SinoDefence Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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?