055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Mirabo]

Interesting how even after 3 days I made the original post, the discussion is still ongoing. I admit that saying the 052D is significantly more capable than the Burkes was a stretch. It's also imperative, however, that we're able to make reasoned comparisons without our judgment being clouded by existing biases.

As far as this discussion is concerned, I think Iron Man hit the nail on the head with his examination, though there are a couple of key points I'd like to contest.

For one, we know with a high degree of confidence that the 346A's volume search array is roughly the same size as the SPY-1D, as there are pictures of the 346 with the front panel off. In that regard, it's a toss-up between the two, but I believe the FCR makes the crucial difference. While the 052D's FCR for its medium-range SAMs is a C-band AESA, the Burke still relies on three SPG-62 illuminators for the SM-2s. I believe that difference is enough to give the 052D's sensors a small, but clear advantage.

The other point is with regards to 'magazine size'. Yes, the Burke has 96 cells versus the 052D's 64, but the Chinese VLS are much larger in terms of volume. At best, the larger Chinese missiles currently might only be on par with the smaller American ones, so the Burke wins out in this department by virtue of having better missiles, not more cells. Yet, the fact remains that a 55cm diameter, 7.7m deep cell can only hold so much weight, while a 85cm, 9m deep cell can hold a missile almost three times larger by volume. In this sense, are the 052D's 64x 85cm VLS really inferior to the Burkes' 96x 55cm VLS?

All of that being said, I honestly believe it's not far-fetched to suggest that the 052D's capabilities already exceed the Burkes' - perhaps only in a few ways now (specifically FC sensors, ASuW, missile load in weight, and point defense). What the 052D can't do as well as the Burkes is AAW, missile load in numbers, and the lack of ABM capabilities. In all other areas, the 052D is arguably slightly superior at best, and on par with the Burke at worst.

.

Of course, I didn't write this post just to bore and annoy everyone with my stubborn arguments. Rumor has it that there is evidence of the 7th 055 being constructed at Dalian.

Image courtesy of fzgfzy from CD forums.

 

[Jura The idiot]

wow Ticos in
Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
:
May 21, 2017

Ticos retiring 2019 - 2045
Navy's Aging Cruisers Have No Replacements in Sight

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

Of course, I didn't write this post just to bore and annoy everyone with my stubborn arguments. Rumor has it that there is evidence of the 7th 055 being constructed at Dalian.

Image courtesy of fzgfzy from CD forums.

what's interesting to me is whether one or two 055s will be built at the big DL drydock.

SOC over on CDF said that satellite photos made it out like one 055 and one 052D+ have been laid down (while the two 052D+s are coming along as we'd expect), but I'd be interested to see a photo for myself once they're released. It would be an interesting choice to lay down an 055 and 052D+ rather than two 055s considering what we've heard of the projected first batch 055 production run.

 

[Iron Man]

For one, we know with a high degree of confidence that the 346A's volume search array is roughly the same size as the SPY-1D, as there are pictures of the 346 with the front panel off. In that regard, it's a toss-up between the two, but I believe the FCR makes the crucial difference. While the 052D's FCR for its medium-range SAMs is a C-band AESA, the Burke still relies on three SPG-62 illuminators for the SM-2s. I believe that difference is enough to give the 052D's sensors a small, but clear advantage.

Here is a 346 with its covers off and what I think is the arrangement of the C-band (red) and S-band (orange) panels therein:



The description written on the 346 in Wikipedia seems to corroborate this particular arrangement, namely 2 horizontal bars of C-band arrays sandwiching a roughly circular S-band array in the middle. These bars in surface area are clearly significantly smaller than APAR which can only guide 8 missiles to 4 targets per face. I think it's definitely in the realm of possibility that each bar can only handle 1 target at a time, meaning 4 missiles (presumably) to 2 targets per face. Meanwhile the SPG-62 illuminators have no such limitation, since they only perform the function of target illumination with the SPY-1D handling the midcourse guidance and target tracking. So basically all the SPG-62 has to do is light up one target after another, possibly in time spans as short as a couple seconds apart, all the while letting the SPY-1D handle everything else. If a SPY-1D panel can juggle X number of targets at a time, then the SPG-62 can light X number of targets at a time (in succession). The limiting factor is how many inbound targets and outbound missiles a SPY-1D panel can handle at once, and less so how fast an SPG-62 can slew from one target to another, unless of course the inbound targets are already very close to the ship. So it is not at all clear to me that 346A has any kind of advantage in terms of target engagement. I suspect it might actually be worse. The 055 may possibly have a solution in the form of the (alleged) X-band radar on the main mast that would likely serve as the 055's FCR and seems big enough to handle more tasks at once.

