055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Tiberium]

It happens to me a lot of times when some youtuber or redditor made a completely wrong assessment to Chinese military I typed a very long response but delete it just before I hit the post button.
As a Chinese, I did this because of the old saying: when your enemy is making a mistake, don't disturb him.

 

[gelgoog]

This Type 055 video is pretty pathetic. Below even Sub Brief's already low standards when reporting about things he knows little about like surface ship or naval aircraft. Stick to submarines and sonars dude.
The Chinese Navy have evolved their AESA radar over several generations in the Type 052C, 052D, 055. The Chinese are leaders in global telecommunications industry and hence have vast engineering expertise not just in the design but also mass production of this kind of technology. I would trust it 100% over any kind of obsolete 1980s US radar tech. His comments are akin to saying the Russian Su-30 PESA radar beats the F-35's AESA radar. It isn't China's fault the US has consistently cheapened out on their naval AESA radar program because of massive delays and cost overruns while they basically leapfrogged the US in radar technological terms.

Most US destroyers and cruisers use obsolete 1980s radar tech. The few more modern US ship radars like the ones in Ford carrier and Flight III Burke are cheapened out compromises over what was originally proposed. But still way more capable than older US Navy radars.
Flight III Burke uses more modern GaN radar. But those are not even the first GaN radar ships since the Japanese Akizuki class destroyers had that before it.

 

[5unrise]

This Type 055 video is pretty pathetic. Below even Sub Brief's already low standards when reporting about things he knows little about like surface ship or naval aircraft. Stick to submarines and sonars dude.
The Chinese Navy have evolved their AESA radar over several generations in the Type 052C, 052D, 055. The Chinese are leaders in global telecommunications industry and hence have vast engineering expertise not just in the design but also mass production of this kind of technology. I would trust it 100% over any kind of obsolete 1980s US radar tech. His comments are akin to saying the Russian Su-30 PESA radar beats the F-35's AESA radar. It isn't China's fault the US has consistently cheapened out on their naval AESA radar program because of massive delays and cost overruns while they basically leapfrogged the US in radar technological terms.

Most of their destroyers and cruisers use obsolete 1980s radar tech. The few more modern US ship radars like the ones in Ford carrier and Flight III Burke are cheapened out compromises over what was originally proposed.

Let's pretend for a moment that Chinese AESA radars are all actually fake and obsolete PESAs as he claims. My question would be why would countries like Pakistan pay big bucks for Chinese J-10C fighter jets that have AESA fire control radars as part of the deal? Why would Pakistan buy the AESA-equipped Type 54A/P frigates? Why would Bangladesh accept the delivery of the modified Type 56 corvettes with small AESA array?

Are these countries just idiots that are so easily conned? Don't they check if the radars that get delivered from China are actually real?

 

[Tam]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.

The material for the Type 346 radar comes from a guy who once worked on the project and has since moved to Canada long ago. What he wrote was after he immigrated and also documented the institute rivalries, and even things the other rival institutes would do to get on top by throwing obstacles at your work. These were the things that happened back in the early to late '90s so we don't exactly know what is the work atmosphere much later. If its propaganda, you won't be exposing the dirt and rivalries within your defense industry complex.

For example:

按理说，4单元T/R组件研制成功，舰载相控阵雷达的研制经费就应该下拨了。但事实并非如此。我们接到通知，舰载相控阵S波段雷达方案要被再次评审，并要与航天部二院23所的C波段雷达方案进行再次比较。我当时觉得很奇怪，已经定下来的事，怎么还要再审？后来才被告知， 当我们潜心于T/R组件，天线小面阵等关键技术突破时，23所整理了有关S波段雷达的一串问题，经航天部这条线，捅到总理李鹏那里（李鹏是亲航天部的）。于是，14所被通知在5月底接受“10院士”评审团的再次评审。

