052C/052D Class Destroyers

Insignius said:

I would like to see your sources and citations on both numbers.

And I'm already calling BS if you quote ONI or any other western source on the number of Chinese radar capability.

Unsubstanciated meme-arguments like "experience" and "naval traditions" in discussions about hardware capabilities only deserve strawman answers.

Especially as this reeks of orientalist arrogance to assume that the US can always pump out the "Block 9000" variant of their crappy 1980s designs which is automatically a million times better than anything the dumb commie chinese can bring out in the year 2017 (and who are also seemingly incapable of upgrading their hard and software). All because they have "muh experience" and "muh naval traditions".

Click to expand...

I accept your challenge, tough guy. Neither source was regards to any Chinese systems, so hopefully any fanboish nationalistic IQ-decreasing emotions will not be aroused.

Thales Nederland APAR (an AESA): 200+ aerial targets tracked simultaneously, 150+ surface targets tracked simultaneously.
Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Systems (Fifth Edition); p. 266
Janes Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems (2009-2010 Edition); p. 102

Thales Nederland APAR 2 (the second iteration AESA): up to 1,000 targets tracked simultaneously.


BOTH radars unfortunately for you track LESS targets than this one:

Lockheed-Martin AN/APS-145 (a PESA): 2,000+ targets tracked simultaneously.
Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Systems (Fifth Edition); p. 212
Beyond the Horizon: The History of AEW&C Aircraft; p. 214


Now, what do YOU have except blustering and chest-thumping? Your biases reduce you to focusing on how the West humiliates Chinese tech constantly and you can't seem to get past the unfairness of it all, but utterly fail to focus on the non-emotive, rational aspects of the discussion. This is NOT about China vs West as you are queerly trying to portray, but about what makes a particular radar effective vs another radar. In your quixotic quest to exonerate Chinese honor you have missed the point entirely.

Great sources man. Some small European naval radars and a radar of an AWACS with the usual (and typically) overstated american numbers (like how the small F-16's APG-68 mechanically steered planar array has nearly 300km range and can see Putin sitting on his golden toilet across the entire Baltic Seas etc.) truly will put the uppity chinese into his place!

Sure showed me with these data of totally unrelated systems.

And the point you want to derive from citing these unrelated data? Let me guess:
Still orientalist arrogance; with your chain of logic being: "If the Europeans (who cant even get the fricking A400M turboprop plane to work properly after a million years and untold billions of euros of development - but let's ignore that), then of course the Chinese must be a thousand^n times worse", amirite?

But let's talk about naval traditons now.
The white man has been sailing with gorgeous and majestic sailing ships for centuries! While the Chinese was always the dirt eating peasant who cant into the high seas! For sure the decades old technologies of the West, like their computers running on 16bit CPUs and mechanically steered radar illuminators like the SPG-62s will be boosted by their rich traditions of seamanship and prevail in every battle!

Insignius said:

Great sources man. Some small European naval radars and a radar of an AWACS with the usual (and typically) overstated american numbers (like how the small F-16's APG-68 mechanically steered planar array has nearly 300km range and can see Putin sitting on his golden toilet across the entire Baltic Seas etc.) truly will put the uppity chinese into his place!

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, WHAT??? ROFLMAO you are now trying to invalidate sources like the Naval Institute Guide and Janes (of all sources!) because you don't like what they say? YOU. Who are you again?

"Overstated", really? You base this on what, your personal experience in the field of military radar development? LOL It sounds like whatever source I was going to give you, you were going to attempt to trash. Attempt being the operative word. I guess it's a totally expected tactic, since you literally have nothing else to shoot back with. And please note that I didn't even bother to demand the same level of evidence from you because I know you won't have anything to offer.

And the comparison is "unrelated", how exactly? Because one is an AESA sitting on a "European" warship (because the fact that it's European is so relevant) and the other is a PESA sitting on an airplane? So if the PESA was instead sitting on a ship with a larger power source, better cooling, and better hardware/software support, it would actually DECREASE its target tracking capabilities to closer to that of the APAR? LOLOLOLOL

Insignius said:

Sure showed me with these data of totally unrelated systems.

And the point you want to derive from citing these unrelated data? Let me guess:
Still orientalist arrogance; with your chain of logic being: "If the Europeans (who cant even get the fricking A400M turboprop plane to work properly after a million years and untold billions of euros of development - but let's ignore that), then of course the Chinese must be a thousand^n times worse", amirite?

But let's talk about naval traditons now.
The white man has been sailing with gorgeous and majestic sailing ships for centuries! While the Chinese was always the dirt eating peasant who cant into the high seas! For sure the decades old technologies of the West, like their computers running on 16bit CPUs and mechanically steered radar illuminators like the SPG-62s will be boosted by their rich traditions of seamanship and prevail in every battle!

Click to expand...

WOW. Just wow. You sound really, really, really butthurt about Western condescension towards Chinese technology. To be sure, this tendency towards condescension is indeed frequently unfair, but your hyperbolic irrelevancy here cannot hide the fact that you have no response to the wholesale dismantling of your absurdly simplistic claim that "AESA >>>>>>>> PESA" and that "better is just better". Clearly there is ALOT more going on with radar detection capability than one-liners on military forums would suggest.

I should not have open this can of worm.

I don't think this has been posted before. It's probably the best photo of the Type 052D I've ever seen. Everything is in agreement; the angle, framing, palette, resolution, the ship herself, everything. The only improvement would be if the wind picked up a bit more and straightened out the flag. Also no watermarks which is always nice.

052D is one of the most attractive warships around I think, at least from bow to amidships. The unmasked exhausts and old-school Yagi antennae detract somewhat.

Lethe said:

052D is one of the most attractive warships around I think, at least from bow to amidships. The unmasked exhausts and old-school Yagi antennae detract somewhat.

Click to expand...

The antennae looks like it should connect to a tube TV. Just talking aesthetics of course.

DDG 173 is going to have an interesting career. She's was the first and so far only one in her class to escort a Liaoning CVG during the western Pacific run, and now the first to deploy abroad to Aden and Europe for a bilateral exercise.

jobjed said:

I don't think this has been posted before. It's probably the best photo of the Type 052D I've ever seen. Everything is in agreement; the angle, framing, palette, resolution, the ship herself, everything. The only improvement would be if the wind picked up a bit more and straightened out the flag. Also no watermarks which is always nice.

Click to expand...

not bad but, to me, the best yet is this view, full of expression:

(of course it's not new)

Jura said:

not bad but, to me, the best yet is this view, full of expression:

(of course it's not new)

Click to expand...

This looks like an NBC decontamination test.