AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Godzilla said:

umm.. I am sorry but I can speak from experience that this is completely false lol.
These ship yards are used to structural tolerances of a couple mm in the 50m sized modules and manages the stacking tolerances just fine. They can build modules ~10,000 tons, with hundreds of interface points (single weld hook up) that has tolerance requirements of sub 3mm, consistently, and do many of them concurrently. In the last 5-10 years, I can confidently say that they build better quality modules than any other in the world in shorter time frame and cost. The Brits are umm... not fit to tie their laces...
End of the day, we all use the same procedures, follow pretty much similar specs, use the same equipment. They just have alot more of trained people that has more experience doing the same thing, being together as a team longer, work harder, and more newer tools to do their job than any other yards in the world, only SK comes close.

Click to expand...

I was mostly referring to the precision manufacturing involved in propulsion systems, including gearboxes. I used the shaft alignment as a quick example that came to mind.

Rolls-Royce is the world's leading supplier of high-end propulsion systems for warships; the compactness, quietness and efficiency of the propulsion used on Type 45, Elisabeth-Class and the upcoming Type 26 are seriously impressive and world-leading. MTU is a subsidiary of Rolls Royce, it's official name is now Rolls-Royce Power Systems.

Even the "colonial cruiser" Type 31 has 4 x 8.2MW Diesel engines from MTU; China has only recently developed a 7.28MW engine (The CS16V27, probably used in 054B). Before that, the 5.2MW 16PA6V-280STC was the most powerful engine that China could make domestically.

I am struck by the arrogance to dismiss this out of hand, and instead ridicule the severely deficient project management on these warships (that's a red herring btw). For the West it is now normal that major projects, especially in defence - are over budget, late and have severe kinks that need to be worked out. I suspect this negative trend is a result of de-industrialisation and the accompanying loss of skills, as well as lack of accountability for management.

But in spite of these problems, the fact remains that China hasn't reached the ability to match either the gas turbines, nor the gearboxes, nor the rafting, nor the MTU Diesel engines that are available to the Brits to mess with. Not in terms of power density, not in terms of silencing and not in terms of maximum power output.

zavve said:

Just by the T45 having a higher placed main radar, the Type 45 is superior to the 054B in engaging sea-skimming AShM (the most common threat to a ship right now). Aster is a lighter, smaller "dart", with bigger wings and PIF-PAF in comparison to HQ-16F which is a very big and heavy missile without a lot of control surfaces, this most likely means that Aster has a better p/k. There are a bunch of S-band GaN AESAs in Europe, but many of the warships carrying them are currently in the building process. Some examples are: NS100, Sea Fire, TRS-4D, Giraffe 4A, SPY-7.

If you honestly believe that then there's no point in having a discussion with you. The ships are meant for very different missions. Regarding overall capability (ASW, ASUW & AAW combined), I agree that Type 054B has an edge over T45 but the T45 is a specialist AAW as I've told you many times.

Click to expand...

A very tall guy (Type 45) makes a terrible jockey (ASW) but we cannot conclude from that alone that he must be a great basketball player (AAW). A 'specialist' implies doing one thing but your arguments that Type 45 actually 'excels' in AAW by 2023 standards is unconvincing. In 2006, there wouldn't be a discussion.

More learned members here will say battles are fought with systems of systems and both Type 45 and 054B are just individual nodes. Perhaps the extra few miles afforded by the taller placement is necessitated by an acknowledgement that the RN cannot depend on extra nodes/CEC thus every little bit helps while China can deploy three 054B's (for the price of one Type 45) and achieve far superior coverage.
Conclusion is perhaps this is the best RN (or rest of Europe) can afford but it is not the ideal configuration if money is less of a constraint (i.e. 4 lower-height fixed arrays) for countries like the US, Japan, Korea, and China.

Google says at 20m height (AEGIS height), horizon is 17 km away, at 40m height (Type 45 SAMPSON), the horizon is 25km away. Given when the radar was first designed, the main threats were subsonic. Does the extra 8 km of detection range, after factoring in the 30 rpm, against supersonic or God forbid, hypersonic missiles any meaningful? At 960 kph, the extra time gained is either zero (missed in sweep 50% of the time) or at best less than one second. At Mach 10, it is reduced to just 1/10s with time to impact from first detection less than 10s.

The SAMPSON is dual-faced just like the 054B's but looks smaller so less T/R modules (?) and the design / technology is 15+ years old (GaAs). Someone wrote a great article here explaining why #T/R modules matters more than other parameters (something about the effectiveness is #T/R module cubed). Given China's 'great' reputation, is it remotely possible China is well aware of SAMPSON's performance characteristics by now (or else its cyberspies didn't do their jobs) and decided a lower but larger radar is better? After all, the 054B designers had 15 years to study all the future threats and all the pros and cons of the Type 45. The placement height was their deliberate choice.

