Secrets of China's Naval Powerhouse Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ม.ค. 2024
- The Type 052D destroyer, also known as the Luyang III class, is a class of guided missile destroyers currently in service with the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) of China. This class represents a major modernization over its previous iterations and is considered among the most advanced surface combatants currently operated by the PLAN.
Technical Specifications:
Displacement: The Type 052D has a full load displacement of about 7,500 tons, making it significantly larger than its predecessors.
Dimensions: It typically measures about 156 meters in length, with a beam of 18 meters and a draught of 6 meters.
Propulsion: The ship is powered by a combined gas and gas (COGAG) arrangement, featuring four QC-280 gas turbines. This setup allows for high speeds and efficient cruising.
Speed and Range: The Type 052D is capable of reaching speeds up to 30 knots (56 km/h) and has a range of approximately 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h).
Armament: The destroyer is heavily armed, with a 64-cell vertical launching system (VLS) capable of firing a variety of missiles, including HHQ-9 long-range air defense missiles, YJ-18 long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, and CY-5 anti-submarine missiles. It also features a 130 mm dual-purpose gun, close-in weapon systems (CIWS) for point defense, and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) torpedoes.
Electronics: The Type 052D is equipped with advanced radar systems, including the Type 346A phased array radar, and has sophisticated electronic warfare and countermeasures suites.
Aircraft Carrying Capability: The destroyer has a hangar and flight deck capable of operating one medium-lift helicopter, typically the Harbin Z-9 or the Kamov Ka-28, enhancing its anti-submarine and search and rescue capabilities.
The Type 052D destroyers are considered integral to the PLAN's blue-water ambitions, enhancing China's ability to project power and maintain a presence in distant waters. They play a key role in air defense, anti-surface warfare, and anti-submarine warfare operations.
📫 Contact Gene Dayhaw gene@solaromgmt.com for paid promotion.
🐦► / subbrief
🕺► / subbrief
⏰► / subbrief
😃► / subbriefmedia
🏴☠️► www.SubBrief.com
💵► / subbrief
🔗► / aaron-amick-9538a4171
💌 Contact Aaron ► Aaron@subbrief.com
🦃 Jive Turkey / @jiveturkey1
Aaron's PC Spec
------------------------
CPU: Intel i9-10850K @3.60GHz
RAM: 64GB
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080
Accelsior 4M2 16.0TB PCIe M.2 NVMe SSD
sub brief, sme, subject matter expert, naval, policy, technology, tactical use of the ocean, sonar, submarine tactics, weapons employment, aip, air independent power, 21st century, aaron, amick, aaron amick, sonar, sonarman, sme, SME, subject matter expert, naval, games, wargames, testing, tactics, news, history, tactical use of the ocean, hide, find, search, jive turkey, jive, subbrief,
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Week 1 Day 1 // DRX vs ZETA | BLD vs TS](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AWaOqaxN6Y0/mqdefault.jpg)
The VLS on Type 052D/Type 055 destroyers are quite different from the Western "hot launch" systems such as MK-41/Sylver. This PLAN common VLS is compatible with both "hot launch" and "cold launch" missiles, since the launching facilities are built in canisters , not into launchers. The western had similar concept many years ago called "Concentric Canister Launcher"(CCL),but PLAN implemented it first and their "hot/cold" common VLS is the only one of this kind by far. This is necessary for PLAN since they had both hot and cold launch missiles; HHQ-9 series is cold-launched, YJ-18 cruising missiles and Yu-8 (Chinese VL-ASROC) are hot-launched.
On the other hand, the "hot-launched" VLS on Type 054A frigates is highly similar to MK-41 and Sylver , but it's only compatible with HQ-16 SAM and Yu-8 VL-ASROC
If the launching equip is all in the canisters, then it sounds like this is a much more primitive kind of VLS. You could put such a canister into western VLS' systems too, but its just not necessary.
@@termitreter6545 Yes, it is existed, ExLS 3-Cell launcher for CAMM missile. It just need the space of a MK-41 cell and the signal interface. It's all depends on the size, CAMM is a small missile.
