Type 52C VS. Arleigh Burke

[MIGleader]

Now that the type 52C page has been updated with more information, comparison between it and the Arleigh Burke is now possible. What do you guys think? Compare them in terms of AAW, ASHW, ASW, Command and Control, Design, and general technological level.

[Gollevainen]

We still don't know shit about the 052C so we cannot make these kind of comparisons. Or do you have anything that rest of us haven't noticed? Sofar there's no clear evidence about the capapilityes of the chinese ships radar system...there's still too much depate on their orgin (An ukrainian one or domestic system). Also the missile systems (SAMs and SSMs) are in the mist. The mainpage says that it carryes the HQ-9 system, but at least i havent come agross any info related on this supposed SAM other than it's said to based on the S-300 series missiles. And the SSMs are even bigger mystery...i'm not going to even guess what is planned to be inside those cannisters.

We can only make hypothetical comparision whit these two ships, based on theoretical assumptions about the 052C capapilityes, but whats the point? You can always say that, hey you can't prove that there's no hard evidence that the ship carryes them....and the Alreigh Burke beats the 052C 6-0...

Altogether we shouldn't make any comparions between two rival weapon system unless we know exactly what we are comparising to each others.

[MIGleader]

if thats the case than, base it off of what we know and can assume, like the performance of the s-300 and c-803 combined with what we know about the hq-9 and c-805. the radar must be better than the one on the 52 b at least.

[IDonT]

We still don't know shit about the 052C so we cannot make these kind of comparisons. Or do you have anything that rest of us haven't noticed? Sofar there's no clear evidence about the capapilityes of the chinese ships radar system...there's still too much depate on their orgin (An ukrainian one or domestic system). Also the missile systems (SAMs and SSMs) are in the mist. The mainpage says that it carryes the HQ-9 system, but at least i havent come agross any info related on this supposed SAM other than it's said to based on the S-300 series missiles. And the SSMs are even bigger mystery...i'm not going to even guess what is planned to be inside those cannisters.

We can only make hypothetical comparision whit these two ships, based on theoretical assumptions about the 052C capapilityes, but whats the point? You can always say that, hey you can't prove that there's no hard evidence that the ship carryes them....and the Alreigh Burke beats the 052C 6-0...

Altogether we shouldn't make any comparions between two rival weapon system unless we know exactly what we are comparising to each others.


All I can say is that the Burke, with the latest Aegis weapons system and the ability to change its magazine load to suite its mission, will wipe the floor of a squadron of 052C.

[tphuang]

max speed
52C: 29 knots Burke: 31 knots
Crew
52C: 280 Burke: 300
Displacement
52C: 6500 tonne Burke: 8300 tonne
Sensors
52C: 517H-1 for long-range 2D air search radar
two Type 327G for CIWS
Burke: AN/SPY-1D 3-D Radar
AN/SPS-67(V)3 Radar
AN/SPS-64(V)9 Radar
AN/SQS-53C(V) Sonar
AN/SQQ-28(V) LAMPS III
AN/SQR-19(V) TACTAS Sonar (I have no idea what these are)

Helicopters
52C: two Russian Ka-28 Halix-A ASW/SAR
Burke: Two multi-purpose Light Airborne Multipurpose System LAMPS MK III helicopters

Air Defense:
52C: 48 cells HQ-9
Burke: 90 cells

ASM:
52C: YJ-85 (range is 200 KM, although I read 52B hit something 210 KM away in the sino-russian military exercise, maybe supersonic)
Burke: Harpoon (> 60 nautic mile, not supersonic)

CIWS:
52C: two (one front, one rear) Type 730 close-in weapon system (CIWS) for short-range air defence (max 4,600~5,800 rounds/min)
Burke: Two MK 15 MOD 12 20mm Close-in-Weapons Systems (Phalanx Mounts) (max 4,500 rounds/min)

Anti-sub:
52C: two triple 324mm Yu-7 (Mk-46 Mod 1) antisubmarine torpedo tubes
Burke: Two MK 32 MOD 14 Triple Torpedo Tubes (six MK 50/46 Torpedoes)

It seems 52C does alright with ASM, CIWS and Anti-sub, but gets hammered on the air defense which probably has less cells and less range. I don't particularly like the Russian helicopters either. I'm not sure, maybe WZ-10 will fill the void in the future?

[Neko]

I mentioned it before, on the previous forum.


It would be an extremely strange circumstance by which a single US vessel woul have to go toe to toe with any other, as they always run in groups. However, the likelihood is, the Burke would win, based on systems and crew efficiency and experience.

[MIGleader]

are you kidding me!!!! in a one on one, 52c would win due to it's better ASHW and stealth. now add in subs and planes, and the outcome would vary.
I'm sure both sides have well trained crews.
typhuang, dont forget the burke and 52c have anti sub rockets aswell.

[Gollevainen]

are you kidding me!!!! in a one on one, 52c would win due to it's better ASHW and stealth. now add in subs and planes, and the outcome would vary.
I'm sure both sides have well trained crews.
typhuang, dont forget the burke and 52c have anti sub rockets aswell.

Thats exactly what i ment. How can you say that 052C have better SSMs? what particular SSMs it does posses? Then how can you state that the Aegis system is weak aganst them? And what comes to the sthealth...you know the "sthealt" features on the 052C hull is just, well hmm sthealt...it's only eyefooling. The superstructure and the masts are enough to provide radar cross sectors...i beting Alreigh Burke class have better shtealt than the chinese ships...and ASW rockets...??....they are useless whitout sonar...do you know waht kind of sonar there is in the 052C?

[vincelee]

052c is an unknown.

And to be quite honest, I don't see how the PLAN can catch up to a system that has been constantly updated in the last 20 years.

[IDonT]

are you kidding me!!!! in a one on one, 52c would win due to it's better ASHW and stealth. now add in subs and planes, and the outcome would vary.
I'm sure both sides have well trained crews.
typhuang, dont forget the burke and 52c have anti sub rockets aswell.


16 Supersonic sea skimming missiles arriving at the same will not even strain the anti-air systems of the Burke.

052C is not stealth!!! It has just some features that reduce its radar cross sections that were BADLY implemented. Just look at its mask and see how many cylindrical and spherical radar domes. In fact, the Burke may have a smaller radar cross section.

S-300 is a good SAm against aircraft, not against a highly manueverable sea skimming missile such as the harpoon. A salvo of 8, will put the 052 to the bottom of the sea.

ASW rockets!!!!! They are good against World War II submarines but have no combat value against the USN.

