I think you're right and guess better take my words back - though I do have further doubt: that with such a dominating force, US may , think another way, kind of over-invest in its navy. But that will be further derailing. So I rest my case.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I think you're right and guess better take my words back - though I do have further doubt: that with such a dominating force, US may , think another way, kind of over-invest in its navy. But that will be further derailing. So I rest my case.
I notice that Arleigh Burke is still using PESA radar but 052C and 052D all uses AESA radar, from what I read, AESA are technologically superior than PESA, does that mean the radar on the Chinese destroyer are better?
I don't know if this has been asked before, and I'm trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious at this, if anyone know please share your insights.
I don't know if this has been asked before, and I'm trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious at this, if anyone know please share your insights.
timepass
Brigadier
Correct if I am wrong... IMO with 117 total 8 are commissioned out 13 in the water from both shipyards (DL/JN) while 2 are currently under construction...
I show six commissioned (I believe) 172, 173, 174, 175, 154 and 117. I believe the others that have been launched are either in trials or outfitting.
For example, I know 118 and 119 are launched and in the water, but I have not seen them with their pennant numbers, or heard that they are commissioned.
Yeah, they are.
Most volume-search radars on modern premiere surface combatants nowadays are technologically superior to Burke's SPY-1D, which is a modification of a system from the 80s when transistor technology was comparatively primitive. The Chinese, European, Israeli, and Russian radars are all AESAs developed in the late-90s to mid-00s, some 10-15 years newer than the Burke's.
That's not to say the SPY-1 is bad, it's just not as advanced, but advanced enough. Also, the radar is just one component, albeit the most important, of the entire combat system, which the USN has thoroughly mastered with three decades of operational experience with Aegis. Perhaps the USN knows something about combat system development that no one else does due to sheer experience. In any case, even if the Aegis is legitimately outmatched by newer systems from other countries, it would be a very marginal level of outmatched and the Burke Flight IIs would still be among the best alongside the rest of the big boys like the Darings, Horizons, Gorshkovs, 052Ds, etc.
Additionally, the Burke is getting an AESA of her own with the AN/SPY-6 for the Flight IIIs. This should ensure the Burke family remains technologically competitive with world peers for another decade or two until her replacement enters service.
Thanks for the reply, it confirm what I have thought, but this is still super weird, its not like US is behind AESA technology you would think they would be the 1st one to switch to AESA way before any other country.
From what I read, Flight III won't commission before 2025, China 052C first commissioned in 2006, so that will be a wopping 19 year gap from China's first AESA ship to US first AESA ship. Something just don't look right in this situation.
All other things being equal, yes AESA is obviously superior to PESA, especially in utility via the number of beams that can be formed simultaneously, in being able to avoid single-point failures, and in being able to reduce enemies' ability to detect and jam the radar. BUT, I would venture that the software is as important if not more important than the hardware. The features I mentioned are all well and good, but the primary purpose of a radar is to detect and track as many targets accurately as possible. Software allows the SPY-1 to track over a thousand targets IIRC despite it being a PESA; the official number is "more than 100" but this is obviously a deliberate understatement. By way of comparison the PESA on the E-2C can track over two thousand targets, and the APS-145 radar panels are obviously MUCH smaller than the SPY-1 panels. Clearly software plays a huge role in the overall capability of a radar. The multiple beams, frequencies and targets that can be tracked by an AESA requires software that can effectively utilize the capabilities of the hardware. Unfortunately software is the one area that we outside the business just have no real clue about at all. The bottom line is, it is essentially impossible to compare two radar panels to each other purely on the basis of one of them being PESA and the other being AESA, without knowing anything about their software capabilities.