@@termitreter6545individual canister is more redundant, modular and allows for missile with hotter exhaust to be carried
its because their weapon systems are similar to Russian systems. The HHQ-9 is a derived from S-300, YJ-18 is derived from 3M-54 Klub and Yu-8 from APR-3E torpedo
Actually, most PLAN surface combatants including destroyers and frigates, do already have short-range searching radars called H/LJQ-364 (Type 364, or SR64 in terms of export version) , which is similar to US Navy's AN/SPQ-9A. H/LJQ-364 featured a parabolic antenna covered in a spherical dome; it operate in X band with rotation speed of 15/30/60rpm depends on mode. On Type 052B/C/D and Type 051C destroyers, H/LJQ-364 is installed on top of the main mast to maximum the horizon range. H/LJQ-364 radar serves as target acquisition/indications and fire control for main gun/Type 1130 CIWS and HQ-10 SAMs. Now PLAN do have newer models of X-band close range phased-array radar on Type 055 destroyers (four fixed-arrays antennas) and Type 075 LHD, Type 054B frigates (a rotational back-to-back phased array antennas), and on the future batch of Type 052D(E).
The curvature on the earlier AESA panels was due to cooling limitations, not beam forming constraints.
"Eagle Strike" missiles aren't named that because they intend to sink American ships. The name is from a Mao poem where he described "eagles striking in the air while fish swim in the water below," a poem from the 1920s.
his has already made the similar mistake already. He misunderstood the "Luda" as bridge destroyer.
Don't expect him to do genuine research. he's making videos for the general american audience where the name of the game is 'china bad and china copy'. all 'assessments' revolve around those core concepts, just with more professional words and phrases.
yes yes， 50 years into missile age China can not intercept sub sonic sea skimming missile which made 30 years ago, yes yes
cuz like China has to copy it from US see..this guy is a clown.
@@chihoang4085 LOL it's not even worth the time to tear this review down, it's wrong in so many places. This site reminds me of Task and Purpose. If you want good old China-bashing with a condescending military twist, these are your go-to sites. If you want accurate information on the Chinese military, Sub Brief and T&P are absolutely NOT it.
What channels then?
@@Blake_87 If you're really interested in accurate information on the chinese military instead of the noise coming out of fluff youtube videos, I would visit a dedicated site like sino defense forum. It's more accurate than this site by a mile and more accurate than T&P by a light year.
Just a clarification. At mach 3, which is more-less 1kms, when detected at the horizon, an Aegis ship has around 30 seconds before the missile impacts it. The response time of the aegis/vls allows for engaging it with either Sm-6, sm-2 or ESSM. However this last would be the optimal. Additionally, CRAMs are also capable. On the other side, the phalanx ciws range has the issue that even if it is able to intercept the missile, the speed of the missile would mean it is likely to impact the vessel with debris even if intercepted. In short, It is a very good and capable missile (at least on paper) but Arleigh Burks are still able to intercept it.
He said by the time you see it. Meaning detected by your eyesight. He was just trying to describe the missiles speed. Of course the missile is still capable of being intercepted. It's as fast as a f15 and 10 feet shorter based on missile tube.
Then there's hypersonic missiles. God forbid one of those be traveling @ mach 25...
@@brandonhoffman4712 that is why I made the clarification! for those who thought he was saying by the time the ship sees it at its sensors horizon.
@@brandonhoffman4712 By the time it's possible to see by eye it on the horizon, you will still have 5 seconds to bend over and pucker up if you're standing at sea-level... From the main deck that's more like 12seconds.., And from the bridge it's about 17.5 seconds...
Given that human height is 6ft (horizon 3miles) ... Main deck is about 31ft above water + 6ft human (horizon 7.5miles)... Bridge is about 72ft above water + 6ft human (horizon 10.5miles)...
Given that mach 3 = 2200mph = 0.6111 miles per second.
@@brandonhoffman4712 and...
