052C/052D Class Destroyers

do you really believe Singaporean F15SG is better than Chinese J-11B or J-10B ? I highly doubt it

antiterror13 said:

do you really believe Singaporean F15SG is better than Chinese J-11B or J-10B ? I highly doubt it

Click to expand...

It is definitely more powerful than the J11B due to AESA radars, and has longer range/higher payload than the J10B.

Wouldn't a more appropriate comparison be between the F-15SG and J-16?

jobjed said:

Then one has to wonder why the JMSDF emphasises their AEGIS destroyers above their ATECS destroyers. If, like you say, their ATECS rivals that of the AEGIS, then why are their ATECS destroyers classified as "AEGIS escorts" as opposed to their AEGIS destroyers being subservient to the ATECS?

Click to expand...

This logic does not hold. The fact that they are escorting the AEGIS BMD missions, as they have stated, does not mean that their ATEC system is "subservient."

jobjed said:

Furthermore - assuming ATECS is just as capable as the AEGIS, if not more - one can't help but get the impression that the JMSDF have under-armed their Akizukis. But did they, actually? It's more likely that the JMSDF realises the inferiority of the ATECS compared to AEGIS and designated their vessels' roles accordingly - ATECS protects AEGIS because AEGIS vessels are, for lack of a better term, better.

By corollary, this implies that ATECS lacks many features provided by the AEGIS. Taking a look at the load-outs, I'd hazard that ATECS is lacking in providing for long-range aerial defence, but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

They are not meant to deal with the long range, BMD role. Their mission and their load out is to provide mid range coverage air-to-air, ASW and ASuW capabilities, and they have been designed and outfitted accordingly. You presume that because one is escorting the other that it is necessarily less capable than the other. This is flawed thinking. They simply are fulfilling different roles

jobjed said:

Hence, the proposition that the ATECS and AEGIS are 'on-par' is only plausible at best and weak for the most part.

Click to expand...

Well...of course it is...it would have to be from your perspective and based on your own presumptions.

But both the analysis and the system are not weak at all.

ATECS is a very capable system and the Akizuki preforms the role it was designed for...which does not at all mean that the ATECS system cannot be used for other roles a well.

I have been involved with these systems for many, many years. When consulting with Lockheed some times with the actual design...at other places with analyzing various systems.

There are technologies in ATECS that are not in the US SPY, but the Japanese also do not have three decades of working with an ever improving and enhanced system either

Look, Jobjed, here's the bottom line.

I responded to Xia's earlier contention and showed that the Japanese are not simply copying and using US technology without the indigenous developments of their own. That is patently not so. That was the point...not a top to bottom comparison to try and determine which is actually the best.

Their latest four destroyers are ATECS. They were designed to escort AEGIS BMD missions. They are planning on building two more Atago AEGIS vessels specifically to fulfill a BMD role, which they have not developed themselves yet. They are using both, and they have fielded their own. And I can tell you with 100% confidence that their system is a very good one.

As it is, on this Type 052C/D Thread, the discussion is all off topic.

If we want to continue discussing the AEGIS system, take it to the US Burke thread. If we want to continue discussing the ATECS and Japanese systems, take it to the Japanese military thread.

Back on topic then and the Type 052C/D DDGs.

xiabonan said:

Thank you Jeff, I fully appreciate your information.

But I'm fully aware of this class of ships, in fact they look beautiful and have a very beautiful name in Chinese: 秋月——which literally translates into "Autumn Moon".

Last but not least, one could argue that Japan has the POTENTIAL to develop such sophisticated systems on her own, just like how many have long speculated that Japan has the POTENTIAL to develop nuclear weapons and long range ICBMs. Yes I do agree that Japan is in general technologically advanced, but POTENTIAL is just POTENTIAL. We can't make a judgement based on how things could be in the future, right?

If a silver-medal winner in the Olympics claim that he or she has the potential to beat his opponent, many would say that's reasonable; but if he or she wants to claim the gold-medal from the first based on such claims, do you think it is justified?

Click to expand...

Japan has developed a indigenous very capable battle management system of her own and deployed it. She is not only capable of it, she has done it.

And it is a very capable system. She can scale the sensors as she needs...that is not the issue. Her technological capability in maritime warfare is very strong, and I believe that technology is ahead of the PLAN.

We could slice and dice and compare all day to prove it either way. The PLAN has made significant and very impressive progress and is closing the gap rapidly.


Again... let's all get back on topic here.

Not F-15 vs J-11, not AEGIS and ATECS.

Thanks.

Jeff Head said:

Japan has developed a indigenous very capable battle management system of her own and deployed it. She is not only capable of it, she has done it.

And it is a very capable system. She can scale the sensors as she needs...that is not the issue. Her technological capability in maritime warfare is very strong, and I believe that technology is ahead of the PLAN.

We could slice and dice and compare all day to prove it either way. The PLAN has made significant and very impressive progress and is closing the gap rapidly.


Again... let's all get back on topic here.

Not F-15 vs J-11, not AEGIS and ATECS.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Japan definitely has a world-class navy, backed up by second to none technology and industries. China, as you said, is closing the gap, but she's still not at its level, and would probably need two to three more decades to equal/exceed it. That's why peace and prosperity are the words of the day, and war isn't in the offing[size=+4]. "PERIOD" [/size][REMOVED]

------

Blackstone, even though it continued an off topic discussion which I just asked to stop, your comment were otherwise fine to that point.

But then you had to throw in an offensive wringer. Completely uncalled for, and clear flame bait. Because of that, coupled with the contiunation of the OFF TOPIC discussion, consider this a warning.

NOW, BACK ON TOPIC

This is me going to the Welcoming ceremony and ship tour of DDG Haikou and FFG Yueyang at San Diego Naval Base today. Linking some relevant photo of Haikou in here.





Haikou with Yueyang and a Ticonderoga cruiser in the back.

jzsn said:

Click to expand...

This is a real tight squeeze. It looks like they took the chopper and literally designed the hangar around it. The length is just enough for the Z-9 and the height is probably just enough for the Ka-25 or 27.

PanAsian said:

This is a real tight squeeze. It looks like they took the chopper and literally designed the hangar around it. The length is just enough for the Z-9 and the height is probably just enough for the Ka-25 or 27.

Click to expand...

Most shipboard hangars on any ship is usually designed with just enough space for the aircraft in question. If it isn't a tight squeeze then someone made a mistake.