052/052B Class Destroyers

Mysterre · Jun 18, 2012

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:
Well it's currently accepted china is the second largest shipbuilding nation, a few million DWT off korea, depending which source you go to.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So if China is the largest producer of T shirts does it put their companies on par with Louis Vuitton?

Bltizo said:
Outside of detailed technical specs? You can get a quite few numbers open source, missile range, missile number, displacement, the weapons they're equipped with, radar, rough radar specs (for example). It's certainly a hell of a lot more than only "west>china" or "west=china". In fact, when you compare two ships, say, do you automatically make judgments about their capability based only on what country made them rather than looking at what specifications are out?

This is true to some extent but you were trying to sell me HQ-9 = Aster 30 on the basis of range alone. You also will certainly not be able to tell me any significant information on the radar and combat management systems of either ship.

Bltizo said:
Your point was what, exactly? All I got from that sentence was that you didn't think much of lion's opinion.

Merely that a person may pretty much say whatever they want when the evidence is sparce.

Bltizo said:
But I have to disagree with you there -- YJ-62 is one of the best if not the best subsonic anti ship cruise missiles currently out there. One of the longest ranges and largest warheads modern day AShMs have.
Although if YJ-62 and 052C were to take potshots at each other with their respective YJ-62 and harpoons, I doubt one missile will actually reach its mark given how capable the air defense systems of both ships are.

IMO the seeker is the single most important part of an antiship missile these days, more important than range and far more important than warhead size. This will determine its resistance to ECM which I believe most people underrate but may end up being the biggest eliminator of enemy missiles in modern warfare next to SAM's.

hmmwv · Jun 18, 2012

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

kwaigonegin said:
I think what everyone seem to forget is that NONE of the scenarios is possible even if a hypothetical PLAN and RN goes to war. For one if a Type 45 were go on a one on one battle with a 052C it is relatively easy to armed it with Harpoon/Exocet ASM. On the flip side it is not possible to suddenly make a 052C to have the superior anti air capabilites or defenses of the Type 45.

In my opinion a Type 45 with Harpoons has the edge vs the 052C in a one on one battle in the high seas.

We all know that scenario is extremely unlikely in the real world, but for the sake of discussion let's say the Daring is equipped with Harpoons, it's still a vastly inferior anti ship weapon than the YJ62. Not only the 052C can shoot the Type 45 far earlier, but it can also shoot down the helicopter launched by the Daring to provide guidance, while using its Sea Soul OTH radar to gather target cue of the Type 45. Anyway this is getting pointless so I'm gonna stop here, you guys carry on.

Blitzo · Jun 18, 2012

Re: DDG 052C Thread

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

That's because that PAR is type 346 lol, a photo taken years ago.

Below is the more recent may/june one.

You're not really trying to say this par isn't flat right?

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

Mysterre said:
So if China is the largest producer of T shirts does it put their companies on par with Louis Vuitton?

I put up the fact that china was the second largest/largest shipbuilder in the world, you're the one who asked for proof.
Obviously if every ship built was only one ton then it means nothing, but if we divided overall DWT by number of ships you still come up with a respectable average figure higher than many western countries. Of course DWT doesn't mean everything, foreign subcontractors could be making many of the more advanced components, but if you look back my original point was only that china was very good qualitatively in this regard. Quantitatively, you can pick and choose case studies.

This is true to some extent but you were trying to sell me HQ-9 = Aster 30 on the basis of range alone. You also will certainly not be able to tell me any significant information on the radar and combat management systems of either ship.

I don't think I was saying HQ9=Aster 30 based on range alone, but rather 052C AAW = (or rather, squiggly equals sign) type 45 AAW, based on how both feature large S band APAR with ranges in excess of 400 km (potentially a point of dispute for 052c -- you really need to trawl through pages and pages of discussion to make up your own opinion), large area SAMs with similar range, both being fielded within a similar time frame, same number of SAMs. Obviously we know nothing about the combat management systems of either ship but based on what we do know, and based on what we know the chinese have developed in similar areas (AEWC, IADS), I do not see a case where the chinese combat system is massively inferior.

Mysterre · Jun 18, 2012

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Bltizo said:
I put up the fact that china was the second largest/largest shipbuilder in the world, you're the one who asked for proof.
Obviously if every ship built was only one ton then it means nothing, but if we divided overall DWT by number of ships you still come up with a respectable average figure higher than many western countries. Of course DWT doesn't mean everything, foreign subcontractors could be making many of the more advanced components, but if you look back my original point was only that china was very good qualitatively in this regard. Quantitatively, you can pick and choose case studies.

Actually I didn't ask for proof that China was the second largest shipbuilder in the world. Neither was this your own claim. Read our posts again.

