What's new

PLA Launches Fourth Type 052d 'chinese Aegis' Destroyer

Type 052D destroyer is 155 meters long, 18 meters wide, that's bigger than Ticonderoga cruiser. Type 055 destroyer is expected to be about 170 meters long, 24 meters wide.

So now there are 3 Type 052D on sea trial. That's as many Zumwalt as there will ever be. When the next US financial crisis hits next year, expect Zumwalt number to be cut from 3 to 1.


Type 052D destroyer

Tonnage:7500 tons fully loaded.
Length:155 m
Beam:18 m
Draught:6.5 m
Propulsion:CODOG
Two QC-280 gas turbine engines, each generates 28MW of power and two diesel engines, each generates 6 MW of power.
Speed:30 knots
Complement:280



Ticonderoga-class cruiser

Type:Guided-missile cruiser
Displacement:Approx. 9,600 long tons (9,800 t) full load
Length:567 feet (173 m)
Beam:55 feet (16.8 meters)
Draft:34 feet (10.2 meters)
Propulsion: COGAG
4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engines, 80,000 shaft horsepower (60,000 kW)
2 × controllable-reversible pitch propellers

2 × rudders
Speed:32.5 knots (60 km/h)
Complement: 390
 
.
It is not like the bigger the better, 052D carrys HQ9B SAM with range more than 150 plus, and YJ62 anti-ship missile with more than 300 KM. That's called strong fire power in the making. PLA navy need at least 30 plus ships like 052d to escort the CBG and replace the old destroyers.

PLA navy will be the strongest navy in west pacific region at year 2025. With 6 plus CBGs and dozens of agies system shipborn destroyers we can wipe out any enemy standing in our way. Hope your cute economy could withstand the confrontation.

Am I suppose to be impressed? A Tico cruiser recently blew up a satellite. Does any of your ships do that? Also the cruiser has SAM system that can engage targets 240 km away. Still use the old Harpoons but the new anti-ship missile coming online will have 370 km range and its stealthy. When you build 60 plus destroyers, then we will talk. Otherwise I doubt your ability to introduce 6 carrier battle groups by the year 2025. Also your economy won't withstand a war with the U.S. especially with sanctions on Chinese products along with other allies of the U.S. That would lead to tens of millions of Chinese out of jobs. And other Asian countries can take China's place. Didn't include the blockade yet.
 
.
Am I suppose to be impressed? A Tico cruiser recently blew up a satellite. Does any of your ships do that? Also the cruiser has SAM system that can engage targets 240 km away. Still use the old Harpoons but the new anti-ship missile coming online will have 370 km range and its stealthy. When you build 60 plus destroyers, then we will talk. Otherwise I doubt your ability to introduce 6 carrier battle groups by the year 2025. Also your economy won't withstand a war with the U.S. especially with sanctions on Chinese products along with other allies of the U.S. That would lead to tens of millions of Chinese out of jobs. And other Asian countries can take China's place. Didn't include the blockade yet.

Never underestimate the biggest country in the world. Any country that invades China will cease to exist on Earth.

The US navy lost well over 60 destroyers in WW2. How long do you think the 50 odd US destroyers can last in a war against the world's biggest country China?

List of United States Navy losses in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
.
LOL! That destroyer 52D is not bigger than the Tico cruiser. Check your facts, or you just like to blabber nonsense.

This guy has to be the biggest bootlicking *** kisser I've ever seen on PDF. That's actually saying a lot around here.
 
.
When you build 60 plus destroyers, then we will talk. Otherwise I doubt your ability to introduce 6 carrier battle groups by the year 2025.

:lol:

• Largest shipbuilding nations based on gross tonnage 2012 | Ranking

18hdY3a.jpg


List of countries by steel production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by aluminium production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
Never underestimate the biggest country in the world. Any country that invades China will cease to exist on Earth.

The US navy lost well over 60 destroyers in WW2. How long do you think the 50 odd US destroyers can last in a war against the world's biggest country China?

