SinoDefence Forum

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).

__________________
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"

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=IDonT]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/resear...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

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....

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....

__________________
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"