Given that top of mast/ tallest radar is 150ft (horizon 15 miles) = 25 seconds from first radar sighting?
Maybe the radar will pick it up a few seconds earlier (so about 30 seconds is about right)
@@adrianpaz472 so you were feeding into people's misunderstandings! At least you provided viable information I guess.
Thanks very informative!
Great video thanks
great research. thank you
Thank you Sir.
Your channel could be one of the best commentary channel ever in YT when it comes to naval warfare whether or not ASW. I would like to genuinely thank you for that, sir.
Nice looking ship
Great 👌 video man very informative and outstanding in quality 😊
Thank you.
well done
I love how he said "she has two shafts" and nobody noticed it
She shafts
Are you going to discuss 054B sometime in the future? I heard it is a much better upgrade of current 054A.
Why have A, B, or C, when you can go straight for the D!
Hi, are you planning on doing a video on type 055?
It's already available on Patreon.
The picture you quoted in 1:52 is type 055 cruiser
0:31 this is a 055, not 052D
Nice
Would like to see cost estimates as well.
Not a navy guy here, but since you said the YJ-18 flies between 10 to 15 ASL, isn't there a chance for it to hit a wave on the way and just become a really dangerous seabed mine? Or is it able to compensate for that?
Edit: I'm asking because I've heard that waves that high aren't uncommon in the open sea, or rogue waves. To anybody, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Just thinking here... If I was designing something to do this, I would use a forward looking radar and shoot for 10-12 ft above the wave tops, not trying to maintain 10-12 ft below the missle.
Sea-skimming profile that missile takes would depend on weather and weather forecast (as well as knowledge of sea between ship and target) and would be chosen just before the launch. In basically State 0 of the sea, it can fly really low. But in rougher weathers it will fly slightly higher. Note that rougher weather also means that it could be harder for many radars to detect it, even if it is higher.
It's a missile, not a rocket. Missiles have eyes and a brain, they are capable of navigation and movement.
A rocket goes in a straight line if it's aerodynamically sound. It doesn't if it isn't.
Sea skimming is a marketing term for the military industrial complex. Meant to imply a sneaky missile that tries to hide close to the surface of planet earth.
There was a report that a Chinese scientist won a big reward due to his work on implementation of kind of AI make the missile capable of adjusting its flying status to fit the sea wave. Not sure if it is true.
@@weiwu609 you'd see this tech in DJI quadcopters now, Chinese are really good at sensors
Dankeschön !!!
HHQ9 can engage sea skimming targets but may not as effective as Standard or Aster.
15:00
By the time it's possible to see by eye it on the horizon, you will still have 5 seconds to bend over and pucker up if you're standing at sea-level... From the main deck that's more like 12seconds.., And from the bridge it's about 17.5 seconds...
Given that human height is 6ft (horizon 3miles) ... Main deck is about 31ft above water + 6ft human (horizon 7.5miles)... Bridge is about 72ft above water + 6ft human (horizon 10.5miles)...
Given that mach 3 = 2200mph = 0.6111 miles per second.
and...
Given that top of mast/ tallest radar is 150ft (horizon 15 miles) = 25 seconds from first radar sighting?
Maybe the radar will pick it up a few seconds earlier (so about 30 seconds total possible reaction time?)
The newest improvement to existing 052D is adding two tow decoys in the stern. The new batch of 052DL switched new radar.
I have a strong feeling the new Type 26 CSC the RCN is working on will be getting extra VLS cells.
And the Aussie version
I think they're all going that way now the sea ceptor can go in standard VLS 4packs.
Assuming they ever finish building them..l
@@grahamstrouse1165
What’s most likely is the number jumps from fifteen to twenty-one.
Man. I would want way more than sea captor as my primary means of air defense. I really don’t understand why camm/camm-er aren’t utilized in both. 25km range for primary air defense of first rate ships was being done by NATO in the 80s.
Im absolutely certain the AESA radar on type 052Ds can track sea skimmers provided it has line of sight.
In a situation where it doesn't have line of sight then it really doesn't matter because no warship does well in that situation.
