Type 52C VS. Arleigh Burke

MIGleader said:

yeah...then you would have no launchers left to launch the standards.
even so, the range is the true limiting factor. any enemy destroyer armed with a missle of superior range can simply avoid the ab.

Click to expand...

If armed with the TASM version of the Tomahawk, the ab and any other Tomahawk armed DDG or CG has the range on all comers, along with the satellite and other recon assets, including UAVs to provide the targeting.

There arerand have been conflicting reports, even within the US, about the TASM and its operational status. It's not sure they are deployed...but they certainly were built and could be...and there are persistant reports that they are being redeployed.

yeah...then you would have no launchers left to launch the standards.
even so, the range is the true limiting factor. any enemy destroyer armed with a missle of superior range can simply avoid the ab.

Click to expand...

Why do you act like you know everything?
The launchers can be configured to fire both ESSM and Tomahawks. How do you think the USN hit Afganistan?

Jeff Head said:

If armed with the TASM version of the Tomahawk, the ab and any other Tomahawk armed DDG or CG has the range on all comers, along with the satellite and other recon assets, including UAVs to provide the targeting.

There arerand have been conflicting reports, even within the US, about the TASM and its operational status. It's not sure they are deployed...but they certainly were built and could be...and there are persistant reports that they are being redeployed.

Click to expand...

Wow, so I'm not the only one. I have heard they are being redeployed but not as TASM. They will actually use the very low RCS Tactical Tomahawk with a radar seeker head and the same exact "re-attack" packages and Surveillance units built into the missile as the land attack version. If true, this will give USN an extremely low-observable anti-ship punch at around 500 - 600?(classified) Km or so. I'm guessing they wouldn't build very many of these specific missiles though as US Naval Doctrine calls for Carriers to launch anti-ship strikes at 1000 - 2000 Km or more. But these type of anti-ship missiles would be used for specific fleet interdictions and SAG's in support of larger fleet movements. Arleigh Burkes armed with these would be able to launch these well out of the range of Type 052C. And it's likely 052C wouldn't even see it coming. The RCS of next-generation Tomahawks are really miniscule and hard to detect. Combine that with a Tomahawk loaded for electronic warfare and you really have a lethal combo.

And as far as Harpoon is concerned, it's a very lethal anti-ship missile. Harpoons are rather sophisticated in that you can set them to fly multiple flight profiles, you can set them to hit specific areas of ships such as radar masts, stern sections and under the water-line, and the Harpoon system can time multiple missiles for coordinated interception. Most ship-to-ship warfare has been speculated to occur within Harpoons nominal firing envelope. And that of SM-2 as well. That's why I say the range aspects of anti-surface weapons is not rather idealistic. The farther out you fire one of these, the easier it is for your "target" to deal with it. The SM-2, ESSM, and RAM are all built to deal with multiple incoming missiles just like the YJ-62. After the Type 052C would exhaust their entire load(16) of ASM's, Arleigh Burke would have a potential of around 80 or so anti-ship missiles in the SM-2 and any remaining HArpoons they have. These reasons, combined with USN carrier doctrine and submarine deployment strategies is the reason the USN hasn't really focused on anti-ship missiles as much. While most nations are now focused on anti-ship missiles as an end-all, they still have no effective way to deal with USN carriers, massed forward deployed submarine units, US surveillance and electronic warfare methods, and massive USN/USAF combined offensive force structures.

@ tphuang - Yes, the Oscar Austin Arleigh Burkes have removed their Harpoons. But only as a cost-saving measure. They retain the ability to fit the launchers between the stacks if necessary.

