Jump to content


Photo

Water Dragons Of The Middle Kingdom


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 September 2017 - 0817 AM

To start off, there's been some mention of a Type 52E destroyer since a number of months ago but the name seems to be spreading around a bit more this month. I think this is a video of a TV program and not some fan-made (but maybe still a touch of fan edits) with mention of the Type 52E.  It's probably mostly based off of the Type 52D but uses some technologies from the Type 55 destroyer such as a new radar called model 383.

Here is the text from the video:

Spoiler

 

From the video is these images of a CG model and a physical model that can be found elsewhere on the net. It seems to be that these are older images and are of an early concept design for the Type 55 destroyer. Of course the Type 55 destroyer still came out fairly different and bigger than the following concept.

Type55early01.jpg

 

Type55early02.jpg

The big black rotary radar on top of the tower is probably the radar that is said to be planned for the Type 52E. Note the difference between that radar and the one in the same position on the Type 52D.

type52D01.jpg



#2 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 October 2017 - 2304 PM

The video in the first post has been deleted already but maybe it'll pop up again somewhere else.

 

Anyway, when the first Type 55 destroyer was launched with a ceremony and all, there was still guesswork as to how many VLS the ship actually had since that data was never officially stated and there hasn't been anyway clear photos to make direct observation possible. Guesswork ranged from 96 to 128. But now this photo came out which now seems to have people concluding that it has 2x8x4 (64) in the front and 2x8x3 (48) in the rear, thus making 112 VLS.

Type55VLShowmany.jpg



#3 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 04 October 2017 - 0825 AM

That's a particularly prominent sonar bulge.

Any idea what the installations above the hanger are? There are four that look similar, two facing out to each side. The one centered behind that I assume is another point defense system; looks like their flavor of RAM.

#4 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2017 - 0912 AM

According to these Chinese image of a Type 52D destroyer which has similar looking thing in identical position, those are 多功能火箭发射器 (multi-function rocket launchers)  系统(system). I would guess that the primary function is to launch decoys. The second image is calling the RAM-like missile piece HQ-10 防空导弹系统 (air defense missile system). Probably the same equipment being put on the Type 55.

Type52Dquzhujian.jpg

 

Type52Dqushujian01.jpg


Edited by JasonJ, 04 October 2017 - 0913 AM.


#5 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 04 October 2017 - 1105 AM

Ok, so basically their SRBOC. Might also serve as some kind of close range ASW mortar like the Russians do/did.

Also I didn't notice how large the sonar installation on the 52D was. 55 looks to have more of the same.

#6 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2017 - 1115 AM

I have been thinking that the 4 faced phased array radars looked kind of big too. Either they aren't able to use the las test technology and are making up for less effectiveness with bigger size or they are using similar level of tech but just going bigger for better performance.

#7 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 04 October 2017 - 1446 PM

Well, size might have more to do with wavelength. Emitter spacing would likely be a function of wavelength.

 

The location of the multi-function rocket launchers suggests countermeasures, like as you say, chaff dispensers.

 

The 7-30 has a very Goalkeeper look to it, but with an obvious EO head as well as the radar tracker.



#8 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 04 October 2017 - 2016 PM

At 18x4, that's a lot of counter measures compared to USN ships.

As for the panels, it isn't obvious to me that its a bigger installation but it might be. The more elements you have, the more energy you can focus at any particular target. It doesn't mean a frequency change most likely; I assume it opperates in the S band, but it would mean enhanced range and target tracking ability. Note that the US has been attempting to field much larger phased arrays as well, primarily for ABM usage (which the Chinese don't need) but generally has been running into the problem of comfortably carrying the top weight.

#9 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2017 - 2051 PM

Interesting point about top weight on destroyers. The use of gallium nitride in radars looks to be attractive and some articles make it sound like a game changer as far as radars go. AFAIK, the new SPY-6 uses GaN. And the US Army is looking into replacing the radars on the Patriot system with new ones made with GaN. GaN has a density of 6.1g per cm3 while the current (I guess) GaAs has a density of 5.3g per gram3. Any idea on the potential weight increase that comes with using GaN? Naturally land based systems like Patriot and Aegis ashore won't have any top heavy issue. And while I'm at it, is there any competitive alternative to the use of GaN in the future or is it the way to go in the future?