[IDonT]

The current Aegis system is very formidable.

First, there are two main classes (and one version/under-class) of ships using Aegis-system:

1.) 27 CG-47 Ticonderoga class cruiser, with all the ships from CG-52 Bunker Hill being equipped with Mk.41 VLS (Vertical Launch System). As British experiences from Falklands showed, already this difference between ships equipped with rotating launchers and with vertical launch system is VERY important, because rotating launchers are prone to malfunctions in THE decisive moment.

Because of this with rotating launchers (Mk.26 in the case of CG-47), early five Ticos aren't considered as CVBG-capable these days any more, and they are either used for testing purposes (for example, USS Yorktown CG-48, testes some kind of AI-control systems) or some other tasks. Beneath that, they carry a lower number of SM-2 missiles, only 88 (44 in forward magazine and 44 on the rear), compared to no less but 61+61 (122) in Mk.41-equipped ships.

Ticos have four SPG-62 fire directors.

2.) The second class are approx 50ships large DD-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Burkes are all equipped with Mk.41 VLS, and carry 29 SM-2s forward and 61 in the rear magazine withTHREE SPG-62 directors.

For AAW Aegis is a tough nut to crack.

To make things simply, think of Aegis as a gunslinger, equipped with "Gattling"-gun instead of "Navy Colt". Like most modern AAMs, SM-2 SAMs have three phases of flight. During the first, they are quided with INS, during the second they got mid-course updates from Aegis, and then go active in the third. Put this together with powerful computers of the ship and the number of directors, and you'll get the LOWEST (not maximum - its classified data) number of missiles an Aegis-equipped whip can guide at once: 12 for CG-47s and nine for DD-51s.

Additionally, two missiles can be fired and guided at the same target (if deemed needed, but it's a question of the time, because new missile will be fired all three seconds on average), which means CG-47 can guide - theoretically - up to 20 (not 24, as could be anticipated) missiles at once.

Now SPY-1s radars are basis of Aegis, and they consist of their antennas, transmitters, signal processors, control groups, and auxillary equipment. They have a wide frequency bandwidth that randomly radiates different frequencies across the bandwidth on a pulse-to-pulse basis (this only because somebody could come to the idea and tell me about some stand-off jamming of it...). They are highly resistant to ECM, because of this frequency diversity, and they can even sense jamming and automatically shift to different frequencies where less interference is present. Their digital signal-processing is also able to counter or supress jamming as well as sea clutter.

Additionaly to Aegis, all USN ships got also the NTU (New Threat Upgrade), which added the Mk.23 TAS pulse-doppler radar, designed to operate in a high-clutter environment "against" sea-skimming missiles, has range of almost 100 miles and can simultaneously track up to 54 targets.

[vincelee]

a salvo of 8 supersonic missiles not straining the system? What's your background IDont? Or are you just shooting off your mouth again?

By the way, that analogy is...horrible. Not a very high SAT scorer, are you?

for your information, illumination beams and tracking beams are different due to resolution requirements.

[IDonT]

a salvo of 8 supersonic missiles not straining the system? What's your background IDont? Or are you just shooting off your mouth again?

By the way, that analogy is...horrible. Not a very high SAT scorer, are you?

for your information, illumination beams and tracking beams are different due to resolution requirements.


Hmm, a salvo of 8 supersonic missiles huh. Aegis was designed to neutralized the Soviet Union Backfire regiments that were firing massive numbers of AS6 missiles that have mach 3 speed. 8 missiles are a drop in the bucket.

Do you ever wonder why the US never bothered with them? At mach 2, it takes roughly 30 seconds to cross the horizon. Can your missile giudance system tell the difference between 1 Burke destroyer, 6 Chaff clouds, 3 Floating decoys, 1 helicopter emmiting the radar signiture of the a destroyer within 30 seconds? Further more, the missiles' bulk and speed gives it a very narrow flight path and detection radius. It can't manuever as great as a subsonic missile.

The Mk 41 vls can fire ALL of its standard missiles at the SAME TIME. The maximum number that can be guided by the Burke is classified but its greater than 16 (2 per missile). Then add ESSM and Phalax just in case.

[vincelee]

the figure I've seen is actually 24, the high is 28.

if you think softkill is that effective, why do you even need ESSM and RAM? Taking the SS-N-22 for example, a low flight altitude and high speed, not to mention the preprogrammed search pattern and evasive actions, makes terminal interception almost impossible. I don't know just how well the ESSM performs, but a system is never 100% fool proof.

the truth is, ECM on Burks, or any other US surface combatants, has never been tested against a real sea skimmer that goes past Mach 2. You can argue that the Vandal similated such and such, but I don't think the drone used the same seeker as the Sunburn. I suppose you can say that the Baseline 7 upgrade addresses some of these issues, but to say that 8 missiles bearing down on you poses no threat whatsoever is pushing it.

It really comes down to reaction time.

[IDonT]

the figure I've seen is actually 24, the high is 28.

if you think softkill is that effective, why do you even need ESSM and RAM? Taking the SS-N-22 for example, a low flight altitude and high speed, not to mention the preprogrammed search pattern and evasive actions, makes terminal interception almost impossible. I don't know just how well the ESSM performs, but a system is never 100% fool proof.

the truth is, ECM on Burks, or any other US surface combatants, has never been tested against a real sea skimmer that goes past Mach 2. You can argue that the Vandal similated such and such, but I don't think the drone used the same seeker as the Sunburn. I suppose you can say that the Baseline 7 upgrade addresses some of these issues, but to say that 8 missiles bearing down on you poses no threat whatsoever is pushing it.

It really comes down to reaction time.

Why is the burden of proof is on the Aegis? Aegis and Standard have hit a super sonic sea skimmer (albeit a target). The sunburn is an untested design. I don't know about you, but Russian sales pitch never live up to their promise.

Here is a better questiong?

Which ship would your rather be? An Arleigh Burke with 8 Sunburns coming, or a Sovremenny with 8 harpoons or TASM coming?

How do you pre-program an evassive actions when you do not know ahead of time how a target ship will react?

[bd popeye]

Which ship would your rather be? An Arleigh Burke with 8 Sunburns coming, or a Sovremenny with 8 harpoons or TASM coming?

An Arliegh Burke of course. I know the systems on those ships work. After 9-11-2001 Tico's and A/B's were used for air defense of the US.

As we know USN ships never would operate alone in any combat situation. So a one on one confrontation between a 52C & A/B would probaly never happen.

