052C/052D Class Destroyers

antiterror13

Brigadier
How is China behind Japan?

And EU isn't even a single country, could you be more specific?

Latvia is in the EU. Romania is in the EU. I'm pretty sure China has a stronger navy than those two countries--if they happen to have a navy that is.

I am not talking about the strength of the navy, but about the naval technology. Japan is definitely is still ahead of China ... my estimate is < 5 years. Even I believe PLAN now is stronger than JMSDF

When people talk about EU technology, it is about top dogs which are the UK, France, Germany .. we are not talking about other countries (Romania, Latvia, Cyprus, etc)
 

xiabonan

Junior Member
I am not talking about the strength of the navy, but about the naval technology. Japan is definitely is still ahead of China ... my estimate is < 5 years. Even I believe PLAN now is stronger than JMSDF

When people talk about EU technology, it is about top dogs which are the UK, France, Germany .. we are not talking about other countries (Romania, Latvia, Cyprus, etc)

First of all, Japan may have some technological edges over China in terms of submarines, but naval technology, not so much the case. For example, Japan has AEGIS destroyers, but most of the sub-systems were actually American technology, not indigenous Japanese technology. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Japan's best destroyers, the Atago Class, uses American radar, American missiles, American VLS, American guns, and even the design is almost identical to the Burkes.

To my knowledge, Japan didn't develop her own large AESA radar arrays that's comparable to the SPY-1 or the Type 346/346A, Japan didn't develop her own universal VLS, let alone several different VLS like China did.

As for European countries, PLAN is certainly behind UK and France in terms of naval technologies, especially gas turbines in the case of the UK. But Germany? They make good, well, very good in fact, diesel engines, but that's about as far as it goes. Overall, Germany's largest destroyer is only at 5800 tonnes, and they only have 3 of them.

Even in the case of the UK, they have the technologies, they have the tradition, they have the ambition--but they lack the funding and national will to push for a much stronger navy. If not, the Type 45s shouldn't just stop at 6 vessels already. Technologies are still there, but the once almighty Royal Navy is gone. And it the lack of funding continues and the Labour Party continue their tradition of killing RN ships, it will only be a matter of time before those technologies are gone as well.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
First of all, Japan may have some technological edges over China in terms of submarines, but naval technology, not so much the case. For example, Japan has AEGIS destroyers, but most of the sub-systems were actually American technology, not indigenous Japanese technology. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Japan's best destroyers, the Atago Class, uses American radar, American missiles, American VLS, American guns, and even the design is almost identical to the Burkes.

To my knowledge, Japan didn't develop her own large AESA radar arrays that's comparable to the SPY-1 or the Type 346/346A, Japan didn't develop her own universal VLS, let alone several different VLS like China did.

As for European countries, PLAN is certainly behind UK and France in terms of naval technologies, especially gas turbines in the case of the UK. But Germany? They make good, well, very good in fact, diesel engines, but that's about as far as it goes. Overall, Germany's largest destroyer is only at 5800 tonnes, and they only have 3 of them.

Even in the case of the UK, they have the technologies, they have the tradition, they have the ambition--but they lack the funding and national will to push for a much stronger navy. If not, the Type 45s shouldn't just stop at 6 vessels already. Technologies are still there, but the once almighty Royal Navy is gone. And it the lack of funding continues and the Labour Party continue their tradition of killing RN ships, it will only be a matter of time before those technologies are gone as well.

The 2 countries are really in diffferent situations. China needs to develop everything on its own because of arms embarago. And even if the arms embargo doesn't exist, it would still develop most critical subsystems since it does not trust Western countries. Japan on the hand are allies with US, so it really has no need to spend money on developing those same systems. It really doesn't make a difference who developed and is building MK41 or MK57 once a conflict starts.

In terms of the subsystems on 052C/D, everything looks nice and wonderful to us, but none of us really know their capabilities compared to Western counterparts. It's likely that in certain areas where it has strong domestic industry and/or has the ability to purchase COTS products, it would be reasonably close of even ahead of equivalent systems on some Western ships that are built earlier. But there are also other systems like propulsion where it's a couple of decades behind and are still entirely reliant on imports.
 
Last edited:

Schumacher

Senior Member
First of all, Japan may have some technological edges over China in terms of submarines, but naval technology, not so much the case. For example, Japan has AEGIS destroyers, but most of the sub-systems were actually American technology, not indigenous Japanese technology. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Japan's best destroyers, the Atago Class, uses American radar, American missiles, American VLS, American guns, and even the design is almost identical to the Burkes. .......................
..............................
Even in the case of the UK, they have the technologies, they have the tradition, they have the ambition--but they lack the funding and national will to push for a much stronger navy. If not, the Type 45s shouldn't just stop at 6 vessels already. Technologies are still there, but the once almighty Royal Navy is gone. And it the lack of funding continues and the Labour Party continue their tradition of killing RN ships, it will only be a matter of time before those technologies are gone as well.

