055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[FriedRiceNSpice]

it’s pretty straightforward to look up the average Chinese software engineer wage and adjust what your projected cost would be based on the difference between the two.

in China it varies greatly by city, but between $30,000 USD - $60,0000, whereas in US it is about $150,000 - $200,000 - so it is much lower in China.

 

[Brumby]

Of course these are calculated assertions. You are asking for the kind of data that is classified from both sides as proof, which is impossible. But something like volume amortization happens to be a fundamental basic of the electronics industry.

Let's say it took you $100 million for R/D to develop this chip. To produce one chip, along with hardware, manufacturing cost and corporate costs, this single chip would be upward of $100 billion, since this entire single chip has to pay for the R/D cost. Build ten of these chips, the R/D cost is divided into ten, for $10 million each. A hundred chips puts the cost down to $1 million each. 10,000 of these chips reduces this cost to $10,000 each, and 100,000 of these chips reduces the cost to $1000 each. At some point the R/D cost is reduced so the greater fraction of the unit cost becomes material, manufacturing, marketing, shipping and administrative cost, all of which are also volume amortized.

So let's say, we have an unknown, an X cost, in the R/D developing the T/R module for the Type 346. As I mentioned, there are over 5,000 T/Rs per face, and four faces that makes it over 20,000 T/Rs. But as I also mentioned, they are using a QTRM, so four T/Rs per module, and that means around 5,000 modules per ship. Then you multiply that with every 052C/D that is now in service, being fitted and produced, + every 055 being produced, both now and the future. The more of these ships are made, the more of these radars are made, the cost curve for each module drops and so does the cost of the radars. Even if later ships have improved modules from the original design, the R/D cost for these improvements would be small and minor compared when designing the device itself from scratch. You can further amortize the cost of these modules if they are used on the 052E and 054B for instance. Now compare this scale of production with those for any other navy in the planet.

What's the cost of the R/D in China? We don't know exactly but the cost of salaries there are still much cheaper than in the US. With the IP copying that the US is so furious about on China, the R/D costs are even lower and less licensing costs are also paid. With China having its own foundries, being the dominant global producer of refined Gallium and Yttrium, there goes your materials and manufacturing costs. For all other human related costs, that's going to be reflected from the cost of living --- rental and housing expenses, cost of power and water, food, medical, etc,. All of which are also lower in China than the US but both are also rising. The fixed costs will be amortized with higher production, which also in turn allows manufacturing costs to lower.

It might be said that its possible that the X-band set on the mast of the 055 might be more expensive than the main set of 346B, because it is a brand new design, and its hard to say how much R/D is shared with similar X-band modules used on the J-20, J-10C, J-16, and J-11D radars. The costs of these radars are going to be front loaded until enough of them are built to amortize the cost.

When I enter into a conversation especially when dealing with differing worldviews, it is important that the scope of the conversation is reasonably well defined as I have no intention of entering into a black hole. As such I would like to highlight once again the genesis of my question and that was in response your comments (truncated)

Something like the 055 might be price impossible if done in the West

My understanding of your comments was made in reference to the radar on the Type 055. If my understanding is not correct then that changes the whole conversation. All radar developments are unique especially when dealing with newer technology. I have no idea what constitutes the Type 055 radar and the cost imposition. However when you made the statement that it might well be impossible for the west to undertake a similar effort that stirred my interest. In order for such a statement to be supported it would in my view be supported by some form of facts or data pertaining to :
(1)The capabilities of the type 055 radar
(2)The type of radar technology that delivers those capabilities
(3)The cost of the program that enabled the delivery of such capabilities
(4)The breakdown of the cost composition that supports the assertion that such deliverables are cost prohibitive in the west.

I don't work in the radar industry and one would need some industry knowledge to be able to generate some reasonable determination of cost structure and deliverables of capability. I thought you might have better information than I do and hence my question. As I said it is fine if your assertions are based on conjectures.

 

[Tam]

Questions 1 to 4 are clearly information that are classified. You say you don't want to go into a black hole, yet you ask questions that led to one.

What's clear about the 055's radars is that they are AESAs. AESAs have inherent advantages over other forms of arrays types, including PESAs like the SPY-1. These advantages have to be explained in about a number of pages, and if you wish to know these general advantages, you can google them up.

