Type 52C VS. Arleigh Burke

bd popeye said:

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.

Click to expand...

here's a question that kind of been pondering my mind... if PRC become a democracy (and untie with taiwan) would the US sell arms to them????
or will they still view them as an enemy....?
if they do still view them as an enemy, woundn't that just contradict everything the US did during the Cold War to fight off the commies?

scuds and excocets can get through british and U.s defences, im not saying all ways, but if enough are fired, some will get through. if the Us lost a burke, a dozen planes, and got the carriers badly damaged, what else can you do but pull out.

no offense to popeye, but this is possible. it will be hard to accomplish, but nothing is invincible.

to hell with US and their attitude towards china. The Us knows china is good nation and has alot of democracy, but it see's it as a rival. so it uses the fact china is communist nation and is modernizing as an excuse. it's not working too well though. at least the Us didn't put china in the axis of evil.

you think the US is paranoid based on idealogical grounds? It's about POTENTIAL. If the US wants to fvcking spread democracy over the world, it would have invaded Saudi Arabia a long time ago.

MIGleader said:

scuds and excocets can get through british and U.s defences, im not saying all ways, but if enough are fired, some will get through. if the Us lost a burke, a dozen planes, and got the carriers badly damaged, what else can you do but pull out.

no offense to popeye, but this is possible. it will be hard to accomplish, but nothing is invincible.

to hell with US and their attitude towards china. The Us knows china is good nation and has alot of democracy, but it see's it as a rival. so it uses the fact china is communist nation and is modernizing as an excuse. it's not working too well though. at least the Us didn't put china in the axis of evil.

Click to expand...

Ballistic missiles are useless against moving targets.

MIGleader said:

scuds and excocets can get through british and U.s defences, im not saying all ways, but if enough are fired, some will get through. if the Us lost a burke, a dozen planes, and got the carriers badly damaged, what else can you do but pull out.

no offense to popeye, but this is possible. it will be hard to accomplish, but nothing is invincible.

to hell with US and their attitude towards china. The Us knows china is good nation and has alot of democracy, but it see's it as a rival. so it uses the fact china is communist nation and is modernizing as an excuse. it's not working too well though. at least the Us didn't put china in the axis of evil.

Click to expand...

I think you have to realize that scuds have some funny movements and the patriot missiles can't track them properly. That's why so many of them got through the defenses and hit Israel in Gulf War I. I loved how you watch the American general say on tv "see, it destroyed a scud here and here and here". In the mean time, the same scud is still travelling and landed in Tel Aviv.

Being in the software industry that programs these defense system, I personally think missile defense system can only be effective to a certain degree.

Sea dog, seeing how you wish to discuss the 52c and arleigh birke even further, i will revive this thread.
from what weve seen, the 52c's hq-9 has similar range to the pac-2(120km), and similar accuracy. the only difference is that the 52c holds 1.2 the missles of the burke.

for point defence, the 52c has two type 730 and a 100mm rapid fire gun. the arleigh burke only has 2 phalanx. if the type 730 is related to european systems, it should have more kinetic power and more sophistacated tracking and engaging ability than the phalanx. besides, a burke has only a regualr main gun that cant be used for point defence.

stealth: the burke is a late 80s design. the 52c is a early 21st century design. the burke has some stealth features, but not close to the 52cs.

and you?

just correcting you a little, it's hq9 rather than 15, 15 is the licensed production of S-300PMU

MIGleader said:

Sea dog, seeing how you wish to discuss the 52c and arleigh birke even further, i will revive this thread.
from what weve seen, the 52c's hq-9 has similar range to the pac-2(120km), and similar accuracy. the only difference is that the 52c holds 1.2 the missles of the burke.

for point defence, the 52c has two type 730 and a 100mm rapid fire gun. the arleigh burke only has 2 phalanx. if the type 730 is related to european systems, it should have more kinetic power and more sophistacated tracking and engaging ability than the phalanx. besides, a burke has only a regualr main gun that cant be used for point defence.

stealth: the burke is a late 80s design. the 52c is a early 21st century design. the burke has some stealth features, but not close to the 52cs.

and you?

just correcting you a little, it's hq9 rather than 15, 15 is the licensed production of S-300PMU

Click to expand...

The SM-2-IVER has a range of a little over 370Km and can be salvo fired in multiple waves. In addition these missiles are effective in the Anti-shipping role. Type 052C is outclassed in all these areas. Arleigh Burkes have the capacity to control and direct 24 missiles (unclassified) in multiroles simulataneously. So far, Type 052C doesn't seem to have the capacity to do this. Burkes deploy 105 missiles (Oscar Austin DDG). 052C will have a 6 X 6 rotary VLS config in front and a pair of 6 in rear. The 052C will have a maximum carrying capacity of 48 AAW missiles according to every resource out there. The Arleigh Burke Flight I's have more capacity. In fact Type 052C has much less capacity than any variation of Arleigh Burke in service. Not to mention, the intended Command & Control system for Type 052C has been speculated to be a derivative of Thales. The best they produced is not even up to AEGIS baseline 4 standards. And when you combine U.S. electronic warfare capabilities, the 052C is a dead duck. As for point defense, the Phalanx is quite adequate. The Type 730 seems to have a better kinetic energy profile, but the Phalanx has a better muzzle control which means better concentrated fire and less dispersion. And the hope is you kill the target before it gets to the point defense area anyway. But you probably haven't heard that the USN is looking to deploy a much more capable point defense in RAM and ESSM anyway. In terms of stealth, Arleigh Burke is a top notch platform. hint....hint...Did you know that there is more to stealth than just the shape of the hull form? From what I see by spec, Type 052C won't even measure up to the UK's Type 45 AAW DDG. Much less an Arleigh Burke.

