Type 52C VS. Arleigh Burke

bd popeye said:

Silly ? Sort of....Air superiorty? The USN wins for now hands down. I don't think the missle dumping sequence will work. I mean how many misiles do you want to fire to sink a single ship? Missiles are expensive. Even for the PLAN. You need to preserve them to fight another day.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the unit cost of an air-launched AGM-84 Harpoon is, but Wikipedia lists a generic unit cost at $720,000 USD:


Argentina paid about $250,000 each for their Exocet missiles from France. The unit cost of a Type 42 Destroyer in the British Navy was well in excess of $100 million in 1980's.

Assuming inflation and other factors bumping the unit price per missile to $1 million, a typical Frigate or Destroyer today will cost you several hundred million dollars. Using million dollar missiles to sink a $200 million (i.e. F-22P unit price) frigate is very cost effective.

An Arleigh costs about 700 million ( that maybe a bit dated). However, not all million dollar missiles will get through.

It's like using a 30,000 ATGM to kill a million dollar tank.

You can't logic like that. It's worth to use ten $1 million missile cause it will sink a $500 ship. Or it's not worth to use 300 million dollars to sink the same ship. If you don't sink a ship think of the potential damage that ship can do to you. It's very hypothetical but also very very high. Sinking a carrier for example isn't just making 5 billion dollars go to waste, just imagine what that one carrier could do if left roam unchecked. Also, it's a huge difference if the enemy has 10 carriers and you sink one and if it has two carriers and you managed to sink one.

Basically, if a battle is worth fighting, in that battle you do anything to win. So if you have the capabilites and have for example hundreds of missiles, of course you will use them if using them can bring you victory. Victory has no clear dollar price. And in today's aegis defended navies it's ludicrous to think you can win without commiting large forces to overwhelm the enemy. Just think of italian navy in ww2, a rather powerful force, which was kept in harbours most of the time because it was deemed to pricy to lose. So what happened? instead of losing it at sea while taking british ships alongside it, some years passed and italy lost its ships while basically parked and not doing anything. Conserving forces without any concrete plan what you're conserving them for, while at the same time you have the opportunity to throw a blow to your enemy is just flawed logic.

cost is a major issue in war now. Us is stupid, sending $500,000 tomahawks to destroy a $50 iraqi com station. china needs ways to make cheap weapons that are effective and can take down more powerful and expensive US equipment. the Us wouldnt stand such losses and would pull out.

cost is a major issue in war now. Us is stupid, sending $500,000 tomahawks to destroy a $50 iraqi com station. china needs ways to make cheap weapons that are effective and can take down more powerful and expensive US equipment. the Us wouldnt stand such losses and would pull out.

Click to expand...

Despite what totoro thinks ..cost is a factor. I know . I've talked to some US Naval officers about this. Of course you want to win the battle with minimum losses & cost. That is why the US has develpoed such great defenses. Virtually unbeatable.

There are few if any "cheap effective" weapons[for any country] because your enemey is always in R&D on new ones to counter your cheap ones.

The US is not stupid. That's very insulting. I as an American would never post such dribble about any nation...And cruise missiles are not used against radar sites or com sites. The USN uses AGM-88 HARM Missile against radar. The cost is $284,000 apiece. Not cheap. But they work. Com sites? Just about any missile or guided weapon will do.

As for the US not standing losses and pulling out of a war..What makes you say that??? .

bd popeye said:

Despite what totoro thinks ..cost is a factor. I know . I've talked to some US Naval officers about this. Of course you want to win the battle with minimum losses & cost. That is why the US has develpoed such great defenses. Virtually unbeatable.

There are few if any "cheap effective" weapons[for any country] because your enemey is always in R&D on new ones to counter your cheap ones.

The US is not stupid. That's very insulting. I as an American would never post such dribble about any nation...And cruise missiles are not used against radar sites or com sites. The USN uses AGM-88 HARM Missile against radar. The cost is $284,000 apiece. Not cheap. But they work. Com sites? Just about any missile or guided weapon will do.

As for the US not standing losses and pulling out of a war..What makes you say that??? .

Click to expand...

if US is involved in a war where it doesn't care about, it will be less interested in a prolonged war. Honestly, does US really care about Taiwan? It has to be a lot more preoccupied by Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

if US is involved in a war where it doesn't care about, it will be less interested in a prolonged war. Honestly, does US really care about Taiwan? It has to be a lot more preoccupied by Iraq, Iran and North Korea

Click to expand...

I agree. The only thing that really binds the US to Taiwain is a treay signed many years ago. And of course $....

And of course $....

Click to expand...

Couldn't the PRC offer the US a helluva more cash than Taiwan could ever hope to?

Couldn't the PRC offer the US a helluva more cash than Taiwan could ever hope to?

Click to expand...

I'm sure. But the US see's the PRC as a potiental enemy. Sad but true. And the US would never sell the PRC any arms.

Of course cost is A factor, i most definitely didn't say it isn't. It all needs to be weighed out, that was the point of my post. To use the example with the harm. so it costs almost 300 000 bucks.

And lets say, for the sake of the argument, that it destroys a radar which somehow costs just 100 000 bucks. It's still a worthy kill cause who knows how many millions of dollars were spared (not to mention human lives) by denying the enemy of info that the said radar could have supplied them with.

Sure, you could've tried to save money and you could've used a 50 000 missile. What if it failed? What if the enemy's defense system is good enough that such a cheap missile just doesn't posses the systems required for overcoming the radar defence? And even if you launch 20 such cheaper missiles not one will get through and destroy it. Then you've wasted a million dollars and still you didnt destroy the radar.