[tphuang]

Hmm, a salvo of 8 supersonic missiles huh. Aegis was designed to neutralized the Soviet Union Backfire regiments that were firing massive numbers of AS6 missiles that have mach 3 speed. 8 missiles are a drop in the bucket.

Do you ever wonder why the US never bothered with them? At mach 2, it takes roughly 30 seconds to cross the horizon. Can your missile giudance system tell the difference between 1 Burke destroyer, 6 Chaff clouds, 3 Floating decoys, 1 helicopter emmiting the radar signiture of the a destroyer within 30 seconds? Further more, the missiles' bulk and speed gives it a very narrow flight path and detection radius. It can't manuever as great as a subsonic missile.

The Mk 41 vls can fire ALL of its standard missiles at the SAME TIME. The maximum number that can be guided by the Burke is classified but its greater than 16 (2 per missile). Then add ESSM and Phalax just in case.

considering that the Chinese Aegis defense system is supposedly stolen from the Americans, I think it has to be based on something good, so it can potentially have good tracking software. We don't know. Also, nobody knows exactly the accuracy of YJ-85 against moving targets, but we do know it's range.

[vincelee]

"How do you pre-program an evassive actions when you do not know ahead of time how a target ship will react?"

do you really need to know? tracking principles of the SM-2/SPY-1 is well known, and the attacking missile has the initiative. I can be blind and deaf, but all I have to do is to run around in random order and I'm pretty sure that'll give the defender a harder time.

[MIGleader]

An arleigh buek has a lower survivability chance. asuming both ships use aegis, the 52c would be able to shoot it's missles at a distance while staying out of range. and it wouyld be detected later due it's stealth feature. the burke has no stealth! if both ships ran out of missles, the 52c would win due to its faster firing guns.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

An arleigh buek has a lower survivability chance. asuming both ships use aegis, the 52c would be able to shoot it's missles at a distance while staying out of range. and it wouyld be detected later due it's stealth feature. the burke has no stealth! if both ships ran out of missles, the 52c would win due to its faster firing guns.

The Type 052C does not use Aegis. Aegis is an American system, and only used on ships built by the Americans or built with American assistance. The US does not give such technology to the PRC. It is also unlikely that Israel or any other ally of the PRC had Aegis technology to give to the PRC. Maybe you mean the 052C uses technology that are supposed to perform the same role as the Aegis, or technology equivalent to the Aegis.

[MIGleader]

yes, thats what I meant

[FriedRiceNSpice]

We have no idea on how the Chinese system is qualtively in comparisson with the Aegis system. The PRC does not release such data on its weapons systems. Thus, we do now known the capabilities, reliability, or performance aspects of the Chinese system.

[BrotherofSnake]

Is this Type 52 an A/B clone or Sovremenny clone?

[MIGleader]

go on the website please.

the 52 b does feature some of the weapons of soveremy like the grizzly air defence missle and top plate radar, but it's an indegedous design with mostly indegedous systems.

52c is an almost completely indegedous systems. it has nothing to do with sovremmenny.

[BrotherofSnake]

The Burke has a lot of stealth features. It has a radar cross section of a tug boat from what ive heard.

[MIGleader]

yeah right. no, the burke design was concieved in the seventies. they didn't have much stealth knolege back then. you must have heard about that new stealthy destroyer the navy made... it hasn't entered service yet.

[IDonT]

yeah right. no, the burke design was concieved in the seventies. they didn't have much stealth knolege back then. you must have heard about that new stealthy destroyer the navy made... it hasn't entered service yet.

The B-2 and F-117 were conceived in the 70's. Believe it or not, the fact is the Burke has a very low radar signitur.e

[BrotherofSnake]

The Burke is not 70's tech get your facts straight. The first A/B class was commissioned in 91. The Burke incorporates stealthy features such as slanted angles to reduce its radar signature.

[IDonT]

go on the website please.

the 52 b does feature some of the weapons of soveremy like the grizzly air defence missle and top plate radar, but it's an indegedous design with mostly indegedous systems.

52c is an almost completely indegedous systems. it has nothing to do with sovremmenny.


052 C uses Ukranian Phased Array radar, Russian revolver VLS launcher, and a navalized S-300 Sam system. Not exactly indiginious.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The Burke does appear to have some stealth features:

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t047/T047509A.jpg

But the 052C appears far more stealthy.

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/170-07-17-2004-1.jpg

[BrotherofSnake]

Whats the radar signature of the 52C?

[vincelee]

you know IdonT, just because Richard Fisher said the system is based on the Kvant doesn't mean it actually is, in fact, if you look at the development history of the HT-233 phased array, that fits much more nicely into the 052C timeline. And also, S-300? If you haven't noticed, these use Top Plate/Tombstone.

[MIGleader]

052 C uses Ukranian Phased Array radar, Russian revolver VLS launcher, and a navalized S-300 Sam system. Not exactly indiginious.

Holy Shit! no one knows what kind of phased array radar it uses, it features an indegedous hq-9 sam, and it's not a revolver system, and each missle has it's own lid.

[vincelee]

what's the IQ of BrotherofSnake?

[MIGleader]

not much if he thinks rounded corners help stealth.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Isn't the HQ-9 based on the S-300? And what is the Kvant?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Isn't the HQ-9 based on the S-300? And what is the Kvant?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Opps. I didn't mean to post twice. :o

[vincelee]

the Kvant was the active array the Ukranians were peddling at some defense expo. Dickhead Fisher was there and talked to the booth, and they told him, in one way or the other, the radar on the 052C is theirs.

Of course Fisher probably doesn't know that the Kvant ONLY EXISTS ON PAPER.

[tphuang]

so is 052C using APAR or not? If it truely implements kvant, then it it should be APAR, right?

[vincelee]

probably not.

Let's put it this way, the USN is going to field their APAR with DDX. the Europeans are putting APARs on their newest air warfare destroyer, and you think the PLAN has an APAR out already? GaAs isn't exactly cheap to make.

[swimmerXC]

interesting article, then again this could be bia against china

China's North American spy mission pays off
By Judi McLeod
Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Toronto--The first spy mission payoff for the People's Republic of China was boldly displayed earlier this summer when China put its new missile destroyers out on public view.

China’s military disclosed that its two new warships are equipped with Aegis-style battle management systems–admittedly stolen from the United States.

Undergoing sea trials since July, the two Luyang II missile destroyers are Beijing’s first Aegis-type ships. Now that they have the American technology in hand, there will be more to come.

"U.S. intelligence officials say China stole the technology for the Aegis battle management system by setting up a front company in the United States that became a subcontractor for the Aegis system manufacturer." (East-Asia-Intel.com).

