052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Blackstone
Brigadier
Re: Type 052 (Luhu Class)
I think it highly unlikely. Even if they could, it would be laborious and unwieldly.
Those vessels are going to use that launcher for CIWS. They will have their other 64 cell VLS for mid to long range anti-air defense. If they ever are in a confrontation where all 24 missiles are in danger of being used, then they will have probably stayed in the fight too long and should be relieved while they go and re-arm.
Might be possible. I just do not know enough about the FL-3000N launchers.
I think it highly unlikely. Even if they could, it would be laborious and unwieldly.
Those vessels are going to use that launcher for CIWS. They will have their other 64 cell VLS for mid to long range anti-air defense. If they ever are in a confrontation where all 24 missiles are in danger of being used, then they will have probably stayed in the fight too long and should be relieved while they go and re-arm.
Re: Type 052 (Luhu Class)
VLS: 64 to 96
Helos: One to two
Sonar: Far less capable.
Main Gun: 130mm vs 127mm
CIWS Gun: 30mm vs 20mm
CIWS Missile: FL-3000N 24 cell vs none
APARS: We just do not know enough about the Chinese System
Battle Management: We just do not know enough about the Chinese System.
Now, we do know that the US VLS can handle all sorts of weapons, including SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, quad packed ESSMs, TLAMs, Tactical Tomahawk with SSM, VL-ASROC, the new LRASM, etc.
We think that the Chinese VLS can handle, in addition to their LR AAW missiles, a yet to be seen quad packed SR AAW missile, and a yet to be seen cruise missile. But we have not seen them yet.
I'd say that the Type 052D is a very capable multi-mission destroyer with very strong anti-air capabilities. But I believe it is still quite a bit behind the overall capabilities of a Burke Flight IIA destroyer.
Well, in pure numbers she stacks up like this 052D vs Burke Flight IIA:
VLS: 64 to 96
Helos: One to two
Sonar: Far less capable.
Main Gun: 130mm vs 127mm
CIWS Gun: 30mm vs 20mm
CIWS Missile: FL-3000N 24 cell vs none
APARS: We just do not know enough about the Chinese System
Battle Management: We just do not know enough about the Chinese System.
Now, we do know that the US VLS can handle all sorts of weapons, including SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, quad packed ESSMs, TLAMs, Tactical Tomahawk with SSM, VL-ASROC, the new LRASM, etc.
We think that the Chinese VLS can handle, in addition to their LR AAW missiles, a yet to be seen quad packed SR AAW missile, and a yet to be seen cruise missile. But we have not seen them yet.
I'd say that the Type 052D is a very capable multi-mission destroyer with very strong anti-air capabilities. But I believe it is still quite a bit behind the overall capabilities of a Burke Flight IIA destroyer.
Re: Type 052 (Luhu Class)
It's about about 25% smaller than the AB's, and has two thirds the payload. In terms of technology though, it's probably getting pretty close (I'd say there's probably a one generation gap in terms of weapons systems and sensors). Like with China's fighters, engines are the bottleneck.
It's about about 25% smaller than the AB's, and has two thirds the payload. In terms of technology though, it's probably getting pretty close (I'd say there's probably a one generation gap in terms of weapons systems and sensors). Like with China's fighters, engines are the bottleneck.
Last edited:
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Re: Type 052 (Luhu Class)
Impossible to say since we do not know the capabilities of the new APARs and fire control system. The heart and soul of AEGIS is the ANSPY-1D so everything has to be measured against that to some degree. I would say the Burkes most likely hold the advantage in ASW with better helos and probably better sonar and signal processing but everything else I would imagine relatively close in terms of performance and capabilities. The Burkes also carry more missiles in the VLS. Also there are variations between Flt I through Flt IIA ships so it depends on which ones you are comparing it to.
Impossible to say since we do not know the capabilities of the new APARs and fire control system. The heart and soul of AEGIS is the ANSPY-1D so everything has to be measured against that to some degree. I would say the Burkes most likely hold the advantage in ASW with better helos and probably better sonar and signal processing but everything else I would imagine relatively close in terms of performance and capabilities. The Burkes also carry more missiles in the VLS. Also there are variations between Flt I through Flt IIA ships so it depends on which ones you are comparing it to.
Re: Type 052 (Luhu Class)
The US also reloads the similar, 21 cell RAM launchers aboard carriers at sea...but it is not an auto-reloader:
It's a different system, but the US Navy does reload it's eight missile launchers for Sea Sparrows on carriers and large amphibious assault ships, but as I say, it is laborious.
The US also reloads the similar, 21 cell RAM launchers aboard carriers at sea...but it is not an auto-reloader:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: Type 052 (Luhu Class)
In the military there is a saying which I am sure you have heard Jeff, if its easy in peacetime it's difficult in wartime and if it's difficult in peacetime it becomes impossible in wartime
When bullets start flying everything becomes much much harder, so yes it's a very hard job reloading missiles at sea even more so when war is on, this is why they train train and train again for these types of missions and you hear them yelling " this is not a drill this is for real"
The best military's however always pull it off simply because they train much harder, as the old saying goes "you fight like you train"
In the military there is a saying which I am sure you have heard Jeff, if its easy in peacetime it's difficult in wartime and if it's difficult in peacetime it becomes impossible in wartime
When bullets start flying everything becomes much much harder, so yes it's a very hard job reloading missiles at sea even more so when war is on, this is why they train train and train again for these types of missions and you hear them yelling " this is not a drill this is for real"
The best military's however always pull it off simply because they train much harder, as the old saying goes "you fight like you train"
Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I'd be more worried about the front gun CIWS running out of ammo before the back does, since I think those has to be manually reloaded and they expend ammo quite fast. Reloading of the US Phalanx takes a good half an hour, I think, for 1,550 rounds per gun (the earliest variant only carries 989 in drum) with a fire rate of 3000-4500 rpm.
CIWS are for last ditch effort to stop the 1 or 2 missed missiles and is not for the main fight.
I'd be more worried about the front gun CIWS running out of ammo before the back does, since I think those has to be manually reloaded and they expend ammo quite fast. Reloading of the US Phalanx takes a good half an hour, I think, for 1,550 rounds per gun (the earliest variant only carries 989 in drum) with a fire rate of 3000-4500 rpm.
CIWS are for last ditch effort to stop the 1 or 2 missed missiles and is not for the main fight.
Last edited: