w******a
发帖数: 64 | 1 http://youtu.be/1TIcSn0iTuk
看最后来了个牛逼的专家Meatwaggon。
Sub Brief
Pinned by Sub Brief
Sub Brief
5 days ago
I was confused by some people claiming this ship is 'capable' because it has
ASEA radars. The capability is in the Beamformer Processor, not the array.
The Chinese beamformers are not in the same ballpark as current NATO
capabilities. Don't read chinese propaganda like it's gospel. Also, the X-
band depends on two sources for fire control and lots of other limitations.
Don't judge a radar by it's face.
90
Bruce
Bruce
5 days ago (edited)
I saw Eurasia Naval Insight post a comprehensive feedback to this video. It
seems like you just deleted them... I mean, it does not really paint you in
a favourable light
54
Sub Brief
Sub Brief
5 days ago
@Bruce I didn't delete them, I banned them for disinformation.
29
J L
J L
5 days ago (edited)
@Sub Brief You are no better than the CCP. Auth doing auth things? Eurasia
Naval Insight is far from misinformation and frankly the best channels I
have seen like Kraut always accept discussion and corrections in comments
46
Bruce
Bruce
5 days ago
@Sub Brief Well I can no longer see his comments now. It seems like
banning people has the same effect as deleting their comment
23
FATMAN tactical
FATMAN tactical
5 days ago
The CCP lie, what, never
4
EVOLUTION
EVOLUTION
5 days ago
So, if you don’t trust Chinese sources, how did you get the exact
information for the capabilities of the radar, etc. ? Did you steal their
technology?
39
Thomas Zhang
Thomas Zhang
5 days ago (edited)
I watch your other videos and I know you are trust worthy, Sub Brief, but
maybe there is a lack of complete information here.
From all other sources I can find, I mean any other sources, the Type 055
radar is very advanced.
Perhaps you can do a follow up video or comment that show us how to compare
modern radars (what metrics do we look at) and why Type 346B radar is at
least a generation behind the most advanced radar today?
32
rydplrs
rydplrs
5 days ago
With all the Chinese hacking I wouldn’t be surprised if their capability of
nato assessment.
1
AAA AAA
AAA AAA
5 days ago
Type 052D and Type 055 universal vertical launcher system is 850mm far
bigger than latest mark 57 vls of 710mm let alone the mark 41 vls. Type 055
also have a stealthy design so this size would be the size of a large
fishing boat on radar.
5
AAA AAA
AAA AAA
5 days ago
@Sub Brief Arleigh Burke-class destroyer uses PESA radar not the same as
Type 052D and Type 055 AESA radar
6
Sub Brief
Sub Brief
5 days ago
@Bruce yes, banning removes all comments he ever posted on this channel.
6
Sub Brief
Sub Brief
5 days ago
@EVOLUTION I have very good information on this ship. You can not believe
me, that's fine. But if you come into my channel and tell me im wrong with
Chinese sources. That's a ban because you are part of China's disinformation
campaign.
14
Sub Brief
Sub Brief
5 days ago
@Thomas Zhang it's really not advanced at all. You are reading circular
reporting. It's been going on for years and the established narrative online
is Type-055 is the best thing since God. Just read these comment on this
video. This is China propaganda.
10
Meatwaggon
Meatwaggon
17 hours ago (edited)
Wow Aaron, your assessment of subs from various countries is usually pretty
much on point, but your assessment of this ship is way off the mark.
Dramatically so. Where to start, where to start....
First of all, your claim that the Type 346B main radar "appears" to be a
Chinese version of the old SPY-1 radar is totally wrong. As in totally. You
look at the fixed four panel array arranged in a similar fashion to that of
the Burkes, and all of a sudden to you the 346B is a Chinese stolen version
of SPY-1??? Unless you have a source you can cite on this claim, of course.