The Chinese also showed two other new guided missile destroyers, known as Luyang I.

Both types of destroyers are equipped with Russian military equipment and weapons, including missiles, as well as indigenous Chinese anti-ship missiles.

The four warships are part of China’s military buildup that U.S. officials say is designed for more than just a Taiwan conflict. The Chinese are building a deep-water navy able to project power--especially against the United States.

The Chinese military’s display of destroyers with stolen technology follows directly on the heels of the war games China has embarked upon with Russia.

China’s entrée into war games predates 9/11 by only one month. On August 11, 2001, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) entered maneuvers, considered the largest military exercises ever held in a 52-year history. The announced aim of this strategy was to "simulate" an invasion of the Taiwan-controlled Penghu Islands (Pescadores), halfway between the Fujian coast and Taiwan as the first stage of a major operation against Taiwan.

"These war games involved at least 100,000 elite PLA troops from units in Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong provinces; hundreds of fighters; dozens of naval vessels and a good number of air defense and 2nd artillery (Strategic Missile Troops) units." (NewsMax.com, August 2001).

Western military experts have long comforted themselves by pointing out the weakness and aging warships of the PLA Navy (PLAN).

Their comfort level took a nosedive on July 19, 2005.

Meantime media reports raising the alarm about the potential for danger because of the increasing number of Chinese spies operating as fronts in North American businesses seem to have failed.

The horse is now out of the barn.
Source (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover082505.htm)
o fried, about burke having stealth features... look at that big steel mast behind the bridge.... :o

[IDonT]

[QUOTE=FriedRiceNSpice]The Burke does appear to have some stealth features:

But the 052C appears far more stealthy.


If you look at the 052C's mast, those radar domes betray its stealthy shape.

The Burke has a very reduce radar signiture compared to its size. So to a regular surface search radar, it looks like a fishing boat.

[chinawhite]

IDont please dont quote pictures :o

[MIGleader]

if hit from certain angles, these domes will deflect radar. thats why they are there .

[Totoro]

if hit from certain angles, these domes will deflect radar. thats why they are there .

I'm sorry, can you explain that statement? I just don't see the logic there. The domes, as far as i know, arent there to deflect radar. They themselves are there to help the type 52c monitor its surroundings. Sure, from a very certain angle they may have a low RCS, but overall they're quite unstealthy.

[MIGleader]

those domes are not nessacerily perfect speres. a perfect sphere will deflect
radar from any direction, but a slightly distorded ellipsoid will throw the energy around. look at the pictures of the domes and you will see. perhaps the equipment underneath has a bigger signature than the domes.

[tphuang]

need to clear up on something. The lo-lo range of a AAM is the range fired from a destroyer that skims the water, right? If that's the case, then YJ-83 has a 210 KM+ lo-lo range and a 250 KM+ hi-lo range.

[slackpiv]

You cant compare the 052C vs. the Arleigh Burke head on. They will never go agianst each other head on. You have to compare the specific roles that they individually perform. The 052C does have a 4 par in the same configuration as the spy1. However this does not by any means imply that it is a copy of the aegis. It does imply however, that they possibly fulfill simiilar role and are comparable. In terms of missile capacity, the Arleigh bruke blows the 052C. 96 VLS cells compared to 48 VLS cells. Then you have to compare the sm-2ER vs. the HQ-9. The info on the HQ-9 is unknown but most sources point the range to be ~100KM. The sm-2ERs range is 240KM. Soon the SM-2s will be complemented by the SM-3. For CIWS the Arleigh Burke FlightIIA carries the evolved sea sparrow. The Arleigh Burke Flight I carries the Phalanx. The 052C carries the Type 730 CIWS gun system. In the ASM mode the Burke carries the Harpoon and the Tomahawk ASM. The 052C carries an unknown missile but it is believed by many sources to be 200KM+ and supersonic. However the strike role in the USN is meant to be fulfulled by the naval airwing. In the ASW the Burke carries AN/SQQ-89 integrated ASW Suite which includes TACTAS and SH-60B LAMPS. There is no evideance that the 052C carries towed array. The 052C carries the ka-28. In each of the following roles that the DDGs are meant to fulfill, the Burke appears to come out ontop.

[tphuang]

You cant compare the 052C vs. the Arleigh Burke head on. They will never go agianst each other head on. You have to compare the specific roles that they individually perform. The 052C does have a 4 par in the same configuration as the spy1. However this does not by any means imply that it is a copy of the aegis. It does imply however, that they possibly fulfill simiilar role and are comparable. In terms of missile capacity, the Arleigh bruke blows the 052C. 96 VLS cells compared to 48 VLS cells. Then you have to compare the sm-2ER vs. the HQ-9. The info on the HQ-9 is unknown but most sources point the range to be ~100KM. The sm-2ERs range is 240KM. Soon the SM-2s will be complemented by the SM-3. For CIWS the Arleigh Burke FlightIIA carries the evolved sea sparrow. The Arleigh Burke Flight I carries the Phalanx. The 052C carries the Type 730 CIWS gun system. In the ASM mode the Burke carries the Harpoon and the Tomahawk ASM. The 052C carries an unknown missile but it is believed by many sources to be 200KM+ and supersonic. However the strike role in the USN is meant to be fulfulled by the naval airwing. In the ASW the Burke carries AN/SQQ-89 integrated ASW Suite which includes TACTAS and SH-60B LAMPS. There is no evideance that the 052C carries towed array. The 052C carries the ka-28. In each of the following roles that the DDGs are meant to fulfill, the Burke appears to come out ontop.

yeah, 52C definitely takes the most hit in the air defense. It needs to improve that a lot. I personally think the CIWS is pretty even on the ships. ASW for 52C:
"ANTI-SUBMARINE SYSTEMS

The ship is fitted with two triple 324mm Yu-7 (Mk-46 Mod 1) antisubmarine torpedo tubes. Additionally, the destroyer has four 18-barrel multiple rocket launchers (MRLs) installed on the front deck. The purpose of these MRLs remains unknown but is thought to be used to launch antisubmarine rockets, ground- attack rockets and/or decoys/chaffs."

I was under the impression that Burke also used MK-46. We don't know what kind of system 052C actually uses. The ka-28 are rubbish, but hopefully we can upgrade it to WZ-10 once it comes out. Also, China is currently develop HHQ-16 with the Russians, so the HHQ-9 will be upgraded.