Bltizo said:
I don't think I was saying HQ9=Aster 30 based on range alone, but rather 052C AAW = (or rather, squiggly equals sign) type 45 AAW, based on how both feature large S band APAR with ranges in excess of 400 km (potentially a point of dispute for 052c -- you really need to trawl through pages and pages of discussion to make up your own opinion), large area SAMs with similar range, both being fielded within a similar time frame, same number of SAMs. Obviously we know nothing about the combat management systems of either ship but based on what we do know, and based on what we know the chinese have developed in similar areas (AEWC, IADS), I do not see a case where the chinese combat system is massively inferior.

Well here is what you 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." In each of these areas you are implying parity, thus 100km+ SAM's must be roughly equal to each other. The devil is in the details, and while it may seem ok to make this general statement, when you actually get down and dirty you find that you really don't know much about either the radar, missile or combat management system of either ship, far less than you front. How many tracks it can hold, resolution, anti-clutter software, minimum detection altitude, minimum tracking altitude, hit rate vs aircraft, hit rate vs missiles, maximum target velocity, resistance to ECM or other soft-kill mechanisms, G-limits, burn time, no escape envelopes, user-friendliness of interfaces, raw computing power, degree of systems integration, degree of networkability, data transfer rates, and on and on and on. DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THESE?

Blitzo · Jun 18, 2012

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Mysterre said:
Actually I didn't ask for proof that China was the second largest shipbuilder in the world. Neither was this your own claim. Read our posts again.

Well you said "The main problem of course is that neither of us have any definitive proof, otherwise one of us would have busted it out already and the debate would be over"

which was in response to my stattement:

" but in certain areas of shipbuilding china certainly has met or exceeded the west if only in quantity/cost alone."

So I gave you proof about quantity.

Well here is what you 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." In each of these areas you are implying parity, thus 100km+ SAM's must be roughly equal to each other. The devil is in the details, and while it may seem ok to make this general statement, when you actually get down and dirty you find that you really don't know much about either the radar, missile or combat management system of either ship, far less than you front. How many tracks it can hold, resolution, anti-clutter software, minimum detection altitude, minimum tracking altitude, hit rate vs aircraft, hit rate vs missiles, maximum target velocity, resistance to ECM or other soft-kill mechanisms, G-limits, burn time, no escape envelopes, user-friendliness of interfaces, raw computing power, degree of systems integration, degree of networkability, data transfer rates, and on and on and on. DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THESE?

Let's step back a little. This original discussion stemmed from asif aqbil's post about how type 45 was supposedly much superior to type 052C in AAW -- originally it was meant to be a general comparison.
Obviously I do not know user friendliness, computing power, degree of networkability, data transfer rates etc. There are dozens, likely hundreds of relevant parameters to assess radar performance alone which we do not know.
Now my original reply to asif aqbil was "based on what we conclusively know 052C and daring should be fairly well matched" -- in reply to his general comparison (which itself was based on the opinions of the commander of his own ship).

So yes it would be nice to be able to quantify their capabilities beyond a half dozen range and missile number specs or radar type, but beyond that we have nothing. If you're arguing we can't say anything conclusive in a more detailed, more scientific comparison because of a lack of numbers, fine I fully agree with you (although because of that you basically can't compare any two systems more complicated than a MANPAD). But this was a general, "in each other's ballpark" comparison in the first place so I feel my statement was and is still valid.

Mysterre · Jun 18, 2012

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Bltizo said:
Well you said "The main problem of course is that neither of us have any definitive proof, otherwise one of us would have busted it out already and the debate would be over"

which was in response to my stattement:

" but in certain areas of shipbuilding china certainly has met or exceeded the west if only in quantity/cost alone."

So I gave you proof about quantity.

You quoted yourself there saying "quantity/cost", which on the face of it means how many ships/tons can you build with a given wad of cash, which is a measure of resource efficiency, not total output. These are not synonymous concepts, and as I said, I do not prima facie grant you this without proof.

Bltizo said:
Let's step back a little. This original discussion stemmed from asif aqbil's post about how type 45 was supposedly much superior to type 052C in AAW -- originally it was meant to be a general comparison.
Obviously I do not know user friendliness, computing power, degree of networkability, data transfer rates etc. There are dozens, likely hundreds of relevant parameters to assess radar performance alone which we do not know.
Now my original reply to asif aqbil was "based on what we conclusively know 052C and daring should be fairly well matched" -- in reply to his general comparison (which itself was based on the opinions of the commander of his own ship).

So yes it would be nice to be able to quantify their capabilities beyond a half dozen range and missile number specs or radar type, but beyond that we have nothing. If you're arguing we can't say anything conclusive in a more detailed, more scientific comparison because of a lack of numbers, fine I fully agree with you (although because of that you basically can't compare any two systems more complicated than a MANPAD). But this was a general, "in each other's ballpark" comparison in the first place so I feel my statement was and is still valid.

You said "based on what we conclusively know 052C and daring should be fairly well matched", but my entire point is that you don't know much at all that is "conclusive" about either ship, far less than you think, and therefore do not have sufficient information to conclude whether or not parity exists just based on what you do know. You are left with the forte of every internet fan, the (Educated(?)) Guess; note the double parentheses. Let's not dress it up to be anything more than what it is.