In which case go right ahead and cite it! In point of fact the 346B is a
derivative of the original 346 (found on the Type 052C destroyer), which
itself is a dual-band AESA (two bar-shaped C-band fire control sub-arrays
sandwiching an octagonal S-band main array), nothing even remotely similar
to the Burke/Tico SPY-1 arrangement consisting of a single S-band PESA SPY-1
with multiple (separate and slaved) mechanically-skewed X-band SPG-62 fire
control radars. The design of these two radars in both type and arrangement
is as different as it could get. Only the arrangement of the radars on the
ships is something you could claim was inspired by the Arleigh Burke class.
Indeed the rear-facing panels on the 055 were almost certainly inspired by
the Burke Flight IIAs with their elevated mounting positions compared to the
forward facing panels. As I said, the Type 346B is a further evolution of
the 346, and totally separates the dual-band 346 into 2 sets of radars, one
set of 4 S-band arrays and one set of 4 X-band arrays, actually quite
similar to the SPY-6 dual band arrangement on the upcoming Burke Flight IIIs
. As for size, you should ask the Flight III designers why they maxed out
the SPY-6 panel sizes on the Flight III compared to the SPY-1 panel sizes on
the Flight I/II/IIAs despite the SPY-6s being far more efficient and
sensitive. Your claim about size indicating some kind of “inefficiency”
is just your inherent bias against anything related to Chinese technology,
not something grounded in actual evidence or logic. The Chinese designers
of the 346B maxed out the size of panels on the 055 because they could, just
like the Flight III designers of the SPY-6. Because they could. The ship
designers gave them an upper limit on the available surface area, and they
simply maxed out the radar panel sizes based on that. I’m sure that’s
what the SPY-6 designers did as well with the Flight III. This is actually
an indication that the 346B, or perhaps even the original 346, is modular
and scalable and can fit whatever size of ship you want to put it on. Your
claim that the 346B elements are not as efficient, have heat problems, are
less sensitive, are all claims that I have never ever heard before (I track
both US and Chinese military capabilities fairly closely), and which you
probably don’t have sources to back you up with. I could be wrong. Go
ahead and back yourself up here.
Second, your claim that 055 is an inefficient design due to the VLS cell/
displacement ratio is misleading at best. The VLS cells on the 055 (and
052D) are of the UVLS GJB 5860-2006 mil-std variety, which consists of cells
with internal dimensions of 0.85 x 0.85 x 9m. Compare this to the Mk 41
cell dimensions of 0.65 x 0.65 x 7.7m. In other words, total internal VLS
cell volume for a Type 055 with 112 larger VLS cells is 728.3 cubic meters,
while the that of the Ticonderoga with 122 smaller VLS cells is 396.9 cubic
meters. The UVLS is also inherently less susceptible to single-point of
failure disasters due to lack of a shared exhaust system, meaning each cell
in a given module deals with its own exhaust, either in a hot-launch (
concentric canister) or cold-launch (gas ejection prior to motor ignition)
fashion. This allows hot-launch cells to be placed right next to cold-
launch cells in the same VLS module, and allows for the full bore of the
canister to be used (if cold-launched), such as for future large bore
missiles like ballistic missiles or hypersonic missiles. The larger
canister internals also allows double-packing of most missiles like the Yu-8
, HHQ-9, YJ-18, and possibly even the CJ-10 LACM. Mk 41 doesn’t have all
this flexibility. Mk 57 doesn’t even have this flexibility. Mk 57 doesn’
t even have its own missile ecosystem which means it uses missiles designed
for the Mk 41 which means the (slightly) larger Mk 57 cells are essentially
useless.
Third, the HHQ-10 cannot be compared to the ESSM in capability. You have
confused/conflated the ESSM with the RAM, which are two totally different
missile systems. The ESSM is a medium-range missile while the HHQ-10 and
RAM are point-defense missiles. The actual capability of the HHQ-10
compared to the RAM is unknown, so I’m pretty sure your claim that the
performance of the HHQ-10 is inferior to the RAM is just your biased
speculation. It would have been better if you had just more accurately left
it at “unknown” rather than “it’s obviously worse”. Why is it
obviously worse?
