PLA says our naval ship radar are one whole generation ahead of US Navy Aegis Systems. US admitted this fact.
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-12-28/doc-ifypyuve0048182.shtml
中国大型驱逐舰突破多项关键技术 性能跃入世界第一
中国大型驱逐舰突破多项关键技术 性能跃入世界第一
0
055型驱逐舰是中国一个未完成驱逐舰设计，始于上个世纪60年代末《关于建造远洋护航舰船的建议》，是当时于053型防空护卫舰之后开展的第二个防空舰设计。由于当时国际环境宽松，英国开始与中国接触，愿意提供英国当时最新型42型驱逐舰与相关的技术，范围包括海标枪系统、战斗资料系统、Olympus TM-3B燃气涡轮机等，但随着后来马岛战争爆发，42型防空驱逐舰在该战中表现不佳等，国际形势严峻，且由于055设计指标过高，当时国力无法独立完成，最终导致该项目流产。
根据英媒透露的资料，中国055导弹驱逐舰，约有180米长，19米宽，意味着该级别舰艇将比排水量7500吨的旅洋III级（052D型）驱逐舰（长157米，宽17米）要大很多。这使得055型驱逐舰将介乎于韩国海军的“世宗大王”（KDX-3）级驱逐舰（长166米/排水量1.05万吨）和俄罗斯海军的“光荣”级巡洋舰（长186米/排水量1.17万吨）之间。
055型驱逐舰的任务是指挥中国的特别部队、充当防空舰队的中心、来打击敌方的空中袭击、为航母战斗群护航并实施对地火力攻击、发射反舰导弹来保护中国空军。为了实现这些目的，055型驱逐舰将配备直升机停机坪和112-128个垂发导弹，这个数量非常让人惊奇。相比之下，美国海军提康德罗加级宙斯盾驱逐舰的垂发导弹数量为122枚。
055的出现给了国人一个很大的惊喜，其满载排水量约052C/D的2倍，高达13000吨左右。这个吨位不仅比美国主力驱逐舰伯克级大很多，就是比其主力巡洋舰“提康德罗加”级都大不少，已经接近了美国最新的DDG1000“朱姆沃尔特”级驱逐舰。
055采用全燃动力、双轴、双调距桨，动力系统采用4台国产的QC280型燃气轮机的改进型，最大航速约32节。055船尾设置两个大型机库，可搭载2架新一代的反潜机，反潜能力大增。055的出现，将使我国海军主战舰艇超越日韩欧，一举达到世界一流水平。
055型舰雷达领先美军宙斯盾整整一代
这个不是我们说的，而是美国亲自承认的。中国055型驱逐舰的雷达性能已经远超美国同类型驱逐舰。美国《防务新闻》网站的报道，美国海军新型AN/SPY-6型雷达才刚刚完成S波段防空反导测试，而根据美国在线军事专家的透露，其技术水平才刚刚接近中国海军052D和055型驱逐舰上的346/A型雷达，远远落后中国055驱逐舰雷达水平。
“阿利。伯克”FightIII型（S波段）的首舰预期交付日期是2021年，预计总产量12艘。而装备更先进的AMDR-X波段AESA雷达的“终极版““阿利。伯克”FightIII型（S+X双波段）则是要从2027年才开始交付，预计总产量仅10艘，数量上与中国的“饺子”级052D相比着实磕惨了点。
美国军方认为，应该学习中国导弹驱逐舰雷达技术，并以此为契机不断改善美国雷达水平，确保美国驱逐舰能够更好的发现识别目标。
055驱逐舰采用全电驱，这将会安装电磁炮做准备。海军工程大学教授：中国舰艇尖端电磁装备研究实力超过美国]海军工程大学教授、船舶动力与电气领域‘’国宝级‘’专家马伟明接受采访时表示，中国在舰艇尖端电磁装备研究方面的实力‘’肯定超过美国。
当然，我们应该承认，这种“弯道超车”的方式更多的是在解决“从无到一定得有”的问题，使得中国新一代军工项目的研制工作必须成功，缺乏“上一代”的代替方案。不可否认的是，单个子系统突破不能代表整体作战性能突破，目前在雷达数据分析的运算效率上，中国与美国还存在差距。现代战争更加注重体系，只有当所有子系统都全部领先，最终实现体系领先。祝愿中国的军工发展稳步推进，更上一层楼！（作者署名：小小的小幸运）
https://www.quora.com/Is-China-now-the-world-leader-in-military-radar-technology-research
Is China now the world leader in military radar technology research?
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/arti...dar-capable-detecting-invisible-targets-100km
5 Answers
Igor Markov, never served in the military
Updated Sep 24 2016 · Upvoted by
Tim Hibbetts, A-6E, F/A-18C pilot, Operational Level of War Planner and
Eric Johnson, 25 years working in and around USAF F-16s
Not at all, and this should be abundantly obvious from the article cited.
