052C vs Kidd

sunjerem

New Member
Hi. I wanted to compare 052C of PLAN to Kidd of ROCAN.

I know that only two 052C will ever be built, because PLAN has moved on (again!) to another type of ship called 051C that uses Russian radars.

It appears that 052C has been a valiant try by Chinese engineers at coming up with something that is similar to early Flight I Arleigh Burke, but has failed miserably and will stop at just 2 ships constructed.

ROCAN now has 4 Kidd class destroyers (more advanced version of Spruance class) which are a close second to the Arleigh Burke class in terms of capability.

Even though 052C ships are outnumbered 2 to 4 by the Kidd class, I'd like to compare them and see which is better.
 

PeoplesPoster

New Member
sunjerem said:
Hi. I wanted to compare 052C of PLAN to Kidd of ROCAN.

I know that only two 052C will ever be built, because PLAN has moved on (again!) to another type of ship called 051C that uses Russian radars.

It appears that 052C has been a valiant try by Chinese engineers at coming up with something that is similar to early Flight I Arleigh Burke, but has failed miserably and will stop at just 2 ships constructed.

ROCAN now has 4 Kidd class destroyers (more advanced version of Spruance class) which are a close second to the Arleigh Burke class in terms of capability.

Even though 052C ships are outnumbered 2 to 4 by the Kidd class, I'd like to compare them and see which is better.

Uhh, where do you get the idea that the 052C failed miserably? They are indeed test platforms but by all accounts they appear satisfactory. And they are not stopping at 2 ships and have not moved onto 051c which was in fact started at almost the same time 052c was. Get your facts straight please.

And to answer your question, by looking at the stats alone it would appear that the 052c has the upper hand in this situation.
 

contedicavour

New Member
This entirely depends on what you are comparing !
In AAW, the US SM-2 III on the Kidds' launchers (even if no VLS) would still be better than the new Chinese-Ukrainian 150-km range AAW missile, or of any evolution of Grumble SA-N-6.
In ASW, the Kidds' use of ASROCs should make them better.
In ASUW, Harpoons and potentially Tomahawks (if it ever came to a clash with China I suspect the USN would hand over the Tomahawks to help the ROC-Navy defend itself) are enough to ward off naval threats. I don't know what SSMs the most recent Chinese destroyers have, but I don't see anything more threatening than SS-N-22 Sunburn in Chinese service...

cheers
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
contedicavour said:
This entirely depends on what you are comparing !
In AAW, the US SM-2 III on the Kidds' launchers (even if no VLS) would still be better than the new Chinese-Ukrainian 150-km range AAW missile, or of any evolution of Grumble SA-N-6.
In ASW, the Kidds' use of ASROCs should make them better.
In ASUW, Harpoons and potentially Tomahawks (if it ever came to a clash with China I suspect the USN would hand over the Tomahawks to help the ROC-Navy defend itself) are enough to ward off naval threats. I don't know what SSMs the most recent Chinese destroyers have, but I don't see anything more threatening than SS-N-22 Sunburn in Chinese service...

cheers
on Kidd
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-993.htm

The most advanced SSMs in Chinese service are not the sunburns, but the domestic versions of YJ-62 on 052Cs. They have longer range and most likely terminally supersonic than the sunburns. As for Tomahawk, are you talking about the anti-ship version or the land attac version. I don't think the Americans are using the Anti-ship version anymore. And from the link above, it doesn't appear tomahawk can be used.

Any Chinese ship would loose out in ASW to any other ship.

As for AAW, HQ-9 is not an evolution of Grumble. It's an indigenous SAM that got help from the Russians. In terms of missile range and speed and such, it all beats out. The only thing that concerns me about HQ-9 is its ability to engage anti-ship missiles. A lot of such info is confidential, which makes it difficult to gage the capability of such. And then there is the matter of Phalanx vs type 730 CIWS. Again, that's another one that is hard to say.

On top of that, there are certain advantages to 052C:
1) it has a more stealthy hull
2) it has a full complement of missiles, which can't necessarily be said about the Taiwanese Kidds
3) it is a newer hull
4) probably most important, it's command & control system + AESA radar probably gives it far better tracking and engagements of aerial target

Remember, PLAN designed this thing as the AAW platform that extends the air defense against Taiwanese cruise missiles a couple of hundred of kms into the sea.

To sunjerem, we don't really do many vs threads anymore on this board, because it can get heated. Also, if you want to do vs thread, it's up to you to bring out the info on the ships.
 

sunjerem

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
tphuang said:
on Kidd
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-993.htm

The most advanced SSMs in Chinese service are not the sunburns, but the domestic versions of YJ-62 on 052Cs. They have longer range and most likely terminally supersonic than the sunburns. As for Tomahawk, are you talking about the anti-ship version or the land attac version. I don't think the Americans are using the Anti-ship version anymore. And from the link above, it doesn't appear tomahawk can be used.

