Because of evolving threats? These ships will be around for 30 years. The battlefield will significantly change through their lifetime.And why would you want to install a larger more powerful radar in a Type-052D?
I don't see that many scenarios where it is actually useful.
Because of evolving threats? These ships will be around for 30 years. The battlefield will significantly change through their lifetime.
The FLIIA Burkes built through the late 90s and 00s will be upgraded with the more power hungry SPY-6 GaN AESA radars. But these ships at least have reserve buoyancy to accommodate heavier generators if needed, or ballast to counteract the topside heaviness of the new AESA radar.
Strange that you would argue that a ship built in 2020 won't need substantial upgrades through 2050, but whatever ...The Type-052D already has AESA modules and a VLS.
That is pretty much future proof, and there's only 25 of them. That is a modest number which means there will always be a useful mission for them.
This is wrong on multiple accounts. SPY-1 PESA together with AEGIS is very much capable of engaging hypersonic targets. Did you forget that these ships provide a BMD umbrella vs MRBM travelling at Mach 10+?The FLIIA Arleigh Burke radars are being upgraded because they have outdated SPY-1 PESA radars, and are incapable of dealing with hypersonic missiles.
Those Burkes would probably have been left as-is, if the Zumwalts with the SPY-6 AESA radar had been produced in larger numbers.
But guess what? The Zumwalts were supposed to be produced in larger numbers, and to host the SPY-6 radars, but the Zumwalts are a failed programme that was cancelled.
Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that Type 346 AESA radar family and 052D combat system is capable of engaging MRBMs, or hypersonics for that matter. What evidence do you have?In comparison, the Type-052D with is AESA radars should be able to defend against incoming hypersonic missiles. Plus China will face much lower numbers of incoming hypersonics because the US doesn't have the platforms or land locations to launch many hypersonics, and has prioritised smaller subsonic cruise missiles instead.
Strange that you would argue that a ship built in 2020 won't need substantial upgrades through 2050, but whatever ...
This is wrong on multiple accounts. SPY-1 PESA together with AEGIS is very much capable of engaging hypersonic targets. Did you forget that these ships provide a BMD umbrella vs MRBM travelling at Mach 10+?
Second, the Zumwalt class was never supposed to get SPY-6. They were designed with DBR consisting of SPY-3 and SPY-4.
Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that Type 346 AESA radar family and 052D combat system is capable of engaging MRBMs, or hypersonics for that matter. What evidence do you have?
We don't know what the US will have 10-15 years down the road. That's the whole point.
This was discussed ad-nauseam before. PESA can operate on a wide range of frequencies, just like AESA. In fact, this capability has nothing to do with PESA/AESA architecture.The problem is that a PESA only operates on a single frequency and sends out broad pulses which results in less precise accuracy.
That works find for a limited number of ballistic missiles travelling at hypersonic speed.
Why? Can you give a source?But PESA fails when you have large numbers of missiles AND/OR hypersonic missiles which can maneuver.
We don't know enough to make such a statement. In fact, we have learned surprisingly little about Type 346 in the last 15 years.It doesn't matter. The Type 052D has a more advanced AESA radar than most surface ships out there and likely won't need an update for a decade.
Because some of those hulls are less than 10 years old?What I don't know is why don't the Chinese simply build more Type 052D ships and retire their archaic collection of older types. Like the Type 051, 052, 052B, 052C, ad nauseum. They should just build 8 more ships and replace them entirely I think. It just increases complexity in logistics, training of crew, and other issues where I don't think it makes sense to keep those ships.
The whole advantage of AESA is it can do this concurrently, PESA radars can only operate at 1 frequency at a time.This was discussed ad-nauseam before. PESA can operate on a wide range of frequencies, just like AESA.
Not every AESA radar can do this. Furthermore, doing that reduces the sensitivity of the radar, so the scenarios where that is useful are small in scope. Certainly useless against long range targets.The whole advantage of AESA is it can do this concurrently, PESA radars can only operate at 1 frequency at a time.
Because of evolving threats? These ships will be around for 30 years. The battlefield will significantly change through their lifetime.
The FLIIA Burkes built through the late 90s and 00s will be upgraded with the more power hungry SPY-6 GaN AESA radars. But these ships at least have reserve buoyancy to accommodate heavier generators if needed, or ballast to counteract the topside heaviness of the new AESA radar.