The South China Morning Post (not sure what their claim to fame is) describes the results of new physics experiment with
entangled photons, claiming that this will have dire implications for radar technologies and speculating that a quantum radar would see American stealth airplanes.
The article is spotty on how exactly entangled photons help
A quantum radar, generating a large number of entangled photon pairs and shooting one twin into the air, would be capable of receiving critical information about a target, including its shape, location, speed, temperature and even the chemical composition of its paint, from returning photons.
Of course, all this information is provided by conventional non-entangled photons, which are easier to generate in large numbers and are not nearly as fragile as entangled pairs. The difference is that a quantum radar can, in theory, be more sensitive under ideal conditions, but only by a fairly modest amount AFAIK. Less-than-ideal conditions would undermine that promise.
The article also does not tell you that science experiments can be successful if they detect something once in a million experiments, whereas a weapon with such a track record isn’t very useful. Even a 1000-fold improvement would be pathetic.
The article contradicts itself by claiming that
The scientists said they were shocked because, until recently, the idea of quantum radar had remained largely confined to science fiction.
and then
America’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency has reportedly funded similar research and military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin are also developing quantum radar systems for combat purposes, according to media reports, but the progress of those military projects remains unknown.
I personally heard the idea of using entangled photons for remote sensing at a DARPA research review on quantum technologies around 2003 (where industry was present). So, the idea of quantum radar has been known for long time. Moreover, Los Alamos had successful experiments around that time that exchanged optical entangled photons between low-orbit satellites and ground stations under certain conditions. This is certainly not “confined to science fiction”. And if DARPA managed to get quantum radars working, the South China Morning Post would probably be the last to be informed about such progress, with all due and undue respect. Also, why would you trust a newspaper (in China or US) without a strong reputation and track record on matters related to physics? Especially if it makes claims like these
In theory, a quantum radar could detect a target’s composition, heading and speed even if managed to retrieve just one returning photon. It would be able to fish out the returning photon from the background noise because the link the photon shared with its twin would facilitate identification.
There isn’t enough information carried by one photon to get all those data. Even conventional single photons would have a low chance of getting back, and avoiding noise. Entangled photons sent at long distances would experience dramatic losses (far more than 99% of entangled pairs would be lost). For quantum cryptography applications, this was handled by quantum error correction. But for radar applications that try to detect a faint target, you’d need a radar hundred times more powerful than what is used now. So, if you want to see stealth planes better, just increase the power of your radar by, say, 10 times, and your radar will see a little better/farther.
What we learn from this article is that China’s journalists are catching up with US and European journalists who hail every new experiment with quantum information or computation as a game changer for something. There’s a short word for this -
hype.
However, Ma, who was not involved with the CETC project, said serious technical challenges had long confined quantum radar technology to the laboratory.
But of course
8.6k Views ·
96 Upvotes · Answer requested by
Kyle Murao
Promoted by Plarium
Play this for 1 minute and see why everyone is addicted.
Vikings: War Of Clans has taken the web by storm. Test your skills against millions of players.
Related QuestionsMore Answers Below
Robin Daverman, World traveler
Updated Sep 26 2016 · Upvoted by
Eric Johnson, 25 years working in and around USAF F-16s
Is China now the world leader in military radar technology research?
No. The University of Rochester did it back in 2012.
Researchers use quantum properties to create jammer-proof radar.
Actually, the story is even more complicated. Lockheed Martin was granted a patent on Quantum Radar back in 2008.
Patent US7375802 - Radar systems and methods using entangled quantum particles
US defence contractor looks for quantum leap in radar research
… amd that’s the last people hear about it. If you think about it, how much is Lockheed Martin making on all those stealth aircraft? $34 billion on F-22, $1.5 Trillion for F-35.
The $1.5 trillion plane that broke the Air Force With this kind of money, why in the world would Lockheed Martin spend a cent on making these aircraft potentially useless? Bored with too much money??? So it obviously is NOT going to do anything about it until it has to.
So the real story of the University of Rochester is more along the line of some academic lab trying to strike up a conversation with the DoD, like “Hey Lockheed Martin is doing sh*t, so how about if you give us a measley $5 million funding to do something?” So my guess is, DoD turned around to Lockheed Martin and said, hey buddy, you think there’s any leg in what those nerds are doing? And Lockheed Martin said, Nah, just a bunch of lab rats. We’ve looked into it way earlier, and it’ll never work in practice.
China, of course, didn’t invest trillions into the stealth products. Dropping a couple million into anti-stealth technology is positive to neutral for their business case. Whenever China makes a
public announcement like this, it’s usually a precursor of some money-making scheme. The implied message is “hi guys, you can buy this from the US and they’ll charge you an arm and a leg, or you can buy the same sh*t from us and it’ll only cost you the price of half a keg of beer. So what do you say?” The same story line every time! Announce a new generation of jets, and the next thing you know, it’s showing up in all the trade shows, and cut the competitors price by 3/4, at least. Drones, missiles, tanks, … after the US tirelessly worked the world into an “everybody arms himself to the teeth” global environment since 9/11, the Chinese obviously feels obliged to make some money out of it. If you can’t fight the wave, you might as well ride it-sort of thing.
