052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Just discovered the already closed new destroyer thread, so I post it here:

The headline of the link says it all: Project 22350 is the new Russian ADMIRAL GORSHKOV class building at Severnaya Shipyard, St. Petersburg.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer



Based on that photo, the height of the Type 052C's radar mast is about 28 m.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

IronsightSniper said:

Based on that photo, the height of the Type 052C's radar mast is about 28 m.

Click to expand...

How do you know that??

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

SinoSoldier said:

The Russians are considering building a "nuclear powered destroyer". If it is built it will probably be the largest surface combatants in the Russian navy besides the Kirovs and Admiral Kuznetsovs. That will provide enough power for such defenses, no?

Click to expand...

Depending on the output of the reactor(s) and the power consumption of the vessel itself.

The new US reactors for the Ford Class are 200% more powerful than the older reactors on the Nimitz class, so they have a lot of power to spare...and that was the whole reason, to be able to power things like EMALS, Laser CIWS and Railguns.

The US used to build nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers...but they phased them out in the 90s except for the carriers and subs, in favor of the new gas turbines for the cruisers and destroyers.

But there has been talk of potentially a nuclear powered DDG, but then the Zumwalt went conventional and still talk of potentially a nuclear powered CGX whenever that actually comes along.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

escobar said:

How do you know that??

Click to expand...

Measure a part of the photo where you know it's measurement (since it's at an almost perfect horizontal angle in comparison to the camera, I measured the ship's length), than compare that measurement to it's in real life measurement, which if I recall, is about 154 meters long. Than, measure a portion of the ship that you wish to know it's approximate measure in real life (I measured from the water line to the top of the highest radome). Now, simply convert the measurement of what you want measured, to in real life measurement (cross multiply and divide), which came out to be approximately 28 m.

It's not the most accurate technique in the world, but has a decent degree of accuracy. Last time I did that was with the DF-21D, got it's length within a meter of it's true length.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

IronsightSniper said:

Based on that photo, the height of the Type 052C's radar mast is about 28 m.

Click to expand...

Lovely pic, can't wait for the day PLAN assembles their assets together for a real CVBG (not PS'ed) promo pic. Although I can already imagine the alarmist reporting to be done by the media when it happens.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Depending on the output of the reactor(s) and the power consumption of the vessel itself.

The new US reactors for the Ford Class are 200% more powerful than the older reactors on the Nimitz class, so they have a lot of power to spare...and that was the whole reason, to be able to power things like EMALS, Laser CIWS and Railguns.

The US used to build nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers...but they phased them out in the 90s except for the carriers and subs, in favor of the new gas turbines for the cruisers and destroyers.

But there has been talk of potentially a nuclear powered DDG, but then the Zumwalt went conventional and still talk of potentially a nuclear powered CGX whenever that actually comes along.

Click to expand...

one thing i dont get with the Zumwalt is the naval gun? when they have cruise missles what is the need for naval gunfire? plus to use naval gunfire u need to first control the sea to get close to the shore, which means the enemy probably isnt that dangerous anyway, defeating the purpose for naval gunfire?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

one thing i dont get with the Zumwalt is the naval gun? when they have cruise missles what is the need for naval gunfire? plus to use naval gunfire u need to first control the sea to get close to the shore, which means the enemy probably isnt that dangerous anyway, defeating the purpose for naval gunfire?

Click to expand...

It's cheaper and you can carry far more shells than missiles.

Cruise missiles cost a lot of money, and you don't always have targets that require cruise missiles to take care off, and some targets are not even very well suited for cruise missiles.

Also, guns are effectively jamming proof, and has better reaction time at closer ranges. When your ship sees a coastal AShM launcher popping out from behind cover, it takes precious fewer seconds to aim the gun and fire a shell than to triangulate the position of the launcher and programme it into a cruise missile.

Besides, cruise missiles have ranges in the thousands of kms, guns have ranges that do not get close to triple digits. They are not exactly doing the same job to start with. It's like asking why fighters carry WVRAAMs when they could carry more BVRAAMs instead.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Also railgun fires solid kinetic munitions, which makes it harder to counter with ray based defenses.
I think they are also trying to develop a naval rail gun with range of 800-1000km, which will rival that of cruise missile.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

any one seen the newly overhualed 052 ships? 112-113?

What you guys think?