Sea Dog said:

Wow, so I'm not the only one. I have heard they are being redeployed but not as TASM. They will actually use the very low RCS Tactical Tomahawk with a radar seeker head and the same exact "re-attack" packages and Surveillance units built into the missile as the land attack version. If true, this will give USN an extremely low-observable anti-ship punch at around 500 - 600?(classified) Km or so. I'm guessing they wouldn't build very many of these specific missiles though as US Naval Doctrine calls for Carriers to launch anti-ship strikes at 1000 - 2000 Km or more. But these type of anti-ship missiles would be used for specific fleet interdictions and SAG's in support of larger fleet movements. Arleigh Burkes armed with these would be able to launch these well out of the range of Type 052C. And it's likely 052C wouldn't even see it coming. The RCS of next-generation Tomahawks are really miniscule and hard to detect. Combine that with a Tomahawk loaded for electronic warfare and you really have a lethal combo.

And as far as Harpoon is concerned, it's a very lethal anti-ship missile. Harpoons are rather sophisticated in that you can set them to fly multiple flight profiles, you can set them to hit specific areas of ships such as radar masts, stern sections and under the water-line, and the Harpoon system can time multiple missiles for coordinated interception. Most ship-to-ship warfare has been speculated to occur within Harpoons nominal firing envelope. And that of SM-2 as well. That's why I say the range aspects of anti-surface weapons is not rather idealistic. The farther out you fire one of these, the easier it is for your "target" to deal with it. The SM-2, ESSM, and RAM are all built to deal with multiple incoming missiles just like the YJ-62. After the Type 052C would exhaust their entire load(16) of ASM's, Arleigh Burke would have a potential of around 80 or so anti-ship missiles in the SM-2 and any remaining HArpoons they have. These reasons, combined with USN carrier doctrine and submarine deployment strategies is the reason the USN hasn't really focused on anti-ship missiles as much. While most nations are now focused on anti-ship missiles as an end-all, they still have no effective way to deal with USN carriers, massed forward deployed submarine units, US surveillance and electronic warfare methods, and massive USN/USAF combined offensive force structures.

@ tphuang - Yes, the Oscar Austin Arleigh Burkes have removed their Harpoons. But only as a cost-saving measure. They retain the ability to fit the launchers between the stacks if necessary.

Click to expand...

So, I guess you are saying the range of Anti-ship version of Tomahawk is 500 to 600 KM? I'm just wondering what kind of profile it normally flies, because that is only 1/3 of it's LACM range.

Also, I think you could be really overrating the performance of Harpoon. The stuff about targetting different parts of the ship depends more on the radar of the operating ship than anything else. I have no doubt that it's manuverability and guidance is great, but I would not be so afraid of having 1 Harpoon coming at me. It's the concentrated attack of Harpoons that is more concerning. But then again, you can say that about any of the more modern Anti-ship missiles.

tphuang said:

So, I guess you are saying the range of Anti-ship version of Tomahawk is 500 to 600 KM? I'm just wondering what kind of profile it normally flies, because that is only 1/3 of it's LACM range.

Also, I think you could be really overrating the performance of Harpoon. The stuff about targetting different parts of the ship depends more on the radar of the operating ship than anything else. I have no doubt that it's manuverability and guidance is great, but I would not be so afraid of having 1 Harpoon coming at me. It's the concentrated attack of Harpoons that is more concerning. But then again, you can say that about any of the more modern Anti-ship missiles.

Click to expand...

That's why I put the question mark next to the range figure. I don't know. But I do know TASM's were flying between 250 and 300 nautical miles, and Tactical Tomahawks have better range performance than the old design standard. So I'm guessing it's range will improve slightly to what TASM had.

Well, I'm not overstating anything regarding Harpoon performance. These are things that Boeing itself has said it's designed to do. And it has been fielded and has performed during acceptance testing phase to be able to do all of this. I'm not by any means saying it's the best anti-ship missile in the world. But it is definitely one of the best. There are alot of other good performers out there like the SS-N-19 which is by far more sophisticated than a Harpoon. And I also agree with you. I wouldn't be at all concerned with 1 or 2 Harpoons launched at me. It's when you start coordinating their fire that it becomes difficult to overcome. I'm certain that the YJ-62 is much the same. In coordinated fire, it would prove much more difficult to deal with.

jatt said:

Why do you act like you know everything?
The launchers can be configured to fire both ESSM and Tomahawks. How do you think the USN hit Afganistan?