The Dragon Muscles In: Growing Number Of Victories In Chinese Arms Exports
Sometimes you have to wonder what the WH is thinking - they are hot on the path to drive everyone to militarize, and China follows right behind with their irresistible cheap stuff. Is this a good cop-bad cop routine thingy or what?
3k Views ·
29 Upvotes
Shan Lung
Answered Nov 23
China also have the DWL-002 passive radar detection system using multi-station layout, the base station will capture the signal, the signal to reach the station by calculating the time difference, you can calculate the radiation source and the distance difference between each station, and then find the coordinates of the target in the air.
DWL-002 Passive Detection Radar System Able to Detect Stealth Aircrafts
How Effective Is China's New Anti-Stealth Radar System, Really?
According to
recent reports in the Chinese media, China is betting that its new DWL002 passive detection radar system will grant its armed forces a massive boost in countering the United States’ advanced stealth fighters. According to
a report inDefense News, Chinese sources claim that the radar will render systems like the advanced F-22 fighter and the upcoming F-35 “obsolete” — a strong claim to be sure.
The DWL002 came to light in recent years and has been pitched by Chinese sources repeatedly as a credible counter to conventional stealth military aviation. The DWL002 is an emitter locating system (ELS) which partially iterates on innovations found in older Russian designs, including the KRTP Tamara series and ERA Vera-E. The DWL002 is a more advanced ELS compared to China’s YLC-20 system (which is itself based on the KRTP-91 Tamara). The United States and other Western European countries have abandoned the use and development of passive-detection radar systems, citing poor accuracy. China and Russia continue to use the systems. The DWL002 itself will have a likely range of around 400-500 kilometers and is comprised of three stations that operate in tandem, placed kilometers apart. According to
Defense News, the DWL002’s range would allow it “cover all of Taiwan and the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, but [it] is not within range of U.S. military bases on Okinawa. Nor can it reach the Philippines.”
The DWL002, if it lives up to its touted capabilities, would severely hamper stealth fighter-based attempts at establishing aerial control over Chinese territory provided Chinese air defense systems are operational. Anti-stealth radar technology would play an important role in allowing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to effectively counter parts of the United States AirSea Battle operational concept, for example.
Part of the effectiveness of AirSea Battle relies on the U.S. Air Force and Navy deploying long-range stealth-based air platforms. With the DWL002 ELS, Chinese air defense systems would be significantly more effective at detecting hostile stealth aircraft. Another feature of the DWL002 that has drawn some attention from the Chinese media — notably the
Global Times,
according to WantChinaTimes— is its ability to track aircraft without notifying pilots that they have been detected by radar. Furthermore, according to Vassily Kashin, senior research fellow at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow-based think tank, the DWL002’s capabilities are not being exaggerated and pose a serious threat to stealth platforms.
The DWL002 system is not only operational, this is sold and operating in Turkmenistan . This will detect the USAF flying tankers and EWCS to guide Chinese planes and VLTAAMs to take down the tankers and EWCs
In Chinese
http://wemedia.ifeng.com/3464182...
Using Google translate
Google Translate
472 Views
Wen Guohua
Answered Sep 25, 2016
China develops some quantum radar by 14th research insitute (which is the biggest military radar supplier in China) and have already conducted field test that succesfully detects objectes 100 km aways.
There is huge gulf between publishing research papers/proposals/pretty PPTs/screaming like the West do and being quiet and get things done like China do.
Two different approaches, and two different outcomes, one is all talks, and the other is all done.
China is definitely far more advanced than the west in this regard.
And BTW, before you discredit SCMP, SCMP is a big news source in HK, and in this case they merely pick up this news from China’s news paper Science Daily:
中国研制成功首部量子雷达-新闻-科学网
As for Science Daily, it is a publisher co-owned by:
State commission of Science and Technology
China Academy of Science
State commission of science and technology for national defense industry
So the news cannot be MORE OFFICIAL.
Just get used to China being leading in more and more fronts, eventually maybe all fronts.
As for propaganda accusations, well, lets be honest:
In the West, weaponary concepts/proposals/schemes have been shown-off decades before they even get a working prototype if ever.
While in China, you can barely find any official news/papers on things that even it is about to enter service.
Basically this give you an idea who is WAY BETTER at propaganda, afterall the west media have been very talkative, but being that way certainly have its merits, since that will giving the west a lot of funnny bragging rights on things they dont and may never have,hehehe.
505 Views ·
5 Upvotes
Jan Carrasquillo Cruz
Answered Sep 22, 2016
Simple answer no
35 Views ·
2 Upvotes
Related Questions
