055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[Iron Man]

Considering the deal for Phalcon was made in 1996 (with years of negotiation prior to that, meaning we are talking early 1990s PRC technology confidence), and considering the PLA's willingness to pursue both imported and domestic systems sometimes simultaneously for risk mitigation purposes, the fact that the PRC wanted to buy Phalcon doesn't mean that their radar industry had not reached highly competitive levels by the new millennium.

If that is your assertion, do you have any evidence that the PLAAF was pursuing any kind of domestic AEW&C in the mid 90s?

The Type 346's peer of the era, the UK SAMPSON radar is air cooled as well.

Needless to say, things have since moved onto liquid cooling, but that doesn't draw anything away from Type 346 compared to other notable peers at the time. In fact, back in the early to mid 2000s, Type 346 and SAMPSON were arguably the first of the naval AESA MFRs of their given array size installed onto surface combatants.

The Sampson is the only other example I know of that is air cooled, and it is not hard to tell why, given its location at the very top of the ship (where weight savings are most imperative), proximity of the 2 relatively small panels next to each other, and conducive shape for air flow purposes.

And actually, the Thales APAR was the first naval AESA to be inducted into service, with its debut on the 1999 Sachsen class, which is probably why "APAR" is frequently used to mean AESA radars, like "Aegis" is frequently used to mean "advanced naval combat data management system using ESAs".

The lead 052D was launched in 2012, yes -- what makes you think that its construction started in 2012?
I'm sure you know as well as all of us that starting construction of a ship like this begins a few years (anywhere from 2-3 years) before launch, with steel cutting for module fabrication. I.e. the lead 052D's construction would have only begun likely in 2010.

The lead 055 was launched in 2017 -- similarly, it started construction a few years prior to 2017 as well, and its construction would have only begun in 2014-15.
Comparing like with like, would give us a 4-5 year gap between the equivalent stages between the lead 052D and lead 055.

Oh, I just looked up Wikipedia which says 172 was laid down February 16, 2012, a pretty specific date if someone is just pulling numbers out of their asses. Before you say Wikipedia is not a reliable source, maybe you can provide a linkable source of your own that says otherwise. I'm not even sure why you think the 052D was such a novel concept that it could not be built quickly, since it was derived from the 052C which itself was derived from the 052B. All three designs represent incremental evolutions of each other, with nearly identical internals minus the housing for radars and VLS. Meanwhile the 055 is absolutely a from-scratch larger design, with a surface combatant size which the PLAN had never built before. By comparison a 052D would essentially have been old hat.

Edit: BTW, you are definitely NOT comparing "like to like", since you apply the criteria of "lead materials" to the 052D but not to the 055. If the 055 began construction in 2014, it also must have had lead material construction prior to that year, so why wave hands about lead materials for one but not the other?

Or alternatively, the willingness for GaN to be applied onto less important systems such as export cleared counter battery radars is a reflection that the material was mastered so well by industry and proliferated so widely that they could be trickled down to systems like that.

Edit:
In 2015, they also marketed SLC-7 (a high end VSR AESA for air defense), with GaN as well, an example of a radar on the higher end of the spectrum.

Putting it another way, perhaps the real question we should be asking is by the mid 2010s, how many new model, in-production PLA AESAs and antennas in general had not moved onto using GaN?

Again, whether it was the SLC-2 or SLC-7 does not change the fact that these land-based counter-battery radars are far less technologically difficult to develop than a naval AESA radar system, which means the start date of the latter will occur far earlier than a counter-battery radar, because you're building an entire software/hardware architecture around these radars that deals with the simultaneous tracking and engagement of hundreds (thousands?) of targets using 4 linked radar panels, and therefore a naval AESA system that debuts in the same year as a counter-battery radar could easily represent an earlier generation of technological mastery.

Edit: me being lazy and not looking more closely at the presentation linked for the SLC-7, which still does really not change anything about the complexity of a single radar panel vs a complete naval radar and combat data system. Also note that "high end" are your words.

 

[Blitzo]

If that is your assertion, do you have any evidence that the PLAAF was pursuing any kind of domestic AEW&C in the mid 90s?

I wouldn't be surprised if they were, however my assertion is not that the PLAAF was actively in advanced stages of developing a domestic AEW&C, however I do believe that relevant technological development was proceeding in parallel to procurement efforts for Phalcon (which should not be controversial considering efforts spanning back to KJ-1).
I don't think that is an unreasonable position to put forward at all.

