052C/052D Class Destroyers

antiterror13

Brigadier
Even if the DoD suggests that the current HQ-9 has a range of only 100km, the DoD also reports that China is working to extend the HQ-9 range "beyond 200km." Therefore, I will assume (for now) that HQ-9B will have a range of 200-250km. Just a guess. Nevertheless, since the Russian S-400/500 and U.S. STANDARD-6 already have ranges of 400km and 370km, not sure if I can make the assumption that there is something extremely backward regarding Chinese solid fuel technology and internal rocket designs.

do not underestimate Chinese solid fuel technology, its already first class
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
do not underestimate Chinese solid fuel technology, its already first class
Uhhhh...sorry, but I really have to put a question mark on this assumption. If China's solid fuel technology is already "first class," where is China's equivalent to THAAD, SM-3/6, S-400/500, etc. "under development" does not count since the Russians and the U.S. already had S-400 and SM-6 in service for a while. At this moment, the HQ-9 is the only Chinese SAM capable of engaging targets beyond 100km. Even if the HQ-9 has a range of 200km, it is still nothing compared to S-400, THAAD, and SM-3 and SM-6. In modern air-sea combat, long-range SAM is what protects your fleets and bases from long-distance kinetic strikes, like USN's Tomahawks and LRASM. Yes, you can argue that China has the SC-19 ABM kill vehicle, but the SC-19 is likely based on DF-21 Ballistic missile, which is much bigger in size and weight than HQ-9 and S-300 series SAMs. Also, the SC-19 is not a SAM. Let's just say out of the long-ranged SAMs of similar sizes (HQ-9, S-300/400/500, SM-3/6, PAC-2), China's HQ-9 possibly happen to have the shortest range.
 

HeQin

New Member
Registered Member
Uhhhh...sorry, but I really have to put a question mark on this assumption. If China's solid fuel technology is already "first class," where is China's equivalent to THAAD, SM-3/6, S-400/500, etc. "under development" does not count since the Russians and the U.S. already had S-400 and SM-6 in service for a while. At this moment, the HQ-9 is the only Chinese SAM capable of engaging targets beyond 100km. Even if the HQ-9 has a range of 200km, it is still nothing compared to S-400, THAAD, and SM-3 and SM-6. In modern air-sea combat, long-range SAM is what protects your fleets and bases from long-distance kinetic strikes, like USN's Tomahawks and LRASM. Yes, you can argue that China has the SC-19 ABM kill vehicle, but the SC-19 is likely based on DF-21 Ballistic missile, which is much bigger in size and weight than HQ-9 and S-300 series SAMs. Also, the SC-19 is not a SAM. Let's just say out of the long-ranged SAMs of similar sizes (HQ-9, S-300/400/500, SM-3/6, PAC-2), China's HQ-9 possibly happen to have the shortest range.
i think China not only has HQ-9 but also has HQ-16 AND HQ-18... those 2 i think have a longer distance too compared to HQ-9..
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
PLA's Type 052D destroyers can beat Vietnam's Su-22s: report
  • 2015-04-23
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


MODERATOR INSTRUCTION:

Zeitergeist, we notice you are very often citing WantChinaTimes.

Be advised, WantChinaTimes is not viewed as a credible source for defense news here on SD because it is so often out and out wrong, or purley politically biased.

Please find another source for your news reports.

See:

SD Master Thread for not-so Reliable Sourceshttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ma...-so-reliable-sources-sd-mod-input-only.t7180/https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ma...-so-reliable-sources-sd-mod-input-only.t7180/

Thanks

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
To be fair the article is right however it is also meaningless Nd said nothing of added value..

I mean one would HOPE a 052D can take on an aircraft like the su22 which is nothing more than a modified version of su7 first flown in the 1950s.

That like an article saying an Aegis destroyer can take on A4 Skyhawks.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm not surprised WCT is quoting sina... jeez they're trying their best to be terrible, aren't they?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Hmm so three commissioned DDGs are back at the shipyard presumably for some degree of work. Impossible to rule out the possibility of issues that have come up during trials and operation, but then again I'd hazard against jumping to conclusions about how serious the work is and whether it is symptomatic of any serious issues.

A good gauge would be if we knew how long each ship was back at the shipyard for, but we don't have anything like constant monitoring of the shipyard to make that call.

I wasn't around here when the first 052Bs and 052Cs were commissioned back in the 2000s, does anyone remember if they came back to their shipyards occasionally to have work done in the year or so after their commissioning?
 
Top