Jay

so any one has any idea about the number of cells in a normal AESA radar??

Snipe, but chinese do boast as if its top of the line burke class boats!!

Anon

The number of cells/emmiters does not matter so much as how good the emmiters themselves are. So just comparing total emmiters is misleading.

The Chinese are entitled to think whatever they want...it doesn't mean they're not dead wrong

Jay

true, but doesnt more emitters mean more resolution??

u'r "dead" right about chinese!! 8)

Anon

Not neccesarily.

If i have more powerful higher resolution emmiters, you'd need many more just to try to match my smaller emmiter count.

Like i said, misleading.

Praxus

There are only going to be 60-90 PVLS cells from what I have heard. There will also be 2 AGS guns with 1500 rounds of ammunition. I also heard that they may be putting on some Solid-State lasers for missile defense once they get a mega-watt class solid-state laser, but that's just rumor and we won't know till they get built.

Captain C

The Chinese radar system is more inline with the USS Long Beach's Phased array radars than the Tico/Burke versions. I believe the Long Beach had the A/N SPS32 and SPS33 setup. Warships1 says 33/23 but it just doesn't sound right......

It was unfortunately the USN couldn't keep technitions properly trained to keep those radars at peak efficiency. The Enterprise had the same thing IIRC. That's why they removed them and replaced them with the SPS 48 and finally the SPS 49. Only two ships had those radars so it was cheaper to swap than to train new people to work on them all the time....

(w00t)

__________________
Revelation 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
(Been There)

Homer

According to my copy of the The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets:

Radar: 1xLN66, 1xSPS-67, 1xSPS-48C, 1xSPS-49, 4xSPG-55D, 2xMk 35

Radars arent my forte... I dont know what you were asking for, so I put them all in there. Hope this helps....

sw55

I still don't understand how that reverse rake bow will not adversly effect sea-keeping ability...
It would seem to be against physics, to have a bow like that, in heavy seas it would tend to burry the bow and damage any deck weapons/equipment, especially with any sort of bulbous bow or sonor dome. Of course you could have bow mounted wings/fins that would dampen the swells, but it would depend on a system working, complicated, and not failing...
I like the more graceful look of the sharply raked bow of the Arliegh Burke Destroyers, and Russian cruisers.

cooldw57

Patiot?

sw55

Not sure they are comparable.
Patriot has not nearly the range that the (publiclly known numbers) 130 nm range Standard SM-2 block 4.
Also not discussed is the capability of Aegis radar to focus a megawat or more of energy down a single bearing, frying most electronics at about a mile. Soon lasers will be added. And some yahoo on the forum thinks the Russian Granit is some sort of invincible weapon,,,,yea right.

Anon

"I still don't understand how that reverse rake bow will not adversly effect sea-keeping ability... "

That hull form is called "tumblehome".

Anon

"Is there any other (foreign) system comparable to the AEGIS system out there?"

The new UK Type 45 DDGs reportedly exceed the performance of Aegis(baseline 7.0A) in almost all regards, and the performance of the ASTER30 far exceeds that of the US SM-2 MR Block IIIB missile.

Aegis is installed only on the Ticonderoga class CGs, the Burke class DDGs, and was planned for the Iowa BBs, but they were retired before it was installed(an Aegis BB setup was designed and manufactured though...the setup lives in a warehouse in upstate Pa now.)

Anon

"Patriot has not nearly the range that the (publiclly known numbers) 130 nm range Standard SM-2 block 4."

SM-2 Block IV was cancelled about 2 years ago after the production of less than 150 missiles.

SM-2 Block IIIB is the latest US variant in production.

TopHatter

Were they able to overcome the blast effects of the main guns on the electronics of the Aegis system? I was under the impression that that was the Achilles Heel of shipping such advanced systems on the battleships.
And upstate PA? Where do you find this information?? I'd probably give up my weekend ration of rum for your source

highsea

It is kind of funny looking, but not necessarily bad. Lots of flare in the bow is good for knocking down spray, and adding lift as the bow submerges, but it's not a requirement. As far as giving an easy motion in a seaway, it doesn't. It increases pitching forces and adds a lot of resistance to forward motion.

Bulbous bows move the bow wake forward, which reduces drag and increases hull speeds. I haven't seen a good underwater profile of the DD-X, but I am sure the tumblehome starts well above the waterline, so as the bow submerges in a seaway, there will still be adequate lift to keep the decks dry. Also, active stabilizers go a long way to reduce pitching motions.

If you look at the old fishing schooners, the bows were plumb, with very little flare. This gives the best ride in a displacement hull. It wasn't until high speed hulls did a lot of flare started showing up in hull designs, mainly for added lift when coming up to planing speeds. But in rough weather, they beat the hell out of you.

Sniper, do you have any data on the Chinese radar? How do we know these are active apertures and not standard phased arrays?