The Sampson is the only other example I know of that is air cooled, and it is not hard to tell why, given its location at the very top of the ship (where weight savings are most imperative), proximity of the 2 relatively small panels next to each other, and conducive shape for air flow purposes.

And actually, the Thales APAR was the first naval AESA to be inducted into service, with its debut on the 1999 Sachsen class, which is probably why "APAR" is frequently used to mean AESA radars, like "Aegis" is frequently used to mean "advanced naval combat data management system using ESAs".

Considering there were no other naval AESAs of a similar array size to Type 346 at the time, that is fine.

I am aware that the Thales APAR was the first naval AESA to be inducted into service. That would be a relevant point if I suggested that the Type 346 or SAMPSON were the first naval AESA to be inducted into service, which is not what I wrote. I assume you are writing this as an aside remark, in which case okay.

Oh, I just looked up Wikipedia which says 172 was laid down February 16, 2012, a pretty specific date if someone is just pulling numbers out of their asses. Before you say Wikipedia is not a reliable source, maybe you can provide a linkable source of your own that says otherwise. I'm not even sure why you think the 052D was such a novel concept that it could not be built quickly, since it was derived from the 052C which itself was derived from the 052B. All three designs represent incremental evolutions of each other, with nearly identical internals minus the housing for radars and VLS. Meanwhile the 055 is absolutely a from-scratch larger design, with a surface combatant size which the PLAN had never built before. By comparison a 052D would essentially have been old hat.

This doesn't work that way -- how about you provide some evidence for why you think that number even makes a modicum of sense?
The lead 052D was launched in late August 2012. You do realize that if you're taking that number at face value, that you're saying they spent six months from steel cutting/module fabrication to launch of the lead hull?

This has nothing to do with 052D being a novel ship or not -- this has everything to do with the nature of hull fabrication of a modern surface combatant. Even today, in 2025 when they've been producing 052Ds for over a decade, I would be very surprised if they were able to go from steel cutting to ship launch within six months.

I will however provide an answer for the 16th February 2012 date -- from memory, that might account to when the first hull modules of the first 052D were most externally visible by outside observers (recall the 052Ds were built under the covered construction halls).
Needless to say, being externally visible as the hull modules were being assembled together is very different to when steel cutting began.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we have every basis to expect that hull fabrication for the lead 052D occurred likely 2 years before its launch, similar to the timelines of other 052Ds we have estimated over the years based on occasional module appearances that have been trackable between hulls.

Again, whether it was the SLC-2 or SLC-7 does not change the fact that these land-based counter-battery radars are far less technologically difficult to develop than a naval AESA radar system, which means the start date of the latter will occur far earlier than a counter-battery radar, because you're building an entire software/hardware architecture around these radars that deals with the simultaneous tracking and engagement of hundreds (thousands?) of targets using 4 linked radar panels, and therefore a naval AESA system that debuts in the same year as a counter-battery radar could easily represent an earlier generation of technological mastery.

SLC-2 and SLC-7 are different radars. One is a counter battery radar, one is an air defense radar.

GaN is the technology in question which we are talking about -- and application of new technology between different products in PRC MIC and PLA procurement priorities is rarely done where new and potentially sensitive technologies are first applied to export products rather than first being applied successfully to domestic products.

Additionally, the onus is on you to argue why a naval AESA radar system using GaN antennae requires a uniquely more sophisticated software backend than a naval AESA radar system with GaA antennae of the same iteratively developed family.
If anything, one should argue that due to the iterative nature of the Type 346, 346A and 346B, that if the Type 346B is using GaN, then it would be able to leverage the existing software and backend of the Type 346/A and expedite development.



Now, to draw this discussion back to the original point -- I agree that we technically do not have definitive confirmation in the public space, that Type 346B utilizes GaN.
However, there are substantial corroborating indicators which make it a possible if not viable prospect. That's the consensus which has existed for the last half decade or so, and unless you have any new information to disprove it, you're just going to have to accept this is how it is.

 

[Iron Man]

I wouldn't be surprised if they were, however my assertion is not that the PLAAF was actively in advanced stages of developing a domestic AEW&C, however I do believe that relevant technological development was proceeding in parallel to procurement efforts for Phalcon (which should not be controversial considering efforts spanning back to KJ-1).
I don't think that is an unreasonable position to put forward at all.

So you don't have evidence that the PLAAF was pursuing domestic AEW&C at the same time as it was pursuing the Phalcon, and just feel that it's reasonable to assume so. Given we are now stretching all the way back to the mid 1990s, you could maybe think of the state of Chinese technology during that time period before thinking this is not an unreasonable position to take.