[Totoro]

The ka-28 are rubbish, but hopefully we can upgrade it to WZ-10 once it comes out. Also, China is currently develop HHQ-16 with the Russians, so the HHQ-9 will be upgraded.

ka 28 is rubbish compared to what? wz-10 is an attack gunship. I'd say ka 28 is more suited for maritime operations and ASW than wz10. You need a large enough spacious chopper that carries enough of payload and most importantly enough fuel for long endurance flight if you're gonna use it on a ship.

[MIGleader]

the s-300 on the type 51c's were supposed to be a pretty capable missle. still, if the chinese could build a largewr 52c which could hold more missles and sensors, it would be more capable than the burke.

[tphuang]

ka 28 is rubbish compared to what? wz-10 is an attack gunship. I'd say ka 28 is more suited for maritime operations and ASW than wz10. You need a large enough spacious chopper that carries enough of payload and most importantly enough fuel for long endurance flight if you're gonna use it on a ship.
compared to ka-52.

[Totoro]

Again an attack gunship? What is with you and heavy attack platforms? :D A frigate/destroyer/cruiser based helicopter must be multipurpose, must be able to tow a sonar, carry torpedos, be able to ferry personell and supplies, must be able to perform search and rescue missions. Ka-28, however older than the choppers you mention, is more suited for those roles.

If you're gonna operate from a carrier of some sort with enough space to spare for attack platforms, then yeah, there could be use for wz10 or ka 52. Even that would be rather pointless in antiship battle, only if youre providing air support for an amphibious assault.

[MIGleader]

a shipborne attack helicopter is an interesting concept. it has amazing potential. imagine if the pla developed a naval atack version of the wz-10 that could fire small torpedoes, ground and ship attack rockets, and depth charges. then it refited the minsk and kiev to hold a wing of these choppers. that would give the plan amazing firepower, especially against small frigates and facs.

of course, destroyes would still use ka-28

[adeptitus]

The KDA Penguin (AGM-119) anti-ship missile is carried by naval helicopters:
http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/missiles_space/missiles/
http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/missiles_space/missiles/mk2/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_missile

But this ship comparison is a bit silly. IMO in future combat scenario whoever wins air superiority will be able to just dump air-launched missiles at the ship until it sinks. The ship is never going to be able to out-run an airplane.

[Totoro]

True, air superiority over sea is as important today as it ever was. And shipborne attack helicopters are sort of useless in open waters. No sane person is going to send a lone frigate in the open sea, facing the enemy. Helis with penguin class antiship missiles are good for littoral control, like stopping an amphibious attack, preferably launched from the coast. They've no chance against frigates or larger ships equipped with medium range anti aircraft missiles.

[bd popeye]

But this ship comparison is a bit silly. IMO in future combat scenario whoever wins air superiority will be able to just dump air-launched missiles at the ship until it sinks. The ship is never going to be able to out-run an airplane

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? :confused: Missiles are expensive. Even for the PLAN. You need to preserve them to fight another day.

A frigate/destroyer/cruiser based helicopter must be multipurpose, must be able to tow a sonar, carry torpedos, be able to ferry personell and supplies, must be able to perform search and rescue missions.

Yes..so true, that's why the USN is upgrading it's Sea Hawks will be MH-60R's. Many MH-60R's Sea Hawks are now in service. Eventualy all 243 will be in service. A truely multi-purpose helicopter.

http://www.navicp.navy.mil/03/0320/mh60r.htm

http://www.navicp.navy.mil/03/0320/graphics/ah60.jpg

[IDonT]

the s-300 on the type 51c's were supposed to be a pretty capable missle. still, if the chinese could build a largewr 52c which could hold more missles and sensors, it would be more capable than the burke.

Not really, what the Burke has over the 052C is flexibility. All of 052C's vls launchers can only hold and lauch the S-300 sam.

EAch of the Burke 96 VLS cells are capable of holding the following weapons:
1 tomahawk, 1 harpoon, 1 standard SAM, 1 VLS antisubmarine rocket, and 4 ESSM in quad pack.

Magazine loadouts are determine by its mission.

[MIGleader]

it was already clear that the burke was superrior to the 52c in airdefence. china really should make a large 90 cell launche. i mean, the hq-9 is pretty samll, so future destryers may have more missles.

[adeptitus]

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? :confused: Missiles are expensive. Even for the PLAN. You need to preserve them to fight another day.


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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_missile

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.

[sino52C]

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.

[Totoro]

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.

[MIGleader]

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.

[bd popeye]

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.

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??? :confused: :confused: :confused: .

[tphuang]

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??? :confused: :confused: :confused: .

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.

[bd popeye]

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

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

[FriedRiceNSpice]

And of course $....

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

[bd popeye]

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

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.

[Totoro]

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.

[swimmerXC]

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.

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? :o

[MIGleader]

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.

[vincelee]

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.

[IDonT]

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.

Ballistic missiles are useless against moving targets.

[tphuang]

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.

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.

[MIGleader]

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

[Sea Dog]

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

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.

[MIGleader]

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

[Sea Dog]

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


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.

[MIGleader]

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.

[tphuang]

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.
wow, 550-600 KM range for an SAM? Seriously? How far can the sensors detect airplanes. I'm just wondering what would an effective range be. It seems a little surprising. I remember the quoted range for S-400 was 400 KM and I heard that was supposed to be the longest range.

I would disagree with the development part, China has actually spent a lot of money on developing the C&C system. Estimated to be around 750 million. Not a lot for American standard, but quite a bit for Chinese standard.

[Sea Dog]

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:

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

Of course the exposed parts add to RCS. However there are ways to reduce it. Sometimes what you see as big, by your eye, will look like nothing on a radar screen at 35 Km. I indeed know quite a bit about Chinese electronic warfare abilities. It is published via many sources including sinodefence. These are not assumptions I make, I tend to look at specifications of systems to generate an fair analysis. FYI, China was not the first to have that specific hull form. Malaysia has used that hull form on one of their frigates for years, and Sweden pretty much made it a reality to begin with. The HQ-9 is based on SA-N-6 with some western type electronics built into it. The western electronics part is only an assumption, but one that is made from Jane's, globalsecurity, and USNI. The Type 730 is very much like Dutch systems (no I don't want to argue about it) as many analysts see it that way as well. The rotary VLS is Russian ingenuity. The phased array system C & C is too much like Thales for it not to be. And I could go on. But I digress at this point. Migleader, I really don't understand why you take this stuff so personally. This is just military analysis. I'm not here calling you names or anything. :) But if I'm going to speak to you further, you gotta calm down and get rid of the nationalism.

