I think he also said he deleted "misinformation", lmao. Who does he think he is.I provided a fairly detailed response to him in the comments section, until he deleted it.
This is a summary of what I said:
1. The Type 346B Dragon Eye is not remotely comparable to the AN/SPY-1. One is a third generation Chinese AESA, while the other is a PESA. The resolution and detection range are an order of magnitude different because of how the array functions.
2. The Type 1130 CIWS is evolved from the domestic Type 730, and is not a copy of a Russian system and bears no resemblence to the Kashtan (a gun-and-missile system).
3. Chinese state media indicated that the Type 055 destroyer will be an area air defence command and control warship, rather than having anti-ship as its primary mission, as Sub Brief claimed.
4. The Type 055 is not remotely comparable to the Ticonderoga in terms of capabilities - the latter is a 1980s design with much less advanced radars and electronic warfare suite.
I posted these under the user name Eurasia Naval Insight. He reacted by banning me from his channel and deleting my comment.
He is insinuating that any criticism of the lack of research, or just plainly wrong information, evident in his video is just Chinese state propaganda. We are not real free agents who simply disagree with his video, but basically paid propagandists.
View attachment 85294
View attachment 85296
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
I think he also said he deleted "misinformation", lmao. Who does he think he is.
He's full of s*t. You can see it with the way he draws a straight horizon and a straight line in depicting the YJ-18 coming to the ship.
In reality, the Earth is curved. The farthest you can draw a straight line from the ship's radars to the edge of the curved horizon becomes the radar horizon. The YJ-18, on its subsonic phase, is going to be behind and coming up this curve. While the missile is coming up behind the curve If the defending destroyer is not supported by OTH CEC assets or does not have OTH radar capability, it will not see this missile while it is below the radar horizon. Couple that with antiship missiles are around 0.1 to 0.3m2 RCS and these are the ones that are not trying to be deliberately stealthy in design.
So the subsonic sea skimming missile --- not just the YJ-18 but all low flying missiles such as the Harpoon, Exocet, YJ-83, Brahmos, etc,. --- will not be seen by the ship's radar until it passes over the radar horizon, which can be around 20 miles depending on the height of the ship's radars. The higher the ship's radar, the more extended this horizon is, so putting it low, like the Burke, isn't as efficient as putting it high, like the SAMPSON on the Type 45.
Couple that when a ship uses SARH or semi active radar homing, the ship can only engage the sea skimmer when a straight line of sight is achieved towards the target threat. For a ship like the Burke, you need to draw a straight line from its SPG-62 illuminators to the target on the curved horizon, and note again, the SPG-62 isn't located very high on the ship due to its weight. This limits the horizon you can engage with the SARH guided SM-2MR and ESSM. That's why the SM-6 has active and autonomous radar seeking, so with CEC, you can engage over the horizon. But the problem is the SM-6 is very expensive, and not all ships have them, and not in high amounts.
The HHQ-9, is unlike the S-300 because the HHQ-9 are also active guided. That means every HHQ-9 no buts, installed on every 055 and 052D. With proper CEC, the HHQ-9 can engage over the horizon, but with the hull mounted Type 346 radars that limit the radar horizon, that is why I say with proper CEC.
As for the YJ-18, as it creeps over the radar horizon, this is where the terminal stage separates (why sub brief is full of s*t again as he does not explain this). At this point, this stage rapidly accelerates. So a number of things changed here that is difficult for the defense.
The first is the rapid changing acceleration. This is going to throw off your trajectory calculation by your fire control radars out of whack. FCRs expect incoming threats to be at a steady or decelerating rate. Its not because the missile transitions to supersonic at a random terminal point. The terminal phase isn't random, its where the missile rises above the radar horizon so it has a clear line of sight to the target. (That's why ships equip with ESM at the highest point with maximum radar horizon, so they can detect the antiship missile's use of its active radar seeker as indicative of the missile going terminal).
The second is the change in RCS. The second stage has smaller diameter, a sharp nose, no fins, no jet intake so that's a big drop in RCS compared to its cruise form. The second stage is a solid fuel rocket.
The third is the evasion movement. The YJ-18 terminal stage are known to have a snake like movement, possible if the missile has thrust vectors.
The fourth is the primary stage will continue its own flight for sometime out of inertia. This, with its larger RCS, becomes its own decoy.
The other BS things are the beamformers blah blah blah. With AESA, the beamformers have to be built in the array, if not within the modules. Its also wrong to say the Type 346 is like the SPY-1 when the 346 are AESA and the SPY-1 are PESA. There is a huge difference. AESA do consume huge power, which is why the SPY-6 equipped Flight III has its hull internals redesigned for huge cooling systems, and the array itself is also larger, about as large now as the 346A in fact. Does a larger array means its more inefficient? That's BS. A larger array means it has a greater receptive area which translates to more range, either by a number of factors, such as a longer frequency, more elements, and so on and on, that's too TLDR to write about. The reason for the huge power is to snipe bombers at a great range, although I tend to think, because of low flying, large radars may become more redundant when its better to have more assets with CEC on the field to spot these low flyers. However, large radars might be more useful when you have to intercept tactical ballistic missiles and even some low orbiting or even hypersonic targets.
As for large ships being inefficient, you can point to all those NATO EU ships being more grossly inefficient when you ratio their displacement to their missiles/VLS/armament. But there is far more to that? What if this was deliberately meant to increase the living room for the ship, which means less fatigue for the crew, additional redundancy for survival, more stores for longer voyages with less replenishment in between. What if all this is also meant for the 055?
Last edited:
I should add that Eurasia Naval Insight is a blogger from Taiwan.
I am banned from his channel too. For not agreeing with him...
Anyway American PESA with vacuum tube amplifiers is certainly better than a modern GaA AESA. 1000%
That's called "Freedom of S(on of a )bitch".
Also like Your channel on YouTube…
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
I see what you did there!
Sub Brief acts like a true pro when it comes to submarines, but often acts like a hearsay redneck on other topics
Does anyone know if this is a reliable source of information of Chinese AESA development? This is a reference used in Wikipedia. The wordings and stuff all sounds pretty authentic.
Did Sub Brief even read the wikipedia page when he was making the video? Does he think the detailed information, even down to the political bickering among competitors, are all Chinese propaganda? Chinese propaganda are pretty opaque when it comes to military equipment, and this piece of "propaganda" is uncharacteristically detailed.
- Status