The other point is with regards to 'magazine size'. Yes, the Burke has 96 cells versus the 052D's 64, but the Chinese VLS are much larger in terms of volume. At best, the larger Chinese missiles currently might only be on par with the smaller American ones, so the Burke wins out in this department by virtue of having better missiles, not more cells. Yet, the fact remains that a 55cm diameter, 7.7m deep cell can only hold so much weight, while a 85cm, 9m deep cell can hold a missile almost three times larger by volume. In this sense, are the 052D's 64x 85cm VLS really inferior to the Burkes' 96x 55cm VLS?

The potential is certainly there for more functionality for the UVLS. But the fact is that the Burke has 50% more VL cells than the 052D, so there is definitely a lot to make up for.

All of that being said, I honestly believe it's not far-fetched to suggest that the 052D's capabilities already exceed the Burkes' - perhaps only in a few ways now (specifically FC sensors, ASuW, missile load in weight, and point defense). What the 052D can't do as well as the Burkes is AAW, missile load in numbers, and the lack of ABM capabilities. In all other areas, the 052D is arguably slightly superior at best, and on par with the Burke at worst.

Nah, I'd say that IMO overall the 052D is somewhere in the range of 2/3 to 4/5 the capability of the Burke. You forget the intangibles such as crew competency (the USN has had decades with become intimate with this design), damage control (overall ship size as well as ship design), and fleet support (Link 16 and CEC). And helo quality. And probably other things I'm forgetting.

 

[Tam]

For one, we know with a high degree of confidence that the 346A's volume search array is roughly the same size as the SPY-1D, as there are pictures of the 346 with the front panel off. In that regard, it's a toss-up between the two, but I believe the FCR makes the crucial difference. While the 052D's FCR for its medium-range SAMs is a C-band AESA, the Burke still relies on three SPG-62 illuminators for the SM-2s. I believe that difference is enough to give the 052D's sensors a small, but clear advantage.

Depends if you still need illuminators for the HHQ-9.

 

[Red Moon]

Well, when you compare the 64 missile load out to 96, and when you compare one ASW helo to two, and then compare the maturity of the systems, particularly the integrated defenisice system on the two, it is clear to me that the Bukre are significantly more capable.

Now, the new Type 55, which is carrying 106 missiles compared to the Burke 96 VLS, and then you add the CIWS missiles, and two helos on the Type 055, I would say that they are more capale than the Burke...but not more capable than the Tico Cruiser.

The Tico has 128 missile + eight Harpoons, so a total of 136 missiles, and they also carry (lie the BUrkes) two ASW helos.

This is very strange. The Burkes cost a good deal more than the Tico's, at least by wikipedia. Their crew complement is similar, so is their weight class. If the Tico > type 055 > Burke in capabilities, why is the US building these destroyers at all?

 

[Gloire_bb]

This is very strange. The Burkes cost a good deal more than the Tico's, at least by wikipedia.

For the same year and actual technical year? No way.
Burke is an affordable tico substitute in the essence. Original motto was like "2/3 of the price for 3/4 of the capability".

 

[Inst]

Does anyone have any estimates of the size of the Type 346B arrays on the 055? I'm getting weird numbers and feeling like I'm doing something wrong. The Type 346A on the Type 052s are supposedly only 4.3 meters by 4.3 meters. I'm getting roughly 9 meters by 9 meters, which shouldn't be believable.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Does anyone have any estimates of the size of the Type 346B arrays on the 055? I'm getting weird numbers and feeling like I'm doing something wrong. The Type 346A on the Type 052s are supposedly only 4.3 meters by 4.3 meters. I'm getting roughly 9 meters by 9 meters, which shouldn't be believable.

here's what I asked Jul 4, 2017

"The radar array surface of 055’s radar is significantly larger than ..."

I'm wondering if anyone posted the dimensions (like those marked in red and blue):

yet please?