@tphuang - The SM-6 will be provided with an extended range active seeker. ERAM - Extended Range Active Missile. The ship-based antennas on the ship will not be able to see the target at acquisition unless on datalinks. Or it can be used if in range of ship systems as well. It will primarily be used against cruise missiles, and low flying aircraft. USN is really pushing the realm of connectivity in alot of ways. Some of us are still trying to figure out if it will be able to be used as an anti-ship weapon. It would be very easy to configure it for that role. But as of this time...that part is unknown.

[bd popeye]

I wish I could post the technical aspects of the Areligh-Burke vs the 52C. And give a factual answer to which is best and has the best systems. But I can only answer based on this. I know the Aegis system works. How do I know? The USN has 47 Arliegh-Burke DDG's and is building more. The PLAN has one 52c of unknown quality. The 52c may someday be a fine ship but as of this day it is unproven.

The USN operates these ships everyday worldwide. Every day. 24/7, 365. Everyday. The Aegis system never shuts down except during re-fit.

The Arliegh-Burkes and Tico's are constantly undergoing upgrades to their systems to keep them on the cutting edge of technology.

The A/B and 52c may never meet in a sea battle. But if they did my money is on the Arliegh-Burke. Why? Because I know it works.

As far as stealth of the A/B is concerned. If some of you only knew the full scope of the capablities of USN ECM coupled with USAF ECM and satilite technology in a real war sernerio I'm sure you would be astounded.

[darth sidious]

this is sort of moot to compare the 052c and the Bruke

the 052 is most likely design to improve Plan air defense and to combat the Jap ships Burke is design as floating sam luncher to counter the soviet missile attack

Sea Dog your bashing of the chinese ship builting industry is quite lame even is the 50s the chinese are not deprived enough to do stright rip off also how many destoryer at the 052c tonnage is actualy superior to it ? you made it sound like the 052c is odsulte when it come out but but how many asian navy actualy has better ships now ( discount cheap jap copy)

look at the gaint steel tower and the bridge how can the Bruke be more stealthy? as for the harpoon is rather primitive compare with the new YJ-62.


for the C4I and missile we reely dont know jack ! so its point less to compare

[Sea Dog]

this is sort of moot to compare the 052c and the Bruke

the 052 is most likely design to improve Plan air defense and to combat the Jap ships Burke is design as floating sam luncher to counter the soviet missile attack

Sea Dog your bashing of the chinese ship builting industry is quite lame even is the 50s the chinese are not deprived enough to do stright rip off also how many destoryer at the 052c tonnage is actualy superior to it ? you made it sound like the 052c is odsulte when it come out but but how many asian navy actualy has better ships now ( discount cheap jap copy)

look at the gaint steel tower and the bridge how can the Bruke be more stealthy? as for the harpoon is rather primitive compare with the new YJ-62.


for the C4I and missile we reely dont know jack ! so its point less to compare

Well, you definitely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not bashing the PLAN, Chinese shipbuilding, or the Type 052C. There was a comparison drawn up in this thread....not by me incidentally. A comparison between Arleigh Burkes and the Type052C. I merely state the obvious from review of each ships specifications, and developmental history. Arleigh Burke is an incredibly complex multi-mission destroyer on the cutting edge. The Type 052C is a ship largely built with existing , and in some cases copied naval hardware that is already outclassed by Western designs, with no new innovations incorporated. Just take a look at what's put into it and you can see for yourself. Most of the specifications of capabilities regarding the Arleigh Burkes outclass the Type052C. Basically the C4I systems are the heart of the Arleigh Burke system or any destroyer for that matter, so you can't make comparisons without their mention. And it's these systems that ultimately win the day. China is continuously "looking" for information from outside her own country into advanced naval system design. Gotta let that kind of speak for itself. I don't see Chinese electronic warfare abilities approaching a comparable level anytime soon.

And you also do not understand that there is more to stealth than overall hull form. That's all I will say on the matter. The 052C is not obsolete by any means IMO. Again, you misconstrue what I say. But it is not at a level comparable to the Japanese Kongo's or the U.S. Arleigh Burkes. And in a ship-to-ship battle, I believe Arleigh Burkes would win the day. Better C4ISR, better defensive systems, highly developed and complex operational doctrines, excellently trained crews, and very lethal offensive capabilities.

[crazyinsane105]

How good is the 052C's anti-missile system? That alone can be detrimental on which ship can win the battle. We don't know for sure if the anti-missile system on the 052C can shoot down the latest Harpoons or not and we aren't even sure if the Arleigh Burke can deal with the latest Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles. I am not sure what good is coming when comparing these two destroyers when most of our information is quite sketchy especially when concerning the capabilities of the Type 52C. I think the Type 52C costs around 900 million USD so that alone tells you that the Type 52C is quite high tech (usually Chinese military products are far cheaper than its Western counterparts and even though the Type 52C may be cheaper, it seems to be quite expensive by Chinese standards).

[tphuang]

052C's SAM is probably comparable to the 051C SAM. If it uses Active phase array radar as Kanwa and Fisher and many other have suggested, I'd think it would be slightly superior. This is not far stretched considering HQ-9A uses APAR. The commonly stated low altitude for HHQ-9 is around 500 m. I'm really not sure how well it handles sea-skimming missiles to be honest. It could really use the multi-layered SAMs employed in the Aegis ships. Honestly, the 730 claims a lot of numbers. A lot of these CIWS manufacturers claim 90 to 95% accuracy against missiles, I'm really not sure what to believe in.

As for the numbers of 052C, it's going to be two for a while. The shipyard that is building 052 series is getting relocated and enlarged, so 052D won't start for a while. I read that it will have a displacement of 8000 tonne, so that could be extra space for more VLS cells or a short ranged SAM like HQ-16 or HQ-7. I can imagine that the command & control system will only improve with each two new ships in this series.

[MIGleader]

like everything else in this world, the chinese ship is cheaper than the american ship. the 52c is extimated to cost around 90 million, while a buke costs somewhere around 5 billion(ive seen alot of figures, can anyone confirm?). and the burke certainly isnt nine times as capable as a 52c, so the 52c clearly gets more bang for the buck. now if the chiense spend 5 billion building a ship, you can imagine how it will compare to the burke...

the 52c is a better design than most asian built ships. the koreans, japs, and taiwanese all have american ships. and lets not get into who copied who. the h9-9 is rumored to be based on the s-300(which is on the 51c), but improved. unlike seadog, i will discount any rumors we hear.

btw, i dont think the 51c is going to be as capable as the 52c. i heard the s-300 wasnt as good as the hq-9, and the 51c was more of a cost effeicient destroyer for the north sea fleet, not a cutting edge vessel.