The cost of using AESAs is that it --- sheer cost. They are more expensive than any other type of radar. But like all things electronic, prices go down with mass production due to volume amortization, which again I showed you. Each set has to pay off the enormous R/D and manufacturing fixed costs, on top of corporate profits. (Let me remind you that Chinese technical institutes are not paying CEOs $30 to $100 million dollar a year salaries like many Western corporations do, and don't have stockholder obligations to pay).

Lets take an oversimplication. You have a radar set that took 3 billion of R/D to develop. If you are building 30 sets for 30 ships, you can amortize the R/D cost for 100 million each set on top of the hardware, assembly and installation costs. But lets say, your ship building program is cancelled, and you are only building 3 ships. The net result is that you need 1 billion on each set just to pay off the R/D.

What we are sure about with regards to the Type 346 and its follow ons, is that they are built in numbers that exceed any naval AESA in the West right now. More sets made than APAR. More sets made than SAMPSON. Blocks and batches made through multiyear contracts. That puts your costs way down. In addition, an AESA the size of the Type 346 is unprecedented in the West, with the exception of the SPY-4 intended on the Zumwalt and Ford class carriers, and that radar is expensive, which can be attributed to its low volume. SPY-6 will match Type 346A/B size and maybe match its production scale in the long run, but the Type 346 family already has a fifteen year head start.

There is no ship outside of China right now, that has as many AESAs and as large as the 055's. The 055 took every radar and made it into an AESA with the minor exception of a small navigation radar on top of the bridge. In contrast, other ships with AESAs still maintain the use of mechanical radars or PESAs for secondary radars, and none of these ships have panels as big as the 055's and have yet to match what was achieved in the 052C/D. If you think you can find one, show me. The closest is the Zumwalt in its original form, with the SPY-4 and SPY-3, but the main large panels, the SPY-4 were deleted in the final ship, and only three of these ships are made, not like 8 to 10 in the first batch.

I'm not saying that Chinese AESAs are technical superior than Western AESA. You need to go into fine detail on this, and even then you are not going a clear answer. Nor will I think vice versa is true. I will leave it at that. The one thing what is clear is that the Chinese naval AESAs are being built in a scale unmatched in the West, but in size and number, and with a sizable head start. To take that big leap in innovation with the 052C back in early 2003, was probably one of the best modernization decisions the Chinese Navy ever made.

 

[Tam]

I did some height estimates a while ago at CDF for several of Type 055's radar panels. Here's a recap:

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

Type 055 X-band panel center height: 29.95m. This is almost identical to the height of the DDG-1000's SPY-3.

The primary reason to mount a radar high atop is to increase the radar horizon. This is critical for timely detection of sea-skimming ASCMs.

The X-band radar placement on the Type 055 provides a 31.8km radar horizon against an ASCM cruising at 5m altitude. (calculation method:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Assuming a 1000km/h missile velocity, that gives you a maximum of 114s to detect, classify and engage the threat.

The low height of Type 346 radars and its variants on Type 052 (C/D) might prove problematic if its SAMs are SARH/TVM guided as it further reduces their engagement range against sea-skimmers. However, there are strong arguments to assume that HHQ-9 are ARH guided (based on the assumption that Type 346 is an S-band radar and not C-band).

Using this, and these pictures below, I am gauging the radar heights on the Type 052C/D and the Type 054A for an engagement scenario. With the 055's X-band at 30m, rear 346 @ 055 at 20m and front 346 @ 055 at 15m, Type 364 @ 052D is higher, perhaps 32m and Type 346 @ 052D at 15m. Type 382 @ 054A is lower than the Type 364 @ 052D and might be at the same height as the X-band @ 055 at 30 meters. Type 364 @ 054A might be at 25 meters. Front Dome illuminators @ 054A might be the same height as the center of the Type 346 @ 052D at 15 meters. (Once again for other readers, please don't confuse Type 346 and Type 364 on the 052D as the same radar, 364 is the white bulb on top of the mast, 346 are the flat panels. 364 also appears on the 054A on top of the funnel.) There are also the heights for the Type 344 gunnery radar @ 052D, (25 meters?) and @ 054A (20 meters?) and can determine when the gunnery radar is seeing the threat missile. You can also extrapolate heights for the Type 366 @ 052D (20m) and @ 054A (15m) which is used for antiship but is also able to spot and track something flying low.

