052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

It seems the commander knows exactly all other destroyers in the world, no ? or he is biased ? of course he is.

Over confidence, no matter what .... is a disaster. Some high end destroyer capabilities are highly classified, including 052C/+ ... no way the commander knows that, he is just guessing

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

considering Type 45 has done high profile excersies with USN carrier task forces, i think they know a thing or two about destroyer capabilitys

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

@ asif, no offense but taking the word of a ship from the ship's own commander means you're probably not getting a very unbiased opinion.

We obviuosly don't know how well 052C stacks up with daring wrt air defense, but we know both have large 400km+ range APARs, 100km+ SAMs and likely capable combat management systems. Unless the electronics in type 45 are a generation or something ahead of 052C, I would go on a limb to say that with what we conclusively know, 052C and daring should be fairly even matched. But even then, how new the electronics are don't always matter, sometimes it's maturity which matters.
A better question would be, how would a burke with only 48 SAMs, stack against type 45 and 052C in air defence?

But we do know type 45 completely lacks any form of ship to ship capability besides what the missiles lynx helicopters can carry, and only recently got phalanx ciws refitted from older ships, which for a modern large surface combatant is almost unheard of (not having some form of organic AShM/strike, that is). So really calling it a "dedicated air defense ship" is more an euphemism for not being able to fund the other typical assets a modern DDG would have.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Before Falkland/Malvinas war, the British commander of HMS Sheffield also said the same thing of HMS Sheffield and we all know what happened ... sunk by a way inferior navy (if you want to called it a navy)

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

To be fair, despite all the high tech wizardry on modern warships, it doesnt guarantee the ships safety..........ie electronic glitches, computer software problems can raise their heads in combat situations as happened during the Falklands conflict.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

We obviuosly don't know how well 052C stacks up with daring wrt air defense, but we know both have large 400km+ range APARs, 100km+ SAMs and likely capable combat management systems. Unless the electronics in type 45 are a generation or something ahead of 052C, I would go on a limb to say that with what we conclusively know, 052C and daring should be fairly even matched.

Click to expand...

I will go on a limb and say no to that.

Bltizo said:

But we do know type 45 completely lacks any form of ship to ship capability besides what the missiles lynx helicopters can carry

Click to expand...

Antiship capability on an actual ship has little importance these days if your enemy is relatively advanced, and completely irrelevant if your enemy is the USN.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

I will go on a limb and say no to that.

Click to expand...

On what basis? The only clear advantage I see going for type 45 is that it uses a mix of two missiles, aster 30 and aster 15, the latter of which provides an ESSM style weapon which 052C lacks, although they can't be quadpacked.
Or is it the fact that type 45 came out a few years later than 052C so is therefore newer/more advanced? With that logic, would one argue that burkes with 48 SAMs are also inferior to type 45 in AAW? (leaving out the fact that older systems are likely more mature as well).
Or is it simply that 052C is chinese and type 45 is british/european?

Antiship capability on an actual ship has little importance these days if your enemy is relatively advanced, and completely irrelevant if your enemy is the USN.

Click to expand...

But they are still perfectly relevant when comparing one class of ship with another. And PLAN won't always be fighting the USN -- most of the time they won't be. By that logic they might as well remove the main gun and RHIBs and just stick in as many VLS cells as possible.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Jeff Head said:

Click to expand...

seeing closer, and using other photos, its clear that this PAR is curved just like 346.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

kroko said:

seeing closer, and using other photos, its clear that this PAR is curved just like 346.

Click to expand...

That may be an older photo. I pulled that from my computer to make the point to Popeye and frankly do not remember when I got it. Make sure it is recent before you use it to make such a determination based on it...or that you use a photo you know is recent. Thanks!

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Jeff Head said:

That may be an older photo. I pulled that from my computer to make the point to Popeye and frankly do not remember when I got it. Make sure it is recent before you use it to make such a determination based on it...or that you use a photo you know is recent. Thanks!

Click to expand...

How old is that first image that we saw? Only then we will know

another photo with curved PAR