Type 055 DDG News & Discussions

[帅的一匹]

055 mast
View attachment 377110

360 degree coverage X-band AESA.
360 degree coverage electronic warfare.

Navy expert General Wang said the cost of 055 is over 15 billions USD.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Navy expert General Wang said the cost of 055 is over 15 billions USD.

15 billion for one pcs?????
I think you meant 1.5...

or R&D included...

 

[艹艹艹]

the cost of 055 is over 15 billions USD

15? or 1.5?

 

[rcrmj]

Navy expert General Wang said the cost of 055 is over 15 billions USD.

15 billion RMB more likely, state-of-art weapon system doesnt have to be expensive

 

[cnleio]

Navy expert General Wang said the cost of 055 is over 15 billions USD.

15 billion USD ? or 1.5 billion USD ?

 

[帅的一匹]

View attachment 377217 View attachment 377218


15 billion USD ? or 1.5 billion USD ?

I forget the decimal

 

[Penguin]

Meanwhile, Sejong the Great-class destroyer has three obsolete SPG-62 fire control radars for missile terminal guidance.

I would say this attribute alone puts the 055 far ahead of traditional AEGIS ships. It's not about how many missiles you have. It's about how many missiles you can provide terminal guidance for.

Maybe, dual band AMDR allows for deletion of illumination radars. It doesn't mean having seperate illumination radars makes the earlier ABs outdated or irrelevant. It means the are limited in dealing with counter large and complex raids and saturation attacks. CEC and the Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA) battle network. however, at least partially eliminate/compensate for the drawback of having 3 illuminators.

As for Sejong the Great class, who says the 3 additional ships won't get the latest fit, including AMDR? Remember, construction of AB Flight III ships started in FY2016 in place of the canceled CG(X) program, and these have various design improvements including radar antennas of mid-diameter increased to 14 feet (4.3 m) from the previous 12 feet (3.7 m).

Seven Flight I ships - DDG 51-53, 57, 61, 65, 69 - will get the full US$270m mid-life upgrade that included electronics and Aegis Baseline 9 software for SM-6 compatibility.

 

[MULUBJA]

15 billion for one pcs?????
I think you meant 1.5...

or R&D included...

It may be a total programme cost.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Maybe, dual band AMDR allows for deletion of illumination radars. It doesn't mean having seperate illumination radars makes the earlier ABs outdated or irrelevant. It means the are limited in dealing with counter large and complex raids and saturation attacks. CEC and the Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA) battle network. however, at least partially eliminate/compensate for the drawback of having 3 illuminators.

As for Sejong the Great class, who says the 3 additional ships won't get the latest fit, including AMDR? Remember, construction of AB Flight III ships started in FY2016 in place of the canceled CG(X) program, and these have various design improvements including radar antennas of mid-diameter increased to 14 feet (4.3 m) from the previous 12 feet (3.7 m).

Seven Flight I ships - DDG 51-53, 57, 61, 65, 69 - will get the full US$270m mid-life upgrade that included electronics and Aegis Baseline 9 software for SM-6 compatibility.

Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas are not outdated or irrelevant. They are more capable than the vast majority of ships in the world.

But the AN/SPG-62 fire control radar is obsolete technology. The radar is mechanically steered and only provides illumination for a single target at a time. If you want to illuminate a new target, it needs to be mechanically steered again. Thus the key to defeating a traditional AEGIS ship is to overwhelm (or jam) the rather small number of SPG-62 radars. Multiple missiles coming in from different directions would be even more dangerous. The SM-6 has an active radar seeker, but the small and weak radar and electronics inside the missile are easily jammed.

An X-band AESA radar, on the other hand, can form multiple beams at the same time and illuminate multiple targets. AESA is electronically steered very quickly instead of mechanically steered. AESA is more difficult to jam. Also, according to various sources, the AESA radar itself can be used as a weapon.

The US already has a replacement in service. The AN/SPY-3 MFR (X-band AESA) is operational on the Zumwalt-class destroyer. But the Zumwalt is hobbled in its own way. The larger SPY-4 S-band AESA Volume Search Radar (VSR) was deleted in order to save money. What a disaster.

The ideal AMDR (Raytheon concept below) has a superstructure (and mast) with enough room for both an X-band and S-band component.

But the Arleigh Burke simply doesn't have room for the three or four X-band arrays and associated equipment. There is no room on the superstructure even if you have the money for the upgrade.

The 055, on the other hand, has an integrated mast with plenty of room. We can see the 3 openings on the mockup. The largest opening at the bottom is for the X-band AESA.

 

[Penguin]

But the Arleigh Burke simply doesn't have room for the three or four X-band arrays and associated equipment. There is no room on the superstructure even if you have the money for the upgrade.

If you consider e.g. the Dutch APAR (X-band) and SMART-L (S-Band) set up, on much smaller hulls, with e.g the former in an integrated mast (I-MAST 500), then you know you can have an effective package in a small space.