It stands to reason that if the 4-unit T/R component is successfully developed, the development funds for the shipborne phased array radar should be allocated. but it is not the truth. We have been notified that the shipborne phased array S-band radar scheme will be reviewed again and compared with the C-band radar scheme of the 23rd Institute of the Second Academy of the Ministry of Space. At the time, I thought it was very strange. Why should I retrial something that has already been decided? It was only later that I was told that when we were concentrating on breakthroughs in key technologies such as T/R components and small area antenna arrays, the 23rd Institute sorted out a series of questions about S-band radar, and went through the line of the Ministry of Aerospace to get to Premier Li Peng ( Li Peng is pro-Space Department). As a result, 14 institutes were notified to accept the re-evaluation of the "10 Academicians" jury at the end of May.

===

His description of a 4 unit T/R component easily fits the description of a QTRM or Quad Transmit Receive Module, which is common with AESA radars. Not something the average Joe can make.



So is knowing that Institute 23 has a C-band radar scheme. Institute 23 is the institute responsible for the HQ-9 system and made the HT-233 radar that serves the HQ-9. Guess what, this radar works on the C-band, similar to the MPQ-53 on the Patriot.



Institute 23 is competing with Institute 14 for the naval radar and is proposing a C-band radar arrangement. However, the C-band isn't capable of reaching the ranges the PLAN wants, versus what Institute 14 is proposing with its S-band radar arrangement. No average joe knows who these institutes are, but if you like to know more, Institute 14 is NRIET which is based, as the N says, in Nanjing. NRIET is responsible for the radars on the J-10, J-11, J-20 and so on, hence why these radars are called Type 1473, Type 1475, the "14" obviously points to Institute 14.

The thing to consider about this link is that the writer might have a chip in his shoulder from his workings in the Chinese military industrial complex. And of course, losing techs like him to immigrate to other countries is a loss for the Chinese defense establishment.

 

[Tam]

This Type 055 video is pretty pathetic. Below even Sub Brief's already low standards when reporting about things he knows little about like surface ship or naval aircraft. Stick to submarines and sonars dude.
The Chinese Navy have evolved their AESA radar over several generations in the Type 052C, 052D, 055. The Chinese are leaders in global telecommunications industry and hence have vast engineering expertise not just in the design but also mass production of this kind of technology. I would trust it 100% over any kind of obsolete 1980s US radar tech. His comments are akin to saying the Russian Su-30 PESA radar beats the F-35's AESA radar. It isn't China's fault the US has consistently cheapened out on their naval AESA radar program because of massive delays and cost overruns while they basically leapfrogged the US in radar technological terms.

Most US destroyers and cruisers use obsolete 1980s radar tech. The few more modern US ship radars like the ones in Ford carrier and Flight III Burke are cheapened out compromises over what was originally proposed. But still way more capable than older US Navy radars.
Flight III Burke uses more modern GaN radar. But those are not even the first GaN radar ships since the Japanese Akizuki class destroyers had that before it.

Radars might be old design but it doesn't necessarily mean they won't do the job. We still use various dish antennas in radar, radio telescopes and telecom, and dish antennas are as old as they get. What matters is the back end which we don't see.

For example the Type 052D still uses that Type 517 VHF radar. Yagi goes back to a 1920s Japanese patent, hence its named after its inventor, Yagi. The Knife Rest radar itself first appeared in 1948. Decades later you got a modified version of it still doing its job. But now, vacuum tubes have been replaced by digital circuits and solid state transistors.

So even those PESAs get their updates, and the SPY-1 based AEGIS system itself has been refitted and overhauled nine times, the last around the late 2000s.

Today, we still got Buks knocking s*t out of the sky. Their radars are either mechanical or PESA.

 

[gelgoog]

From what I understand the upgrades to the electronics cabinets on older Burkes were mainly done because the suppliers and supplies for those systems aren't even available anymore. So it was mostly replaced with COTS derived technology. But I doubt this led to any major increase in capability. The new systems should use way less power but the ships were originally designed for the older power level in the first place.

