China Navy Power

[Violet Oboe]

Although the general design of type 052/054 warships seems to be inspired by contemporary US and french designs the key factor which will determine whether PLAN will succeed or fail in her modernization drive is software development.
The creation of a really effective, sustainable and versatile battle management system for PLAN´s new DDG/FFG is the pivotal challenge for Chinas´s scientists, engineers and naval officers.

Of course the current capabilities and key characteristics of chinese naval war fighting and simulation software is highly classified but it is probably safe to assume that PLAN has activated enourmous organizational, personal and financial resources for achieving the goal of closing the gap between PLAN and USN capabilities. Obviously russian attempts to create an AEGIS equivalent have failed since the early 80´s since the russians were not able to overcome the problems in hardware and software development. In contrast to the russian situation China can draw on far superior industrial base in computers and electronics plus a vast pool of talented IT professionals for software development.

Eventually China will produce perhaps a completely different BMS embracing new innovative principles of programming and not only emulating the x.x version of an AEGIS system which was truly revolutionary only two decades ago. China could convincingly demonstrate her capability of ´bypassing´the technological level of the US if chinese software engineers succeed in producing a system able to stand the ground against AEGIS. :coffee:

 

[Schumacher]

structural similarities between 052C and Arleigh Burke are very minimal, probably only the layout and positions of four PADs. It is just like US F-15 and Soviet
MIG-25, many says US copied the soviet structural design, but we all know
other than the superficial "look" resemblance, they are two very different planes.

Good point there netspider. Too funny to see some now resorting to similar 'structural configurations' to throw accusations of copying.
Luckily we need much stronger proofs than this in the real world, otherwise we'll see piracy lawsuit on practically all kinds of products.

 

[Sea Dog]

structural similarities between 052C and Arleigh Burke are very minimal, probably only the layout and positions of four PADs. It is just like US F-15 and Soviet
MIG-25, many says US copied the soviet structural design, but we all know
other than the superficial "look" resemblance, they are two very different planes.

Actually, I must correct you here. The CFP for F-15 was out in June of 1967. Langley Research showed the USAF and had done 2 years of study on a aircraft configuration design called LFAX-8 in that same year. This version would become the F-15. The USA hadn't even seen the Mig-25 until late 1967. LFAX-10 was the study they did that resembled the Mig-25. That's what you're thinking. Not LFAX-8, which became F-15. LFAX-10 BTW was never accepted for development.

But the point stands. It's quite obvious USN AEGIS configuration has inspired the way China configured the 052C. Definitely in radar and missile placement. Call it copying if you like. Call it design inspiration if that suits you.

Eventually China will produce perhaps a completely different BMS embracing new innovative principles of programming and not only emulating the x.x version of an AEGIS system which was truly revolutionary only two decades ago. China could convincingly demonstrate her capability of ´bypassing´the technological level of the US if chinese software engineers succeed in producing a system able to stand the ground against AEGIS

Time will tell. So far we've seen nothing comparable with the exception of the UK's Type 45, and Japan's Kongo DDG. And even those do things differently. "Bypassing" as you say will be more than extremely difficult as the USA and others are rather capable in software engineering and hardware integration. And have demonstrated it. And are continuing to push beyond where they are now. The USN is not stopping at Baseline 7.

 

[Schumacher]

Actually, I must correct you here. The CFP for F-15 was out in June of 1967. Langley Research showed the USAF and had done 2 years of study on a aircraft configuration design called LFAX-8 in that same year. This version would become the F-15. The USA hadn't even seen the Mig-25 until late 1967. LFAX-10 was the study they did that resembled the Mig-25. That's what you're thinking. Not LFAX-8, which became F-15. LFAX-10 BTW was never accepted for development......

Very interesting ..... Langley Research or USAF said these, did they ? I'd think they wouldn't be keen to admit it even if there were studies of mig-25 done.

 

[zraver]

Very interesting ..... Langley Research or USAF said these, did they ? I'd think they wouldn't be keen to admit it even if there were studies of mig-25 done.

052/054/Aegis vs F-15/Mig 25 isn't fair. The two fighters were designed around two completely different concepts and missions.