Any Chinese ship would loose out in ASW to any other ship.

As for AAW, HQ-9 is not an evolution of Grumble. It's an indigenous SAM that got help from the Russians. In terms of missile range and speed and such, it all beats out. The only thing that concerns me about HQ-9 is its ability to engage anti-ship missiles. A lot of such info is confidential, which makes it difficult to gage the capability of such. And then there is the matter of Phalanx vs type 730 CIWS. Again, that's another one that is hard to say.

On top of that, there are certain advantages to 052C:
1) it has a more stealthy hull
2) it has a full complement of missiles, which can't necessarily be said about the Taiwanese Kidds
3) it is a newer hull
4) probably most important, it's command & control system + AESA radar probably gives it far better tracking and engagements of aerial target

Remember, PLAN designed this thing as the AAW platform that extends the air defense against Taiwanese cruise missiles a couple of hundred of kms into the sea.

To sunjerem, we don't really do many vs threads anymore on this board, because it can get heated. Also, if you want to do vs thread, it's up to you to bring out the info on the ships.
tphuang, you are a Chinese so you are naturally biased towards the 052C. You are also a member on *********************, right?

Anyway, you said that 052C has AESA radars, which is obviously NOT confirmed.

It's not even confirmed that 052C has phased array radars.
Those 4 things might just be weather shields for rotating radars inside, who knows? The Chinese government never discloses anything about 052C at the moment anyway.

Also, Kidd is way larger than 052C at more than 9000 tons compared to about 6800 tons. So, there is a large size difference here also.

In terms of command control, I'd put Kidd's system ahead of 052C's TAVITAC-2000 copy.
 
Last edited:

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
Nice flaming you put on there sunjerem...

tphuang, you are a Chinese so you are naturally biased towards the 052C. You are also a member on *********************, right?
I'm finnish, so I don't have any natural Biased toward chinese, but i still found your obinios abut 052C quite weird.

It's not even confirmed that 052C has phased array radars.
Those 4 things might just be weather shields for rotating radars inside, who knows? The Chinese government never discloses anything about 052C at the moment anyway.
So they but rotating radars, (four or one hell of a big) inside the superstructure, when the most ideal place would be in the mainmast?? THat doesen't make any sense, Or do you belong to that cathegory which claims that the paltes on 052C are just additional armour plates...the already tall superstructure WASEN'T topweight enough so they put even more weight on it? Comon, your statements are nothing than just attempts to flame chinese members with minimalizing their equipment for no reason...

Also, Kidd is way larger than 052C at more than 9000 tons compared to about 6800 tons. So, there is a large size difference here also.
What does few meters or few tons got that do with anything? Yeas, Kidd is larger, so what? It's more uneconomical?? It takes more space in the docks??
It extreme meassurements doesen't count anyhting, only the design itself, wheter the ship is stable and right size to filed all the needed equipment. 052C doesen't lack any equipment set for it and it's just the right size to field what nececerical. The only benefit from Kidds (or the Spruance class in general) large size is improved seakeeping operations, but the heavy loaded airdefence conversion of the class (Kidd) compensates that benefit...
 

contedicavour

New Member
tphuang said:
on Kidd
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-993.htm

The most advanced SSMs in Chinese service are not the sunburns, but the domestic versions of YJ-62 on 052Cs. They have longer range and most likely terminally supersonic than the sunburns. As for Tomahawk, are you talking about the anti-ship version or the land attac version. I don't think the Americans are using the Anti-ship version anymore. And from the link above, it doesn't appear tomahawk can be used.

Any Chinese ship would loose out in ASW to any other ship.

As for AAW, HQ-9 is not an evolution of Grumble. It's an indigenous SAM that got help from the Russians. In terms of missile range and speed and such, it all beats out. The only thing that concerns me about HQ-9 is its ability to engage anti-ship missiles. A lot of such info is confidential, which makes it difficult to gage the capability of such. And then there is the matter of Phalanx vs type 730 CIWS. Again, that's another one that is hard to say.

On top of that, there are certain advantages to 052C:
1) it has a more stealthy hull
2) it has a full complement of missiles, which can't necessarily be said about the Taiwanese Kidds
3) it is a newer hull
4) probably most important, it's command & control system + AESA radar probably gives it far better tracking and engagements of aerial target

Remember, PLAN designed this thing as the AAW platform that extends the air defense against Taiwanese cruise missiles a couple of hundred of kms into the sea.