 

[Tam]

From what I understand the upgrades to the electronics cabinets on older Burkes were mainly done because the suppliers and supplies for those systems aren't even available anymore. So it was mostly replaced with COTS derived technology. But I doubt this led to any major increase in capability. The new systems should use way less power but the ships were originally designed for the older power level in the first place.

I don't think they use more or less power, and should be the same. Don't want to muck around too much with the Tried and True. The system has enough head room as it is. Going microelectronics on the back end helps with back end processing, not to mention better UI and responses for the operators. Over the years, there has been improvements with the beam forming and the phase shifters (4 bit to 6 bit), the addition of MTI to distinguish low flying targets better, but the most important improvements have been the addition, then evolution of CEC. By the time it reached Baseline 9, the CEC is already on its third generation. In addition, they added a second radar (SPQ-9B) high on the mast to act as a surface search radar to spot for sea skimmers --- remember what I said about the SPY-1's hull placement limits its radar horizon against low flyers.

Taking this hull placement into account, do note that the PLAN already placed its own Type 364 radar (not to be confused with the Type 346, which has the 4 and the 6 reversed) high above the mast on the 052C/D. This radar serves as a surface search radar for sea skimmer spotting over the radar horizon of the hull placed Type 346A.

For the Type 055, the Type 364 radar is replaced by the four panel X-band radar on the integrated mast.

The 055's tremendous power consumption is a collective result of its its large powerful arrays, plus the four X-band AESA --- so that makes it eight AESAs. Not to mention that the IFF arrays all over the top deck that look like AESA phase arrays on their own. So that's more. Two large ECM panels under the bridge wing that looks like they are also AESA arrays. So the whole ship is festering with AESAs and other phase arrays like four more on the bridge wings that might be datalinks. You got more arrays for the ESM and the CEC datalinks on the integrated mast.

Its better to count the radars on the 055 that are not AESAs, and they are the Type 347G on the Type 1130 CIWS and two rotating navigation radars. The navigation radars however, are likely to be solid state with low probability of detection (LPI).

 

[GTI]

Sub Brief acts like a true pro when it comes to submarines, but often acts like a hearsay redneck on other topics

He’s an absolute idiot and not even that great on submarine topics. His dyslexia or lack of reading comprehension is also very painful to listen to sometimes (as he basically just reads aloud articles from 3 usual sources).

He does love to d*ck ride H I Sutton, so it would be best to use info from HIS, if you find yourself bored or sad enough in life to comment on that slug’s crap.

 

[Pacific]

He’s an absolute idiot and not even that great on submarine topics. His dyslexia or lack of reading comprehension is also very painful to listen to sometimes (as he basically just reads aloud articles from 3 usual sources).

He does love to d*ck ride H I Sutton, so it would be best to use info from HIS, if you find yourself bored or sad enough in life to comment on that slug’s crap.

Have we considered the possibility that he's actually working for the 战忽局? He made a video about how the US doesn't actually recognize Taiwan as a country, to the displeasure of his viewers, at least in the comments.

Who's to know he isn't purposely trying to hype down PLA capabilities. The extra mistakes like 1130 being a copy of Russian CIWS is just icing on the cake.

If he has classified information on the radar on the type 055 that isn't publicly available that suggests the radar isn't actually AESA, that means he should soon be arrested for leaking US intelligence.

 

[type055]

I see that everyone is angry, but as a Chinese, I am not angry at all to hear this American buddy talk about 055 Because this is American arrogance: I also heard a sailor serving on the USS Sullivan Brothers boast that his Burke was the best destroyer in the world, and the American bureaucracy would tell his men to use the best destroyer in the world. equipment, and the American soldier was told that the Sherman tank was completely unbeatable against the German tank, so the American soldier drove the Sherman tank happily to Europe, and met the German armored zoo, and then there was Sherman lighter reputation It was like that 70 years ago and it is still the same now