Type 52C VS. Arleigh Burke

Provide evidance that the contral system on the 052c is inferior to the Brokes
right now we reely dont know !!!

the rcs of a ship is not easy to figure out but I am gussing the steel tower does not improve it

we also dont know how good the type 730 preformes so it point less to compare

where did you get the idea that china has naval phase array radar before the type 052 came out

What on that 052 is actualy copied (apart form the gun on a new mounting)

and how is the harpoon superior to the YJ-63

Well, China don't have experience in C4I sytem, how you can have a good indigenous system at the state-of-art at your first try ?? I don't think that the 52C is comparable to baseline 7 and 7.1 (the most advance on the USN) but more to maybe the early version like 4.0. The USN have years of experience fielding AEGIS, the first AEGIS ship was launched in the 70's. SO they have time to find it's limit and improve it to make it better.

After, Sea Dog said that the concept used on the 52C are copyed. Like the HQ-9 are improved copy of the S-300. The 100mm deck gun have been developed developed by 713 Institute on the basis of the French Creusot-Loire T100C design. The ship is fitted with two triple 324mm Yu-7 (copy of the Mk-46 Mod 1) antisubmarine torpedo tubes. The ship also have a Russian Band Stand Fire control Radar. The ship’s propulsion is in the form of CODOG, consisting of two Ukraine-made DA80/DN80 gas turbines rated at 48,600hp and two Shaanxi diesels (Chinese copy of the MTU 20V956TB92) rated at 8,840hp (6.5 MW).

the creusout loire cant be proven, and neither can the s-300. i dont think the band stand is proven either. its merly speculation. im not going to deny that they were, cause i belive they were based on the systems too, but lets not argue with unproven facts. it doesnt matter how original a ship is. the chinese have shown their ability to build a world class destroyer, and thats what matters.

My thought on AB and 052C is this. In terms of overall capability, there is no way that 052C matches AB. In one on one battle, 052C would be in less of disadvantage, because the categories that it looses out on are not as important in 1vs1 ship fight. For example, the fact that AB's ASW capability is far greater than 052C would not matter all that much. Also, the fact that AB can handle concentrated missile attack would also not be an advantage, because neither ship would be launching concentrated missile attack on each other.

And the experience factor is huge too. In my opinion, a lot of these new ships are huge stepping stones for PLAN. It will take it a while to improve the ships to a point where it can mass produce them and have able operators for them.

It currently has HQ-9A, a Comand and control system with unknown performance, CIWS guns with speculated goalkeeper performance and possibly APAR for the SAMs. All the components are there, it just needs time to mature. It's simply unrealistic to say we have reached the latest AB or Kongo class already.

VLS on 052C does not rotate. Each silo has it's own cold launch gas chamber.

And Miglet, why don't you just give it a rest?

I think this has been discussed before but I can't seem to find it again

Why are the VLS round if it doesn't rotate? They might fit more missiles if they made it square instead.

The only reason I have, and not a very good one, is that they might be concerned about damage control.

Also I think the AEGIS comparison is overdone. I would like to think instead that the 052C is more of a floating S-300 battery. We don't really have any solid data on the radar performance and the missiles, but I would respectfuly gather that if this is a navalized HQ-9, this might be close to what an S-300PMU1/PMU2 with 48N6E1 or E2 missile might be. Roughly the missile might be 150 to 200km in ballistic flight (note the SM2R ranges are ballistic, not slant), with about 100-120km slant range. The panels are more likely to be based on the HQ-9's HT-233 which is more of a mix of the S-300 radar systems and the Patriot's MPQ-153 rather than the SPY-1. If so, based on the HT-233, the radar range might be around 400 to 500km, with the ability to track around 100 targets and engage 24 of them roughly, which is about half of the missiles on the ship. No way of knowing how an S-300 style SAM would be good in intercepting sea skimmers however. Unlike the SARH guided Standards, the 052C's missiles would either be TVM much like a Patriot's or S-300s but it could also be active guided, given the lack of illuminators aboard the ship.

unless the radar itself is a derivative of Kvant, which is active. Then the PAR can both track and illuminate. By the way, HT-233 is associated firstly with the KS-1A.