As always great content. Keep it up.
I disagree on your view that the Type-52 destroyer HHQ-9B doesn’t have the capability to shoot down Sea skimming AsHm..
Sea skimming technology isn’t something new and if the Chinese knew that their missiles aren’t capable against Sea skimmers it would never accepted into their navy ships, moreover the AESA radar is powerful enough to detect the incoming missiles from pretty decent range and guide the SAM to intercept it.
I totally understand on cashing out on naval news, but the briefs are holy. You've done such a great job on your sub and ship briefs. I especially like how you break them down ship by ship within a class, as opposed to a broad generalization. The devil is in the details. I think keeping your sub/ship briefs separate from your news aspect would be beneficial. I'm not complaining, it's just a suggestion. I've been a patreon supporter for over a year, so you've earned support easily. Loved your Cold Waters vids btw.
TYPE-52DL has YJ-21 😮
If the Americans are talking about it, it's got to be a good ship and it's only going to get better.
The picture at 00:00:40 is a Type 055; NOT a Type 52D.
Best to assume that the rear 32 are are full length ie can carry any missile.
First photo you have up there is 055
The Z-20 isn't really stolen, we sold them the civ version of the UH-60. They liked them so much that they based their new domestic utility helicopter on it. However internally, in terms of subsystems, avionics etc. it's much more modern than any Hawk in the armed forces. Kinda why we decided to go ahead with a full on replacement in form of the V-280.
So “wacking” is now off the table?
The type 52D has both towed and variable depth sonars. So do the Type 055 destroyers and the Type 54 frigates
There is the 052DL now and mass production of the 055 and improved variant of 055 is coming and this is not even mentioning the workhorse of PLAN which is 054A and B frigates.
Imagine fishing 🎣 and a YJ-18 flies past you 😂
Meanwhile the US is completely stagnant in development. On top of that, one of our newest ship classes (LCS) is a complete failure.
Given how bad the CCP is with QA and lying in general; I'm a bit skeptical about them claiming 70% effectiveness for the anti-carrier missile.
Flight 3 Burkes and DDX development apparently don't exist 🫨
It's only a failure because the Navy kept changing/upgrading the requirements. The original idea was to patrol the littoral part of the ocean or any shallow sea which means mostly ASW mission but with the capability to protect itself from airborne threats. As we all know the 40+ knots requirement was the killer; which begs the question what submarine can go that fast even on the surface?
A normal frigate or submarine would've fulfilled this, with both having far more armaments without having to return to port to switch out modules (which still don't actually exist) and with the latter effectively able to become invisible. Even patrol boats would've worked since for some ungodly reason both LCS classes barely have the armaments that these smaller vessels have.@@Errr717
@@Errr717 Fun fact, LCS has similar ASW capability as Chinese 056A but with 20 times the price.
qc280 gt reliability was solved in 2019, and there is a new and more powerful version of that engine now used in the 055
Isn't the low attitude blind same for every ship due to the curvature of the earth?
YJ-21 hits target before target has range to engage from the start that includes Type-52D
"Dragon eye"
Okay America, go make the BigMac eye now, pleeease
TH-cam's compression does not like that background
“Future” systems he said. The U.S. Navy had this propulsion debate a 100 years ago when we wanted to switch to the all turbo-electric drive battleships back in the Washington Naval Treaty era. And all of a sudden it has become “future” technology?
Aaron, all I keep thinking about is the old saying. There are two types of ships, submarines and targets.
Ignorant thinking.
The problem is we don’t have enough submarines anymore.
so why did you build so many targets 🤣
能干潜艇的太多了
HHH-9B is not som form of S-300F copy….
The first HHQ-9 it is derivaten from S-300PMU-1 with some Chinese specific tech in them, it’s a love child of S-300PMU-1 and Patriot, they do not have the same minimum engagement altitude as S-300F, nothing similar in guidance, nothing like S-300F.
S-300F uses radios command guidance, HHQ-9 uses semi-active radar homing and infrared homing mode.
