I think he's asking whether the picture showing 052D's cells are the ones described in the 055 thread. And the answer is yes, they are; the 052D and 055 share the same VLS design. @Jura
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I think he's asking whether the picture showing 052D's cells are the ones described in the 055 thread. And the answer is yes, they are; the 052D and 055 share the same VLS design. @Jura
Jura The idiot
General
thanks (my question was very easy, sorry) well I recalled I had read (in Type 055 Thread) such a cell is 0.85m so I asked if this it
now noticed right above
jobjed
understood, answered my question, thank you to you too
Jura The idiot
General
by the way in Type 055 Thread I noticed several debaters used
CUVLS
I suppose it's 'Chinese Universal Vertical Launching System'
CUVLS
I suppose it's 'Chinese Universal Vertical Launching System'
Jura The idiot
General
I prefer numbers to words, so would the answer perhaps be
84
to the question:
#1867 szbd, Yesterday at 6:17 AM
?
(84 as in 22+62, meaning all the USN ships in service with the AEGIS installed)
Lethe
Captain
No, the unequivocal fact is that AESA technology is more advanced than PESA and has various advantages such as improved beam-forming, reduced size/weight, and improved reliability and maintenance requirements.
The question of how China's combat system as a whole compares to late-model Aegis is indeed mostly conjecture and our statements should be conservative to reflect that uncertainty.
Because there is little reason, either empirical or theoretical, to suspect that China's system is inferior to Aegis in any particular respect, the appropriate expression of our uncertainty, incorporating what we know about AESA vs. PESA, is that China's system as fielded on 052C/D and, in future, 055, is at least comparable to Aegis. That is to say, we should challenge assertions of both Chinese superiority and inferiority as exceeding the available evidence.
Nonetheless, it is perfectly reasonable to note that AESA technology is more advanced than PESA and that China fielded this technology on its warships long before USA did. And of course an obvious example of where China's system lags its American counterpart is at the pointy end, with the present lack of both ESSM and SM-3 analogues.
I just invented that acronym for convenience. If the real name for the system is known, I am happy to use it.
Last edited:
Sure AESA technology is more advanced in general compared to PESA. However, this says NOTHING about whether one specific AESA radar is more advanced than another PESA radar. This is like claiming that men are stronger than women, but then extending this claim to a particular man vs a particular woman without even knowing what they both look like physically. Your assumption that "there is little reason" (note how you are trying to give yourself some outs here) to suspect this or that, is just your own opinion about exactly how much reason there is or isn't, with no evidence from you at all whether you have the right to even make this assumption in the first place.
Lethe
Captain
Sure it does. That one radar is PESA and the other AESA doesn't suggest the latter is necessarily more capable, but it does suggest that it is more advanced. The only exception would be if you are comparing Apples with Oranges, i.e. radars on entirely different size/cost scales and/or intended for different applications, neither of which is the case here.
The only person making unwarranted claims here is you, regarding the supposed advantages of running on code descended from the 1970s. If you actually have something useful to contribute, then do so.
This verbal tomfoolery is not fooling anyone, sorry. Who cares if it's more "advanced" if this advancedness doesn't translate into greater capability? Throughout this ENTIRE discussion you have definitively proven only one thing, that you just don't have the first clue which radar is better. You greatly DESIRE one radar to be better than the other, but unfortunately Desire and Reality frequently don't have anything to do with each other. This lack of agreement is especially common on a military forum. You have come up with all kinds of non-reasons for why you personally think one is better than the other, but in the end you are an outsider just like me, and you have no freaking clue which one is better, just like me. All the verbiage in the world is not going to change this blatantly obvious fact.
Actually, I'd like you to point out anywhere in my posts where I said SPY-1 coding definitely holds an advantage over 346/A coding. Go ahead, tough guy. Link and quote.