[tphuang]

051C is slightly cheaper than 052C. One of the problem with 051C is that it's hull is just not as stealthy as 052C. I don't think it's C&C is advanced as 052C either. Kanwa called it the mini-Udaloy. 051C actually cost 750 million each, but I think it would've been even cheaper if it was not built in Dalian shipyard. The Jiangnan shipyard which builds 052 series is probably the most technologically advanced shipyard in China. I have a feeling that 051C was built just so that we will still be getting new DDGs while Jiangnan is getting relocated. Supposedly, the new Jiangnan shipyard would match the shipbuilding capabilities of a South Korean shipyard, so that would bode well for future 052 construction.

[rommel]

1- The Arleigh Burke is around 1 billions each, if it was 5 billions, it will be as costy as a Nitmitz class

2-I'll bet my money on the Arleigh Burke since it has been in a service for a while . This help a lot because you can find what's malfunctionning aboard and modified it. If a navy ship was as easy to use as a rifle or a tank, it will still take maybe 6 month to 2 years of to correct the concept problem, but the difference is you can't build a "prototype destroyer" . The Arleigh Burke have time to make correction to the firing control, tracking and combat system since you can find problem during it's numerous years of service. But how about a brand new ship ??

3-The USN AEGIS baseline 7 and 7.1 (just enter in service) are a very good C4I system. I think it will be hard for China, who don't have experience in this domain before to build a comparable system. The C4I on 52C can maybe match the early basic version of AEGIS. I think even that the PLAN said that the radar on the 52C is indigenous technology, they maybe get some data from the Russian before (maybe a technological transfer with the PAR SAM radar that was bought along with the S-300)

[darth sidious]

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

[rommel]

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).

[MIGleader]

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.

[tphuang]

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.

[vincelee]

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?

[Wingman]

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.

[vincelee]

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

[crobato]

[QUOTE=FriedRiceNSpice]The Burke does appear to have some stealth features:

But the 052C appears far more stealthy.


If you look at the 052C's mast, those radar domes betray its stealthy shape.

The Burke has a very reduce radar signiture compared to its size. So to a regular surface search radar, it looks like a fishing boat.

Radar domes are generally made of composite that acts as a radar filtering and absorbant material. The only thing you're should be worried about reflecting is from the antenna inside.

[crobato]

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.

[vincelee]

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.

[crobato]

No, another PAR called H-200 is associated with the KS-1A. That's the name of the radar unit displayed with the KS-1A in defense expos.

The S-300 radars also track and illuminate, but a seperate unit does the search. The MPQ-53 does search, track and illuminate all in one unit. I think the newest radar unit for the S-300PMU2, the 96LE which China now has, also searches, tracks and illuminates in one unit.

The SPY-1 only searches and tracks, but uses seperate illuminators.

In that way, the 052C PAR is different from AEGIS. I am personally not sure if the HQ-9s used on the ship use TVM or active seeking. The only thing for sure is that the ship does not use seperate illuminators. You must have very powerful PARs to do illumination along with search and track, then combine everything into a four faced unit to give a 360 degree coverage. Now that's a bit tricky, since it means the illuminating beams can be passed on from one phase array to another. AEGIS does not do that, nor the S-300 radar systems, heck nothing in the world does that. It probably is simpler to use active homing on the SAMs instead.

[tphuang]

I'd think it's active seeking.
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.47/pub_detail.asp

In 1998 Chinese sources disclosed that this SAM, originally designed with a passive seeker intended to attack electronic warfare aircraft, would eventually feature an active-guidance system with antitactical ballistic missile (ATBM) capability.[10] In 2003 a Malaysian defense journal revealed that the FT-2000A did have a new active phased-array radar for long-range missile guidance.[11]

[crobato]

Just as I mentioned, it gets really tricky if you are passing the illuminating beam from one phase array to another. AEGIS does not do this, neither does the S-300 units. It gets very complicated and it probably is a lot simply to use active radar guidance (SM-2s still use SARH and S-300 uses TVM).

FT-2000A is not the same as the FT-2000. FT-2000 uses the HQ-9 missile body with an anti radiation seeker. The FT-2000A is a variant that uses the HQ-2 (aka SA-2 Guideline) and fitted with the same anti radiation seeker. If there is a new active radar unit associated with the FT-2000A, it probably is doing the search, tracking and guidance for the HQ-2s now.

The interesting thing about the FT series is the potential that the missiles could be used to target a radar source on the ground or water if the missiles are fired on a ballistic path. Which makes me wonder if other smaller SSMs could be used the same way.

[MIGleader]

16 Supersonic sea skimming missiles arriving at the same will not even strain the anti-air systems of the Burke.

052C is not stealth!!! It has just some features that reduce its radar cross sections that were BADLY implemented. Just look at its mask and see how many cylindrical and spherical radar domes. In fact, the Burke may have a smaller radar cross section.

S-300 is a good SAm against aircraft, not against a highly manueverable sea skimming missile such as the harpoon. A salvo of 8, will put the 052 to the bottom of the sea.

ASW rockets!!!!! They are good against World War II submarines but have no combat value against the USN.

thank you very much mr. "IDont know anything"

the harpoon is a pathetic missle compared to the yj-62. what makes you assume china doesnt use docys, chaff, and helis aswell?

the 52c uses the hq-9, and improvemnet over the s-300. besides, the harpoon is not "highly agile". the s-300 was designed to shoot down such missles.

those cylyndricalsheress having infinite changing radii, much like the f-22, and are made of ram materials. the 52 clearly has shown its stealth worth. claiming the smaller rcs of a burke just shows how ignorant and addicted to american weapons you are.

all of your arguments could be countered by peoples previous posts, which you obviously didnt bother to read. asw rockets are a bit outdated, but i was just stating a fact. it not like the burke and 52c dont have torpedoes.

good day to you

[bd popeye]

Oh boy oh boy. There is so much meat here for me to chew on....

the harpoon is a pathetic missle compared to the yj-62. what makes you assume china doesnt use docys, chaff, and helis aswell?

I don't know what kind of decoys China uses but I do know that the USN Chaff & ECM works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

And we all know that Harpoons, although slow do work. I also through personal knowledge know that the ECM on a Arlieg Burke can shut down a lot of electroinics including. Honestly in a real battle the PLAN would have a tough time targeting an A/B.

