cn_habs
Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Unless you actually do that and report back all you wrote is just ...talk.
Unless you actually do that and report back all you wrote is just ...talk.
052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Geographer
Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I just gave an important example, the publishing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The government strongly wanted to prevent their publication because they were embarrassing to the government and Vietnam War effort, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers. Another recent example is how many newspapers and TV stations including The New York Times have referenced State Department cables from Wikileaks in order to provide background on current events. Similar situation with no government interference. Of course Manning is being prosecuted for leaking them, but publishing leaked documents is not a crime in the United States.
Maggern
Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I'll give you Manning. Coverups on processes and perceptions in the US government (and its military branches) is a democratic issue. Taking photos of high-security, top-secret military installations because you like to and then posting it to people who in principle do not have access, is an offense that can be punished. I'm sure if I walked around documenting equipment, infrastructure and procedures at the remote military base during my service and then posted everything online, there would be repercussions....(so they reminded us). But this doesn't really have anything to do with anything. It was a humorous sidestep, not meant to initiate serious discussion.
EDIT: If this came out weird, it's because I just realized after posting that we were in fact talking about something different
I'll give you Manning. Coverups on processes and perceptions in the US government (and its military branches) is a democratic issue. Taking photos of high-security, top-secret military installations because you like to and then posting it to people who in principle do not have access, is an offense that can be punished. I'm sure if I walked around documenting equipment, infrastructure and procedures at the remote military base during my service and then posted everything online, there would be repercussions....(so they reminded us). But this doesn't really have anything to do with anything. It was a humorous sidestep, not meant to initiate serious discussion.
EDIT: If this came out weird, it's because I just realized after posting that we were in fact talking about something different
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I have to disagree with you on this one. The case actually does not say that American media is generally allowed to publish national secrets. It says that the government bears a heavy burden to prove that the prior restrain of the publication of national secrets will be harmful to national security. In the New York Times, the Nixon administration did not meet such burden before they set the prior restrain on the classified paper.
I have to disagree with you on this one. The case actually does not say that American media is generally allowed to publish national secrets. It says that the government bears a heavy burden to prove that the prior restrain of the publication of national secrets will be harmful to national security. In the New York Times, the Nixon administration did not meet such burden before they set the prior restrain on the classified paper.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
8,000 to even 10,000 tons is not a problem for the PLAN and would not need anything more than the GT25000/QC280 that the PLAN already possesses. Like I said, the PLAN uses a CODOG arrangement for its Type 052C's which is very fuel efficient and requires less gearing compared to CODAG, but cannot produce as much power on demand as COGAG. 4 QC280's in a COGAG arrangement would easily provide in excess of 110,000 shp, more than enough for a 8 to 10,000 ton class ship. The problem with extending the beam is not so much the extra displacement but the amount of redesign required. It's obviously much more complicated than extending a ship lengthwise because it requires design changes along the entire length of the ship, whereas a lengthwise extension only requires design changes in one section of the ship, and unless this potential was already designed into the class from the very beginning, it's probably not ever going to happen.
joshuatree
Captain
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I think it's just the eyes playing tricks due to the smaller front of the bridge (7 windows to 5 windows) and the larger radar panels and a steeper install angle. The length from the tip of the bow to the base of the bridge looks to be the same. Hard to imagine a wider beam with the same length bow, would make it look stubby. I think maybe length of hull would be extended in the mid to rear sections but width is the same.
Tell me if the new ship looks wider.
I think it's just the eyes playing tricks due to the smaller front of the bridge (7 windows to 5 windows) and the larger radar panels and a steeper install angle. The length from the tip of the bow to the base of the bridge looks to be the same. Hard to imagine a wider beam with the same length bow, would make it look stubby. I think maybe length of hull would be extended in the mid to rear sections but width is the same.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I was refering to the current 052 class hull with CODAG. if it is a COGAG then all bets are off. which is not the case.
I was refering to the current 052 class hull with CODAG. if it is a COGAG then all bets are off. which is not the case.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Where did you read that it was CODAG? I could have sworn there was some piece a few years ago talking about PLAN reluctance to use the additional gearing needed for CODAG vs CODOG.