And why would not the radar detect a missile? it’s an AESA, they have the same band with as US radar on Aegis ships, can’t they detect incoming missiles?
there are 2 basic concept in this channel. 1 All Chinese weapons are copies. 2 Law of physics works different in China and USA
@@banerda2334yea noone takes this seriously buddy
@@banerda2334 Precisely.
I have been telling the western audience about that from a long way back but sadly it always flys over their head.
@@banerda2334 ah yes, i remember when he said China obviously lies about their ASW frigates being able to go 30 knots, but yet US submarines supposedly can go 45+ knots SUBMERGED.
Great summary. Are we sure that the s300 is that 'weak' and that the chinese havent made improvements?
that second photo is a 055
So, China has 'Toad Arrays' also.
Would like to know what the living conditions are like on board
052D is built for defending sea skimming supersonic missiles. Why do u think the makers for YJ18 don't have a defense for their own weapons? The combination of weapons has been tested to intercept sea skimming missiles at mach 4
They have tofu engines
This is the most detailed information I’ve heard of on this ship
New member, thanks for the great content. Regarding the YJ-18, do we understand the radar/guidance systems used by the YJ-18, and can either target that or jam it?
I would like to know how good the CIC operation is and how fast are the Chinese computers in reacting to a threat? On another note, I warned my bosses that a Chinese guy we hired as a temp was working in the data center late at night all by himself and coming in early in the morning and on weekends. Then every other weekend he would go back to Canada where his supposed wife and children lived. One time when he came back to work from Canada, he had a brand-new Camaro. He was working as a System Administrator backup and recovery engineer and was subordinate to me. But he had Superuser passwords on all of our sensitive UNIX servers which held all the technical manuals, schematics, and engineering drawings.
If you had reported that to the FBI they definitely would have opened a file on you. Not him.
Doesn't matter how good your gear is if the people operating it have to ask for permission for every step of their job.
Moskva had anti-missile capability to shoot down the missile shot at it, but the guy on watch had to first wake up and then get permission from his officer to do so. China structures their military the same way.
Report it to your security manager. Some of those are insider threat flags that they may not be aware of.
Feign insanity.
Wack him.
i bet if you said something these days you’d get reported for “racism”
Could be coincidence, but in this day and age coincidences are less likely than the reality of insider threats, especially from what you described. Talk about BIG RED FLAGS with a RED BEACON and ALARM in this case. I’d recommend reporting everything you can to the FBI and your security manager AFTER you have an attorney on standby. Worst case scenario, he’s just working a ton of overtime, best case you’ve ended an insider threat and espionage attempt in progress. Better safe than sorry.
Do Guns matter? Size? ANZAC Frigates have a 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun. PLAN Frigates have 100mm. US's new Frigates have 57mm. Cheers!
Dont let the flat earthers know about the over the horizon radar. They might find their way to the rainbow bridge and then Valhalla would be inundated with flat earthers...
Truely magnificently scary manufacturing capability!!
The proof of the pudding is in the taste !! 😁
@GaryMichael-jo1sd no need to taste that great when the main purpose is to satisfy hunger
Just want to update all your readers CIWS upgraded to 1130 from 13th ship on (11 barrel 30mm) rate of fire 11,000/min.
HHQ 10 for air defence can fire 2nd round instantly like 0.6 sec and not 6 sec/round. At success rate of 70% intercept. That is why when used it will be fire with subsequent 2nd round with it achieving a success rate ~95% (Mk 2-3 missile).
E-2D + SM-6/ESSM Block 2 > YJ-18
Probably filled with water too 😂😂
Not comparable
I heard they're full of water! 😃 We need more shipyards building naval ships, and we need something practical to replace the LCS at substantially less cost. - Capt. Obvious
Do you mean replace the LCS with something besides the Constellation class FFGs?
