Yes, we have already discussed the possibility that 1) future-proofing, and 2) large power requirements from the unknown panels (such as from HPM), could both be reasons for a possible 20MW power generation capability. Bltizo and myself had a very narrow side discussion about possible "current" reasons besides the above that would require 20MW power usage.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
The power generation capacity for a Flight IIA is 9MW, while for the Flight III it will be 12MW. I don't think we have any information on the power generation capacity for either the 052C or the 052D, though I would guess it would be slightly less than the Flight IIA, perhaps 6-8MW.
It's possible that the panels are about 5m tall in actual length/width (vs slanted relative length/width due to perspective), though you have to remember that the actual radar itself is going to be a little smaller than the panel size, by an unknown amount, unless you can accurately measure the width of the panel cover "lip":
But even if you can get the lip measurements correctly, there is no reason to believe that the T/R modules will be arranged to completely fill up the surface area underneath the panel. Here is a 052C panel by way of an example:
In any case, going from the 052C to the 052D there is a definite increase in radar size:
You can see that the 052D's radar is wider, though not necessarily taller, compared to the 052C.
Going from the 052D to the 055, I don't think there is a physical size change, however:
As you can see, they are both just under two decks height, and if they are not the exact same size, then they are at least very nearly the exact same size. I have mentioned before that the 346A (which is what I'm calling the radar on the 052D), may be different from the radar on the 055 (346B?) in that the 055's main panel may be composed entirely of S-band T/R modules, whereas in the 346A (and the 346), the main panel consists of a mixture of S-band and C-band modules, which BTW is the answer to a long-unanswered mystery as to how the HHQ-9s were being terminally guided. The C-band modules were arranged into two 'bars' of modules above and below the S-band main section, and were responsible for providing terminal illumination for the HHQ-9s. Probably something like this:
Where the red bars are the C-band modules and the orange middle portion consists of the S-band modules. I think both the 052C and 052D's radars look like this, except that for the 052D there of course won't be any of the rectangular holes in the 4 corners for air ventilation (as it is liquid-cooled). If there is in fact an X-band radar on the main mast of the 055 (or it could actually be C-band also), then the C-band bars of the 052C/D will have become redundant and therefore removed from the main array, resulting in the entire main array being filled with S-band modules. So even if the size of the 052D and 055 main array panels are physically the same dimensions, it may be that the 055's main array is actually larger than the 052D's when measured in terms of the number of S-band modules present.
I think so. The main power plant is not supposed to be connected to electrical generators
@Iron Man ,maybe another way of thinking is this "is 12MW enough for flight III's wanted setup?" or "12MW is a compromise (less than wanted) due to the constraint of the hull's basic design because it can not be stretched too much". Maybe the wanted figure was 16MW? But cut down to 12 to fit the hull? CG(X) was actually about (larger than) 055 and was the wanted size.
We need to remember that flight III was an improvement from an older design, 055 was a total new design without constraint of size.
We need to remember that flight III was an improvement from an older design, 055 was a total new design without constraint of size.
Jura The idiot
General
just a simple question: do you think Type 055 main (S-band) panel may have the proportions I estimated Jul 5, 2017
or I spent my time measuring some optical illusion? LOL!
I'm of course asking just about the cover, understand what you also said:
Negative, I don't buy that (underlined part). We have no idea how big a jammer "actually needs to be" or how powerful it may be, unless for some reason we are going to already assume that the 055 has the same [kind of] active EW suite as a Flight III Burke in which case the point of my argument is missed entirely.
For example, 055 could use new generation active jamming technology derived from GaN AESAs which would account for a significant part of that "remaining" 4MW.
Similarly, the 346+X band radar might also happen to use more power than SPY-+AMDRX as well. Put all three together (346 power relative to SPY-6, X band power relative to AMDRX and active EW power) and it doesn't take more than tweaking with how much they may potentially contribute to additional power consumption to lap it up.
Last edited:
I think the correct way to think about this is that 12 MW is not necessarily a "compromise" for the Flight III. What is the actual compromise is that the USN wanted to install a 20' AMDR panel instead of a 14' panel. It is entirely possible that more power could have been installed on the Flight III had the hull been able to accommodate a 20' panel. Also, keep in mind that a 20' panel is what the USN felt was needed for its BMD requirements. Does the PLAN have the same BMD requirements for its 055? The answer is clearly NO, because the 055 is a clean sheet design and yet the radar face is very similar in size to the 14' SPY-6. It may actually be smaller because the SPY-6 cover according to depictions occupies about 2.5 decks of height while the 346B cover occupies slightly less than 2 decks of height. If the PLAN had actually wanted a similar 20' AMDR BMD capability, then they would have built such a radar (and the additional power generation capacity). But they clearly didn't. So the power question clearly isn't one of the PLAN compromising or not compromising on radar panel size.
It may, but I think the exact size of the panel is not going to be helpful, and not only because the actual radar is smaller, but also because it still doesn't tell us about how the T/R modules are arranged on the radar face, and therefore we have no way to estimate the number of modules present, to speak nothing of the fact that we don't know what size each module is. Really the only way for us is to get a very detailed shot of an open panel as they are installing the modules so we can estimate both the size of the modules as well as how they are arranged on the panel face, something like the 052C panel photo in my post above but at a much higher resolution.
Negative I don't buy that (underlined part). Unless you want to substitute your HPM panel for this super-duper jammer, in which case your jammer becomes just another pie-in-the-sky stand-in for the HPM, in which case we are back to total conjecture.
Very interesting,
Surely not for a main reason Western countries in general don't have ( by ex Japan don't have, Taiwan also SK yes but only SRBM ) or very few Ballistic Missiles completely the opposite for China, Russia the specialists or others so can be interesting but not necessary as for Western countries in addition ABM are very expensive much more than ennemy missiles, really secondary weapons for China.
Last edited:
Then we have a disagreement.
The point of my argument has been to suggest that the 055's electronics subsystems and the power they consume may differ substantially to that of Flight III Burke. That means coming up with plausible ways in which that extra power could be used. I consider a combination of increased radar power+more powerful active EW to plausibly fill up the gap. Obviously we have no idea if such a system exists on the 055 or not, but that isn't the point.
Just for the record, I don't believe that the 055 necessarily has 20MW of power output. At this stage I think any such claims should be taken with a big serving of salt. The point of my position over the last few pages has been to defend the plausibility of 20MW of power output.
Actually, I think it's likely that the PLAN has a BMD requirement, judging by the tests of its HHQ-26 missile. I just don't think the USN and PLAN BMD requirements are the same. The USN is actually thinking of building a 20' AMDR and putting it on a large hull like the LPD 17 hull. It suggests they are quite concerned about BMD, which is not exactly surprising given the Chinese military has thousands of ballistic missiles and maybe several dozen of them designed specifically to make a love connection with their beloved carriers.
Right, we have a disagreement on the "plausibility" of your alternative power theories.
- Status