What you say about the Atago class is true, I'd add the propulsion too to the long list of what's essentially US tech.
As for the RN, don't know the details but I'd bet their latest nuke subs & carrier won't be sailing now if they're subjected to anything close to what PLA faces in terms of embargo on access to US tech, knowledge & assistance.
 

Janiz

Senior Member
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Japan's best destroyers, the Atago Class, uses American radar, American missiles, American VLS, American guns, and even the design is almost identical to the Burkes.
You simply don't get, don't you? What for would Japanese SDF invest huge money in developement when they couldn't sell them to other countries? Everyone knows that when Japan makes something it's rather expensive compared to the main mass producted counterparts from other countries. It takes a second to come up with an idea that the best, easiest, chepest and most effective way to implement those on their warships would be usage of the dedicated weaponry. And they do care about every yen they spend so there's absolutely no way to comapre it with Chinese counterparts on that side. They get the best price, best service and best capabilities most of the time plus the right to make their own modifications on the parts they buy. Can't see anything wrong with that. After all they're as good as their US counterparts and modified for their own purposes.
What you say about the Atago class is true, I'd add the propulsion too to the long list of what's essentially US tech.
And they produce LM2500's in Japan on license. Other countries doing that are Italy and South Korea. RR's SM1C? They produce them at home as well.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
First of all, Japan may have some technological edges over China in terms of submarines, but naval technology, not so much the case. For example, Japan has AEGIS destroyers, but most of the sub-systems were actually American technology, not indigenous Japanese technology. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Japan's best destroyers, the Atago Class, uses American radar, American missiles, American VLS, American guns, and even the design is almost identical to the Burkes.

To my knowledge, Japan didn't develop her own large AESA radar arrays that's comparable to the SPY-1 or the Type 346/346A, Japan didn't develop her own universal VLS, let alone several different VLS like China did.
Whoa, slow down their chief. You are getting a little too defensive.

No one is belitteling the PLAN capabilites.

While it is true that the Kongo and Atago vessels are AEGIS ships that incoprorate and employ predominantly US technologis...that is not all that the Japanese have.

It would be a huge mistake to think or say that the Japanese do not also have their own indegenous systems and a very srong indegonous C4SRI capabilities, including all that goes with it. I believe that their technology in this area is infact several years ahead of the Chinese.

A good example is their newest class destroyers:


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


These destroyers do do not use AEGIS. They use the Japanese own indegenous ATECS battle management system and sensors that rival the AEGIS capabilitiy. They commisioned the latest two of these DDGs March 13 and March 14, 2014.

The ATECS system is routinely called the Japnese AEGIS System, and is used on the Akizuki DDGs, the Hyuga DDHs, and their new Izumo Class DDhs. The Hyuga and Izumo classes are impressive aircraft carreir type vessels.

The ATECS system is comprosed of the following:

OYQ-11: This is a strong, Japanese indigenous CDS adopting fully distributed computing architecture with AN/UYQ-70 workstations and Link 16 capability for communicating with and controlling general-purpose destroyers of the JMSDF. In addition to the CDS, this class is equipped with SATCOM terminals with Superbirds for the MOF system. The MOF, Maritime Operation Force System is the operational C4I system used by the JMSDF, based on the ILOG architecture and interoperable with other JSDF forces. And there are also USC-42 DAMA terminals for also communicating with GCCS-M, which is the American counterpart of the Japanese MOF system.

FCS-3A: This is the Japanese anti-air warfare component of the battle management system. It consists of two main parts. The first is the Japanese dual-band, multimode radar system,. The second is the fire-control system. The FCS-3A system is the derivative of the FCS-3 system first introduced on the Hyuga class,. The FCS-3A system added a local area defense (LAD) capability to allow for integration of the ESSM.

OQQ-22: ASW and EW capabilities for ATEC include the OQQ-22 integrated sonar suite sub-system. This includes the hull-sonar and the OQR-3 towed array. This is the Japanese equivalent system to the US Navy AN/SQQ-89) and the NOLQ-3D digitalized EW suite sub-system. These sub-systems are integrated with a NOYQ-1B Wide area network

Japan worked closely with Thales to develop the X band Mid Course Guidance with Sampled Data Homing system for ATECS. This capability is called ICWI. The Japanese system allows their vessels equipped with ATECS to intercept numerous simultaneous incoming missiles. Japanese scientiest, working with Thales, indicate their belief that each single JMSDF vessel equipped with ATECS has the targeting, tracking, and simultaneous launch capability of two to three Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

Japanese ICWI is based on semi active homing. With semi active homing, the target is tracked and then illuminated by the ship. At the same time, the missile tracks the target with a purely passive radar and also homes in on that reflected energy. The idea is that the missile has less trouble sorting out the target from its surroundings, compared to a purely active homing missile. An added, critical advantage of ICWI is that very large amounts of illumination power can also be brought to bear on any target to burn through jamming and and EW efforts by the incoming missile.