#10 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 04 October 2017 - 2106 PM

SPY-6, also know as AMDR, does use GaN. However the USN still wanted much larger arrays for missile defense and couldn't fit them into the Burke:

"The AMDR system consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar is to provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications while the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets.[6] The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication. AMDR is intended as a scalable system; the Burke deckhouse can only accommodate a 14-foot version but the USN claim they need a radar of 20 foot or more to meet future ballistic missile threats.[8] This would require a new ship design; Ingalls have proposed the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock as the basis for a ballistic missile defense cruiser with 20-foot AMDR. To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia...PY-6#Technology

#11 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2017 - 0841 AM

First Type 901 AOE was commissioned on September 1st.

type901supply02.jpg

More in spoiler

Spoiler


#12 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2017 - 2055 PM

Fitting out of their second carrier.

2ndcarrier01.jpg

More in the spoiler

Spoiler


#13 nemo

nemo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2017 - 2312 PM

SPY-6, also know as AMDR, does use GaN. However the USN still wanted much larger arrays for missile defense and couldn't fit them into the Burke:

"The AMDR system consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar is to provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications while the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets.[6] The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication. AMDR is intended as a scalable system; the Burke deckhouse can only accommodate a 14-foot version but the USN claim they need a radar of 20 foot or more to meet future ballistic missile threats.[8] This would require a new ship design; Ingalls have proposed the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock as the basis for a ballistic missile defense cruiser with 20-foot AMDR. To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia...PY-6#Technology

 

Size of the array of 052C is 4.2 meter. Size of the array of 052D is 4.5 meters.  Size of the array in 055 is rumored to be 6 meters.  Note 14 ft is around 4.2 meters, and 6 meters is around 20 feet.  So 055 is essentially what US navy would like for a full sized AMDR follow-on to Aleigh Burke.  And 052C and 052D at mid life refit will have a sensor that will at least be a match to AMDR fitted to Burke 3.

 

Your picture of so called 052E is definitely fan generated, so not trustworthy.



#14 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2017 - 2328 PM

 

SPY-6, also know as AMDR, does use GaN. However the USN still wanted much larger arrays for missile defense and couldn't fit them into the Burke:

"The AMDR system consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar is to provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications while the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets.[6] The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication. AMDR is intended as a scalable system; the Burke deckhouse can only accommodate a 14-foot version but the USN claim they need a radar of 20 foot or more to meet future ballistic missile threats.[8] This would require a new ship design; Ingalls have proposed the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock as the basis for a ballistic missile defense cruiser with 20-foot AMDR. To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia...PY-6#Technology

 

Size of the array of 052C is 4.2 meter. Size of the array of 052D is 4.5 meters.  Size of the array in 055 is rumored to be 6 meters.  Note 14 ft is around 4.2 meters, and 6 meters is around 20 feet.  So 055 is essentially what US navy would like for a full sized AMDR follow-on to Aleigh Burke.  And 052C and 052D at mid life refit will have a sensor that will at least be a match to AMDR fitted to Burke 3.

 

Your picture of so called 052E is definitely fan generated, so not trustworthy.

 

 

That is some interesting specific data dimensions. I don't mean to come off negatively, but I have to ask, is the numbers on the dimensions being published in actual books or stated by officials or is it pixel counting estimating work by net users? The pixel counting way wouldn't necessarily fully discredit an estimation of 4.2, 4.5, and 6.0 meters, but it would call interest in a closer look in how the pixel counting came to its measurements (for anyone that was interested debating that at least). Well for me, just knowing that the Type 55 having bigger ones than the Type 52D and Type 52C is good enough. Well anyway, just interested in where those numbers are coming from.

 

Never claimed that the pictures were of the Type 52E. Read more carefully please.



#15 nemo

nemo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 October 2017 - 0045 AM

 

 

SPY-6, also know as AMDR, does use GaN. However the USN still wanted much larger arrays for missile defense and couldn't fit them into the Burke:

"The AMDR system consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar is to provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications while the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets.[6] The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication. AMDR is intended as a scalable system; the Burke deckhouse can only accommodate a 14-foot version but the USN claim they need a radar of 20 foot or more to meet future ballistic missile threats.[8] This would require a new ship design; Ingalls have proposed the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock as the basis for a ballistic missile defense cruiser with 20-foot AMDR. To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia...PY-6#Technology

 

Size of the array of 052C is 4.2 meter. Size of the array of 052D is 4.5 meters.  Size of the array in 055 is rumored to be 6 meters.  Note 14 ft is around 4.2 meters, and 6 meters is around 20 feet.  So 055 is essentially what US navy would like for a full sized AMDR follow-on to Aleigh Burke.  And 052C and 052D at mid life refit will have a sensor that will at least be a match to AMDR fitted to Burke 3.

