Jura The idiot
General
welcome to the 2020 Pentagon
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
They will never be able to stick to any topic.
New hypersonic antiship missile? Said to make full use of the 055's VLS size of .85m diameter and 9 meters deep.
YJ-XX“水漂”弹道高超声速反舰弹道导弹已经服役并装备055型（也许052D也有）(via weixin@亚洲火车总站 ) 推测射程有1200KM-1500KM，即可以在航母舰载机的对地/对海作战半径之外发动攻击。
Translated from Chinese by Google
YJ-XX "water-floating" ballistic hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile has been commissioned and equipped with Type 055 (maybe also 052D) (via weixin @ Asia Train Headquarters ) It is estimated that the range is 1200KM-1500KM, that is, it can launch attacks outside the ground-to-sea combat radius of the carrier-based aircraft.
YJ-XX“水漂”弹道高超声速反舰弹道导弹已经服役并装备055型（也许052D也有）(via weixin@亚洲火车总站 ) 推测射程有1200KM-1500KM，即可以在航母舰载机的对地/对海作战半径之外发动攻击。
Translated from Chinese by Google
YJ-XX "water-floating" ballistic hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile has been commissioned and equipped with Type 055 (maybe also 052D) (via weixin @ Asia Train Headquarters ) It is estimated that the range is 1200KM-1500KM, that is, it can launch attacks outside the ground-to-sea combat radius of the carrier-based aircraft.
Maybe this happened, maybe it didn't. Either way, I'd like to hear his reasoning since I'm definitely not convinced it's anything like you are describing.
You would be the one who needs to establish that that photo is a non-representative radar using Cyient's modules. Until then, Cyient makes modules that are that thin, i.e. thinner than some PESAs, i.e. your argument for thickness/thinness as representative of AESA vs PESA remains irrelevant.
This argument makes no sense at all, since the radar array does not have to be the interrogator. The IFF array itself can and does transmit and receive just like any radar and does not need the radar array to transmit, therefore there is no need for an IFF array to be facing the same quadrant as the radar array.
I'll take his expertise per word. Until then, I prefer that you may find another expert opinion to the contrary. If you think that its something else, why don't you come out and fully explain what it is.
My original theory of the emitter arrays were different, thinking they might be horizontal scanning radars or something.
From what I can see this type of AESA uses linear elements, that means the modules are in the center of the array. That means all the elements per linear array are connected to one center module, and there is one center module for each linear array. The center modules are arranged stacked at the back of the array.
The moment you show an array that has all lines and guides like that, its clear that its a linear or planar array, which is a common type of surveillance radar. The photo is just plain stock photo, and stock photos are commonly used in advertisements and brochures, not necessarily that of the actual product itself.
It won't have the same receive and transmit gain towards the same target the main radar array is facing if the IFF is not facing the same quadrant. In a phase array, if the signal is steered to the side from the bore center of the array, it loses transmission gain so the beam becomes weaker.
IFF does not receive like any radar per se. Transmission is one way and there is no reflection. When it interrogates a plane, its the plane's IFF that will responds and sends a coded signal. The IFF of a plane is much smaller and weaker. I see no reason why the designers would deliberately choose a less than optimal position when you have the choice and presence of an optimal position.
Last edited:
In other news, the CMSI has produced a report on the 055.
As far as English language articles on the 055s go, this one is above average, but it is obviously below the quality of understanding that most of us have for the 055.
The authors also make a few unsubstantiated inferences and questionable conclusions, and some of the designations they use are out of date. Many of the weapons systems they describe as being part of 055's VLS are either yet to be confirmed or unlikely to be fitted overall.
The article also relies a bit too heavily on some unofficial magazine CGIs and inserting them in a manner as if they believe specific systems or cutaways or diagrams of 055s are representative of the actual ship or how it may operate.
And of course, many of the English language articles they reference are about the same kind of quality that we have come to recognize as infamous here -- TNI, SCMP etc. I do not they cite my 055 article from a few years ago, however even that piece (which I think was published in mid 2018) has some parts which are out of date because of new information that had come to hand since then.
As far as English language articles on the 055s go, this one is above average, but it is obviously below the quality of understanding that most of us have for the 055.
The authors also make a few unsubstantiated inferences and questionable conclusions, and some of the designations they use are out of date. Many of the weapons systems they describe as being part of 055's VLS are either yet to be confirmed or unlikely to be fitted overall.
The article also relies a bit too heavily on some unofficial magazine CGIs and inserting them in a manner as if they believe specific systems or cutaways or diagrams of 055s are representative of the actual ship or how it may operate.
And of course, many of the English language articles they reference are about the same kind of quality that we have come to recognize as infamous here -- TNI, SCMP etc. I do not they cite my 055 article from a few years ago, however even that piece (which I think was published in mid 2018) has some parts which are out of date because of new information that had come to hand since then.
I read the paper today myself. It is the best English language article I have read on the subject. I think the authors painted the overall context and strategic implications very well.
I understood the cutaways as useful illustrations: the source is clearly stated.
For some of the weapon loadout claims (like HQ-16B), they quoted Chinese sources.
What particular conclusions did you find questionable?
Where to begin.
First of all, the inclusion of CGIs without clearly conveying for every single one of them that they are non-official and speculative, was quite concerning to me. It's one thing to include a CGI for illustrative purposes, but then to interpret CGIs as if they are somehow representative of actual Chinese naval thinking is a flaw that can't be easily ignored. One of their cited CGIs of an 055 cutaway is described as "a cutaway reveals attributes of the new vessel's design," as if they believe that the cutaway is somehow representative of the real thing, whereas it should've been described as "a non-official cutaway shows a speculative configuration of the ship".
Second of all, the inability to actually discriminate between Chinese sources is a bit concerning as well. Just because a source is Chinese doesn't mean it should be taken seriously or that it should be described as "Chinese strategists believe". The weapon loadout claim is a perfect example, because at this stage we don't have any evidence to suggest that HQ-16 or DK-10 or YJ-83 or even CJ-10 are part of the loadouts of 055 (or 052D).
Third, the quoting of various English language sources of dubious quality -- your TNI and SCMP types
Fourth, some older inaccuracies like suggesting 055 may be able to fit Z-18s when it's been established for over the last year that it cannot, or the old name of QC-280, whereas it has since been understood to be called GT25000 instead.
Some of the comparisons are also a bit dodgy but those are my own personal valuations on how systems are weighed (e.g.: the description of Sejong class having more VLS than 055 is of course true, but when not considering the different in diameter of the 055's UVLS vs the Sejong's Mk-41 and KVLS it falls a bit flat)
.... Now this isn't to say it's necessarily a bad paper, and I think for people who are new to PLA watching or who know nothing about 055 at all then it provides useful context a general description of the class (albeit with some mistakes like I mentioned above).
But for a lot of us who have been following the 055 since before the land mock up began construction and who have been tracking basically every picture of it and every hull launched and every associated development with it, there are a few glaring mistakes and dubious interpretations of information that I think many of us wouldn't make as of what we know in early 2020.
- Status