Click to expand...

no need for that attitude. you said all 96 of the vls cells could be sued for tomahawks, but that would leave not atandard room. of course, you could mix the arsenal, which is what makes the 52c so capable.

Well, I think that you are maybe wrong here. The VLS on 52C are not design to carry others missiles than HQ-9. So the VLS on the 52C are not as versatile as the A/B. And also, you have to remember that most of the US equipment are combat proven, we know that it work, while most PRC's newest equipement are not combat approve...

Also, the "slow" speed and "short" range is not really a disadvantage, it's already hard to hit a missile with a SAM, the British Sea Dart which is a very accurate pinpoint defence SAM, will miss a few shot before hitting target, remember the Falkland ??

Rommel

the sea dart is NOT capable the targeting radr is a meteric wave one designed in the 50s also one target must be destoryed befored the next can be targeted so some aircraft always got through

PS ageis is also not combat proven you keep on saying the chinese system
is unproven and so on why dont you talk about problem of the americans!!!!

the harpoon can not be compared to the YJ_62

why is shot range and slow speed not a problme !!!!!

please provide evidance

the 052c can attack from 300km the bruke have to go 100km closer I domt think they can do that under fire

darth sidious said:

Rommel

the sea dart is NOT capable the targeting radr is a meteric wave one designed in the 50s also one target must be destoryed befored the next can be targeted so some aircraft always got through

PS ageis is also not combat proven you keep on saying the chinese system
is unproven and so on why dont you talk about problem of the americans!!!!

the harpoon can not be compared to the YJ_62

why is shot range and slow speed not a problme !!!!!

please provide evidance

the 052c can attack from 300km the bruke have to go 100km closer I domt think they can do that under fire

Click to expand...

The AEGIS system has never been tested in a true combat environment. You're right. But it has been tested continuously in very accurate combat like conditions with challenging ECM environments. And it has performed. So far we haven't had a look at Type 052C in any kind of environment to determine it's worth.

The Harpoon cannot be compared to YJ-62. You're correct here also. They are two different systems. So far it looks like YJ-62 has better range performance, but I'm not so sure it's as capable in guidance, electronic, and discriminator technologies. And I must correct you on another thing. Type 052C/YJ-62 has range characteristics of between 185 and 200 Km. Not 300 Km. Harpoon's best is listed as "greater than" 125 Km. So we don't know Harpoons exact range profile. I doubt it's 200 Km though. So yes, YJ-62 can probably outrange a Harpoon shot. But range is not the end all in ASuW. Platform electronic warfare / C4I, and defensive systems combined with a balanced offensive posture is what gives surface units the ability to win in these type of engagements. I've said it before, most ship-to-ship type warfare would not take place at 200 Km. It's likely to be at most 140 Km in this day and age. Probably less. There are several factors that contribute to this.....most of all being weapons deployment considerations into naval doctrines. The farther out you are, the easier it will be to defend against a missile shot. And I'm quite certain, Arleigh Burkes can defend itself against 052C based upon AEGIS specifications that incorporate RAM/ESSM into the picture. I'm not so certain that 052C could deal with the stuff that Arleigh Burke can throw it's way. Harpoons, SM's, a superior ECM environment and such.

just to clear up on yj-62's performance

hinese cruise missile portfolio expands


Douglas Barrie and Robert Wall
London

Beijing unveils more missiles for export, shedding light on its internal programs

Printed headline: Cruise Offer

Further evidence of China's progress in cruise missiles is emerging, with detail coming to light on research and development and upgrade programs.

Beijing is touting improved anti-ship missiles for export, featuring seeker technology with greater resistance to countermeasures. The Chinese are also revealing more about their air force's first-generation land-attack cruise missile, the YJ-63.

China is beginning to provide data on one of its latest anti-ship cruise missile programs, the YJ-62, which it is giving the export designation the C602. The YJ-62 appears to be in the final stages of development for the Chinese navy, but is also already being proposed for overseas sale by the China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corp (CPMIEC). Also detailed for the first time is the C802A, an improved version of the YJ-8 anti-ship missile.