None of us know how ell the PLAN systems work.

More later....

[MIGleader]

the speed of an harpoon isnt its only weakness. its also the range, of at most 130 km of the latest model. thats about as much as plan missles from the 90s. so a 52c can fire at an ab while staying out of the burkes firing range. that yeilds a great advantage, regardless of how well the burke can protect itself.

operation praying mantis is a typical example of the u.s navy seeming overly powerful simply because its oponent was weak.

im not saying the burke is weak, but simply that praying mantis was not the best of analogies for this.:)

[jatt]

Can I point out the 90+ launchers can be used for Tomahawks.

[MIGleader]

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.

[tphuang]

Oh boy oh boy. There is so much meat here for me to chew on....



I don't know what kind of decoys China uses but I do know that the USN Chaff & ECM works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

And we all know that Harpoons, although slow do work. I also through personal knowledge know that the ECM on a Arlieg Burke can shut down a lot of electroinics including. Honestly in a real battle the PLAN would have a tough time targeting an A/B.

None of us know how ell the PLAN systems work.

More later....
Hey Popeye,

all the recent Chinese DDGs have 4 large caliber multipurpose MLRS for shooting decoys. No one knows what the performance of them are, obviously. You can find more information on the current Chinese DDGs at huitong's site
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/luhai_luhu_luda.htm
It has some information that is not on sinodefence (and vice versa).

Also, I have some questions about AB, is it true that the harpoon launchers got taken off the latest AB? If so, what does it current use for Anti ship missions? I know VLS can fit tomahawk, but that's a LACM. It doesn't have the guidance built in to hit moving targets. I was trying to look this up last night and couldn't find what I needed.

Never mind, I was an idiot about Tomahawk. Yeah, I just read it can also be AShM.

[muyang523]

It says there that Luyang 168 Guangzhou has a Top Plate 3D air-search radar is installed on top of the foremast.

[Jeff Head]

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.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.

[jatt]

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.
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?

[Sea Dog]

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.

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.

[tphuang]

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.
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.

[Sea Dog]

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.

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.

[MIGleader]

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?

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.

[rommel]

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 ??

[darth sidious]

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!!!!:mad:

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

[Sea Dog]

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!!!!:mad:

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

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.

[tphuang]

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.

[drunkhomer]

http://www50.dt.navy.mil/gallery/displacement/ddg51/51scheme.gif

[rommel]

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!!!!:mad:

the harpoon can not be compared to the YJ_62

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



The Sea Dart is extremely accurate for pinpoint defence, I know that the Sea Dart can shot down incoming sea-skimming missile and I heard that a Sea Dart even shot down a artillery shell once...

The AEGIS is not combat proven, but the Harpoon is, the Tomahawk (only the LACM) is also

I'm also sure that combat exercise of the US level can reflect well, but not perfectly a real combat.

Short Range and low speed is not a problem. The Exocet was pretty good, it goes to the same speed as a harpon and have even shorter range. Like Sea Dog said, under combat condition, you rarely shot from the maximum distance. I give an exemple, very simple one, the infantry, during world war II, most of the rifle have a effective range of over 1000m, but most infantry combat range was from 100m to 250m. I guessed it's the same thing for the Navy

[Mr_C]

Short Range and low speed is not a problem. The Exocet was pretty good, it goes to the same speed as a harpon and have even shorter range. Like Sea Dog said, under combat condition, you rarely shot from the maximum distance. I give an exemple, very simple one, the infantry, during world war II, most of the rifle have a effective range of over 1000m, but most infantry combat range was from 100m to 250m. I guessed it's the same thing for the Navy

Its pretty obvious why humans and machines don't fight at maxium range. Eg if an anti-ship missile has a max range of 200km and its fired at that distance, the enemy only has to sail away from the missile beyond the missile's maxium range to get out of the problem.

[Yimmy]

You are confusing Sea Dart with Sea Wolf.

Sea Wolf is the short range missile capable of destroying incoming missiles, aircraft and shells, while Sea Dart is the long range missile.

Sea Wolf is fired by sextiple rotating launchers or 16 or 32 round verticle launchers, the missile coming in two varients. Only the sextiple launcher version was available in the Falklands conflict, and the system operated outstandingly well. As it did in the 1991 Gulf Conflict.

Sea Dart is fired by rotating twin launchers, and is one of only two(?) such NATO systems capable of automatic reloading in seconds. Whoever said only one missile could be fired at a time, and that they are guided by a 50's era radar, is wrong. The missile and radar entred service in the late 70's with the Type 42's, while the radar has an exceptionally long tracking range, although of conventional design. Due to Sea Dart, in the Falklands the Argentinians (also operating Sea Dart and knowing its abilities), were forced to fly exceptionaly low, to avoid its engagement envelope. The missile didnt rack up many kills in the conflict (which included an unfortunate friendly fire incident on a low flying army scout helicopter). In the Gulf War of 1991 the system successfully engaged two Chinese Silkworm missiles.

Both missile systems are getting a bit old now days though, and soon will be replaced in British service by Aster 15/30.

The verticle launch system for Sea Wolf, is the same as that for verticle launch MICA however, so upgrade is easy.

[KlubMarcus]

Its pretty obvious why humans and machines don't fight at maxium range. Eg if an anti-ship missile has a max range of 200km and its fired at that distance, the enemy only has to sail away from the missile beyond the missile's maxium range to get out of the problem. Yep! With radar planes, subs, drones, picket ships, satellites, and etc. working for the USA, it's going to be very difficult for the PLAN to get close enough to get good range and bearing figures to launch an anti-ship missile. Let's assume that they do. That means that the PLAN missile will be airborne for 15+ minutes. Plenty of time for the USN to detect, turn the ships to buy time, launch decoys, and send an airstrike on a reverse heading. The PLAN commanders aren't dumb so they know they have to get closer or stay close to the mainland. That leaves reduces their options.

[MIGleader]

i think the plan plans to stay near the mainland in war. under tghe protection of ground planes, radar, sams, and aaa, the plan warships are safe. from their haven, plan destroyer missles can form a detterent against the u.s cvbg, so the cvbg will never get within 200 km of the strait. this limits the optionsw of the cvbg.

[KlubMarcus]

i think the plan plans to stay near the mainland in war. under tghe protection of ground planes, radar, sams, and aaa, the plan warships are safe. from their haven, plan destroyer missles can form a detterent against the u.s cvbg, so the cvbg will never get within 200 km of the strait. this limits the optionsw of the cvbg. Good! That's where we want Chinese