 

Your picture of so called 052E is definitely fan generated, so not trustworthy.

 

 

That is some interesting specific data dimensions. I don't mean to come off negatively, but I have to ask, is the numbers on the dimensions being published in actual books or stated by officials or is it pixel counting estimating work by net users? The pixel counting way wouldn't necessarily fully discredit an estimation of 4.2, 4.5, and 6.0 meters, but it would call interest in a closer look in how the pixel counting came to its measurements (for anyone that was interested debating that at least). Well for me, just knowing that the Type 55 having bigger ones than the Type 52D and Type 52C is good enough. Well anyway, just interested in where those numbers are coming from.

 

Never claimed that the pictures were of the Type 52E. Read more carefully please.

 

 

That's what I remembered from the discussion on the net.  Since you asked about the source, I did a search to try to find the source.  For Type 346 radar of 052C, I found a dimension of 3.9m x 4.6m cited in lots of places, including baidu encyclopedia page -- I am not able to track down the source, but it probably come from a single picture of the radar before the external cover is mounted.  The figures that I cited before is probably external dimension, pixel counted by someone. The 346A radar of 052D actually have a news article source in Chinese, the expert interviewed state that 346A is larger the base 346, and the dimension is 4.3m.   So it's in the ball park of the figure I cited.

The figure for 055 is speculated, so beware.



#16 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2017 - 1148 AM

Some more images of the Type 55 with some top down images.

Type5591.jpg

 

type5592.jpg

 

type5593.jpg

 

type5594.jpg



#17 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2017 - 0620 AM

3rd Zubr class LCAC.

 

Their first two were purchased form the Ukraine.

zubr00.jpg

 

 

This third one was domestically made recently.

Spoiler

http://mil.news.sina...mq4848148.shtml

zubr01.jpg

More pictures from the article in the spoiler

Spoiler


#18 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2017 - 0735 AM

Armored vehicles transported by a LACA reach the sea-beach during a landing training exercise on May 13, 2016. A landing ship flotilla with the South China Sea Fleet of the PLA Navy has been engaged in beach landing training in an undisclosed sea area of the South China Sea for several days in mid-May, 2016. The training highlighted the coordination between the crew of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LACA) and the troops of armored units in the loading and unloading of armored hardware.

http://english.china...t_7062247_7.htm

zubro7.jpg

More pictures of that exercise and linked article in the spoiler

Spoiler

 

There a several webpage articles dated late 2014 and early 2015 like this one saying that Greece sold their 4 Zubr LCACs to China but I cannot find anything later to confirm whether of not that deal went though or if there was a hick up. Anyone know?



#19 rohala

rohala

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece

Posted 18 October 2017 - 1404 PM

There a several webpage articles dated late 2014 and early 2015 like this one saying that Greece sold their 4 Zubr LCACs to China but I cannot find anything later to confirm whether of not that deal went though or if there was a hick up. Anyone know?

No Greek Zubrs were sold, unless I'm missing something all 4 are still in possession of the Greek Navy. Two are fully operational, one was recently brought back to action and is presumably operational while the fourth has been cannibalized for spare parts. Maintenance of the ships is very problematic due to high costs and the fact that their engines are Ukrainian. Russia however has developed its own engine and I read that it is the intention of the Greek navy to eventually repair and bring the fourth one back to service as well.



#20 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 876 posts

Posted 18 October 2017 - 1448 PM

 

There a several webpage articles dated late 2014 and early 2015 like this one saying that Greece sold their 4 Zubr LCACs to China but I cannot find anything later to confirm whether of not that deal went though or if there was a hick up. Anyone know?

No Greek Zubrs were sold, unless I'm missing something all 4 are still in possession of the Greek Navy. Two are fully operational, one was recently brought back to action and is presumably operational while the fourth has been cannibalized for spare parts. Maintenance of the ships is very problematic due to high costs and the fact that their engines are Ukrainian. Russia however has developed its own engine and I read that it is the intention of the Greek navy to eventually repair and bring the fourth one back to service as well.

 

Apparently there is more then enough interest to restart production, the problem is a technical one of restarting component production.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users