Chinese Navy (PLAN) News & Discussions

[nomi007]

This newest member of the "High New" series was first spotted in April 2011 at CFTE (S/N 720?). Similar to Y-8W, Y-8ELINT is based on "Y-8 Catalog III Platform" powered by four WJ-6C turboprop engines with 6-blade high efficiency propellers. As an EW aircraft it features four large rectangular shaped dark color fairings on both sides of the forward and rear fuselage. Additional antennas are installed inside fairings at the wingtips, beneath and on top of the mid-fuselage, on top of the vertical tailfin, underneath the nose as well as inside the nose/tail cone.

An EO turret (containing FLIR/TV) is also mounted underneath the fuselage for surveillance purpose. The exact function of Y-8ELINT is still unknown. However it was speculated as an advanced ELINT platform similar to American EP-3. At least two High New 8 were constructed by spring 2012. The newly constructed aircraft now features two additional small vertical stabilizing fins on its tail. The first Y-8ELINT entered the service with PLAN in early 2013 (S/N 9241).

 

[aliaselin]

All of Type 055, Type 054B/057 and new replenishment ship will use integrated mast

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

All of Type 055, Type 054B/057 and new replenishment ship will use integrated mast

I am a bit surprised that even the Arleigh Burke Flight III still won't use the integrated mast.

 

[Beast]

Becos american has too much pride. Canard layout for super agility is proven but american still goes for conventional layout of their fighter jet.

Same goes for inter grated mast. The higher the better for radar but you know the Americans....

 

[Oldman1]

Becos american has too much pride. Canard layout for super agility is proven but american still goes for conventional layout of their fighter jet.

Same goes for inter grated mast. The higher the better for radar but you know the Americans....

You're just spouting BS. We have ships already with this design. The reason the Flight III will not have it because it requires redesigning the ship from scratch to accommodate such design of integrated mast. You don't just simply put it on a destroyer designed from the 80s and don't expect any consequences of the impact of the ship's performance.

 

[Beast]

You're just spouting BS. We have ships already with this design. The reason the Flight III will not have it because it requires redesigning the ship from scratch to accommodate such design of integrated mast. You don't just simply put it on a destroyer designed from the 80s and don't expect any consequences of the impact of the ship's performance.

Are you saying the USN is broke? Can't even afford for a redesign for the inter grated mast and accept inferior performance?

 

[Oldman1]

Are you saying the USN is broke? Can't even afford for a redesign for the inter grated mast and accept inferior performance?

You can't read and comprehend can you? You will have to redesign from scratch and might as well have a new class of ships instead of the Arleigh Burke. Hence why its called Flight III Burke not another class name. There is so much you can do to the ship without hindering its performances.

 

[cirr]

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You're just spouting BS. We have ships already with this design. The reason the Flight III will not have it because it requires redesigning the ship from scratch to accommodate such design of integrated mast. You don't just simply put it on a destroyer designed from the 80s and don't expect any consequences of the impact of the ship's performance.

The Arleigh Burke platform has reached its limit, the USN should use the Zumwalt as the common platform for its future destroyer.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

According to Jin Canrong a CCTV expert, DL will build a 70000 tons carrier, while JNCX will build a 80000 tons carrier.

 

[Oldman1]

The Arleigh Burke platform has reached its limit, the USN should use the Zumwalt as the common platform for its future destroyer.

Pure speculation as to the Zumwalt design of future U.S. Navy destroyer but you are right on the limitations of the Arleigh Burke. What they can do with Zumwalt is applying and developing new technologies from it.
Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s | Military.com
Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s
The U.S. Navy is in the very early stages of developing a new destroyer -- called the Future Surface Combatant -- which will replace the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and enter service by the early 2030s, Navy leaders told Military.com.

Navy officials said it is much too early to speculate on hull design or shape for the new ship but lasers, on-board power-generation systems, increased automation, next-generation weapons, sensors and electronics are all expected to figure prominently in the development of the vessel.

The Future Surface Combatant will succeed and serve alongside the Navy's current Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program slated to being construction in 2016. Overall, the Secretary of the Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan calls for construction of 22 Flight III DDGs, Navy officials said.

There are a handful of early emerging requirements regarding what admirals want for the ship, Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, director of surface warfare, told Military.com in an interview.

"I could not even draw a picture for you," said Rowden, who went on to explain that greater automation and integrated electrical power are part of the calculus of early discussions.