 

[Max Demian]

in China it varies greatly by city, but between $30,000 USD - $60,0000, whereas in US it is about $150,000 - $200,000 - so it is much lower in China.

Your numbers for the US are way off. The average for the US is $84k. Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if you take the most expensive cities like San Francisco, the average there is $115k.
The numbers for China don't seem bad at all ... they're approaching that of some countries in Western Europe. Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Furthermore, when it comes to the quality of the software produced I would put my money on the US. That country has been dominating the software market for decades now and continually attracts the best talents worldwide.

 

[Max Demian]

In addition, an AESA the size of the Type 346 is unprecedented in the West, with the exception of the SPY-4 intended on the Zumwalt and Ford class carriers, and that radar is expensive, which can be attributed to its low volume. SPY-6 will match Type 346A/B size and maybe match its production scale in the long run, but the Type 346 family already has a fifteen year head start.

There is no ship outside of China right now, that has as many AESAs and as large as the 055's.

In regards to size, your assertion is not quite correct. The US (USAF to be exact) has put much larger AESAs than those on the Type 052D and Type 055 on naval platform. Look up Cobra King for a naval radar that dwarfs the Type 346 in size and T/R number.

It is in numbers of deployed naval AESA radars where the US is behind China at the moment. However, I am not convinced that the SPY-1 lacks in capability against the Type 346. From what we now, it's appears more versatile as it can perform ABMD duties as well. It has much higher peak radiation power, which probably helps it in the ABMD role. Plus, as you yourself said, it's a hybrid PESA by design sharing some of the features found in AESA radars (multiple transmitters per array).

 

[antiterror13]

In regards to size, your assertion is not quite correct. The US (USAF to be exact) has put much larger AESAs than those on the Type 052D and Type 055 on naval platform. Look up Cobra King for a naval radar that dwarfs the Type 346 in size and T/R number.

It is in numbers of deployed naval AESA radars where the US is behind China at the moment. However, I am not convinced that the SPY-1 lacks in capability against the Type 346. From what we now, it's appears more versatile as it can perform ABMD duties as well. It has much higher peak radiation power, which probably helps it in the ABMD role. Plus, as you yourself said, it's a hybrid PESA by design sharing some of the features found in AESA radars (multiple transmitters per array).

well .... what @Tam meant was no warship radar outside China has a radar bigger than 055 .. you should know what he meant

USNS Howard O. Lorenzen is a civilian ship

 

[ougoah]

In regards to size, your assertion is not quite correct. The US (USAF to be exact) has put much larger AESAs than those on the Type 052D and Type 055 on naval platform. Look up Cobra King for a naval radar that dwarfs the Type 346 in size and T/R number.

It is in numbers of deployed naval AESA radars where the US is behind China at the moment. However, I am not convinced that the SPY-1 lacks in capability against the Type 346. From what we now, it's appears more versatile as it can perform ABMD duties as well. It has much higher peak radiation power, which probably helps it in the ABMD role. Plus, as you yourself said, it's a hybrid PESA by design sharing some of the features found in AESA radars (multiple transmitters per array).

Do we know any specifics of Type 346/A/B? I think PLAN's ABMD ability seem somewhat lacking because BMD isn't really something of a priority for China. Defending against all US or Russian ballistic missiles is simply an impossible task when the conventional edge falls in favour of US and there's still catching up to do in more important areas for such luxuries to be considered. Ensuring US destruction and breaking through US BMD is a priority though but that's got nothing to do with PLAN's ABMD so no shipborne missile is tasked with this job as it would be a redundant thing. This reveals nothing about the radar's performance. It could have far superior tracking abilities for all we know.

 

[Max Demian]

USNS Howard O. Lorenzen is a civilian ship

No, I don't think it's accurate to portray it as a civilian vessel. It's unarmed, and apparently some of the crew is civilian. However, the ship is owned by the US Navy and commanded by an USAF officer.

 

[antiterror13]

No, I don't think it's accurate to portray it as a civilian vessel. It's unarmed, and apparently some of the crew is civilian. However, the ship is owned by the US Navy and commanded by an USAF officer.

It is ....