No we don’t. Captain obvious would remind you that China has 50 destroyers. The US has 75 Arleigh Burke’s alone and approximately 90 total. That is almost a 2:1 ratio in favor of the US. The PLAN also lacks carriers and an equivalent to the Ticonderoga cruisers. Their numbers are higher only in frigates and corvettes with a small edge in subs thanks to their diesel electric boats. Unless you want to fight in their littoral waters, we are very well equipped for blue water combat. Captain obvious also thinks we don’t need any more ships, what we need is to stop being scared and take a look at economic ways to stifle their growth (good luck with that)…
@@cle_roknn3742A Taiwan invasion isn’t a blue water conflict. It would literally take place 80-100 miles off the coast of China.
@jonathanpfeffer3716 hence my “Unless you want to fight in their littoral waters” preface. But the US is not going to war for Taiwan, we can’t even agree to send obsolete equipment to a country that’s in the same type conflict. No way we are committing our own front line service personnel/hardware to a regional conflict that at best has a dubious outcome….
@@cle_roknn3742 The CCP is certainly not as confident ss you are.
✌
The CSA-9B (HQ-9B) is very capable of targeting sea skimming missiles. No idea where you dredged that blatantly false information from.
@Buckeye6161984 You should know by now that certain channels on YT specifically downplay anything and everything Chinese and Russian. The owners of these channels have to make themselves feel good that the West is unchallengeable. Whatever as they say.
Love your knowledge and ability to put out the fascinating content you manage to find. I find it amazing how they mimic or steal our Designs. The radar panels appear bigger than ours does that give it an advantage.
Your tone sounds like the Chinese People's Liberation Army can enter the Pentagon and copy technology at will. The intelligence level of the Chinese people has never been bad. Don't doubt our ability to learn and innovate.
What I have seen in the past few years makes me doubt the ability of our leadership to walk across the street and not get hit. @@tonycanton5611
China has stolen future technology from the US,Tell us how long does this symptom last? Has your family member told about your have illusion before?
@@tonycanton5611不要劝他，知己知彼百战不殆，对手不知己不知彼，没坏处，让他沉迷在幻想里边更好。
Similar in capabilities to the tried and proven Arleigh-Burke (the lead ship was commissioned in 1991, so the US had a lot of time ironing out the kinks!)? I seriously doubt it, I mean when you look at their aircraft they are unable to copy a jet-engine from the Soviet-Era, despite having the original plane - the domestic copy of the Soviet-Engine lacks thrust (so that plane the Shenyang J-15 can either launch with a full load of fuel or full load of weapons, not both!)...not to mention that their electromagnetic-catapult on the 03-Aircraft Carrier is having difficulties. Their helicopters, too (they also can't match western engines, despite having imported them in the past - still can't make decent copies!). So yeah, I doubt their destroyers are up to snuff! They might not be insignificant if they show up in force, but one on one? I'd give it to the Burke (or the Tico if you want a cruiser!) or even the British Daring-Class!
Lol, type 052d with a pic of 055, at 0:09.
Pls, are you serious?
That -349 CIWS is a copy of the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS... looks very similar!
Convergent designs. Different 30mm rds, different Gatling guns. Chinese iteration of the Goalkeeper concept has a cyclic rate of fire approx 2 × greater than the Goalkeeper.
Similar - yes
Copy- No
What worries me is the Chinese ships don’t have to be as good as the US ships. They can so outbuild the US in ship tonnage that they can afford to replace loses at a much faster rate than the US can.
basically like the Sherman’s and Tigers
The question is if they can replace the lost expertise quickly enough. An inexperienced crew can be just as detrimental as the enemy.
Except not really, because it's likely that shipbuilding infrastructure will be targeted with precision strikes and mines in the opening waves of any battle. Even more importantly is crew. Whatever your definition of a "good" sailor is, it should take at least a year to train one up from scratch, and having an experienced sailor is at least several years. Have all the raw tonnage you want, somebody has to know how to operate not only the vessel, but the team on the vessel. Should be sitting ducks if they lose their current fleet, and not for lack of technology or hulls.
@@inoculateinoculate9486 I doubt the US would target mainland infratustures. This could lead to nuclear war.
Out of tofu lol
Still MK48 food.
"What do you see fire control team?"
