to what variants of HHQ-9 the 052C, 052D and 055 respectively use/are in service makes it hard to confidently determine what roles the radars may have. As is the lack of information as to what the state the quad pack MR SAM in development is, and what mode of guidance it has.
     
    PiyaraPakistan likes this.
  5. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,243
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    If we assume some of the following are likely to happen:

    1. The UVLS and quad-pack SAM will also be widely deployed on a future Frigate (which has a less capable radar fitout than a Destroyer)
    2. LRASMs can successfully manage themselves into a swarm to conduct simultaneous attacks.
    3. The quad-pack SAM will have a range of 50km+ which is over the horizon (like the ESSM)
    4. CEC is widely deployed on Destroyers, Frigates, AWACs etc

    Then an active version of the quad-pack SAM makes a lot of sense.
    But presumably a cheaper SARH or TVM version (for use within the radar horizon) would be relatively easy to develop afterwards.

    In any case, if we're looking at ships with the UVLS over the next 20 years, a low estimate of 70 destroyers + 30 Frigates would justify development of 2 versions.
     
    #7465 AndrewS, Jan 15, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
    PiyaraPakistan likes this.
  6. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    If you are using SARH on the 055, you would be using the X-band AESA on the top mast instead, which would give you a better radar horizon. Its possible that the entire loop of search, acquire, track, engage and illuminate can take place with this X-band radar alone. The radar would work much like the Thales APAR, although I think from its size it may have more elements.

    But I doubt that the ship is using SARH in the first place, as there is little point in continuing a tech tree branch of SARH development when you are pouring resources on ARH development. The ARH seeker to be used on the ESSM Block 2 is derived from the AMRAAM, so you can take the PL-12 seeker and adapt it for the HQ-9. Further on, you can adapt the PL-15 seeker on future versions of the HQ-9 and for a new quad pack MRSAM.

    SARH and TVM would make sense if you want the most control of your SAM, presumably because your SAM has limited on board intelligence and you prefer to use the tracking algorithms on your combat data system. But as the amount of computational ability you can put into a seeker head increases with Moore's Law, you can have greater trust with the autonomy of the missile.

    For closer ranges, you should leave that one up to the HQ-10, although there is a question of what you should do between the 12km to 30km zone.
     
    #7466 Tam, Jan 15, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
    antiterror13 likes this.
  7. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    4,864
  8. by78
    Offline

    by78 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,942
    Likes Received:
    35,021
    Re-posting a lost image.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Max Demian
    Offline

    Max Demian Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    128
    In principle I agree, and doubtless they are working on this. The open question is are they there yet? If not, then they will stick with what works for now.
     
  10. Dante80
    Offline

    Dante80 New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2018
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    80
    Well, we do know that for quite some time now there has been a development of both ARH and IRH versions/variants/upgrades of the HQ-9. For example, it's literally been 20 years since we heard of the HQ9-A having an ARH seeker. I'd guess that it would be actually counter-intuitive to even assume that PLAN has been stuck to SARH/TVM guidance for its long range SAMs.
     
Loading...

Share This Page