Skywatcher
Captain
Re: DDG 052C Thread
My guess is a navalized variant of the S-400, mixed in with the HQ-16.
My guess is a navalized variant of the S-400, mixed in with the HQ-16.
052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Then it's quite a large leap from their 7000-8000 tonne 052 series.
I think what would be interesting is if they have a common VLS design like the Mk-41. How hard is it to actually design a vertical launch system able to fire different kinds of munitions?
Also, the HH-9 VLS on the 052C IMHO wastes a lot of deckspace in comparison to Mk-41and other "square" VLS's.
IF China is indeed going to build a destroyer with displacement OVER 10,000 Tonnes...
Then it's quite a large leap from their 7000-8000 tonne 052 series.
I think what would be interesting is if they have a common VLS design like the Mk-41. How hard is it to actually design a vertical launch system able to fire different kinds of munitions?
Also, the HH-9 VLS on the 052C IMHO wastes a lot of deckspace in comparison to Mk-41and other "square" VLS's.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
I'm hoping a common VLS with DH-10, HQ-9, the chinese ASROC, and HQ-16. But that's a huge expectation in it's own right..
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Why HQ-9 and HQ-16? That combination is not even nearly the same as an SM-2/ESSM combination. The HQ-16 takes up a single cell just like the HQ-9; it cannot be quad-packed because it's too large, almost the size of an SM-2 in fact. Unless you know something about those missiles that other people don't.
Why HQ-9 and HQ-16? That combination is not even nearly the same as an SM-2/ESSM combination. The HQ-16 takes up a single cell just like the HQ-9; it cannot be quad-packed because it's too large, almost the size of an SM-2 in fact. Unless you know something about those missiles that other people don't.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
The HQ-9 and HQ-16 could go together like the Aster 30 and Aster 15 combination, the HQ-9 for long range air defence, and the HQ-16 for closer range targets like sea skimming missiles.
But the main point was that this hypothetical 10,000 tonne destroyer to have a common VLS with a long range SAM like HQ-9 and capable of firing long range cruise missiles and VLS capable ASW missiles.
The HQ-9 and HQ-16 could go together like the Aster 30 and Aster 15 combination, the HQ-9 for long range air defence, and the HQ-16 for closer range targets like sea skimming missiles.
But the main point was that this hypothetical 10,000 tonne destroyer to have a common VLS with a long range SAM like HQ-9 and capable of firing long range cruise missiles and VLS capable ASW missiles.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Re: DDG 052C Thread
different purposes ... ESSM is designed for range (not speed) and 9M317 is designed for speed (not range)
the higher the speed the more fuel needed for the same distance
different purposes ... ESSM is designed for range (not speed) and 9M317 is designed for speed (not range)
the higher the speed the more fuel needed for the same distance
Re: DDG 052C Thread
A matter of ballistics and propellant technology?
Uh. ESSMs are FASTER than Buks. I think you mean manoeuvrability and acceleration.
A matter of ballistics and propellant technology?
Uh. ESSMs are FASTER than Buks. I think you mean manoeuvrability and acceleration.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Could it be that the ESSM is just newer and uses more modern, lighter technology?
williamhou
Junior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Generally US missiles are lighter than Russian missiles of the same class.
Russian missiles usually have far heavier warhead and propulsion technology is not as efficient. Don't know in the case of these two missiles, just a guess.
Generally US missiles are lighter than Russian missiles of the same class.
Russian missiles usually have far heavier warhead and propulsion technology is not as efficient. Don't know in the case of these two missiles, just a guess.