052/052B Class Destroyers

L

luhai

Banned Idiot
Re: DDG 052C Thread

Actually, they are fair comparison. As they both are upgrades of really old systems.

39 kg warhead (ESSM) vs 70kg warhead (Buk). It may not look much but the thing about rockets is that you get is a nice multiplier factor since you need to power the fuel weight as well. (In addition, the stereotypical heavy Russian electronics would add more dead weight)

On the design front, ESSM seems to be target mainly toward sea skimmers, and has no requirement to intercept things like Ballistic missiles (which is left the Standards). 9M317 on other hand does carry a anti-Ballistic missile mission, whether it is good at it, who knows. But this requirement, particularly emphasis on high operating ceiling and vertical acceleration would lead to design compromised elsewhere.
 
P

pla101prc

Senior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

Bltizo said:
Over 10,000 tonnes?? That would be a huge leap from the 052's...

I suppose that this source is credible enough.
If this source is true, I wonder if China would be planning to build a line of Arleigh Burke type destroyers, but larger? I see no other reason for a destroyer to be over 10k tonnes unless they're planning to put lots of VLS's on it.

But before I get too carried away and getting hopes up, I suppose we can only confirm this news when we actually see a destroyer being built.
Click to expand...

pardon my stupidity in navy stuff but what is the displacement of the burke?lol...damn i am wasted when it comes to navy
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Re: DDG 052C Thread

It was a hit on the same target, which I think is more impressive as it demonstrates good anti-countermeasure capacity being so soon after the first hit.

It was rumored that the Russians sold the Tor on the back of one such live fire demonstration by hitting the same target three times within a few seconds, although that looked like an easier hit as the missiles were coming side-on instead of semi-tail chase so the subsequent missiles would not have been affect as much from the explosion and debris from the first hit.

The commentary also said this exercise was carried out in complex electromagnetic conditions with jamming throughout.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

pla101prc said:
pardon my stupidity in navy stuff but what is the displacement of the burke?lol...damn i am wasted when it comes to navy
Click to expand...
About 8300-8400 tons for Flight I and II, and 9200 tons for Flight IIA.

Or at least that's what wikipedia says.
 
A

A.Man

Major
Re: DDG 052C Thread

tphuang said:
why are you posting that video here, it has nothing to do with 052C.
Click to expand...

People were arguing about different missiles above my post. It is good to hear people making comments on the real thing rather than those folks arguing on assumptions of assumptions.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

A.Man said:
People were arguing about different missiles above my post. It is good to hear people making comments on the real thing rather than those folks arguing on assumptions of assumptions.
Click to expand...
What you do is posting a lot of links with one line intro on what the video is and not much insight. I'm willing to tolerate that kind of low quality posts as long as it's in the right place, so maybe others will continue with more thoughts. But I don't want to see random links in 052C thread, when people should be posting about 052C. Especially since the link you put is a ground based SAM and the discussion was on naval SAM, which are different. I can see that naval SAM's relevance in this thread, but not ground based SAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top