These are the types of things the Japanese have already developed indegenously themselves for their surfact combatants...and deployed.

Yes, the Japanese and US Navy work closely together. And yes, the JMSDF employs a lot of US technology. But as I said, it is not all they they have. They are very advanced in their naval technology.

Stating this, is in no way an attack on, or belitteling the PLANs own systems. It is just indicating that the JMSDF has advanced indegenously in this area.
 
Last edited:

jobjed

Captain
Whoa, slow down their chief. You are getting a little too defensive.

No one is belitteling the PLAN capabilites.

While it is true that the Kongo and Atago vessels are AEGIS ships that incoprorate and employ predominantly US technologis...that is not all that the Japanese have.

It would be a huge mistake to think or say that the Japanese do not also have their own indegenous systems and a very srong indegonous C4SRI capabilities, including all that goes with it. I believe that their technology in this area is infact several years ahead of the Chinese.

Then one has to wonder why the JMSDF emphasises their AEGIS destroyers above their ATECS destroyers. If, like you say, their ATECS rivals that of the AEGIS, then why are their ATECS destroyers classified as "AEGIS escorts" as opposed to their AEGIS destroyers being subservient to the ATECS?

Furthermore - assuming ATECS is just as capable as the AEGIS, if not more - one can't help but get the impression that the JMSDF have under-armed their Akizukis. But did they, actually? It's more likely that the JMSDF realises the inferiority of the ATECS compared to AEGIS and designated their vessels' roles accordingly - ATECS protects AEGIS because AEGIS vessels are, for lack of a better term, better.

By corollary, this implies that ATECS lacks many features provided by the AEGIS. Taking a look at the load-outs, I'd hazard that ATECS is lacking in providing for long-range aerial defence, but I could be wrong.

By contrast, long-range aerial defence is the specialty of both the AEGIS and the PLAN's combat system. AEGIS was designed, first and foremost, for defence against Soviet aerial saturation attacks whilst the PLAN system only supported the HQ-9 long-range SAMs for almost a decade. In the case of the latter, long-range aerial defence was the only mission-type for which the 052Cs are equipped.

Hence, the proposition that the ATECS and AEGIS are 'on-par' is only plausible at best and weak for the most part. Everything the JMSDF has done with their ATECS suggests its deficiencies in fulfilling the AEGIS' role as a long-range anti-air defence platform with some ABM capability. As for how ATECS compares to the PLAN system, it's nigh-impossible to confirm. However, if one postulates the PLAN system to be as capable as the AEGIS in terms of long-range aerial defence, then it'd be correspondingly superior to the ATECS to that end.

As for ASW, *sigh*, China's getting there, that's all that can be said.
 
Last edited:

xiabonan

Junior Member
Thank you Jeff, I fully appreciate your information.

But I'm fully aware of this class of ships, in fact they look beautiful and have a very beautiful name in Chinese: 秋月——which literally translates into "Autumn Moon".

But I've been very careful with my phrasing as well, in my previous post I said "Japan didn't develop her own large AESA radar arrays that's comparable to the SPY-1 or the Type 346/346A". Do you count those AETCS radars as "large" and "comparable to SPY-1"? I bet you won't.

Furthermore, to address some other comments, I fully understand that as a close ally of the US, there's no need for Japan to develop her own systems. She could always acquire them through the US. But does POSSESSING advance technologies make them more "technologically superior"?

Yes Japan has those advanced stuff from the US, but so does Korea, Singapore, or even Saudi Arabia. Singapore has the very capable F15SGs, which is definitely more capable than China's J10s, J11s, but will anyone say that Singapore is "5 years ahead of China in fighter jet technologies"? I bet not as well.

Last but not least, one could argue that Japan has the POTENTIAL to develop such sophisticated systems on her own, just like how many have long speculated that Japan has the POTENTIAL to develop nuclear weapons and long range ICBMs. Yes I do agree that Japan is in general technologically advanced, but POTENTIAL is just POTENTIAL. We can't make a judgement based on how things could be in the future, right?

If a silver-medal winner in the Olympics claim that he or she has the potential to beat his opponent, many would say that's reasonable; but if he or she wants to claim the gold-medal from the first based on such claims, do you think it is justified?
 
Last edited:
Top