List of United States Navy losses in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL! You showed how many destroyers and carriers we lost. But how about showing how many carriers we built as well as destroyers?

Based on your source we lost 5 carriers. How many were built since then? And I haven't include the destroyers and battleships.

NAUL01012.jpg
 
.

Thats great! You can build ships from rowboats to cargo ships. How about massive complex warships like maybe an aircraft carrier of your own? For the last few years the massive warships we built and commissioned...

USS America
DI060512-2745.jpg

USS Arlington
8090513624_238670d97b_z.jpg

USS San Antonio
Uss_san_antonio_1330453.jpg

USS New York on the right
US_Navy_110609-N-VL218-336_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ships_USS_San_Antonio_%28LPD_17%29_and_USS_New_York_%28LPD_21%29_are_underway_together_in_the_Atla.jpg

USS Makin Island
e4037692feed1f786212eb130b34c1ad_zpsbdce53c9.jpg

USS George Bush
800px-US_Navy_110129-N-3885H-158_USS_George_H.W._Bush_%28CVN_77%29_is_underway_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg

USS Ronald Reagan
800px-USSRONALDREAGANgoodshot.jpg


USS Gerald Ford
Gerald_R_Ford_(CVN-78).jpg


And I haven't include submarines and destroyers and so on.
 
.
Thats great! You can build ships from rowboats to cargo ships. How about massive complex warships like maybe an aircraft carrier of your own? For the last few years the massive warships we built and commissioned...

And I haven't include submarines and destroyers and so on.
Why are you expecting the Chinese members here to exercise critical thinking? I thought we have established either the unwillingness or the lack thereof of that skill a long time ago.
 
.
This is about chinese achievement, not about china has beating America.
Why are you so myopic?
 
.
China's industry can pump out 500 fighter jets per week, 10 destroyers per week, 1 carrier per week, 20 subs per week. Don't even think about destroying China's ports because of thousands of land based fighter jets. How many can America build? If you can't keep up with the big dogs, then sit on the porch. :woot:
 
.
LOL! You showed how many destroyers and carriers we lost. But how about showing how many carriers we built as well as destroyers?

Based on your source we lost 5 carriers. How many were built since then? And I haven't include the destroyers and battleships.

NAUL01012.jpg


Why are you showing America muscle to the Chinese here? Even US has all these toys they cannot do any SH!t alone by themselves, I must admit.
 
.
Thats great! You can build ships from rowboats to cargo ships. How about massive complex warships like maybe an aircraft carrier of your own? For the last few years the massive warships we built and commissioned...

USS America
DI060512-2745.jpg

USS Arlington
8090513624_238670d97b_z.jpg

USS San Antonio
Uss_san_antonio_1330453.jpg

USS New York on the right
US_Navy_110609-N-VL218-336_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ships_USS_San_Antonio_%28LPD_17%29_and_USS_New_York_%28LPD_21%29_are_underway_together_in_the_Atla.jpg

USS Makin Island
e4037692feed1f786212eb130b34c1ad_zpsbdce53c9.jpg

USS George Bush
800px-US_Navy_110129-N-3885H-158_USS_George_H.W._Bush_%28CVN_77%29_is_underway_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg

USS Ronald Reagan
800px-USSRONALDREAGANgoodshot.jpg


USS Gerald Ford
Gerald_R_Ford_(CVN-78).jpg


And I haven't include submarines and destroyers and so on.

what I saw is ¥¥¥¥¥¥ only.
 
. .
LOL! You showed how many destroyers and carriers we lost. But how about showing how many carriers we built as well as destroyers?

Based on your source we lost 5 carriers. How many were built since then? And I haven't include the destroyers and battleships.

Those stats on Post #60 make money.
Yours are confirmng yourselves as the no. 1 bully in the world. That is why you are very busy printing money until the stocks of ink barrels run dry!
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom