Re: DDG 052C Thread
Definately CGI, I recall the whole image on the cover of some mag. I'm sure it's been posted here before.
Definately CGI, I recall the whole image on the cover of some mag. I'm sure it's been posted here before.
052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Re: DDG 052C Thread
talks about HH-9 in action
not sure if I can decrypt everything, but talks about different tests, the first target is subsonic and it was hit before entering visual sighting. The second one was a sea-skimmer flying out of control and HH-9 hit it at sea level (maybe inside sea). It talks about the target suddenly going lower in altitude and the FCR loosing track of it, but then finding track a few seconds later and launching the missile to hit it.
And then, it talks about two more successful tests at high altitude later.
talks about HH-9 in action
not sure if I can decrypt everything, but talks about different tests, the first target is subsonic and it was hit before entering visual sighting. The second one was a sea-skimmer flying out of control and HH-9 hit it at sea level (maybe inside sea). It talks about the target suddenly going lower in altitude and the FCR loosing track of it, but then finding track a few seconds later and launching the missile to hit it.
And then, it talks about two more successful tests at high altitude later.
FugitiveVisions
Junior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Sounds good, especially about HQ-9 being able to engage low flying targets, but are you sure this is not someone's wet dream? I mean the guy rarely sees any ships, doesn't know any technical information, so is he just there sightseeing so he can write about HQ-9's performance on the web?
Sounds good, especially about HQ-9 being able to engage low flying targets, but are you sure this is not someone's wet dream? I mean the guy rarely sees any ships, doesn't know any technical information, so is he just there sightseeing so he can write about HQ-9's performance on the web?
Re: DDG 052C Thread
I think China should field more destroyers. Especially this type of air defense 052C.
If we compare the fleet of Japan, which is his neighbor has 50+ destroyers (That is not a small number!) Same also with USA, who has around 50's in numbers...
I therefore conclude that the 27 in the current Chinese inventory wasn't really sufficient enough to gain naval dominance...
I think China should field more destroyers. Especially this type of air defense 052C.
If we compare the fleet of Japan, which is his neighbor has 50+ destroyers (That is not a small number!) Same also with USA, who has around 50's in numbers...
I therefore conclude that the 27 in the current Chinese inventory wasn't really sufficient enough to gain naval dominance...
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Not all of the JSMDF's 50 "destroyers", destroyers per se as we know it in the modern sense. They call all their warships destroyers even though some may call one particular warship a helicopter carrier, and for others, frigates. In the JSMDF, a frigate is called a Destroyer Escort. Note that in the French navy, everything is called a frigate on the other hand, even ships that we would normally acknowledge as full size destroyers.
Not all of the JSMDF's 50 "destroyers", destroyers per se as we know it in the modern sense. They call all their warships destroyers even though some may call one particular warship a helicopter carrier, and for others, frigates. In the JSMDF, a frigate is called a Destroyer Escort. Note that in the French navy, everything is called a frigate on the other hand, even ships that we would normally acknowledge as full size destroyers.
sinowarrior
Junior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread
but interestingly all the JMSDF's "destroyers" are frigate in Japanese,護衛艦, kind of weird.
but interestingly all the JMSDF's "destroyers" are frigate in Japanese,護衛艦, kind of weird.
Londo Molari
Junior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Using the 4500 tonne mark as a rough guide of seperation between destroyers and frigates, which seems to be the global trend, there are 22 real destroyers in the JMSDF:
2 Atago class
4 Kongō class
2 Hatakaze class
5 Takanami class
9 Murasame class
The Tachikaze, Asagiri and Hatsuyuki class would be frigates (19 ships). And using the 2000 tonne mark as rough seperation between frigate and corvette, Japan's 9 "destroyer escorts" would be actually corvettes.
Edit: Then again, this critera leaves PLAN with only 11 destroyers.
Using the 4500 tonne mark as a rough guide of seperation between destroyers and frigates, which seems to be the global trend, there are 22 real destroyers in the JMSDF:
2 Atago class
4 Kongō class
2 Hatakaze class
5 Takanami class
9 Murasame class
The Tachikaze, Asagiri and Hatsuyuki class would be frigates (19 ships). And using the 2000 tonne mark as rough seperation between frigate and corvette, Japan's 9 "destroyer escorts" would be actually corvettes.
Edit: Then again, this critera leaves PLAN with only 11 destroyers.
Last edited:
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Hmmm... I think the tonne mark wasn't really a good standard...
For me, the real power of a ship can be classified through its armaments, features and capability...
With the current line up of the Japanese Fleet, many of those ships can be called destroyers, base on their capability...
For the Helicopter destroyers... I think there is no such thing as that actually. Those actually can already be called Aircraft Carriers (But of course smaller ones) since they only carry helicopters.
Hmmm... I think the tonne mark wasn't really a good standard...
For me, the real power of a ship can be classified through its armaments, features and capability...
With the current line up of the Japanese Fleet, many of those ships can be called destroyers, base on their capability...
For the Helicopter destroyers... I think there is no such thing as that actually. Those actually can already be called Aircraft Carriers (But of course smaller ones) since they only carry helicopters.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Hard to describe what "capability" is like because there is no dividing line in that. How does one describe the Russian Proj. 20380 Stereguschy(!) class then?
If tonnage and capability is used, then all the 054/054A can be put as destroyers too.
In Europe, you got modern frigates going past the 6000mt mark, and for all practical purposes, should be technically destroyers. Ships like the F100 and Saschen class.
Hard to describe what "capability" is like because there is no dividing line in that. How does one describe the Russian Proj. 20380 Stereguschy(!) class then?
If tonnage and capability is used, then all the 054/054A can be put as destroyers too.
In Europe, you got modern frigates going past the 6000mt mark, and for all practical purposes, should be technically destroyers. Ships like the F100 and Saschen class.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread
I think the issue was selling and justifying the ship to the public; a destroyer sounds too warlike, while a frigate brings up different connotations. Also, for politicians, the term frigate are implies a cheaper ship than a destroyer.
I think the issue was selling and justifying the ship to the public; a destroyer sounds too warlike, while a frigate brings up different connotations. Also, for politicians, the term frigate are implies a cheaper ship than a destroyer.