055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Tam]

I think the Type 055 facing the Shandong is the sixth Type 055 that was recently launched. Its fitting there for the obvious reason there is no longer any more fitting space on the other yard.

The Type 052D in the innermost pier of the Dalian shipyard closest to land should be future pennant 121 Qiqihar and scheduled for commission with the 10th Destroyer Division of the NSF early in 2020 and should be the next 052D to be commissioned after 156 Zibo. 121 Qiqihar will be the last of the non extended 052D. This squadron has been dragging its feet on the 052D adoption, maybe because of the huge transition from Ludas straight to 052D. This will be the second destroyer named after a Mongolian city.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

First sea trial of the third Type 055 was completed

 

[Max Demian]

"As I reported previously, naval analysts have noted a number of design flaws in the first-of-class Type 055 destroyer, including the low positioning of its flat-array radar system, which will likely affect the ship’s range of detection, and the use of light aluminum alloy in the upper decks, which can reduce the Type 055s survivability in naval combat."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is this true?

Last year I did a calculation of the Type 346B panel heights, as installed on the Type 055:

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

However, as Tam pointed out the main horizon search radar on the Type 055 sits much higher at an estimated 30m height (near identical to DDG-1000).

One scenario where the relatively low placement of Type 346B panels may be an issue is if they are used to guide HHQ-9s in SARH/TVM mode. If true, then their operational range against sea-skimmers would be subpar. However, it could be argued that the HHQ-9 is a suboptimal type of weapon to engage sea-skimmers at ranges < 30kms.

 

[Blitzo]

Last year I did a calculation of the Type 346B panel heights, as installed on the Type 055:

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

However, as Tam pointed out the main horizon search radar on the Type 055 sits much higher at an estimated 30m height (near identical to DDG-1000).

One scenario where the relatively low placement of Type 346B panels may be an issue is if they are used to guide HHQ-9s in SARH/TVM mode. If true, then their operational range against sea-skimmers would be subpar. However, it could be argued that the HHQ-9 is the wrong type of weapon to engage sea-skimmers at ranges < 30kms.

I have a feeling that if any HQ-9s were equipped on 055s that still used SARH/TVM guidance (doubtful sounding to me as I imagine they should have moved to ARH at least on 052D), it could probably be done by the X band AESAs instead.

The lack of up to date information as to what variants of HHQ-9 the 052C, 052D and 055 respectively use/are in service makes it hard to confidently determine what roles the radars may have. As is the lack of information as to what the state the quad pack MR SAM in development is, and what mode of guidance it has.

 

[AndrewS]

I have a feeling that if any HQ-9s were equipped on 055s that still used SARH/TVM guidance (doubtful sounding to me as I imagine they should have moved to ARH at least on 052D), it could probably be done by the X band AESAs instead.

The lack of up to date information as to what variants of HHQ-9 the 052C, 052D and 055 respectively use/are in service makes it hard to confidently determine what roles the radars may have. As is the lack of information as to what the state the quad pack MR SAM in development is, and what mode of guidance it has.

If we assume some of the following are likely to happen:

1. The UVLS and quad-pack SAM will also be widely deployed on a future Frigate (which has a less capable radar fitout than a Destroyer)
2. LRASMs can successfully manage themselves into a swarm to conduct simultaneous attacks.
3. The quad-pack SAM will have a range of 50km+ which is over the horizon (like the ESSM)
4. CEC is widely deployed on Destroyers, Frigates, AWACs etc

Then an active version of the quad-pack SAM makes a lot of sense.
But presumably a cheaper SARH or TVM version (for use within the radar horizon) would be relatively easy to develop afterwards.

In any case, if we're looking at ships with the UVLS over the next 20 years, a low estimate of 70 destroyers + 30 Frigates would justify development of 2 versions.

 

[Tam]

Last year I did a calculation of the Type 346B panel heights, as installed on the Type 055:

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

However, as Tam pointed out the main horizon search radar on the Type 055 sits much higher at an estimated 30m height (near identical to DDG-1000).

One scenario where the relatively low placement of Type 346B panels may be an issue is if they are used to guide HHQ-9s in SARH/TVM mode. If true, then their operational range against sea-skimmers would be subpar. However, it could be argued that the HHQ-9 is a suboptimal type of weapon to engage sea-skimmers at ranges < 30kms.

If you are using SARH on the 055, you would be using the X-band AESA on the top mast instead, which would give you a better radar horizon. Its possible that the entire loop of search, acquire, track, engage and illuminate can take place with this X-band radar alone. The radar would work much like the Thales APAR, although I think from its size it may have more elements.

But I doubt that the ship is using SARH in the first place, as there is little point in continuing a tech tree branch of SARH development when you are pouring resources on ARH development. The ARH seeker to be used on the ESSM Block 2 is derived from the AMRAAM, so you can take the PL-12 seeker and adapt it for the HQ-9. Further on, you can adapt the PL-15 seeker on future versions of the HQ-9 and for a new quad pack MRSAM.

SARH and TVM would make sense if you want the most control of your SAM, presumably because your SAM has limited on board intelligence and you prefer to use the tracking algorithms on your combat data system. But as the amount of computational ability you can put into a seeker head increases with Moore's Law, you can have greater trust with the autonomy of the missile.

For closer ranges, you should leave that one up to the HQ-10, although there is a question of what you should do between the 12km to 30km zone.

 

[Tam]

Ridged design inside the Type 055 funnels.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

055主机烟囱嘴的锯齿修形——转自列文虎克

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Translated by Google
Zigzag modification of the mouth of the 055 host chimney-transferred from Levin Hooke

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[by78]

Re-posting a lost image.

 

[Max Demian]

But I doubt that the ship is using SARH in the first place, as there is little point in continuing a tech tree branch of SARH development when you are pouring resources on ARH development.

In principle I agree, and doubtless they are working on this. The open question is are they there yet? If not, then they will stick with what works for now.

 

[Dante80]

Well, we do know that for quite some time now there has been a development of both ARH and IRH versions/variants/upgrades of the HQ-9. For example, it's literally been 20 years since we heard of the HQ9-A having an ARH seeker. I'd guess that it would be actually counter-intuitive to even assume that PLAN has been stuck to SARH/TVM guidance for its long range SAMs.