Blitzo · Jun 18, 2012

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Mysterre said:
You quoted yourself there saying "quantity/cost", which on the face of it means how many ships/tons can you build with a given wad of cash, which is a measure of resource efficiency, not total output. These are not synonymous concepts, and as I said, I do not prima facie grant you this without proof.

In that case, I apologize for using a / instead of a ,

You said "based on what we conclusively know 052C and daring should be fairly well matched", but my entire point is that you don't know much at all that is "conclusive" about either ship, far less than you think, and therefore do not have sufficient information to conclude whether or not parity exists just based on what you do know. You are left with the forte of every internet fan, the (Educated(?)) Guess; note the double parentheses. Let's not dress it up to be anything more than what it is.

I agree completely with what you said here, only it depends how detailed or specific the level of parity you are talking about. In the case of a public military follower forum, I think educated guesstimates on "general" capabilities are perfectly legitimate.

marclees · Jun 18, 2012

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:
Getting back to the 052C, it is difficult for me to imagine how you do NOT feel that the state of the art in UK naval technology is higher than that of China, but that is just where personal biases come through, and outside of concrete information which we in fact do not have, all we have left is "personal assumption and perception". Problem?

Most of the State of the Art UK Technology Companies have collapsed . They neither had the technology nor the financial resources to compete on a global scale.

In 2010 , a frightening British 53,000 companies from the science and technology sectors collapsed

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Silicon Glen operates but as a mere (small) shadow of its glorious past , many buildings there are desolated and empty .

Amstrad, the innovative poster boy of the 90s with about 30% market share in all of Europe (then) , is but a (mere) TV setup box assembler today.

In Dec 2011 ,China became the world's top patent filer , surpassing the United States and Japan as it steps up innovation to improve its intellectual property rights track arsenal . UK is not even mentioned in the same category save for its steep decline of about 10%.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In 2011 , China's Military spending was a staggering US$228 Billion vs UK US$58 (US$ b, PPP). China's expenditure was about 400% more than the British .

The Chinese Military was offering top scientist & researchers' remuneration in excess of US$xx Million ; while some may argue that money cannot buy happiness, it can certainly buy top talent

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

My personal assumption and perception is that UK Technology contains much gloss, some substance, but is unable to compete with the same China standards .

In the 21st century , one needs top brains + the financial muscle to compete globally .

I would put my money on 052C in a one to one with a Type 45 .

asif iqbal · Jun 18, 2012

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

i think people are being a bit unfair here with regards to the Type 45

remember UK still has a formidable defence industry, i mean how many countrys can make a 65,000 ton frontline world class aircraft carrier, not 1 but 2 of them? there isnt many out there

and considering the fact that bad UK policys have eroded our defence industry its even more of a achievment, plus the fact that UK hasnt even built a full blown carrier for best part of 3 decades and we still retained the talent pool to make them

not to mention the Asture Class nuclear subs, how many countrys will have such vessals? again not many

if Type 45 gets Harpoon and Tomahawk that would complete the package, it does what it was designed for very

how well will it pit against Type 052C in all assets of warfare? well its very hard to say, but as i said right at the start, in terms of air defence, nothing comes close to Type 45 Daring Class, this ship can see for hundreds of kilometres in land, sea and air, defend itself, a convoy and a landmark ALL at the same time

Jeff Head · Jun 18, 2012

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Schumacher said:
A consecutive wave of 4 missiles is enough to sink T45. Actually, in a ship vs ship, or aircraft vs aircraft for that matter, scenario where one can attack while the other can only defend, it's already clear the attacking side has the upper hand.

I dont think so at all. In fact, if they got all eight off at once, and had them programmed to come in from several different points on the compass, I believe a single Type 45 would shoot them all down. If not, then the math is easy on how to get through to the Carrier. Two 45s? shoot sixteen at them and then the door is open to the carrier. If eight get a Type 45, then the Type 45 need to be redesigned.

Fact is, it's not just the anti-air missile, though I think in this case they would suffice. It is also the ECM which countries like the UK and US have worked decades on very realistic exercises to develop and they will account for some of the missiles going errant. I believe the US and UK have quite bit more experience and therefore probably are better at ECM too.

As I have said, the Type 52C is a good vessel. A HUGE step forward by the PLAN. But to comapre them to Type 45s or AEGIS vessels is still too early. The PLAN has worked with such systems only a very few short years while these other countries, again, have spent decades developing and honing them. I would expect it will be another 10 years or so before the PLAN reaches parity with what the US and UK have now. But by then, remember those countries will have also moved forward.

Interesting times, and very good that we can discuss the relative merits of both systems in such a way here on the internet.

052/052B Class Destroyers

Mysterre

Banned Idiot

hmmwv

Junior Member

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Mysterre

Banned Idiot

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Mysterre

Banned Idiot

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

marclees

New Member

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

Jeff Head

General