Fourth, I’m pretty sure you didn’t look at any detailed photos of either
the Kashtan or the Type 1130 when you made your fantastical claim of the
1130 being derived from the Kashtan. A Kashtan unit has two guns each with
6 barrels, and also uses an attached point-defense missile system. The 1130
uses a single gun with 11 barrels, with no associated missile system, and
its radar and E/O system is not even remotely similar to that of the Kashtan.
Fifth, your crew size estimate of the 055 being large and inefficient are
way off. It’s actually not difficult at ALL to estimate crew size. You do
that by looking at the number of inflatable life raft pods deployed. The
055 has 12 of them, which means a max crew size of 300, and actually
typically at least one is a redundant backup, which means a max crew size of
275. A crew of 275 or less on a ship with a max displacement of 12 to 13,
000 tons is pretty good, and indicates a decent level of automation. By
comparison a 9,800 ton Tico has a crew size of 330 and a 9,500 ton Flight
IIA Burke has a crew size of 323. Admittedly the 055 isn’t as automated as
the 15,900 ton Zumwalt with a crew complement of 175, but then again the
055 isn’t a white elephant like the Zumwalt is, either.
Sixth, your claim that a larger sized engine room is needed on the 055 is
also wrong. The PLAN uses only one type of large marine gas turbine (since
they only have one design), the QC-280, which by various estimates generates
between 25 and 28 MW of power. Compare that to the Tico’s early
generation LM2500 which generates 16 MW, or the later generation LM2500 of
the Burke which generates 22 MW. The Flight III Burke will probably use the
LM2500+ which generates 30 MW of power. My guess is that the design size
of the 055 had a ceiling. Basically, how much ship displacement can you get
out of 4 QC-280s in a COGAG arrangement while still being able to sail at
30+ knots; the answer is probably 12 or 13,000 tons. Anyway, as you can see
the 055’s (and 052D’s and 052C’s) gas turbines are actually above
average in power generation capability compared to the ones used on the
current generation USN warships.
Finally, and this is pure speculation, but if you look closely at both the
port and starboard sides of the 055, there are two distinct panels, one on
the foc’sle in between two 346 panels, and one slightly-different looking
panel just forward of the hangars. Speculation is that one or both of these
panels are HPM emitters designed to deal with massed drone attacks.
Something for you to think about next time you want to take a dump on
backward Chinese naval technology…..
2
Sub Brief
Sub Brief
17 hours ago
Holy Crap, am I wrong?
Listen. I want you to know that you are 100% correct. This is an amazing
dismantling of my point, God Bless you. You are awesome.
Thanks.
GintaPPE1000
GintaPPE1000
12 hours ago (edited)
Other than the sixth point, this is quite a comprehensive and accurate
rebuttal. In COGAG propulsion, the turbines are connected mechanically via
shafts and a combining gearbox to the propellers, and electrical power is
separately provided by smaller generators (gas turbines in the case of both
Type 055 and Arleigh Burke, but they can also be diesels). IEP, which is
what Zumwalt and Type 45 use, has all power sources driving generators, and
are propelled by electric motors that share that electricity with other
systems like radars.
However, you are still correct in that Type 055 has an incredible amount of
power generation capacity, especially for a non-IEP surface combatant. She
has 6x QD-50 gas turbines rated at 5MW each for a total of 30MW of
electrical power, while Arleigh Burke Flight IIA and older have 3x Allison/
Rolls-Royce AG9140s gas turbines, rated at 3MW each for a total of 9MW.
Burke Flight III gets larger AG9160 generators, rated at 4MW each for a
total of 12MW of power. Nothing on Ticonderoga's power generation
capabilities is public knowledge as far as I know, but it's safe to say it's
probably not much better than Burke Flight IIA given their age.
I would also say that Aaron's assumption about the larger engine room are
correct. We already know Chinese jet engine (and thus gas turbine)
technology is heavily-derived from Russian tech, and neither of them could
or can catch Western manufacturers yet. More power can most easily be
achieved by increasing the size of the engine, and the only source I have
been able to find on the QC-280's size confirms this: it claims power unit
on Type 055 is 9m long, 2.8m wide, 3.5m tall, and weighs 25.3 tons. The
same source claims that the LM2500+ in other naval applications (ex. America
-class or Cavour) is 8.2m long, 2m wide, 2.4m tall, and weighs 22.7 tons;
the veracity of both figures remains to be seen, but it is a very pro-China
column that made the claims, so I figure that if they are admitting the QC-
280 is inferior in power density, it's probably true.