This doesn't work that way -- how about you provide some evidence for why you think that number even makes a modicum of sense?
The lead 052D was launched in late August 2012. You do realize that if you're taking that number at face value, that you're saying they spent six months from steel cutting/module fabrication to launch of the lead hull?

This has nothing to do with 052D being a novel ship or not -- this has everything to do with the nature of hull fabrication of a modern surface combatant. Even today, in 2025 when they've been producing 052Ds for over a decade, I would be very surprised if they were able to go from steel cutting to ship launch within six months.

I will however provide an answer for the 16th February 2012 date -- from memory, that might account to when the first hull modules of the first 052D were most externally visible by outside observers (recall the 052Ds were built under the covered construction halls).
Needless to say, being externally visible as the hull modules were being assembled together is very different to when steel cutting began.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we have every basis to expect that hull fabrication for the lead 052D occurred likely 2 years before its launch, similar to the timelines of other 052Ds we have estimated over the years based on occasional module appearances that have been trackable between hulls.

Well if you believe Wikipedia the lead ship of the 052C class was laid down in "late 2002" and launched on "April 29, 2003", a similar timeframe. Again, both the 052C and the 052D classes are virtually identical to the 052B class. By the time you get to the 052D you've had over a decade of experience with building this design.

SLC-2 and SLC-7 are different radars. One is a counter battery radar, one is an air defense radar.

GaN is the technology in question which we are talking about -- and application of new technology between different products in PRC MIC and PLA procurement priorities is rarely done where new and potentially sensitive technologies are first applied to export products rather than first being applied successfully to domestic products.

Additionally, the onus is on you to argue why a naval AESA radar system using GaN antennae requires a uniquely more sophisticated software backend than a naval AESA radar system with GaA antennae of the same iteratively developed family.
If anything, one should argue that due to the iterative nature of the Type 346, 346A and 346B, that if the Type 346B is using GaN, then it would be able to leverage the existing software and backend of the Type 346/A and expedite development.

Who said anything about a GaN-based naval system being more sophisticated or harder to develop than one based on GaAs? Quote me. Please. You missed my point, which is that SLC-2 and SLC-7 are less sophisticated to develop than a naval radar system that absolutely must come hand-in-hand with surrounding software/hardware architecture. It doesn't matter to me if any/either of SLC-2, SLC-7, or 346/A/B were GaAs or GaN, it's just a fact that GaN technology came later than GaAs technology and that the dates of the construction of the 055 make sense to me that they more likely incorporate GaAs than GaN.

Now, to draw this discussion back to the original point -- I agree that we technically do not have definitive confirmation in the public space, that Type 346B utilizes GaN.
However, there are substantial corroborating indicators which make it a possible if not viable prospect. That's the consensus which has existed for the last half decade or so, and unless you have any new information to disprove it, you're just going to have to accept this is how it is.

346B using GaN is a "possible" prospect? If that's the actual consensus, I'm on board with that. But if you were trying to imply that it's a "likely" prospect, then I am not on board with that.

 

[Blitzo]

So you don't have evidence that the PLAAF was pursuing domestic AEW&C at the same time as it was pursuing the Phalcon, and just feel that it's reasonable to assume so. Given we are now stretching all the way back to the mid 1990s, you could maybe think of the state of Chinese technology during that time period before thinking this is not an unreasonable position to take.

Considering they had active an ambitious AEW&C program like KJ-1 in the middle of the cold war, I believe it is very reasonable to believe that they were actively developing AEW&C relevant technologies between the late cold war through to the 1990s and through to the present.

In fact, I would argue that it would be a highly questionable position to take to entertain the idea that they were not actively doing so since the late cold war.

Well if you believe Wikipedia the lead ship of the 052C class was laid down in "late 2002" and launched on "April 29, 2003", a similar timeframe. Again, both the 052C and the 052D classes are virtually identical to the 052B class. By the time you get to the 052D you've had over a decade of experience with building this design.

When a ship is "laid down" can mean anything in context of modern modular shipbuilding methods.
The common starting line is steel cutting for module fabrication.

And in the same way that the lead 052D's steel was not cut merely six months before its launch, there should be obvious similar disbelief to the idea that the lead 052C had its first steel cut in late 2002.

Who said anything about a GaN-based naval system being more sophisticated or harder to develop than one based on GaAs? Quote me. Please. You missed my point, which is that SLC-2 and SLC-7 are less sophisticated to develop than a naval radar system that absolutely must come hand-in-hand with surrounding software/hardware architecture. It doesn't matter to me if any/either of SLC-2, SLC-7, or 346/A/B were GaAs or GaN, it's just a fact that GaN technology came later than GaAs technology and that the dates of the construction of the 055 make sense to me that they more likely incorporate GaAs than GaN.