To sunjerem, we don't really do many vs threads anymore on this board, because it can get heated. Also, if you want to do vs thread, it's up to you to bring out the info on the ships.
Thks for sharing.
On AAW, my point was that the SM-2 III has longer range than anyhting in Chinese service. HQ-9 may be longer-ranged than Grumble, but here we're talking 170-km for the Standard ! I doubt we any proof HQ-9 can beat 170-km. Having aegis-type radars (again, exactly what the Chinese DDG has is still not clear) is a big plus, I agree. But unless the DDG is being simultaneously attacked by tens of missiles, the Kidds' 2 double launchers for SM-2 IIIs are more than up to the AAW task !!
On SSMs, what is the range of the YJ-62 ? On Tomahawks, I was just making a speculation, but a pretty likely one. If the USN doesn't use anymore the naval Tomahawks (are you sure ?) it would be one more reason to keep a reserve for allies in case of need. That's why it wouldn't be suprising to see some end up in ROC naval service in case of big tension with mainland China. Though here I'm just making hypothesis.

cheers
 

sunjerem

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Gollevainen said:
Nice flaming you put on there sunjerem...



I'm finnish, so I don't have any natural Biased toward chinese, but i still found your obinios abut 052C quite weird.



So they but rotating radars, (four or one hell of a big) inside the superstructure, when the most ideal place would be in the mainmast?? THat doesen't make any sense, Or do you belong to that cathegory which claims that the paltes on 052C are just additional armour plates...the already tall superstructure WASEN'T topweight enough so they put even more weight on it? Comon, your statements are nothing than just attempts to flame chinese members with minimalizing their equipment for no reason...



What does few meters or few tons got that do with anything? Yeas, Kidd is larger, so what? It's more uneconomical?? It takes more space in the docks??
It extreme meassurements doesen't count anyhting, only the design itself, wheter the ship is stable and right size to filed all the needed equipment. 052C doesen't lack any equipment set for it and it's just the right size to field what nececerical. The only benefit from Kidds (or the Spruance class in general) large size is improved seakeeping operations, but the heavy loaded airdefence conversion of the class (Kidd) compensates that benefit...
Look, pal, I have no intention of flaming. I'm just saying no much is known about the 052C because the Chinese military has not discloses anything about it, whereas everything about Kidd has been disclosed.

I'm just saying that you can't be sure those 4 things are AESA or even PESA. That's all.

Maybe I made a bad comparsison thread because not much is known about Chinese defence systems, since they are very secretive unless the US, which is much more open about their defence systems.
 

PeoplesPoster

New Member
sunjerem said:
Look, pal, I have no intention of flaming. I'm just saying no much is known about the 052C because the Chinese military has not discloses anything about it, whereas everything about Kidd has been disclosed.

I'm just saying that you can't be sure those 4 things are AESA or even PESA. That's all.

Maybe I made a bad comparsison thread because not much is known about Chinese defence systems, since they are very secretive unless the US, which is much more open about their defence systems.

Nah, I'm pretty sure flaming or at least belittling the Chinese equipment is what you had in mind. You make wild generalizations then try to back them up with unsupported opinion. Now your trying to cover up by going "oh we don't know what the 052c has so we can't tell". Well if you don't know what it has maybe you shouldn't have made so many generalizations about it in the first place.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Guys calm down :roll and let's stick to factual elements that are known :
> comparative ranges of Chinese YJ-62 vs Tomahawk
> comparative ranges of Chinese HQ-9 vs SM-2 III
> engagement capability of the Chinese CIWS system mentioned in this thread vs Phalanx (range, rounds per minute for guns and n° of IR missiles if the Chinese system resembles Kashtan which mixes missiles & guns)
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
sunjerem: Please stop being argumentative and watch your tone. When you dispute something, you need to present your own facts to support that view. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also refrain from bring up one's nationality and ethnicity in your argument. It does not make you look more credible.

Consider this your first warning...

Everyone else, continue with the discussion and remember to back your words with facts. I don't want anymore "well we can't be sure of this and that" argument in this thread.


Rules of the Game:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tphuang

Super Moderator
tphuang, you are a Chinese so you are naturally biased towards the 052C. You are also a member on *********************, right?

Anyway, you said that 052C has AESA radars, which is obviously NOT confirmed.

It's not even confirmed that 052C has phased array radars.
Those 4 things might just be weather shields for rotating radars inside, who knows? The Chinese government never discloses anything about 052C at the moment anyway.

Also, Kidd is way larger than 052C at more than 9000 tons compared to about 6800 tons. So, there is a large size difference here also.