052/054/Aegis is more properly compared to HMS Dreadnought. It has always bene the pattern in naval warfare to copy cutitng edge technology and there is no shame in it. The ram, extra banks of oars, cannon and cannonade, steel hulls, steam, all big gun armament ect.

China's devloping such a warship is expected, after all the French, UK, and Japan already did.

 

[Schumacher]

052/054/Aegis vs F-15/Mig 25 isn't fair. The two fighters were designed around two completely different concepts and missions.

052/054/Aegis is more properly compared to HMS Dreadnought. It has always bene the pattern in naval warfare to copy cutitng edge technology and there is no shame in it. The ram, extra banks of oars, cannon and cannonade, steel hulls, steam, all big gun armament ect.

China's devloping such a warship is expected, after all the French, UK, and Japan already did.

Not abt being fair or shame of copying at all, merely asking some to provide some semblance of proofs perhaps stronger than similar 'structural configurations' or some congressmen said so or Washington Post reported it before even attempting to present their opinions as facts.
This forum is abt the secretive world of defence tech, I suspect outsiders like us really don't know with much certainty whether PLAN copied Aegis or USAF copied Mig-25 or not. All I try to do is to ask what I hope to be not dumb questions.
Now I'm sure USAF or Langley Reserach must have officially denied studying Mig-25 for F-15. Maybe PLAN would deny as well if ever asked abt 052/Aegis.
But what I'm quite sure of is both PLAN & USAF would have the motivation to deny even if indeed there were some copying. But strangely, some seem to think only PLAN has such motivation whereas USAF has none.

 

[jackbh]

I'd say that 52c is actually quite different than Arleigh Burke. They just don't look alike at all except maybe they have similar layout of the ship. 52c is alot more modern looking and more stealthy than American ships.

 

[Sea Dog]

I'd say that 52c is actually quite different than Arleigh Burke. They just don't look alike at all except maybe they have similar layout of the ship. 52c is alot more modern looking and more stealthy than American ships.

The configuration is definitely the same on placement of radar and missile placement. 052C definitely attempts to place their radar like an SPY-1 and the VLS placement is coincidentally similar. Although the 052C VLS works differently. And obviously the radar won't work identically to SPY-1. But China obviously studied Arleigh Burke to place certain things on their hull design.

As far as stealth considerations. I would say it's probable that 052C has lower observable stealth from the side profile. Definitely not from above though. 052C has too much stuff coming off the top at nominal angles. Aircraft radar at varying angles would have a much more difficult time with an Arleigh Burke. And I also think the design considerations are different. Arleigh Burke's were never intended to be "invisible". Their stealth is more in line with making it appear much smaller than it is. That also means for enemy radar to be effective against it, it would need to close range. Probably becoming SM-2 food. This also has the effect of making it appear to be something other than a large DDG. Very effective. This is something I heard being called at one time deception stealth. 052C seems to want to reduce it's profile from other ships and perhaps missiles. Whereas Arleigh Burke does things much differently.

 

[tphuang]

well, I don't think there is anything wrong with taking concepts from Arleigh Burke and putting them on 052C. If it works well, why not learn from existing products? It's a simple engineering philosophy. I do that at work everyday.

Having look at AB and 171, I just can't see how you can argue AB will have a lower RCS than 171 on any angle, but that's my opinion.

 

[David2007]

FuManChu;52201]

It's about time China dropped the insecure, victim-mentality and acted in a more thoughtful manner.

Your statement would be accurate if you had written "USA" instead of "China".

The US won the cold war but still has major insecurities. It's military is a Rolls Royce and it worries about China's Hyundai. It wonders why some hate them just because they have believe in democracy and freedom but know little what their CIA has done in other countries. It blames China for selling goods cheap to them and is unappreciative when China lends them cheap money so they can go into Iraq - like you blaming your banker for making it so easy for you to borrow rather than you cutting back your spending. It provides nuclear know-how to India (which hasn't signed NPT) but prevents the EU from selling hi-tech arms to China. It flies spy planes around you and supports Taiwan (when is it democratic to say that 20 million people override 1,300 million. Is possession 90% of the law?). It tears up the ABM treaty and wants Starwars. It has several carriers and are still worried about one rusty Varyag! It calls North Korea and Iran axis of evil and then wonder why these countries want the bomb? .... I digress.

Back to navy. Forget aircraft carriers, subs are the future.