SinoDefence Forum

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

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

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

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

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.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

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

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)

__________________
No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of men and women.

"Rowing is the only sport that started as a punishment"