PDA

View Full Version : Type 052C vs. Aerligh Burk



Praxus
03 Sep 03,, 22:05
I know the Burk's are better but what makes them better?

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 00:35
The 052 is the new Chinese Sovremney clone, correct?

rickusn
04 Sep 03,, 00:50
No. Much more far advanced apparently. Remains to be seen. But Im not surprised, the Chinese have long been upgrading and they have had alot of help(the US is not least of the sources of help willing or not).

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 01:10
Here are some renderings...
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052c_2.jpg
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052c_4.jpg

Some info...
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052c.asp

The main place it is lacking is the HQ-9 long-range SAM which lacks the range of the SM-2MR and it doesn't even come close to the SM-2ER.

The Gun is paticularly pathetic as it is only a 100mm gun.

How do their CIWS compare to Goalkeeper?

Officer of Engineers
04 Sep 03,, 01:34
A general word about Chinese weapons development. They ain't that good. Often, they started out with grandios designs and finally had to settle for works.

I believe the 052 is good as or better than the Sov when I see it.

rickusn
04 Sep 03,, 01:58
Your link didnt work for me. And while I agree that Chinese tech is behind. The apparent radar system is a quantam leap over anything taht was even imagined a couple of years ago and the site says the missles are equiv to the S-300 if Im not mistaken

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052c.asp

rickusn
04 Sep 03,, 02:17
Heres another site:

http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/luhai_luhu_luda.htm

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 03:02
Yah but their range is only like 100km about 60km less then the SM-2MR. This means our aircraft can attack with Harpoon(SLAM-ER version) with virtual impunity. Where as a Chinese aircraft attacking would be well within the range of SM-2MR missiles when attacking with anti-shipping missiles(this is just pretending they got past the Carriers Aircraft).

Also if you look at the picture in the Sino Defense site there is no phased array radar in the picture and it looks like there are nothing they would connect to. Unless the rounded thing is actually protecting the connections and stuff?

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 07:13
How many/what choppers can the Burke and the 052C carry?

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 16:45
The new Aerligh Burks can carry I think 2 Seahawks for ASW and the 052C can only carry 1 ASW helicopter, I have no idea about it's capabilitys though.

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 20:24
This thing looks a lot like a cloned Burke.

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 20:25
BTW, the 052 carries only 18 of the long range SAMs.

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 20:30
I am just wondering but what is the point of a Frigate, what does it add to the fleet?

Type 054 Frigate
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/newffg.asp

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 22:22
I think it's more or less a weps carrior with radar and sonar of its own just in case

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 22:36
With that datalink thing will each ship be able to see everything that the other ship sees?

So say in a carrier battle group there are DDGs/CGs out in front say 20 miles in front of the Carrier and then there is one 20 miles behind the carrier group and two on each side 20 miles out. Will you be able to see everything that everyone else in the Carrier Battle Group sees?

So in essence you can see far past what your own radar can see?

Also could you link the AWACS radar up with the ships so what they see will show up on this big screen of the "battlespace"?

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 23:02
Yeah. That's pretty much what AWACS and AEGIS are all about...

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 23:20
"With that datalink thing will each ship be able to see everything that the other ship sees?

So say in a carrier battle group there are DDGs/CGs out in front say 20 miles in front of the Carrier and then there is one 20 miles behind the carrier group and two on each side 20 miles out. Will you be able to see everything that everyone else in the Carrier Battle Group sees?

So in essence you can see far past what your own radar can see?

Also could you link the AWACS radar up with the ships so what they see will show up on this big screen of the "battlespace"? "

That's the whole idea behind the USN FCEC program, being installed as we speak. It has already been fitted to several ships, though which ones, i do not know.

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 23:22
Doesn't AEGIS do all that? What's FCEC?

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 23:36
"Doesn't AEGIS do all that? What's FCEC?"

No, early Aegis does not.

FCEC is 'fleet cooperative engagement control', and is a feature of the new Aegis Mk7 Baseline 7a upgrade.