"I see dead people. They don't know they're dead. They go in and out of port waving their flags, blowing their horns, smoking on deck, firing dummy shots, and squawking on the radio. They don't realize if the word is ever given they're all gonna die."
you fire a MK48, every destroyer in the fleet will hear it and turn the other way on full throttle while launching ASW helos and ASROC knockoffs in your general direction.
You might take one or two ships out but you'll lose your sub.
@@hughmungus2760A seawolf cost like maybe 9 or 8 times more than a Type 52D. A Virginia like maybe 4 or 5 times more than a Type 52 D.
@@kevinyaucheekin1319 worse still. if a ship gets sunk, most of the crew survive, if a sub is sunk, the entire crew is lost
@@hughmungus2760 Very highly trained & much more difficult to replace crew because of their extendend training & highly specific related to nuckear propulsion & submerine skill sets
@@hughmungus2760 uuuh. ummm. About that. You might want to ask some actual submariners and destroyerman about that.
The VHF radar is specifically for stealth aircraft.
Rumour has it using water as fuel 😂😂😂
Chines VLS is Cold ejection or Could Lunch. Is a diferent “system” and second his Active Radar is better then the Americans. They have diferent versions but the Chines Acrive radar have better definition and have more electrive power output. That’s the big concerns of the American navy, because American DD can not be improve anymore, they don’t have more room for better equipament or better power generation. That’s something that the USA navy should be working on it.
The last 2 Bach of the USA DD have the active radar. Sorry I was wrong
what you got the information wrong was that these days, the USSN is coping the Chinese design, instead of the other way around. Please please get your facts right, esp. Type55 DDS, now is coped by all navies around the world
Feels like there are quite a bit of factual errors.
I can’t be the only one that keeps hearing “toad array”, am I? 😂
Russian developed VLS!
No
Someone on a Naval War College lecture last year said. "We read what they write. We listen to what they say. We watch what they so. Guess which one matters most?"
What they say I guess, since you're quoting what they say?
As to the anti-cruising missile capability, maybe Type 052D is not that bad. Certainly, HHQ-9 is not a proper interceptor for the sea-skimming missiles and I believe its minimum engaging altitude is relatively inferior to the newer version of SM-2; but the real problem is that Type 052D did not have the interceptor like ESSM in the early years (PLAN has, which is HQ-16 on Type 054A); according to some reliable sources, PLAN has deployed HHQ-9B and some "new medium SAMs" on Type 055's VLS, that could be the further variant of HQ-16 that much more closer to ESSM(including quad-pack canisters ) . As to "horizon issue", no ship can engage "over the horizon" targets "alone" due to the simple physics (radar go straight, the earth is spherical); The real issue is that whether PLAN have the cross-platforms integrated AAW fire control network like US Navy's CEC/NIFC-CA. According to some descriptions of the PLAN surface fleet drills, they do have some capabilities within integrated AAW fire control categories such as Precision Cue(PC), but whether they have some more advanced capabilities within CEC categories is unknown.
Only answer to Mach 3 & hypersonic is altitude. Sounds like the Navy should get into blimps for real, IDK what the max altitude of (Fire scout) is or it’s endurance but blimps seem like a feasible option.
Dude, can't you guys keep your secrets off Google Docs?
Are the toad arrays amphibious 🐸?
If nothing else these ladies are easy on the eye. Sailors will fight hard to protect their ladies. I loved my cruisers, destroyer and carrier and but was repulsed by my slow, ugly and poor performing amphibious ship. Just saying...
Maybe they'll evolve to grow legs like we did!
I wonder if they will copy the osprey
Not yet but they have copied the civilian Blackhawk that we sold them 40 years ago (which the Z-20 basically is)
No, because they are not stupid, they only copy what works.
14:45 Quick research, the russian equivalent exists for 30 years with on paper the same capabilities. Was/Is there no counter measure for it till today, like SAMs? Doesn't look like a new or outstanding capability.