Lastly, on Burke's main engines, all flights use standard LM2500s. The
LM2500+ and LM2500+G4 make their extra power through additional engine
stages, which means the engines themselves are physically longer and wider.
Those would not fit in the machinery spaces without a complete redesign of
the lower hull's internal arrangement due to the aforementioned gearbox and
shaft setup they're connected to. However, the LM2500 keeps getting more
powerful because GE keeps improving it. In the original Flight I hulls,
each turbine is officially rated for 26250SHP (19.6MW). Flight IIA, being
started nearly a decade after the first Flight I ship, can take advantage of
improvements that pushed the LM2500 to your 22MW (about 29500HP) figure.
However, since then, GE has had nearly 2 decades to improve the LM2500
further, and their current product brochure advertises it as producing
33600SHP (25MW) of power. Whether Flight III will use these new engines
remains to be seen, but given its displacement increase, some added power
will likely be necessary to maintain speed.
Meatwaggon
Meatwaggon
7 hours ago (edited)
@GintaPPE1000 Sounds like you missed his original claim, which is that the
various Chinese shipboard systems are larger and more inefficient and thus
requires more power and thus larger engines and generators, not actually
that the power generation systems themselves need to be larger because they
are inefficient. Even if that WAS part of the original claim, it is still
wrong. The QC-280 is a (slightly) larger volume GT because it generates
more power at 28 MW (presumably ISO "ideal conditions", and maybe 25 MW with
the Chinese equivalent of NSD, aka "realistic conditions"). The original
LM2500s generated 16 MW of power (presumably NSD), second gen LM2500s
generated 20 (NSD) MW of power, and was subsequently uprated to 22 MW (NSD,
25 MW ISO). The third gen LM2500+ generates 26NSD/30ISO. The fourth gen
LM2500+G4 generates 30NSD/36ISO. This is what the General Electric
factsheet says. This same factsheet states that the LM2500+ dimensions are
8m x 2.6m x 2.4m, which is actually not substantially smaller than the QC-
280 dimensions you quoted, assuming they are even correct. As you can see
the LM2500 design didn't exceed the capability of the QC-280 until its 3rd
iteration and after decades of experience/improvement/redesign, which
implies that the original QC-280 design is simply just larger and more
powerful, not larger and more inefficient/less powerful, compared to the
original LM2500 design. Also, the QC-280 is NOT actually Russian in origin,
it began its life in China as a license-built version of the Ukrainian GT-
25000, and was subsequently completely indigenized and redesigned. There is
also some debate as to whether "QC-280" is actually the correct designator
for the gas turbine that is currently in serial production for PLAN warships. | e*******e
发帖数: 9616 | 2 没所谓了，NATO真信055上的双波段346是一堆垃圾就好了
土工也没想着澄清这些数据，呵呵
我帝都是一群Lbgqt妖魔鬼怪傻逼在吸大麻做军工 | P****i
发帖数: 12972 | 3 感觉那些人就是套情报的
【在 e*******e 的大作中提到】
: 没所谓了，NATO真信055上的双波段346是一堆垃圾就好了
: 土工也没想着澄清这些数据，呵呵
: 我帝都是一群Lbgqt妖魔鬼怪傻逼在吸大麻做军工
| I******n
发帖数: 5952 | 4 I didn't delete them, I banned them for disinformation.
Epic! | w******a
发帖数: 64 | 5 用英文套个鸡巴的情报
都是自己人在这里吵架
【在 P****i 的大作中提到】
: 感觉那些人就是套情报的
| s*x
发帖数: 8041 | | p**********e
发帖数: 130 | 7 不用看了
说055的雷达是SPY-1山寨, but less efficient
还有055 less efficient than Ticonderoga
这傻逼莫非在潜艇干的是大厨？LOL |
|