CHINA'S SUCCESS in nurturing its indigenous missile capability will almost certainly mean it will play a larger role in the export sector. Its products could prove attractive to nations that would otherwise be unable to purchase such classes of missiles.

Data on both systems was released last week by CPMIEC during the Defense Systems & Equipment International (DSEI) land and naval systems exhibition here Sept. 13-16. CPMIEC claims both missiles are fitted with frequency agile radar seekers, giving the systems much greater resistance to jamming. Chinese anti-ship missiles used single-frequency seeker technology previously.

The C602/YJ-62 has a stated range of 280 km. (174 mi.), with the missile flying at an altitude of 30 meters (98 ft.) during the cruise phase of an engagement. In the terminal phase, the missile descends 7-10 meters. The active radar seeker has an acquisition range of up to 40 km. The system is a conventional cruise missile design, with mid-body wings which deploy following launch. The engine inlet is mounted slightly forward of the cruciform tail fins.

The C802A is an extended-range version of the YJ-8 family of missiles, with an engagement envelope of up to 180 km. This program may be associated with the YJ-85 designation. Turbojet propulsion is used on two missiles.

Both systems are initially intended for ship or coastal defense, though they could also be adapted for air-launched applications. Previous versions of the C802/YJ-8 family have been modified for such applications. Iran is an export customer for versions of this missile.


China's YJ-63 land-attack cruise missile is carried by the H-6 bomber aircraft. China is pursuing a number of cruise missile programs for both air and ship launch.Credit: CHINESE MILITARY AVIATION

The YJ-62 will equip Chinese navy guided-missile destroyers. At least two of a new class, the 052C, are being built; the first was launched in 2003. The ship is fitted with two sets of four-canister launchers amidships.

Range for the C602 export version is given as 280 km., which falls within the 300-km. threshold of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Warhead size is given as 300 kg., again below the 500-kg. limit of the MTCR accord.

It is claimed that the C602 uses strap-down inertial guidance coupled with GPS, and active radar for the terminal phase. The missile is 6.1 meters long, without the 0.9-meter launch booster, and 1,140 kg. The solid propellant booster weighs an additional 210 kg.

High-quality imagery of the Chinese air force's first in-service land-attack cruise missile, the YJ-63, has also become available. Readily apparent is the missile's airframe design heritage from the Russian Styx class of anti-ship missiles, the basis of Chinese missile families. The YJ-63 is believed to use an electro-optical seeker for terminal guidance, and man-in-the-loop guidance with target imagery from the TV-seeker being fed back to the H-6 launch aircraft. What could be a datalink antenna is visible toward the missile's front. The missile shown may be a practice round--the nose cover appears too small for a TV seeker.


That's the export version which is limited to under 300 KM by mtcr.

another article

JANE'S MISSILES AND ROCKETS - AUGUST 01, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China's Type 052C destroyer armed with new anti-ship missile
David C Isby

A new Chinese-designed anti-ship guided missile may form the anti-ship armament of the latest Type 052C destroyer, writes David C Isby. Currently under construction, the ship is reported to carry two four-canister mounts, whose individual canisters are 8-10m long and about 1.5m in diameter.

These dimensions suggest that the canisters are for a larger weapon than the C-803/YJ-82 missiles used on earlier Luhai-class and Type 052B destroyers. This missile could be the C-xxx, which is known to have been under development for a number of years. Development of a land-attack version has also been reported.

In 1999 China displayed a model of what was described at the time as a surface-launched land-attack cruise missile. The missile appeared similar to the Russian Kh-15 (AS-16 ' 'Kickback') air-to-surface weapon. Another new design is believed to have a length of 6m, a body diameter of 0.52m, and a weight of 1,600-2,000kg at launch. Maximum range is 400km when carrying a 150-410kg high-explosive warhead at high supersonic speed.