Copy Type 55 Paste
US has two huge seaboards, the Pacific and Atlanic. Many safe of warm water ports free of ice in winter to carry on its shipping trade. Russia does not have this advantage. Even its warm water port in Sevastipol since 1790 is only accessible via Nato member Turkey Bosphorus. China has two islands chain and choke points galore, easy to blockade, as Mallaca Straits. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour only after it was blockaded by US, unable to import materials oil etcc and export finished manufactured goods. China is in same position as Japan was then. Thats why its trying to build infrastructure on land via the Belt and Road Initiative to imort and export. US can order Egypt to prevent for example Iran using the Suez canal. The Brits control the choke point into the Med via Gibraltar, as example the Brits took over an Iranian tanker that was refused use of Suez, went all the way round Africa only to be hijacked by UK at Gibraltar. Hence the Russians and Chinese are developing the Northern Sea Route and the North South Corridor to ensure secure trade routes. The Brits and East India Company, even before the Royal Navy had over a thousand warships and colonised the entire world. The US took over from the Brits and became the worlds Imperial power because of control of ports, ships, trade and the control of world finance via the Dollar after WW2, again after replacing British Sterling as world trading currency. All the wars since WW2 are an attempt to keep world domination of resources, trade and get everyone to finance US debt by investing in US Treasuries and holding billions of dollars which US can and is starting to seize.
True but island chain is no longer an issue for China and the US without the foreign port will be isolated from rest of the world especially in East Asia. It goes both way when comes to power projection if both sides are peer level.
Eventually, Chinas trusted partners will all have affordable options available for them
Possibly. China’s done some things right, some things not so right. The expansion & development of their military has been very impressive. They’ve been running into a lot of issues with their “trusted partners,” however.
@@grahamstrouse1165 still doing better than US's "trusted partners" you have no idea how much people you guys pissed off with this Gaza war.
In regards to coping the mk 41 VLS system you would have to blame the pr/sales Depts of the manufacturer. I have a pdf download of a detailed sales/specification/info package and it the details of the drawings and pictures would be sufficient with the right level of technology be enough to reverse engineer the mk 41 VLS system. On a side note, the same can be said for time-lapse and associated view of the construction of the USS ford released by her biulders. There was enough details to easily workout the dimensions of side protection system, the only question been the nature of the inclined TPS belt/ inclined internal armour belt/ bulkhead which is obviously quite thick but it depth within the hull is rather obvious. The position of and external dimensions of the two 'hot boxes' is clearly shown.
Makes it rather easy to guess what you would need disable the ship in a war situation.
Now the case of corruption... Considering they were filling their nuclear missiles with water, how good would their ships be?
More like US intelligence is filled with water, China fires a couple of hundreds ballistic missiles for testing of training every year, if they were filled with water, then the only explanation is China managed to use water as fuel.
None sense, I was told that those missles don't even exist, they are just paper mache with photoshops... source: Trust me bro
@@ZxZ239 Source is the entire Internet. It is everywhere. Look up the Chinese firing defense ministry or whatever that ish is called. Then look up the missile scandal. Then use your critical thinking as to why the ministry was fired....it's okay. Somebody has already done it for you sweetheart. 😘
It's just funny how much copies they have from the United States I'd like to know where they're getting it all view ideas
The Blackhawk the US sold to them. Its not stolen.
Are their missles filled with water???? Is this like the "missle" gap?
Well done China PLAN Super 052D warships and advanced powerful weapons. 💪💪👍👍👏👏💯💯♥️♥️
I really can't understand why no one has created ship shields... if an anti-shipping missile will strike your ship, simply place something in the way so that the missile strikes the shield harmlessly.
I guess, you simply cannot put enough armor on a ship to defend against modern, big ASM warheads. Ships would have enormous tonnage and dangerously low speed. It's better to recon and hit the enemy before they can hit you + have good defense weapons and decoy.
After a fashion, the navies have created just that decades ago. The CIWS concept is to place chunks of metal in the flight path of incoming missiles.
Have, it's called Battleship...
@@kentershackle1329ww2 battleship wont even protect against an atgm