Mysterre
Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
LACM platform and some ASW is pretty much all these two ships are good for these days.
052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
the new generation of Chinese DDGs must have, first a larger and much more powerful VLS system for true area airdefence, and second a true land attack capability in the form of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk
ASW and Anti-ship can be provided by many smaller ships, even small fast attack crafts have upto 8 x anti-ship missiles
the new generation of Chinese DDGs must have, first a larger and much more powerful VLS system for true area airdefence, and second a true land attack capability in the form of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk
ASW and Anti-ship can be provided by many smaller ships, even small fast attack crafts have upto 8 x anti-ship missiles
SinoSoldier
Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
The VLS on the JIangkai II .already fires HQ-16 and CY-1/2/3 missiles, so when they reported a universal VLS, it's going to be one able to fire CJ-10 as well.
The VLS on the JIangkai II .already fires HQ-16 and CY-1/2/3 missiles, so when they reported a universal VLS, it's going to be one able to fire CJ-10 as well.
escobar
Brigadier
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
The best way to tell if a photo is PS is to check for the "original".
Given this is a pretty clear and spectacular photo and neither on here or CDF has anyone posted a pic yet of an original I would say this is legitimate. Although I don't like the new pennant number style any more than the next guy.
From this angle the bow of 052C forward of the superstructure looks super long. I can really imagine the rear being stretched out a little.
The best way to tell if a photo is PS is to check for the "original".
Given this is a pretty clear and spectacular photo and neither on here or CDF has anyone posted a pic yet of an original I would say this is legitimate. Although I don't like the new pennant number style any more than the next guy.
From this angle the bow of 052C forward of the superstructure looks super long. I can really imagine the rear being stretched out a little.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
That's as universal as this VLS goes, CJ10 is significantly larger than HQ16 I doubt they can put it into the HQ16 VLS tubes.
That's as universal as this VLS goes, CJ10 is significantly larger than HQ16 I doubt they can put it into the HQ16 VLS tubes.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I'm still confused about the situation -- when there were decent reports a few months back about a new universal VLS being successfully tested on a range, were they talking about the current 054A VLS being tested only with the sino ASROC, or a derivation of the 054A VLS (longer tubes for instance), or a completely new universal VLS?
If the first or second, I don't want to rule out LACM without knowing the actual diameter and width/length of CJ-10 and the 054A VLS respectively.
Besides, 054A is already equipped with HQ-16 and sino ASROC, I can't imagine the PLAN would be happy to limit their next iteration of DDGs with such a qualitatively weak loadout.
I'm still confused about the situation -- when there were decent reports a few months back about a new universal VLS being successfully tested on a range, were they talking about the current 054A VLS being tested only with the sino ASROC, or a derivation of the 054A VLS (longer tubes for instance), or a completely new universal VLS?
If the first or second, I don't want to rule out LACM without knowing the actual diameter and width/length of CJ-10 and the 054A VLS respectively.
Besides, 054A is already equipped with HQ-16 and sino ASROC, I can't imagine the PLAN would be happy to limit their next iteration of DDGs with such a qualitatively weak loadout.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I agree, the helo landing pad looks too small, should be longer to accomodate a medium sized helo like the Z8, it still probably could but it would be a tight squeeze
I agree, the helo landing pad looks too small, should be longer to accomodate a medium sized helo like the Z8, it still probably could but it would be a tight squeeze