052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

hmmwv said:

Yeah it should be completely doable, the standard is probably too generic to include such design details.

Click to expand...

The specification only highlights what are the criteria, how the designs achieve that is another matter.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

MwRYum said:

The specification only highlights what are the required, how the designs achieve that is another business entirely.

Click to expand...

I don't imagine it would be difficult to build a scaffolding structure for a module with different canister lengths...

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

A.Man said:

The Engine Powers 052C & D

GT25000 gas turbine domestic development of the second phase of work, comprehensive localization rate of 98.1%

Click to expand...

does this mean that china is almost completly reverse-engineering Gt25000 ? It would be better to design your own engine, but its understandable that they may still be far from having the know-how to do that.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

kroko said:

does this mean that china is almost completly reverse-engineering Gt25000 ? It would be better to design your own engine, but its understandable that they may still be far from having the know-how to do that.

Click to expand...

Tbh I think RE was the right way to go this round, designing another engine with similar performance requirements would not have been very wise.
Besides that isn't like they can't design and produce engines of other output classes.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

kroko said:

does this mean that china is almost completly reverse-engineering Gt25000 ? It would be better to design your own engine, but its understandable that they may still be far from having the know-how to do that.

Click to expand...

GT25000 has been reverse engineered a while ago, 2011 is when they were able to finally source 98.1% of the parts from domestic suppliers. Not only 12 units were delivered in 2011, the much improved 40MW class GT25000IC is on schedule as well.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

While we should all take wikipedia with a grain of salt, the (not very well formatted) write up of 052D was obviously done by someone who's onto it. A lot of the information correlates with what we know, especially the details about the VLS, and other parts (such as the gun, new datalink etc) are dotted with specks of information which almost convince me of its authenticity, such as various acronyms, designations and even the names of designers.

Here it is


You can read it for yourself, but aside from what we already know about the new VLS and new AESA, it also claims the 130mm gun will feature the ability to fire a variety of munitions, such as rocket propelled and guided (sort of in the vein of LRALM/vulcano/ERGM). That is something I've thought they would logically want to design for a new, larger gun, and is not something surprising. Then there's the new datalink, which again is not unexpected for a new ship generation, so to speak. Also interesting is the note that there may be positions for automated 30mm gun mounts around the ship, to deal with asymmetrical/terrorist threats such as the bombing of USS Cole. I expect those guns, if fitted would be similar to the mounts aboard 056.

Anyway, judge it for yourself. I personally think we should seriously consider the points claimed as real.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Agreed, it's impressive. The guy/s who update the Wikipedia Type 052D know what they are talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is an active member here

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Sounds like just another fanboy writeup to me. I don't necessarily discount all (or even any) of the claims, but personally I think any one of us here could have written that Wiki article based on what's already been presented here (aside from the the speculation about the 130mm munition load choices and the new datalink). Plus anyone who mixes up "AESA" (generic term for active arrays) and "APAR" (brand name specific to Thales Nederland's AESA) is an amateur, even as the author quips about the legitimacy of the term "Chinese Aegis", which he actually further invalidates by associating an entire ship with the brand name of a combat data management system. He's not the first one to make this mistake, but that doesn't mean it's not a mistake.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Well, APAR stands for active phased array radar, and phased array effectively means electronically scanned, so AESA and APAR are relatively interchangable.
Thales just chose a relatively generic name for their radar, that doesn't mean people cannot use that acronym for other radars of the same type. At the very least, we should not damn the use of the acronym and make a judgement on the entire write up, given the author may not be aware of the thales radar, or whatever.
Maybe they are an amateur or fanboy (but then again how many of us on these forums and BBS are not?), but that doesn't invalidate the information presented. That is to say, there's a difference between a wetdream and something gleaned through constant filtering of various sources and rumours and trying to get out what's more likely to be real. And a lot of the fanboys and amateurs I find are much more knowledgable than how some of the western analysts present themselves much of the time.

I don't see how the reference to "chinese aegis" is inaccurate. The author (of that particular section -- there may have been numerous different authors contributing) makes it clear that 052D's "aegis" label (and C before it, if we remember) is informal and makes it clear that aegis is actually a radar+data sharing system (which is a fair enough synonym of "combat management system")

And yes, the part about VLS is obviously from the same MIL STD source we had.


Obviously it would be best if the author could link to all the sources for the claims, but given the nature of these things (for PLA), a lot of the time it is from personal anecdote from posters with some sort of track record for coming up with the goods. It is the exception that we get something like the MIL STD for the new VLS.

Bottom line; a lot of the claims made are probably going to turn out to be true, despite formatting issues and the occasional awkward terminology.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Well, APAR stands for active phased array radar, and phased array effectively means electronically scanned, so AESA and APAR are relatively interchangable.

Click to expand...

Just because they are used interchangeably in common vernacular doesn't mean they are technically interchangeable. It's like calling every piano a "Steinway". You can do that if you want and people will understand what you're trying to say, but people also know you're still wrong.

Bltizo said:

Thales just chose a relatively generic name for their radar, that doesn't mean people cannot use that acronym for other radars of the same type. At the very least, we should not damn the use of the acronym and make a judgement on the entire write up, given the author may not be aware of the thales radar, or whatever.

Click to expand...

The term "active electronically scanned array" existed prior to "active phased array radar", and the acronym "APAR" is most appropriate to Thales' creation. APAR is only used generically because people have been using it generically. I suppose if a billion people started calling every piano a Steinway, these two words would become synonymous through the same process of vulgarization. Again, I do not (necessarily) invalidate the validity of the claims, but rather the authority of the claims. These are NOT the same things.

Bltizo said:

Maybe they are an amateur or fanboy (but then again how many of us on these forums and BBS are not?), but that doesn't invalidate the information presented. That is to say, there's a difference between a wetdream and something gleaned through constant filtering of various sources and rumours and trying to get out what's more likely to be real. And a lot of the fanboys and amateurs I find are much more knowledgable than how some of the western analysts present themselves much of the time.

Click to expand...

Again, I already stated that I did not necessarily dispute any of the points in my previous post, did I not?

Regardless of whether any of the claims turn out to be true, the point is that this article betrays nothing special in terms of insider knowledge, and I rate it no higher in legitimacy than I rate anything written on SDF.

Bltizo said:

I don't see how the reference to "chinese aegis" is inaccurate. The author (of that particular section -- there may have been numerous different authors contributing) makes it clear that 052D's "aegis" label (and C before it, if we remember) is informal and makes it clear that aegis is actually a radar+data sharing system (which is a fair enough synonym of "combat management system")

Click to expand...

There are people who say "bullet" when they mean "cartridge", or "clip" when they mean "magazine", and people know what they are talking about, but they are still wrong for saying it, just like this guy is wrong for saying "Chinese Aegis" unless he's referring specifically to the 052D's combat data management system. Correct terminology is used by professionals, sloppy terminology is used by amateurs. This guy is an amateur. Even if what he says turns out to be right, I do not need to give him any more weight at this point in time than I give any other fanboy who posts anywhere else on the internet. This article has not demonstrated any obvious insider knowledge to my eye that would make him worthy of the respect due a big shrimp.