052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

Well I think Jeff has got the right end of the stick here, what I was trying to say (might not have come across correctly) is that a larger vessel in the size of a cruiser would be more beneficial in high sea states than the current DDG in PLAN inventory, namely Type 052C/D

Click to expand...

Wrong. This is what you said:

asif iqbal said:

But a DDG can not charge high sea states at 30+knots like a cruiser can so I think a larger cruiser style warship will appear in PLAN pretty soon

Click to expand...

Here you explicitly say that a DDG "can not" sail at 30+ knots in a high sea state, whereas a cruiser can. Even if you meant only PLAN DDG's, you have no evidence for it. A groundless claim will be challenged, as you have been.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

But a DDG can not charge high sea states at 30+knots like a cruiser can so I think a larger cruiser style warship will appear in PLAN pretty soon

If China makes a carrier most likely it will take a 10,000 ton cruiser with it, having said that the Areigh Burke can clock 30 knots at high sea states with ease its very well balanced DDG

Click to expand...

That is what I said, and I stand by it 110%

No where did I say that Arleigh Burke is the only DDG that can clock 30 knots, what I said is that a DDG can not take high sea states "like" a cruiser unless the DDG is a Arleigh Burke

In addition although other DDG can take high sea states at 30 knots none can as good as the Arleigh Burke I.e with the pitch and roll it has

So I am clear on what I said and there is no contradiction, I believe as many do the Arleigh Burke is the worlds best DDG when it comes to overall stability and balance, the formidable Type 45 has termendous acceleration and turning circle yet it struggles against a Arleigh Burke in bad weather that says a lot

You can close yourself off and believe what you like I'm not here to convince anyone

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

And for the reason I mentioned it, because at the back of my head I was recalling an article published in Warship magazine in the summer (2012) regarding DDG-51 which sailed at high speed through a high category storm in the North Atlantic at speeds in excess of 30 knots, it included a captains perspective and during the interview he stated that Arleigh Burke DDG is probably the world’s best and well balanced DDG, in terms of its survivability, durability and ability’s to hit high waves and just slice through them , I know who I would believe

Click to expand...

Rule of thumb. take the crew or captains extra ordinary comparative claims about their own ship Well salted.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Rule of thumb. take the crew or captains extra ordinary comparative claims about their own ship Well salted.

Click to expand...

really? as aposed to who else, some person in cyberspace on a online-forum, naa im not that stupid!

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

The Newer Type 52D as some predicted will have a displacement of 7500-8000 tons.. That isn't really far from 10,000 tons...

I don't think a country needs a cruiser just because it has aircraft carriers operational...

And lastly was the 10,000 ton serves as the official standard for a ship to be called Cruiser?

Frigates now a days in a lot of countries are heavier than it should... What will be the tonnage benchmark for these then?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

really? as aposed to who else, some person in cyberspace on a online-forum, naa im not that stupid!

Click to expand...

The military personel i met and that actually is interested in its job and has the curiosity to inquire about other nations arms capabilities is marginal; they all believe what their instructors tell them and these only reproduce what the arms producers have told them; and do yoy know any firm that states its product are second best???

I have experienced such behavior frequently, rare is the occasion of a truly informed military and in these cases it's due to their personel interest and experiences , not their military training!

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Delbert said:

The Newer Type 52D as some predicted will have a displacement of 7500-8000 tons.. That isn't really far from 10,000 tons...

I don't think a country needs a cruiser just because it has aircraft carriers operational...

And lastly was the 10,000 ton serves as the official standard for a ship to be called Cruiser?

Frigates now a days in a lot of countries are heavier than it should... What will be the tonnage benchmark for these then?

Click to expand...

IMHO I think it's all semantics if you ask me. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is like an international standard or some international naval body that officially sets standard for ship classification based strictly on displacement values especially for surface combatants.

Most navies do have what is call hull classification symbols which denotes a particular type of ship BUT that is different than having an international classification based strictly on a ship's displacement. (i.e if you go even a single Ibs over or 1 Ibs less you're call one thing etc). Besides every country calls their ships a little different anyway so there goes any standardization.

Case in point is Kirov class... in western naval terminology they are 'unofficially' classified as battlecruisers but in Russian they are call Tyazholyy Atomnyy Raketny Kreyser or Heavy Nuclear-powered Missile Cruiser. Of course to cause even more confusion one only needs to look at JMSDF. Everyone knows the Hyuga is really a light carrier but they call it a DDH which is a Helicopter Destroyer. Same with Ōsumi class LST which is ridiculous designation because it doesn't really have bow doors which really differentiate an LST with an LPD or other type of transports. I can go on but I think my fellow SDF brothers much more knowledgeble than me are probably in agreement with me here.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

That is correct, since the lapse of the 1936 London Treaty (and the 1922 Washington Treaty and the 1930 London Treaty that preceded it), there have been no internationally recognised definitions of warship categories.

It is, in other words, a complete mess, and everyone is free to call their warships whatever catches their fancy.

The USN that once had a system that was reasonably coherent and to a wide degree adopted by other NATO navies, has completely lost its bearings and pretends that the three 14,500-ton ZUMWALT class are DDG destroyers. To add to the confusion, they seem to have forgotten that DDG's are numbered (so far) DDG 1 - 118, and have given them DD numbers 1000-1002 (feeding much speculation as to who DD 998 and DD 999 were).

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Delbert said:

The Newer Type 52D as some predicted will have a displacement of 7500-8000 tons.. That isn't really far from 10,000 tons...

I don't think a country needs a cruiser just because it has aircraft carriers operational...

And lastly was the 10,000 ton serves as the official standard for a ship to be called Cruiser?

Frigates now a days in a lot of countries are heavier than it should... What will be the tonnage benchmark for these then?

Click to expand...

I think the 052D's displacement is being oversold. There is no reason to believe it is any larger than the 052C. In fact the rear hangar area is smaller than on the 052C. IMO the 052D should still be around 7,000t.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

I think the 052D's displacement is being oversold. There is no reason to believe it is any larger than the 052C. In fact the rear hangar area is smaller than on the 052C. IMO the 052D should still be around 7,000t.

Click to expand...

Actually 052D does appear to have a slightly greater beam than 052C does;



Combined with the larger radar, increased VLS number, larger gun, I would be surprised if there isn't a substantial increase in displacement over 052C.

---

How is the rear hangar smaller, which pictures illustrate this?