As I've said before, the Chinese design philosophy is stagnant. And it shows. Every piece of equipment on the new Type 052C is already outclassed by Western standards. You can only get so far with the "absorb, copy,deploy" state of mind when it comes to military modernization. When you absorb and copy, you are not innovating. And it is very apparent in the Type 052C design. It is nothing new in the world of naval engineering. On the flip-side, the Arleigh Burkes are older hulls, but their entire base systems are cutting edge 21st century. That's where it counts. So therefore, Arleigh Burke DDG's are much more capable and balanced naval platforms than Type 052C can ever hope to be.

your sm-2iver is hardly deployed yet. and theres no point in shooting a missle at something your radar cant see. the 52c's hq-9 is capabler of directing 16 missles against 8 targets, i admits its not as good as the sm-2, but close. if only the chinese had more on the 52c...

lets not discuss anything thats still uncertain, so we can leave the c4I discussion for later. the type 730's "muzzle control" is unknown. i dont know where or how you make these assumptions.

as for stealth...the arlegih burke is not as stealthy as a 52c period. the burke has more exposed sensors, a huge steel mast behind the bridge, a cylindrical turret...not designed to be stealthy. the 52 has all its sensors cover in changing radii spheres for stealth, ram, and is much "cleaner" on the outside.

the uks ddp 45 is probably going to be even stealthier than a burke. and its not even deployed yet. you seem to underestimate thales. they have very advanced sensors and suites, of which china can improve upon. copying isnt all china does.

back to you

MIGleader said:

your sm-2iver is hardly deployed yet. and theres no point in shooting a missle at something your radar cant see. the 52c's hq-9 is capabler of directing 16 missles against 8 targets, i admits its not as good as the sm-2, but close. if only the chinese had more on the 52c...

lets not discuss anything thats still uncertain, so we can leave the c4I discussion for later. the type 730's "muzzle control" is unknown. i dont know where or how you make these assumptions.

as for stealth...the arlegih burke is not as stealthy as a 52c period. the burke has more exposed sensors, a huge steel mast behind the bridge, a cylindrical turret...not designed to be stealthy. the 52 has all its sensors cover in changing radii spheres for stealth, ram, and is much "cleaner" on the outside.

the uks ddp 45 is probably going to be even stealthier than a burke. and its not even deployed yet. you seem to underestimate thales. they have very advanced sensors and suites, of which china can improve upon. copying isnt all china does.

back to you

Click to expand...

The SM-2-IVER is indeed fielded. They are in the fleet in small numbers as of this year. But even so, the SM-2 block IIIB has over 200Km range and that's mass deployed. I think you're thinking of SM-6 ERAM which we won't see for at least another year, and that's reported to be ranged to 550-600 Km. And China's C4I is pretty well known to date. China lags pretty far behind in electronic warfare areas. Arleigh Burkes electronics suite woiuld make your jaw drop, trust me. And you still don't understand there is more to stealth than hull form. I won't elaborate, but Type 052C's hull form doesn't give it's stealth profile an advantage over Arleigh Burke...period. in C & C, even Thales has admitted that it has only reproduced systems comparable to AEGIS early baseline. I don't see Chinese engineers pushing this system higher at all. Like I said, China's design paradigms are totally stale in naval engineering.

By specification, Type 052C is nothing more than existing naval hardware, already outclassed by Western standards, placed on a stealth hull form. Arleigh Burkes would make short work of them. China has done nothing but copy when it comes to the Type 052C. There is no new innovation in it at all. On the other hand, almost every single element of AEGIS baseline 7 is cutting edge.

so you believe a arleigh burkes exposerd parts simply dont add to the rcs? america does not fireld some kind of magic sensor on the burke that makes it stealthy. the chinese put alot of money and time into designing the 52cs hull, and perhaps a ship anylyst can gives us which is truly stealthier.

you dont know a thing about the 52c bms. no one except plan officials do. so of course you dont see anything happening in chinese navla engineering, buit that doesnt mean their not pushing it. so once again, stay off of the classified matters. would you stop making all these ssumptions...here, ill hilight em:

quote:
The SM-2-IVER is indeed fielded. They are in the fleet in small numbers as of this year. But even so, the SM-2 block IIIB has over 200Km range and that's mass deployed. I think you're thinking of SM-6 ERAM which we won't see for at least another year, and that's reported to be ranged to 550-600 Km. And China's C4I is pretty well known to date. China lags pretty far behind in electronic warfare areas. Arleigh Burkes electronics suite woiuld make your jaw drop, trust me. And you still don't understand there is more to stealth than hull form. I won't elaborate, but Type 052C's hull form doesn't give it's stealth profile an advantage over Arleigh Burke...period. in C & C, even Thales has admitted that it has only reproduced systems comparable to AEGIS early baseline. I don't see Chinese engineers pushing this system higher at all. Like I said, China's design paradigms are totally stale in naval engineering.
By specification, Type 052C is nothing more than existing naval hardware, already outclassed by Western standards, placed on a stealth hull form. Arleigh Burkes would make short work of them. China has done nothing but copy when it comes to the Type 052C. There is no new innovation in it at all. On the other hand, almost every single element of AEGIS baseline 7 is cutting edge.

copy my foot. what did they copy? hq-9? the hull? yj-62? dont tell me aegis.