On the contrary, I haven't missed your point at all. I wasn't suggesting that a GaN naval system was more sophisticated or harder to develop than one based on GaAs. I am saying that you have omitted the entire lineage preceding Type 346B and thus comparisons with the example land based AESAs in terms of developmental complexity is not a like for like comparison.

You wrote: "because you're building an entire software/hardware architecture around these radars that deals with the simultaneous tracking and engagement of hundreds (thousands?) of targets using 4 linked radar panels, and therefore a naval AESA system that debuts in the same year as a counter-battery radar could easily represent an earlier generation of technological mastery."

My counter argument is why do you think (underlined part) they needed to develop the entire software and hardware architecture for Type 346B to begin with, considering it had an existing software and hardware architecture already in existence with the Type 346/A?

If the Type 346B was a clean sheet design without any iterative preceding variants, then I could entertain your suggestion -- one could make a hypothetical comparison between the requirements of a new naval GaN AESA versus varying new land based GaN AESAs and their requisite performance demands.

Alas, Type 346B is not a clean sheet design, but a follow on variant of Type 346/A, so unless you can demonstrate that the hypothetical application of GaN on Type 346B would offer some sort of new unique challenges in terms of radar development relative to land based radars with GaN, then we should have every reason to accept that they would prioritize applicating a new technology like GaN to high priority domestic radar systems first before allowing it to be applied to other products and export products.


Furthermore, even if Type 346B was a new clean sheet design, it would still make sense that they would apply a new technology like GaN to domestic high priority projects first before allowing it to be applied onto lower priority projects and export cleared products.

346B using GaN is a "possible" prospect? If that's the actual consensus, I'm on board with that. But if you were trying to imply that it's a "likely" prospect, then I am not on board with that.

Possible, in the sense that it is a reasonable null hypothesis to take. That is the consensus.
It has yet to be definitively confirmed as I wrote in my last post -- however the burden of evidence should be to try and demonstrate that the idea of 055's Type 346B using GaN is an unreasonable one.

 

[test1979]

So you don't have evidence that the PLAAF was pursuing domestic AEW&C at the same time as it was pursuing the Phalcon, and just feel that it's reasonable to assume so. Given we are now stretching all the way back to the mid 1990s, you could maybe think of the state of Chinese technology during that time period before thinking this is not an unreasonable position to take.

Well if you believe Wikipedia the lead ship of the 052C class was laid down in "late 2002" and launched on "April 29, 2003", a similar timeframe. Again, both the 052C and the 052D classes are virtually identical to the 052B class. By the time you get to the 052D you've had over a decade of experience with building this design.

Who said anything about a GaN-based naval system being more sophisticated or harder to develop than one based on GaAs? Quote me. Please. You missed my point, which is that SLC-2 and SLC-7 are less sophisticated to develop than a naval radar system that absolutely must come hand-in-hand with surrounding software/hardware architecture. It doesn't matter to me if any/either of SLC-2, SLC-7, or 346/A/B were GaAs or GaN, it's just a fact that GaN technology came later than GaAs technology and that the dates of the construction of the 055 make sense to me that they more likely incorporate GaAs than GaN.


346B using GaN is a "possible" prospect? If that's the actual consensus, I'm on board with that. But if you were trying to imply that it's a "likely" prospect, then I am not on board with that.

It is certain that the introduction of the Falcon AWACS and the development of domestic AWACS were carried out simultaneously, because this is recorded in the official biography of Academician Wang Xiaomo, the chief designer of the KJ-2000 AWACS.
This is the relevant content
In February 1992, Wang Xiaomo was transferred to the director of the Military Industry Bureau of China Electronics Industry Corporation, and started the demonstration and development of my country's AWACS equipment. At that time, two views were deadlocked: some people believed that the demand was urgent and "it is better to buy than to make"; Wang Xiaomo and others advocated independent development.

"Buying from abroad saves time and effort, but once a war breaks out, as long as a few parts are stuck abroad, the AWACS we bought back will not be usable!" Wang Xiaomo argued.

In the end, the country decided to "walk on two legs": on the one hand, introduce foreign products to meet urgent needs, and on the other hand, develop domestic AWACS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[vincent]

I don’t get why people think just because a ship starts construction means the electronics need to be procured before that or even before the hull is completed and launch into water. The radars and other systems can be designed and built during fitting out after the hull is in the water.