If you look at the AB you can use not only the area atop the bridge but also the area behind the rear stack. Esp. if you relocate or delete the rear Phalanx (one could well replace this by a SeaRam on both port and starboard on the most forward part of the structure housing the hangar) as well as the AN/SPG-62s, you could well place a maststructure there to incorporate X-band with 2, 3 or perhaps even 4 arrays.

You don't necessarily need to go this way:

PS: Why are the AN/SPG-62s retained upon installation of ICWI capable X-band AESA??? After all: "the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets. The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

APAR (X-band) on Dutch LCF: a very compact mast structure.

Apar Blk 2: Thales' new X-band multi-function radar, successor to the proven APAR (the first naval AESA radar).
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/apar-active-phased-array-multifunction-radar
http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/699741-vanguard-junejuly-2016/1

 

[j20blackdragon]

If you consider e.g. the Dutch APAR (X-band) and SMART-L (S-Band) set up, on much smaller hulls, with e.g the former in an integrated mast (I-MAST 500), then you know you can have an effective package in a small space.

If you look at the AB you can use not only the area atop the bridge but also the area behind the rear stack. Esp. if you relocate or delete the rear Phalanx (one could well replace this by a SeaRam on both port and starboard on the most forward part of the structure housing the hangar) as well as the AN/SPG-62s, you could well place a maststructure there to incorporate X-band with 2, 3 or perhaps even 4 arrays.

You don't necessarily need to go this way:

PS: Why are the AN/SPG-62s retained upon installation of ICWI capable X-band AESA??? After all: "the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets. The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

APAR (X-band) on Dutch LCF: a very compact mast structure.

Apar Blk 2: Thales' new X-band multi-function radar, successor to the proven APAR (the first naval AESA radar).
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/apar-active-phased-array-multifunction-radar
http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/699741-vanguard-junejuly-2016/1

You're talking about what theoretically could happen.

I'm talking about what is actually happening.

We already know the changes to Arleigh Burke Flight III.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/...Defense/Ships/FlightIIIDDG-51-AWST_USNavy.jpg

- AMDR-S replaces the SPY-1
- the very small SPQ-9B rotating radar becomes the X-band component of AMDR
- SPG-62 fire control radars are retained

 

[Brainsucker]

Interesting, China should buy an Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer (mimicking some Pakistani's friend comment)

But sarcasm aside, there's no new 055 Destroyer news?

 

[cirr]

15 billion for one pcs?????
I think you meant 1.5...

or R&D included...

850 million USD at current exchange rates.

Interesting, China should buy an Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer (mimicking some Pakistani's friend comment)

But sarcasm aside, there's no new 055 Destroyer news?

8 in various stages of construction.

 

[Penguin]

You're talking about what theoretically could happen.

I'm talking about what is actually happening.

We already know the changes to Arleigh Burke Flight III.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/...Defense/Ships/FlightIIIDDG-51-AWST_USNavy.jpg
View attachment 377655

- AMDR-S replaces the SPY-1
- the very small SPQ-9B rotating radar becomes the X-band component of AMDR
- SPG-62 fire control radars are retained

Clearly a (relatively) low cost solution...

I was responding to post 579, which discussed 'the ideal AMDR (Raytheon concept), which has a superstructure (and mast) with enough room for both an X-band and S-band component'. This claimed 'But the Arleigh Burke simply doesn't have room for the three or four X-band arrays and associated equipment. There is no room on the superstructure even if you have the money for the upgrade.'

I think it has space, esp. if you dump the AN/SPG-62s.

Besides, in Navy land, nothing is ever final.

8 in various stages of construction.

Is there a source that backs this up? Indication how many where exactly?

 

[j20blackdragon]

Clearly a (relatively) low cost solution...

I was responding to post 579, which discussed 'the ideal AMDR (Raytheon concept), which has a superstructure (and mast) with enough room for both an X-band and S-band component'. This claimed 'But the Arleigh Burke simply doesn't have room for the three or four X-band arrays and associated equipment. There is no room on the superstructure even if you have the money for the upgrade.'

I think it has space, esp. if you dump the AN/SPG-62s.

Besides, in Navy land, nothing is ever final.

It's one thing to make imaginary changes to the superstructure of a ship in your head, it's another thing to make the changes in real life while maintaining the seaworthiness of the ship.

Look at all the different factors that had to be considered just to add the SPY-6 radar to Flight III: weight, center of gravity, structural changes to the hull, power, cooling, and internal space needed for all the new equipment. The Arleigh Burke design is already being pushed to the limits.

At the end of the day, the ship needs to be able to sail.

Here the X-band radar limitations are addressed directly.

And that would be another advantage of building a brand new ship like the 055. We don't need to speculate about the location of the X-band AESA because we know it's going into the integrated mast. We don't need to speculate about whether or not the hull/superstructure can handle the size and weight of the integrated mast because the ship is a clean-sheet design...purpose-built from the ground up to be able to handle all the necessary requirements.