Type 052 (Luhu Class)

[QUOTE=no_name;201325]Tell me if the new ship

The angles on the ships are slightly different, with the D ship presenting a broader aspect. You can judge it by the space between the tip of the bow to the gun turret, or by the size of the cut-out on the port side of the ships. So based on these two photos, at best we can say inconclusive on the width of the two ships.

Originally Posted by no_name

Tell me if the new ship looks wider.

I think it's just the eyes playing tricks due to the smaller front of the bridge (7 windows to 5 windows) and the larger radar panels and a steeper install angle. The length from the tip of the bow to the base of the bridge looks to be the same. Hard to imagine a wider beam with the same length bow, would make it look stubby. I think maybe length of hull would be extended in the mid to rear sections but width is the same.

Originally Posted by Mysterre

8,000 to even 10,000 tons is not a problem for the PLAN and would not need anything more than the GT25000/QC280 that the PLAN already possesses. Like I said, the PLAN uses a CODOG arrangement for its Type 052C's which is very fuel efficient and requires less gearing compared to CODAG, but cannot produce as much power on demand as COGAG. 4 QC280's in a COGAG arrangement would easily provide in excess of 110,000 shp, more than enough for a 8 to 10,000 ton class ship. The problem with extending the beam is not so much the extra displacement but the amount of redesign required. It's obviously much more complicated than extending a ship lengthwise because it requires design changes along the entire length of the ship, whereas a lengthwise extension only requires design changes in one section of the ship, and unless this potential was already designed into the class from the very beginning, it's probably not ever going to happen.

I was refering to the current 052 class hull with CODAG. if it is a COGAG then all bets are off. which is not the case.

Originally Posted by i.e.

I was refering to the current 052 class hull with CODAG. if it is a COGAG then all bets are off. which is not the case.

Where did you read that it was CODAG? I could have sworn there was some piece a few years ago talking about PLAN reluctance to use the additional gearing needed for CODAG vs CODOG.

Originally Posted by no_name

Tell me if the new ship looks wider.

Hard to say about the overall width...but the main gun looks a little strange. Top of the gun looks to be too high. Maybe it is an optocal illusion...bit it does look strange.

70583d0fjw1dwejzuphukj.jpg

70583d0fjw1dwek1luijtj.jpg
Two new photos from HSH

The side-by-side comparison suggests the CIWS is the same seven-barreled Type 730 gun on the 052C, not the new Type 1030 seen on the ex-Varyag.

891ac82ajw1dwel83cdd4j.jpg
For the purpose of comparison

The pictures are getting smaller and blurrier. Someone need to give the camera guy a good slap around to get some sense into him.

Here's some more.

Originally Posted by ChinaGuy

The pictures are getting smaller and blurrier. Someone need to give the camera guy a good slap around to get some sense into him.

Beggars (pretty much everyone here) can't be chooser. I'm just glad we are seeing some photos, and not just lines of texts (describing the ships, events, etc) .

KEEP THEM COMING!

Originally Posted by Geographer

I just gave an important example, the publishing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The government strongly wanted to prevent their publication because they were embarrassing to the government and Vietnam War effort, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers. Another recent example is how many newspapers and TV stations including The New York Times have referenced State Department cables from Wikileaks in order to provide background on current events. Similar situation with no government interference. Of course Manning is being prosecuted for leaking them, but publishing leaked documents is not a crime in the United States.

However, Pentagon papers isn't really about weapon systems. United_States v. The_Progressive is more appropriate, however, the primary source will still get in trouble for leaking the info in the first place. (in the case taking photo of sensitive sites with clearly noted no photos). Even in the US, HSH will be in a quandary of whether to protect the source or not. What China needed however is the sort of transparency for the military we have in the west (or even russia), top-top secret we don't know. However, that big ass ship sitting in yard down the river will be noted, just so tax payer know the military budget went somewhere other than luxury vehicles.

Originally Posted by ChinaGuy

The pictures are getting smaller and blurrier. Someone need to give the camera guy a good slap around to get some sense into him.

And why don't you be the camera guy and shoot some useful photos? People took their time and energy to take these excellent photos for us, while others took the trouble to share it in this forum. What did you do?

Originally Posted by ChinaGuy

The pictures are getting smaller and blurrier. Someone need to give the camera guy a good slap around to get some sense into him.

And what you could expect from the tiny camera on smartphones, eh? Not everyone can have phones that has good lens (like those Sony Exmor series), most domestic brands in China don't use that grade of components, those that do are out of reach for most; can't bring proper camera because even with pocket-size DC, you're more likely getting arrested by the police.

So unless you can be there in person and setup those bazzoka-like DSLR to take good pics, stop complaining.