I also think it is common sense that 054B's performance specs were evaluated against the latest iteration of European and US ships and radars and they wouldn't have settle on something that is just a SAMPSON wannabe as their next generation ship. Simple professional pride would never allow for that.

Comparing a ship design that is 15 years old against one not even fitted out yet or comparing a $1.3B ship with one costing a fraction of that are strictly for entertainment purpose only.

kentchang said:

Comparing a ship design that is 15 years old against one not even fitted out yet or comparing a $1.3B ship with one costing a fraction of that are strictly for entertainment purpose only.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, the Type 45 is a completely irrelevant warship while the 054B is going to be one of the most relevant ship classes of the next few decades. Within a decade or two, there may be more 054Bs in service than the number of FFGs/DDGs in all Europe. Basically the entire offensive potential of the RN boils down to having a single medium-sized carrier at sea surrounded by a gaggle of over-priced over-specialized defensive escorts that add no offensive punch whatsoever.

SquireAU said:

I was mostly referring to the precision manufacturing involved in propulsion systems, including gearboxes. I used the shaft alignment as a quick example that came to mind.

Rolls-Royce is the world's leading supplier of high-end propulsion systems for warships; the compactness, quietness and efficiency of the propulsion used on Type 45, Elisabeth-Class and the upcoming Type 26 are seriously impressive and world-leading. MTU is a subsidiary of Rolls Royce, it's official name is now Rolls-Royce Power Systems.

Even the "colonial cruiser" Type 31 has 4 x 8.2MW Diesel engines from MTU; China has only recently developed a 7.28MW engine (The CS16V27, probably used in 054B). Before that, the 5.2MW 16PA6V-280STC was the most powerful engine that China could make domestically.

I am struck by the arrogance to dismiss this out of hand, and instead ridicule the severely deficient project management on these warships (that's a red herring btw). For the West it is now normal that major projects, especially in defence - are over budget, late and have severe kinks that need to be worked out. I suspect this negative trend is a result of de-industrialisation and the accompanying loss of skills, as well as lack of accountability for management.

But in spite of these problems, the fact remains that China hasn't reached the ability to match either the gas turbines, nor the gearboxes, nor the rafting, nor the MTU Diesel engines that are available to the Brits to mess with. Not in terms of power density, not in terms of silencing and not in terms of maximum power output.

Click to expand...

Stop changing the subject. You claimed build qualities of Chinese ships can’t match Global Britain’s, yet you provide no proofs.

We know nothing about Chinese naval ships’ gearboxes or rafting. Please enlighten us.

vincent said:

Stop changing the subject. You claimed build qualities of Chinese ships can’t match Global Britain’s, yet you provide no proofs.

We know nothing about Chinese naval ships’ gearboxes or rafting. Please enlighten us.

Click to expand...

Gearboxes is quite simple: China simply can't build a gearbox that combines Diesel and Gas (CODAG) or Gas and electric propulsion (CODLAG). That is a fact. Hence 052D is CODOG even though CODAG would be smaller and more fuel-efficient.

As a concrete example, the Royal navy Type 23 Frigate was build in the 1980s and yet it has a propulsion system (CODLAG) that's more advanced and quieter than any PLAN ship currently in service.

So I did provide plenty of proof and as I said before: When I said 'precision' I meant propulsion including gearboxes and their installation including rafting. I won't continue this debate as it's tiring and I said all that there is to say.

SquireAU said:

Gearboxes is quite simple: China simply can't build a gearbox that combines Diesel and Gas (CODAG) or Gas and electric propulsion (CODLAG). That is a fact. Hence 052D is CODOG even though CODAG would be smaller and more fuel-efficient.

As a concrete example, the Royal navy Type 23 Frigate was build in the 1980s and yet it has a propulsion system (CODLAG) that's more advanced and quieter than any PLAN ship currently in service.

So I did provide plenty of proof and as I said before: When I said 'precision' I meant propulsion including gearboxes and their installation including rafting. I won't continue this debate as it's tiring and I said all that there is to say.

Click to expand...

Cannot build and poorly built are two completely different things. The 052D dates back to 2012. A full TEN years ago. You think it is wise to use that as an example for 2023?

SquireAU said:

I was mostly referring to the precision manufacturing involved in propulsion systems, including gearboxes. I used the shaft alignment as a quick example that came to mind.

Rolls-Royce is the world's leading supplier of high-end propulsion systems for warships; the compactness, quietness and efficiency of the propulsion used on Type 45, Elisabeth-Class and the upcoming Type 26 are seriously impressive and world-leading. MTU is a subsidiary of Rolls Royce, it's official name is now Rolls-Royce Power Systems.

Even the "colonial cruiser" Type 31 has 4 x 8.2MW Diesel engines from MTU; China has only recently developed a 7.28MW engine (The CS16V27, probably used in 054B). Before that, the 5.2MW 16PA6V-280STC was the most powerful engine that China could make domestically.