(reposting the picture through a different image hosting server now, as the one I used back then is gone with wind LOL)

and here's what Iron answered Jul 4, 2017

Unless the deck height of the 055 is significantly taller than the deck height of the 052D, they are approximately the same size, if not exactly the same size.

View attachment 40302

by the way
Jul 5, 2017
estimated "the panel is ROUGHLY 33:26 ("higher than wider": if its bottom is 1.0, its side is ABOUT 1.27)"

 

[taxiya]

Here is a 346 with its covers off and what I think is the arrangement of the C-band (red) and S-band (orange) panels therein:

View attachment 49168

The description written on the 346 in Wikipedia seems to corroborate this particular arrangement, namely 2 horizontal bars of C-band arrays sandwiching a roughly circular S-band array in the middle. These bars in surface area are clearly significantly smaller than APAR which can only guide 8 missiles to 4 targets per face. I think it's definitely in the realm of possibility that each bar can only handle 1 target at a time, meaning 4 missiles (presumably) to 2 targets per face. Meanwhile the SPG-62 illuminators have no such limitation, since they only perform the function of target illumination with the SPY-1D handling the midcourse guidance and target tracking. So basically all the SPG-62 has to do is light up one target after another, possibly in time spans as short as a couple seconds apart, all the while letting the SPY-1D handle everything else. If a SPY-1D panel can juggle X number of targets at a time, then the SPG-62 can light X number of targets at a time (in succession). The limiting factor is how many inbound targets and outbound missiles a SPY-1D panel can handle at once, and less so how fast an SPG-62 can slew from one target to another, unless of course the inbound targets are already very close to the ship. So it is not at all clear to me that 346A has any kind of advantage in terms of target engagement. I suspect it might actually be worse. The 055 may possibly have a solution in the form of the (alleged) X-band radar on the main mast that would likely serve as the 055's FCR and seems big enough to handle more tasks at once.

I think the conclusion should be opposite "If a SPY-1D panel can juggle X number of targets at a time, then the SPG-62 can light X number of targets at a time (in succession). "

I find something here explaining how SPG-62 works and its capability

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The RIM-67 Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) is the US Navy’s primary air defense missile. It has a blast fragmentation warhead and a purported maximum range of 90 nmi. Guidance is provided by inertial positioning and datalink updates until a few seconds before impact, when the AN/SPG-62 radar (see radars section) is used to illuminate the target with precision. This guidance method is known as semi-active radar homing. Some SM-2s are also equipped with infrared seekers. The SM-2 is used primarily against cruise missiles and airplanes, although it can also strike ships if necessary. A small number of upgraded RIM-156 SM-2 Block IV missiles were produced as well, incorporating extended range and ballistic missile interception capabilities.
......
The AN/SPG-62 is the Arleigh Burke class’s illumination radar for semi-active radar homing missiles (the SM-2 and ESSM). Using tracking information supplied by the AN/SPY-1D or the AN/SPY-6(V), the AN/SPG-62 bathes targets in an intense radar beam which the missiles home to. The radar signal is encoded in a way that prevents missiles from confusing different AN/SPG-62 beams. All Burke-class destroyers have three AN/SPG-62 radars, but since they are only needed during the final few seconds of the missiles’ flight, those three radars are enough to have over 10 SM-2s and ESSMs in the air at once. The AN/SPG-62 is an illuminator only and does not have any tracking or detection capability.

The three SPG-62 are installed one to the front, two to the aft. I believe:

1. SPG-62 is only used in the lasts seconds to provide continuous illumination of the target. Only after one target is hit by the missile can the radar turn to another target provided if the radar can turn fast in time. It can not jumping in between targets one after another as you expected .
   
2. Any one of them can only be used to a certain angular range of the ship because mechanical steering makes them not able to turn fast enough to another direction in seconds. That means 10/3, 3 targets maximum per SPG-62, not X number that SPY-1D can track.
3. They are only needed during the final few seconds, but before that, they are not really used, so you can not say they can illuminate more targets as SPY-1D can track.

Besides, I don't know how you get the 4 targets per face then reduced to 2 targets per face" of 346, but if we use these numbers, we have 8 to 16 targets per 052 vs 10 per Burke. More importantly, an active scanned array (the red bars) can jump between targets in quick successions even in the last few seconds which SPG-62 can't. That should make 346's target illumination numbers equal to main panel's tracking numbers, while Burke's illumination number less than tracking numbers.