052/052B Class Destroyers

no_name

Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Do you guys think that the type 052D is modified with limited ABM capabilities in mind?

Maybe the new PAR has something to do with this?
And if so, would they need to make mods to the existing missiles that type 052c carry?

=======
Also someone claimed that:

The Type 052D is close to 160 meters by length and 20 meters by beam

compared to 052c with 154m length and 17m beam.

=======

Also would AESA radar on ships be powerful and versatile enough to replace the role of AWACs as far as moving out in the blue water goes?
 
Last edited:

Geographer

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I doubt China or the PLAN is concerned about ballistic missiles. Who would launching them at China, India? If so, China has plenty of land-based SAMs like the S-300 and its Chinese derivatives that claim "limited" anti-ballistic missile capabilities.
Also would AESA radar on ships be powerful and versatile enough to replace the role of AWACs as far as moving out in the blue water goes?
Definitely not. The problem any ship-borne radar faces is the curvature of the Earth that limits detection range. No matter how powerful the radar is, its pulse probably won't reach a ship over-the-horizon, and even if it does the return signals are going to be angled toward the sky, not the ship. That's why AWACs are invaluable in long-range detection.
 

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Do you guys think that the type 052D is modified with limited ABM capabilities in mind?

Maybe the new PAR has something to do with this?

And if so, would they need to make mods to the existing missiles that type 052c carry?
I doubt this ship has some new ABM capability designed in unless the HQ-9 already had this to start with. The PLAN doesn't really have an urgent need for ABM capability IMO, unlike the USN vis a vis China.

Also someone claimed that:

The Type 052D is close to 160 meters by length and 20 meters by beam

compared to 052c with 154m length and 17m beam.
The length maybe, but if combined with that beam estimate (especially if this is referring to the waterline beam), then I would rather guess that somebody is just jerking off online with no clue what he/she/it is talking about.

Also would AESA radar on ships be powerful and versatile enough to replace the role of AWACs as far as moving out in the blue water goes?
What? Not a chance. AWACS is an eye in the sky with a vastly superior radar horizon; no ship can possibly replace that, it won't matter what kind of AESA the ship has.
 

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I doubt China or the PLAN is concerned about ballistic missiles. Who would launching them at China, India? If so, China has plenty of land-based SAMs like the S-300 and its Chinese derivatives that claim "limited" anti-ballistic missile capabilities.

Definitely not. The problem any ship-borne radar faces is the curvature of the Earth that limits detection range. No matter how powerful the radar is, its pulse probably won't reach a ship over-the-horizon, and even if it does the return signals are going to be angled toward the sky, not the ship. That's why AWACs are invaluable in long-range detection.
Gah, beat me to it. :p
 

ChinaGuy

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I doubt China or the PLAN is concerned about ballistic missiles. I doubt China or the PLAN is concerned about ballistic missiles.

You'll never know. They may well get the naval ABM capability just to p*ss the american's off, since the yanks accusing them of copying everything. The art of war calls for psychological warfare whenever possible to agitate the enemy. According to wiki, gongs and trumpets sent the americans running in the korean war. Psy-wars have proven their worth.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Do you guys think that the type 052D is modified with limited ABM capabilities in mind?

Maybe the new PAR has something to do with this?
And if so, would they need to make mods to the existing missiles that type 052c carry?

=======
Also someone claimed that:

The Type 052D is close to 160 meters by length and 20 meters by beam

compared to 052c with 154m length and 17m beam.

=======

Also would AESA radar on ships be powerful and versatile enough to replace the role of AWACs as far as moving out in the blue water goes?

Yes,
Original HQ-9 arleady has ABM capability.

===
No.
that would displace in range of 8000 tons, unless 1) PLAN found some magic paint, 2) modified a hugely improved marine gas turbine (GT25000 with 3 times the output power ) or 3) drastically reduce top speed requirement... that's not possible. what's possible is may be beam increase of about 1 meter and length by 2-3 meter. still with in realm of possibility.

===

Unless earth is flat or you can discover a new physics method to bend EM waves.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

HSH guys are withholding their newly gotten high quality photots for fear of "gettin' in' trouble w/h coppers" (with much east london cockney as possible).

DAMN it it's times like this you wanted FREE SPEECH for China!
 

Maggern

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

HSH guys are withholding their newly gotten high quality photots for fear of "gettin' in' trouble w/h coppers" (with much east london cockney as possible).

DAMN it it's times like this you wanted FREE SPEECH for China!

Tell that to Bradley Manning :p National security is national security. That being said, the suspense is killing me as well...argh...where are the nice photos!?
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

yes it is true there is no way a surface radar can see anything close to what a airborne radar can due to curvature of the earth

ERIEYE_AEW_C_Range.jpg


this is detection range for Erieye operated by the Pakistan Airforce, AWACS of such kind can see small boats in rivers and can also detect armoured vehicles in sandstorms, AWACS are crucial for modern airforce

it is said that Erieye can see ships from 450km away!
 

Geographer

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Tell that to Bradley Manning
Apples and oranges. The American media are generally allowed to publish national secrets. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that in 1971 when The New York Times was about to publish the stolen and classified Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War. The NYT published the Pentagon Papers on the front page and were not punished for that. However, the act of stealing and leaking classified papers remains illegal in the United States. The leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, wasprosecuted but the case was later dropped.

In that Supreme Court decision, Justice Black wrote, "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."

I wholeheartedly agree, and I would hope our Chinese compatriots feel the same way.

Anyways, if American civilians took pictures of classified naval projects under construction from outside the shipyard and published them online, I'm confident there would be no legal repercussions against them.
 
Top