He emphasized that the new ship will leverage successful next-generation technologies already underway in other platforms such as the DDG 1000 destroyer, Littoral Combat Ship and Ford-class aircraft carriers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will it look like we won't know for a long time.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Pure speculation as to the Zumwalt design of future U.S. Navy destroyer but you are right on the limitations of the Arleigh Burke. What they can do with Zumwalt is applying and developing new technologies from it.
Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s | Military.com
Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s
The U.S. Navy is in the very early stages of developing a new destroyer -- called the Future Surface Combatant -- which will replace the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and enter service by the early 2030s, Navy leaders told Military.com.

Navy officials said it is much too early to speculate on hull design or shape for the new ship but lasers, on-board power-generation systems, increased automation, next-generation weapons, sensors and electronics are all expected to figure prominently in the development of the vessel.

The Future Surface Combatant will succeed and serve alongside the Navy's current Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program slated to being construction in 2016. Overall, the Secretary of the Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan calls for construction of 22 Flight III DDGs, Navy officials said.

There are a handful of early emerging requirements regarding what admirals want for the ship, Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, director of surface warfare, told Military.com in an interview.

"I could not even draw a picture for you," said Rowden, who went on to explain that greater automation and integrated electrical power are part of the calculus of early discussions.

He emphasized that the new ship will leverage successful next-generation technologies already underway in other platforms such as the DDG 1000 destroyer, Littoral Combat Ship and Ford-class aircraft carriers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will it look like we won't know for a long time.

Yeah, I also heard that the late ships of the CVN-78 class will eventually turn into this with the integrated mast.

This is an early bold design concept for the CVN-77, but it will likely apply to the US supercarriers after the CVN-80.

 

[gambit]

Becos american has too much pride. Canard layout for super agility is proven but american still goes for conventional layout of their fighter jet.

Read this before you start spouting nonsense...

Canard Advantages and Disadvantages

Same goes for inter grated mast. The higher the better for radar but you know the Americans....

Spare me your ignorance.

Here is a radar horizon calculator for you to educate yourself...

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

For a ship-to-ship radar engagement, a higher mast does not necessarily equal to superior detection range due to many factors, but most notably sea state, as in rough or calm sea. The higher the sea state, the greater the range that the mast that contains the radar will sway back and forth, now increase the mast height and radar anomalies will be compounded. Yes, the newer AESA data processing capabilities will alleviate some of these problems, but not all. The system would have to continuously calculate the mast sway rate and range and adjust beam directions, beam width, and even beam shape accordingly. But the system have no control over nature, except under 'Chinese physics' of course, and if sea wave height interferes with the beam at the right moment, all the data processing will not help.

Higher elevation is better, but within reasons, and those reasons includes ship design as well. Higher elevation can also affect near distance targets detection, as in decreased efficiency, and this depends on the radar system designs, as in antenna angle, its range of motion, beam width and shape, and power.

Just in case you think I make this shit up...

Chuck Husick on BoatUScom

Radar energy, like the energy emitted from the VHF transceiver, travels in a generally straight line. Horizontally directed radar energy is soon well above the curved surface of the earth and can illuminate only those objects tall enough to protrude above the radar horizon. For example, for a radar mounted at a height of 22 feet above the water, an object must be more than 1200 feet high to be seen at a distance of 48 miles. (Mounting the radar at the top of a 100 foot mast won't help much, the shortest object visible at 48 miles will still have to be at least 880 feet high). Regardless of the size of the vessel or the maximum range or power of marine radar it is most often used to scan for targets not more than about 6 miles distant and will frequently be operated at ranges of less than 2 miles. Choosing a radar on the basis of maximum range is not a good idea. The typical magnetron equipped marine radar cannot detect and display targets that are less than about 200 feet from the antenna. (The receiver is necessarily "blind" to signal reflections from close-in targets because it must be desensitized in the immediate aftermath of the emission of the energy pulse from the magnetron transmitter. A CW radar can visualize targets within a few feet of the antenna).

Mounting the antenna more than about 22 feet above the water will not make a worthwhile contribution to maximum range operation and can degrade the radar's ability to show important close-in targets. An radar mounting pole that places the radar about eight feet above the deck works well.

Here is a 1950s era declassified US Navy study on radar performance of carriers and destroyers that focuses on motions and vibrations versus radar performance...

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/224898.pdf‎

When will you guys learn not to stick you nose into areas you have no education and experience ? Looks like never and we are continually entertained by your guys' ignorance and foolishness.

 

[ViXuyen]

You just have to use onboard helicopter to detect opposing ships as shipborn radar detection range is severely restricted by the earth curvature.

 

[Indus Falcon]

You just have to use onboard helicopter to detect opposing ships as shipborn radar detection range is severely restricted by the earth curvature.

Or use a cheaper alternative - A radar fitted to a helium balloon?