052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 052C Thread

I got another theory is that the term "destroyer" seems more glorious to the Japanese in line with their naval history where in WWII, the destroyer arm is noted for their gallant action and sacrifice. Its the same with the British who also exclusively uses this term with its WWI and WWII histories.

"Destroyer" by the way is short for the full term of "Torpedo Boat Destroyer", since the type was originally meant to protect battleships against torpedo boats. Later just replace "torpedo boat" to "submarines" and "aircraft". Essentially, destroyer by its roots means a protective ship.

But why the French with Frigate? Again, if you go back to naval history even further, down to the Golden Age of Sail, you will note that the Frigate is a very successful vessel for the French, as the speed and maneuverability of these vessels enabled them to combat larger multideck warships like the Man-o-Wars and the Ships of the Line. Back then a Frigate is defined as a single deck or line warship, that is having only a single deck with cannons as opposed to ships having multiple decks of cannons. Other European nations copied the concept, not to mention the early US, and the Frigate was the challenge to the British dominance of the high seas.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

If tonnes will be used, I think it would be better if the ship tonnage standard will be raised to a higher level like 6500 tonnes, or 7,000 tonnes.

Since in this era of modern warships, larger or heavier but better ships are being built...

But honestly, I don't think the tonnage should be used to classify the kind of a ship.

Just imagine the current inventory of the Mexican Navy the Quetzalcoatl Class, and Manuel Azueta Class destroyers? These are old ships already, how can we classify them on current standards?

Re: DDG 052C Thread

I agree that some mix of role and capability would be the ideal way to differentiate.

However then everyone would have different opinions, and you'd need a comprehensive analysis looking at a lot of variables to arrive at some solid info. Just not worth the effort. In addition the sheer difference in capability between the destroyers of powerful navies and those of weaker navies would require re-classifying the majority of vessels in service worldwide.

Thats why I like the tonnage method. Its incredibly simple and easy. AND it agrees surprisingly well with the designations used by most of the modern navies that I have looked at.

There are only a FEW exceptions, but they are either very close to the seperation line, or the rest of the world disagrees with their existing designation anyway. Like the French "frigates" and the Russian "corvette".

It does not work with incredibly old and obsolete warships, but they are largely irrelevant today anyway.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

crobato said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the Spanish Frigates can be classified as Destroyers...

Base on their capability, with good anti air, anti ship and anti submarine features... Added it will install tomahawk missiles...

Since its tonnage also surpass 4,500, it can be classified as Destroyers.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Delbert said:

If tonnes will be used, I think it would be better if the ship tonnage standard will be raised to a higher level like 6500 tonnes, or 7,000 tonnes.

Since in this era of modern warships, larger or heavier but better ships are being built...

But honestly, I don't think the tonnage should be used to classify the kind of a ship.

Just imagine the current inventory of the Mexican Navy the Quetzalcoatl Class, and Manuel Azueta Class destroyers? These are old ships already, how can we classify them on current standards?

Click to expand...

Warships are getting larger, because navies are recognizing that larger ships are more capable and have more bang for the buck. Furthermore, larger ships are more easier to refit and upgrade over the years of service meaning that the ship can be kept around longer without having to think about replacement because your ship cannot be upgraded that easily.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

I agree with you point blank.

That is why I am saying, that if the tonnage standard will be used as classifying a ship, it must be increased, since new ships are larger and heavier...

Re: DDG 052C Thread

DDG 170 seems to have gone to visit Hudong.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

This pic shows the core of the South Seas Fleet, which is all four 052B/Cs together.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

This is my analysis of the picture take on Huangpu recently.

The first line to the left indicates the side of the superstructure where it meets with the hull, inclined, at an angle and all flushed. This is typical of a modern warship with RCS reduction features and looks similar to the 052B/C.

The two lines that reach to the bow is used to mark a facet that stretches from the middle side of the ship all the way to tip of of the bow. The 054A does not have this facet, but the 052B/C series does. This is a very tell tale indication this might be another 052C.

The one I mark with a rectangle, which i didn't notice before is what interests me most. Note that it is in an angle from the side of the ship, making it like a corner facet to the superstructure. Again like the 052C. I believe what you are seeing here are preparations and internal superstructure support to build what maybe the PARs located at the corner facets. Do note that this facet support there is about in proportion to the 052C, note in comparison.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

a bunch of new photos came out as part of the Aug1 celebration. Although these ones are all 170. They may be repost I think.