antiterror13
Brigadier
do not underestimate Chinese solid fuel technology, its already first class
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
do not underestimate Chinese solid fuel technology, its already first class
Uhhhh...sorry, but I really have to put a question mark on this assumption. If China's solid fuel technology is already "first class," where is China's equivalent to THAAD, SM-3/6, S-400/500, etc. "under development" does not count since the Russians and the U.S. already had S-400 and SM-6 in service for a while. At this moment, the HQ-9 is the only Chinese SAM capable of engaging targets beyond 100km. Even if the HQ-9 has a range of 200km, it is still nothing compared to S-400, THAAD, and SM-3 and SM-6. In modern air-sea combat, long-range SAM is what protects your fleets and bases from long-distance kinetic strikes, like USN's Tomahawks and LRASM. Yes, you can argue that China has the SC-19 ABM kill vehicle, but the SC-19 is likely based on DF-21 Ballistic missile, which is much bigger in size and weight than HQ-9 and S-300 series SAMs. Also, the SC-19 is not a SAM. Let's just say out of the long-ranged SAMs of similar sizes (HQ-9, S-300/400/500, SM-3/6, PAC-2), China's HQ-9 possibly happen to have the shortest range.
i think China not only has HQ-9 but also has HQ-16 AND HQ-18... those 2 i think have a longer distance too compared to HQ-9..
MODERATOR INSTRUCTION:
Zeitergeist, we notice you are very often citing WantChinaTimes.
Be advised, WantChinaTimes is not viewed as a credible source for defense news here on SD because it is so often out and out wrong, or purley politically biased.
Please find another source for your news reports.
See:
SD Master Thread for not-so Reliable Sourceshttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ma...-so-reliable-sources-sd-mod-input-only.t7180/https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ma...-so-reliable-sources-sd-mod-input-only.t7180/
Thanks
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
To be fair the article is right however it is also meaningless Nd said nothing of added value..
I mean one would HOPE a 052D can take on an aircraft like the su22 which is nothing more than a modified version of su7 first flown in the 1950s.
That like an article saying an Aegis destroyer can take on A4 Skyhawks.
I mean one would HOPE a 052D can take on an aircraft like the su22 which is nothing more than a modified version of su7 first flown in the 1950s.
That like an article saying an Aegis destroyer can take on A4 Skyhawks.
Hmm so three commissioned DDGs are back at the shipyard presumably for some degree of work. Impossible to rule out the possibility of issues that have come up during trials and operation, but then again I'd hazard against jumping to conclusions about how serious the work is and whether it is symptomatic of any serious issues.
A good gauge would be if we knew how long each ship was back at the shipyard for, but we don't have anything like constant monitoring of the shipyard to make that call.
I wasn't around here when the first 052Bs and 052Cs were commissioned back in the 2000s, does anyone remember if they came back to their shipyards occasionally to have work done in the year or so after their commissioning?
A good gauge would be if we knew how long each ship was back at the shipyard for, but we don't have anything like constant monitoring of the shipyard to make that call.
I wasn't around here when the first 052Bs and 052Cs were commissioned back in the 2000s, does anyone remember if they came back to their shipyards occasionally to have work done in the year or so after their commissioning?