I am struck by the arrogance to dismiss this out of hand, and instead ridicule the severely deficient project management on these warships (that's a red herring btw). For the West it is now normal that major projects, especially in defence - are over budget, late and have severe kinks that need to be worked out. I suspect this negative trend is a result of de-industrialisation and the accompanying loss of skills, as well as lack of accountability for management.

But in spite of these problems, the fact remains that China hasn't reached the ability to match either the gas turbines, nor the gearboxes, nor the rafting, nor the MTU Diesel engines that are available to the Brits to mess with. Not in terms of power density, not in terms of silencing and not in terms of maximum power output.

Click to expand...

Ummm sorry but you are moving the goal post here. The things you are talking about are sub systems / vendor items that has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese ship yard capabilities or competencies. No need to brag about RR to me lol, the Derby plant was integral to me getting my degree , hence I don't see it as the rusting rubbish most others call it and are quite fond of it.
If the said engines are available, or equivalent domestic engines available, they will install it just fine. Shaft alignments aint exactly rocket science, sometimes it just takes a while and sometimes you just have dodgy QA/QC like in the UK's case hehehe.
I mean if the commercial orders ask for RR or GE, there is nothing stopping RR or GE shipping those to China to get install on those ships. We done plenty of LMs before in those Chinese yards.....

Everything else you mentioned has nothing to do with the ship yard, and for what its worth, there are work arounds to balance out the deficiencies in the power trains, something for the maritime engineers.

SquireAU said:

Rolls-Royce is the world's leading supplier of high-end propulsion systems for warships; the compactness, quietness and efficiency of the propulsion used on Type 45, Elisabeth-Class and the upcoming Type 26 are seriously impressive and world-leading. MTU is a subsidiary of Rolls Royce, it's official name is now Rolls-Royce Power Systems.

Even the "colonial cruiser" Type 31 has 4 x 8.2MW Diesel engines from MTU; China has only recently developed a 7.28MW engine (The CS16V27, probably used in 054B). Before that, the 5.2MW 16PA6V-280STC was the most powerful engine that China could make domestically.

Click to expand...

MTU was German, and is still German operated and German talent. Finacially owning MTU does not make RR expert in the area. It is a shame to take other people's credit.

Jason_ said:

• is behind even Turkey in producing a fifth gen stealth fighter
• cannot produce AEWs or bombers
• has a negligible drone industry
• has no exo-atmospheric or high altitude ballistic missile defense systems
• has no long range SAM comparable to SM-6, 48N6, or HQ-9
• has no hypersonic missiles or advanced conventional ballistic missiles
• has vastly inferior space capabilities compared to US or China

Click to expand...

Europe does not spend much to make its products cheaper and operationally reliable but some export products that has foreign funding will be top of the class. There is Erieye built for UAE .The specifications of these kinds of customized products are classified but it will be among the best. This is a country that has ordered high end SAMS both from West and Korea. current long range SAMs have not much value. Europe also good in satellites.

when i see this large fuel tanks and desert heat that all i know the plane has the power and reliability. even in aviation tires no one can compete with Europe. but survival of Europe tech will be depend on what it can produce for Mideast.

SquireAU said:

I was mostly referring to the precision manufacturing involved in propulsion systems, including gearboxes. I used the shaft alignment as a quick example that came to mind.

Rolls-Royce is the world's leading supplier of high-end propulsion systems for warships; the compactness, quietness and efficiency of the propulsion used on Type 45, Elisabeth-Class and the upcoming Type 26 are seriously impressive and world-leading. MTU is a subsidiary of Rolls Royce, it's official name is now Rolls-Royce Power Systems.

Even the "colonial cruiser" Type 31 has 4 x 8.2MW Diesel engines from MTU; China has only recently developed a 7.28MW engine (The CS16V27, probably used in 054B). Before that, the 5.2MW 16PA6V-280STC was the most powerful engine that China could make domestically.

I am struck by the arrogance to dismiss this out of hand, and instead ridicule the severely deficient project management on these warships (that's a red herring btw). For the West it is now normal that major projects, especially in defence - are over budget, late and have severe kinks that need to be worked out. I suspect this negative trend is a result of de-industrialisation and the accompanying loss of skills, as well as lack of accountability for management.

But in spite of these problems, the fact remains that China hasn't reached the ability to match either the gas turbines, nor the gearboxes, nor the rafting, nor the MTU Diesel engines that are available to the Brits to mess with. Not in terms of power density, not in terms of silencin
g and not in terms of maximum power output.

Click to expand...

Bizarre.

Type 075 which was built already some years ago would have 4x16kw diesel engines.


The Type 901 is even bigger than the 075 and according to an interview of the ship's engineer which I watched in CCTV, it is powered by four diesel engines and not gas turbines.

All the Type 054A frigates feature extensive rafting, as well as the Type 056 corvettes. You can expect the higher end ships to do just as well. All these information are long documented in their respective threads.

China has stopped importing MTU engines a long time ago and has been making similar derivatives over 10 years ago. After the first four Type 054A, the rest of the production has been using domestic engines.