Type 052D DDG News & Discussions

[sheik]

Thanks for correct me. You argued that US and China concept is similar, so AEGIS-alike design of China destroyers for what? while US used it for AB ( Anti Ballistic ) max. 3

Bigger size of the radar is beneficial for longer distance of detection and better chance against stealth airplanes. Higher install position is better for detecting skimming-sea missiles. Both benefits are desired but the displacement of the ship is limited and you have to compromise based on your priority. China prefers bigger (thus heavier) ASEA and has to bear lower installation position, as the ship and the fleet could have other means to better detect skimming-sea missiles. Also, due to the curvature of Earth, the benefit gained by installing the AESA higher is probably not as much as you thought.

Moreover, China may also have similar needs to intercept ballistic missiles as the US (using HHQ-9B?), so the current configuration of the AESA on 052C/D (Aleigh Burke's counterpart in China) is nothing weird.

 

[Agent_47]

Only the 9000+ tons Arleigh Burke Flight IIA can carry two SH-60 which is similar to the S-70B.

Kolkata is too small to carry two S-70B, two Dhruv is more reasonable.

Dude,Dhruv's are not operated from ships. There is no ASW version.
It's nothing to do with size, different priorities for different navy.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Dude,Dhruv's are not operated from ships. There is no ASW version.
It's nothing to do with size, different priorities for different navy.

Well, it has to do with the size.

The bigger tonnage will allow your ship to have the bigger twin hangar and more VLS units. This is the common sense.

 

[BoQ77]

Only the SM-3 block IIA/B can intercept the ICBM, but it is still under the development.

The US has basically scrapped the failed GMD, and in favor of the SM-3 block IIA/B.

China has succeeded its GMD project which is now designated as the DN-3, but China will still work on the anti-ICBM capability for its HQ-26 which will be available for both Type 055 and Type 052D in the near future.

I read that SM-3 Blk IIA/B was joint developed by Japan and US, to which Japan put 1 billion dollars.
It's such an amazing interceptor on their Aegis destroyers.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I read that SM-3 Blk IIA/B was joint developed by Japan and US, to which Japan put 1 billion dollars.
It's such an amazing interceptor on their Aegis destroyers.

Developed by the US, and Japan provided the fund.

But still, the block IIA is still too slow to really intercept a traveling modern ICBM, we shall see the specification of the block IIB.

However, it is true that the US Aegis is slowly moving towards the anti-ICBM capability in the future.

 

[Agent_47]

Well, it has to do with the size.

The bigger tonnage will allow your ship to have the bigger twin hangar and more VLS units. This is the common sense.

Not always, INS Vikramaditya can only carry 20-25 medium fighters but French Charles de Gaulle can carry 40 and both are of same size. Different design and priorities.

 

[BoQ77]

Bigger size of the radar is beneficial for longer distance of detection and better chance against stealth airplanes. Higher install position is better for detecting skimming-sea missiles. Both benefits are desired but the displacement of the ship is limited and you have to compromise based on your priority. China prefers bigger (thus heavier) ASEA and has to bear lower installation position, as the ship and the fleet could have other means to better detect skimming-sea missiles. Also, due to the curvature of Earth, the benefit gained by installing the AESA higher is probably not as much as you thought.

Moreover, China may also have similar needs to intercept ballistic missiles as the US (using HHQ-9B?), so the current configuration of the AESA on 052C/D (Aleigh Burke's counterpart in China) is nothing weird.

Nice post, sheik
But I don't think China could use HHQ-9 to anti ballistic on the sea.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Not always, INS Vikramaditya can only carry 20-25 medium fighters but French Charles de Gaulle can carry 40 and both are of same size. Different design and priorities.

They carry mostly the lighter aircrafts such as Rafale M and Mig-29K.

Nice post, sheik
But I don't think China could use HHQ-9 to anti ballistic on the sea.

China's naval anti-ballistic defense system is not the HHQ-9, but the HQ-26.

 

[帅的一匹]

Will HQ26 installed on 055DDG?

 

[BoQ77]

Only the 9000+ tons Arleigh Burke Flight IIA can carry two SH-60 which is similar to the S-70B.

Kolkata is too small to carry two S-70B, two Dhruv is more reasonable.

two Westland Sea King ( licensed copy of S-61 ). it's not bad, which is comparable to Sh-70

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Will HQ26 installed on 055DDG?

In the near future.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

For the first time, Japan is using the live target practice for its new anti-ship missile.

The Shirane class, a 7500 tons retired DDG that was built in the 1970s.

Japan to Test its New XASM-3 Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile Against Shirane-class Destroyer

 

[C130]

U.S should buy a few hundred of these.

we lack a supersonic anti ship missile

 

[Kyle Sun]

U.S should buy a few hundred of these.

we lack a supersonic anti ship missile

you guys should.focus ob allien , S.H.I.E.L.D of earth.

 

[C130]

you guys should.focus ob allien , S.H.I.E.L.D of earth.

P-8 with 4 of these bad boys would make type 052D shake.

could even call it a carrier killer