The 7b upgrade(the latest that i am aware of) adds NMD capability for use with SM-3, and is to be fitted to the VLS Ticos only, i believe.

Praxus
05 Sep 03,, 00:22
Does FCEC include AWACS, and I would assume that it also include the carrier ?

Bill
05 Sep 03,, 04:31
All aircraft have what is called JTIDS/FDL, i can't recall right now what the latest link version is.

That serves the purpose of the FCEC for aircraft, and yes, it is compatible with FCEC and US Army TACFIRE.

Basicly, ANY platform plugged into the net sees EVERYTHING that every other platform sees.

This allows for remote engagements from one ships magizines using another's FCR, or indeed with no FCR at all (only for RAM and SM-2 IIIB and newer) since FCEC produces a very accurate composite plot track of all contacts.

An IR terminal seeking missile like SM-2 IIIB or newer can remote launch on a composite track, be updated inflight via the Aegis S band link, and perform autonomous terminal IR intercept without ever having an illuminator light the target.

Or so i'm told.

This enables maximum range engagement of missiles/aircraft/ships still well over the electronic horizon.

bigross86
05 Sep 03,, 09:04
What do later versions of AEGIS do that the earlier ones dont?

Bill
05 Sep 03,, 16:32
Well, there is a gradual increase in processing power, system memory, etc that allows for all kinds of neat features, like FCEC for instance.

UnitedDiversity
08 Sep 03,, 22:45
I can see that you guys have some misconceptions about the 052C. What I'm about to tell you is only CONFIRMED facts from photos or common sense, but it'll help.

052C, Chinese designation of their first long range air defence ship.

The numbers 052 stands for gas turbine powered (051 stands for steam) and the C means that this is the third generation of gas turbined Chinese ships.

This ship is equippted with Ageis style phased arry radars mounted in the front super structure, it's specs are currently unknown but it should be simliar to that of the US.

052C although not an dedicated ASW platform, is capable of carrying two KA-28/32 or two Z-9C ASW choppers in it's hanger bay (the choppers are parked one after another, not beside each other).

The ASW of this ship consists of eight 6 cell VSL missile launchers that is armed with HHQ-9 long range air defence missiles that are samiliar in proformance to the Russian S-300PMU. The missile may have taken design features from the S-300PMU but it is not a complete copy. Althugh the HHQ-9's VLS system is samiliar to the Russian's revolving VLS, but some reports and photos suggests that instead of revolving, the Chinese round VLS launchers has a hatch for each missile and that the VLS may not revolve at all. Short range air defence include two Type 730 CIWS which it self is an IMPROVED version of the Dutch Goalkeeper.

As of AShW, it is more or less unknown what type of ASCM that the 052C will carry. But since the latest Chinese made ASCM the YJ-83/C-803 has the range of 150miles/250kM with a terminal speed of Mach 1.4, along with very good counter jamming electronics and a guidence systems tha can tell it's target apart from other objects (something that the SS-N-22 Sunburn doesn't have), the missiles armed with the 052C should not be any worse than the YJ-83/C-803.

Displacement wise, it is estimited between 6000-8000, but that piece of information is unkown. And the first batch of two ships in this class is planned to join commission to the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) before the year 2005 is completed.

Ok those are the only facts known about the ship, anything else is speculation and I'm not about to discuss any of that because it may not be true.

UnitedDiversity
08 Sep 03,, 22:50
052C

http://www.cjdby.com/UploadFile/200372421241977723.jpg

Bill
08 Sep 03,, 23:26
"Type 730 CIWS which it self is an IMPROVED version of the Dutch Goalkeeper."

Sorry, but besides the fact that there is actually no proof whatsoever that the Chinese can match the sophistication of the Signaal Flycatcher radar suite of the Goalkeeper, the GAU-8/A Avenger cannon of the Goalkeeper fires the MUCH more powerful 30x173mm cartridge.