 

[ismellcopium]

@Blitzo do you think the current 346As on new batch 052Ds are still using GaA, or they've also switched to GaN?

 

[Maikeru]

I don’t get why people think just because a ship starts construction means the electronics need to be procured before that or even before the hull is completed and launch into water. The radars and other systems can be designed and built during fitting out after the hull is in the water.

Exactly. The radars and other systems can still even be in development when steel is first cut for the ship, so long as their weight and volume are roughly known and accommodated accordingly in the ship design.

 

[Blitzo]

@Blitzo do you think the current 346As on new batch 052Ds are still using GaA, or they've also switched to GaN?

I don't particularly have a suspicion either way to be honest.

 

[Iron Man]

Considering they had active an ambitious AEW&C program like KJ-1 in the middle of the cold war, I believe it is very reasonable to believe that they were actively developing AEW&C relevant technologies between the late cold war through to the 1990s and through to the present.

In fact, I would argue that it would be a highly questionable position to take to entertain the idea that they were not actively doing so since the late cold war.

It is certain that the introduction of the Falcon AWACS and the development of domestic AWACS were carried out simultaneously, because this is recorded in the official biography of Academician Wang Xiaomo, the chief designer of the KJ-2000 AWACS.
This is the relevant content
In February 1992, Wang Xiaomo was transferred to the director of the Military Industry Bureau of China Electronics Industry Corporation, and started the demonstration and development of my country's AWACS equipment. At that time, two views were deadlocked: some people believed that the demand was urgent and "it is better to buy than to make"; Wang Xiaomo and others advocated independent development.

"Buying from abroad saves time and effort, but once a war breaks out, as long as a few parts are stuck abroad, the AWACS we bought back will not be usable!" Wang Xiaomo argued.

In the end, the country decided to "walk on two legs": on the one hand, introduce foreign products to meet urgent needs, and on the other hand, develop domestic AWACS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If I take this quote(?) at face value, then this implies that the PLAAF seems not to have been developing anything from end of the 1970s to the mid 1990s when they became interested again in acquiring an AEW&C platform. If you are just suggesting that no active programs existed but the relevant technology was specifically being pursued as opposed to a more gradual, general maturation of the Chinese MIC, then there is no way to really tell whether that was the case unless someone official/semiofficial comes out and says it. I don’t think this position is necessarily unreasonable, but certainly it is unverifiable by any of us. In any case, regardless of prior history, what we can see evidence of is an initial platform only making its first appearance in 2003, its technological level mostly unknown, with the Chinese MIC having had no prior experience except for the prior KJ-1 which itself was considered obsolete by 1978; I believe there is a failed Y-10 AEW&C program squeezed into somewhere in the 70s as well.

To bring this all back to the present context of the 055 and the 346B, the KJ-2000 was being hailed as some kind of remarkable achievement for the purpose of claiming that the Chinese MIC had advanced enough to be one of the early utilizers of naval GaN technology later on. Given that the US and Russia were flying large AEW&C platforms since the 1970s and Israel since the 1990s, it’s hard to see the KJ-2000 as a major accomplishment without knowing the details of its performance capabilities, or how success in using AESA in the aerial domain translates into substantial gains in the naval domain. In fact the flow of causation is backwards, especially in the case of NRIET/CETC and this radar. Naval advances in radar predate airborne advances; you can easily tell this by noting the introduction dates of GaN-based fighter radars, which are only proliferating across the various leading world militaries in the last several years. I would also suggest that land-based radar advances predate naval advances given as I said previously their significantly lesser complexity to develop, which is why it would make sense to see GaN-based land radars prior to seeing GaN-based naval radars.

When a ship is "laid down" can mean anything in context of modern modular shipbuilding methods.
The common starting line is steel cutting for module fabrication.

And in the same way that the lead 052D's steel was not cut merely six months before its launch, there should be obvious similar disbelief to the idea that the lead 052C had its first steel cut in late 2002.

I’m not sure your personal incredulity should serve as the basis of an argument here, but even if we count first steel cutting and say it must have preceded the “laid down” dates for both the first 052C and the first 052D, that would give you, what, 6 months more time? 9 months more? BTW, now that I think back on it, there was a 055 model that came out of Wuhan in early 2014. That time period should actually serve as the latest date the radar system design could have been frozen, since IIRC that mockup was set up to verify radar non-interference, which means the radar designs involved should have been finalized by then, the only thing left in question being the final details of the superstructure and radar placements still awaiting verification.