I could've swore i read 18 LR SAMs?

You sure it's 64? That would have to be a VERY large displacement warship in such a case.

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 00:11
To: [M21Sniper]

With the 730, the Chinese basicly reverse engineered the Goalkeeper and then modified to fit their needs better. So I guess the radar is included in the reverse engineering.

And yes, I am pretty sure that it is 48. 6 six-cell launchers infront and 2 in the back. 8 X 6 = 46. There is a picture that shows it.

just go to this site, scroll down to the 052C section. There are three clickable links in this section. The first link says 052C the second says VLS, and the theird says 052C again. Click on that third link and you'll see a picture taking from above the ship that shows the VLS.

http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/luhai_luhu_luda.htm

Bill
09 Sep 03,, 00:15
Thanx for the pic UD.

Back to the Goalkeeper, the 30x173mm is the same round used by the mighty A-10A Warthog. It's far more powerful than the std Warsaw Pact 30mm round used by the 730.

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 00:19
To: [M21Sniper]

oh I see, so what's the difference between the 30X173mm and the STD 30mm?

and is there something special in the 30X173 that stops the Chinese from using it?

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 00:40
This ship is equippted with Ageis style phased arry radars mounted in the front super structure, it's specs are currently unknown but it should be simliar to that of the US.

052C although not an dedicated ASW platform, is capable of carrying two KA-28/32 or two Z-9C ASW choppers in it's hanger bay (the choppers are parked one after another, not beside each other).

The ASW of this ship consists of eight 6 cell VSL missile launchers that is armed with HHQ-9 long range air defence missiles that are samiliar in proformance to the Russian S-300PMU. The missile may have taken design features from the S-300PMU but it is not a complete copy. Althugh the HHQ-9's VLS system is samiliar to the Russian's revolving VLS, but some reports and photos suggests that instead of revolving, the Chinese round VLS launchers has a hatch for each missile and that the VLS may not revolve at all. Short range air defence include two Type 730 CIWS which it self is an IMPROVED version of the Dutch Goalkeeper.

As of AShW, it is more or less unknown what type of ASCM that the 052C will carry. But since the latest Chinese made ASCM the YJ-83/C-803 has the range of 150miles/250kM with a terminal speed of Mach 1.4, along with very good counter jamming electronics and a guidence systems tha can tell it's target apart from other objects (something that the SS-N-22 Sunburn doesn't have), the missiles armed with the 052C should not be any worse than the YJ-83/C-803.

There is no proof it is as good as the AEGIS and since they have less research on phased array radars I dought it is advanced as the newer AEGIS models.

The S-300 lacks the range of the SM-2MR as it is only 80-100km where the SM-2MR has a range of 160km.

How exactly is it better then the Goalkeeper. There is only one purpose and one purpose a lone for the Goalkeeper and that is to knock down cruise missiles. You do not suit it for your needs because the need is the same for everyone.

The YJ-83 is smaller then the Harpoon and it is barely supersonic. It should be no problem for SeaRAM, ESSM, SM-2MR, and Goalkeepers. Also it's range is only 150-200km not 250km.

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 02:49
To: [Praxus]

I'm not going to argu with you on your first point because there is no proof of either one of us's claims.

With the S-300 point, note that I've mentioned that the HHQ-9 will contain properties of S-300PMU (when they say contains the properties from my point of view, they mean that the HHQ-9 is based on the PMU but not exactly the same) NOT S-300, there is a difference. globalsecurity.org claimed that the S-300PMU has a range of 150-200kM. I don't know much about the SM-2MR but I do know its numbers are not as good.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-300pmu.htm


To the YJ-83, here is what globalsecurity and many other American sources and Chinese sources says.



China fired a YJ-83 anti-ship cruise missile from a JH-7 fighter-bomber in November 2002 over Bohai Bay, off northern China. The test of the new cruise missile demonstrated twice the range US intelligence agencies initially estimated. The estimated range of the YJ-83 had been assessed to be about 75 miles. The new missile test showed that its range is about 155 miles [250 km]. The YJ-83 is believed to be a derivative of the C-801 anti-ship cruise missile but can travel at supersonic speeds, making it very difficult for ships to stop. The YJ-83, sometimes called the C-803, also has the capability to receive target information in flight, and will probably be outfitted on the upgraded JH-7a fighter-bomber.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/c-801.htm

I don't think I need to say more.

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 03:32
I'm not going to argu with you on your first point because there is no proof of either one of us's claims.

With the S-300 point, note that I've mentioned that the HHQ-9 will contain properties of S-300PMU (when they say contains the properties from my point of view, they mean that the HHQ-9 is based on the PMU but not exactly the same) NOT S-300, there is a difference. globalsecurity.org claimed that the S-300PMU has a range of 150-200kM. I don't know much about the SM-2MR but I do know its numbers are not as good.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ia/s-300pmu.htm


To the YJ-83, here is what globalsecurity and many other American sources and Chinese sources says.

SM-2MR has a range of 190km and the SM-2ER has a range of around 300-360km.

In order for the YJ-83 to hit a Carrier this is how many layers of defense it has to go through.

1.) SM-2ER
2.) SM-2MR
3.) ESSM
4.) PHALANX in Carrier Group
5.) PHALANX on Carrier

A massive barage of even 75-100 missiles will be for the most part ineffective.

A carrier group if it filled half it's VLS cells with ESSM could knock out in theory 1300 cruise missiles(This is assuming Three Destroyers, Three Cruisers per Carrier group).

Bill
09 Sep 03,, 03:52
"oh I see, so what's the difference between the 30X173mm and the STD 30mm?"

The Warsaw Pact 30mm rd is much smaller than the 30x173mm, as is the NATO std 30mm.

The 30x173 was designed to kill tanks, and has approxomately 80% more muzzle energy and 40% more muzzle velocity than either the NATO or WP 30mm std.

"and is there something special in the 30X173 that stops the Chinese from using it?"

You need to design a new gun for it(THe GAU-8/A is 22 feet long and wieghs 3200lbs loaded. It is a massive weapon.)

The Chinese use the Russian standard ZSU-30 rotary cannon as the basis for the 730, and it fires the WP 30mm std round.

30x173mm is also much more powerful than the NATO 30mm standard round. It is only fired by three guns, the GAU-8/A, GAU-13 and ASP 30mm. All other 30mm cannons in Western use fire the 30mm NATO standard cartridge.

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 20:36
To: [Praxus]

so are you saying that 4 air defence ships each will carry at least 325 missiles?

oh and plus that not everyone of your missiles will hit and your radars cannot react fast enough to target 1300 missiles anyways.

globalscurity claims that your SM-2ER has only a range of "65-100 nautical miles (75-115 statute miles)" what 300-350 KM?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-2.htm

Please prove your points, your last post in considered to me baseless and useless. If you are going to continue this, I suggest you to tell me first so I don't have to bother read.

Thank you.

Bill
09 Sep 03,, 21:45
SM-2ER's range is 130 nm.

Whether Global Security agrees or not, that's the approxomate range.

"so are you saying that 4 air defence ships each will carry at least 325 missiles?"

A single Tico CG can, if it chooses, embark as many as 512 ESSM.

A Burke can carry as many as 384 ESSM.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:29
Hey, UD, I'd suggest you calm down before you get shot down...

Bill
10 Sep 03,, 01:19
Ah, UD's OK.

Praxus
10 Sep 03,, 02:05
globalscurity claims that your SM-2ER has only a range of "65-100 nautical miles (75-115 statute miles)" what 300-350 KM?

The SM-2ER numbers aren't there only the SM-1ER is on that. Notice how it is below SM-1ER and not SM-2ER.

UnitedDiversity
10 Sep 03,, 02:54
To: [bigross86]

actually I've never been not clam on a forum for a long time. And being shot down? seems fun.