In terms of command control, I'd put Kidd's system ahead of 052C's
ask anyone in numerous forums about my opinions. Due to my duties as moderators in numerous forums, I try to remain as unbiased as possible. Some chinese people even find my opinions to be anti-Chinese.

But I do have to say that in numerous threads that you have posted in, it appears that you have a tendency to try to bash anything Chinese. Frankly, I don't personally get mad at it, but it's not a behaviour that we tolerate on these forums. So, I'd advise you to stop it or you will get a warning very soon. If you read enough threads, you would realize that many of the flaming threads revolve around China vs India, China vs USA or Pakistan vs India. I'm personally tired of them. Again, I suggest you try to spend time creating this types of threads or you will not be welcomed in too many forums.

contedicavour said:
Thks for sharing.
On AAW, my point was that the SM-2 III has longer range than anyhting in Chinese service. HQ-9 may be longer-ranged than Grumble, but here we're talking 170-km for the Standard ! I doubt we any proof HQ-9 can beat 170-km. Having aegis-type radars (again, exactly what the Chinese DDG has is still not clear) is a big plus, I agree. But unless the DDG is being simultaneously attacked by tens of missiles, the Kidds' 2 double launchers for SM-2 IIIs are more than up to the AAW task !!
On SSMs, what is the range of the YJ-62 ? On Tomahawks, I was just making a speculation, but a pretty likely one. If the USN doesn't use anymore the naval Tomahawks (are you sure ?) it would be one more reason to keep a reserve for allies in case of need. That's why it wouldn't be suprising to see some end up in ROC naval service in case of big tension with mainland China. Though here I'm just making hypothesis.

cheers
Yeah, that's one of the weird part. Golly can probably confirm this. He was the one that found on his naval magazine (non-Chinese) that the slant range of HQ-9 is 200 km. I personally don't think HQ-9 performs as well as the latter blocks of SM-2, but there really is no shame in that.
The range of the export YJ-62s are 280 km in lo-lo profile. The warhead size, speed and range of domestic version of YJ-62s are not really disclosed. But they would not be limited by MTCR.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Wow, 200km for HQ-9 and 280 for YJ-62 vs 170 for SM-2 III and 130 for Harpoon / 500 for Tomahawk which the ROC doesn't have for the moment anyway.
Ok then to be able to compare a Kidd with the latest Chinese DDG we'll really have to wait to know its aegis-type radars' performance I guess.
Or may be wait and see if the Chinese PLAN builds more 052 then the 2 which exist today... good proof of their satisfaction with the ships ;)

cheers
 

zoolander

New Member
this is kinda of off topic but a good modern ship will have a decent clean profile to minimize radar detection.

all chinese anti ship missiles are currently lauched out of those angled box or tube lauchers.

Do you think it is possible to lauch the missiles vertically

that will reduce radar cross sections by alot and the trend seems to be moving toward all vertically lauched missiles.
 

armage

New Member
sunjerem said:
It appears that 052C has been a valiant try by Chinese engineers at coming up with something that is similar to early Flight I Arleigh Burke, but has failed miserably and will stop at just 2 ships constructed.
You do know that they chose to build two hulls at a time, 51C, 52B, 52C...
It's not a failure, they are just testing which one works best before they mass produce one of them or integrate a new ship with different electronics from all three ships

It's not even confirmed that 052C has phased array radars.
Those 4 things might just be weather shields for rotating radars inside, who knows? The Chinese government never discloses anything about 052C at the moment anyway.
:flame

Also, Kidd is way larger than 052C at more than 9000 tons compared to about 6800 tons. So, there is a large size difference here also.
Size doesn't matter look at the new Type 022 FAC, they can probably get the Kidd a run for it's money if they can get within firing range.


In terms of command control, I'd put Kidd's system ahead of 052C's TAVITAC-2000 copy.
How do you know it's a TAVITAC-2000 copy?
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
contedicavour said:
Wow, 200km for HQ-9 and 280 for YJ-62 vs 170 for SM-2 III and 130 for Harpoon / 500 for Tomahawk which the ROC doesn't have for the moment anyway.
Ok then to be able to compare a Kidd with the latest Chinese DDG we'll really have to wait to know its aegis-type radars' performance I guess.
Or may be wait and see if the Chinese PLAN builds more 052 then the 2 which exist today... good proof of their satisfaction with the ships ;)

cheers
I think many of the members of SDF have commented on the training on these ships. It seems that the 052Bs and 052Cs are spending an excessive amount of time just sitting in the dock. They are so clean, it seems like PLAN never sets out these ships to the sea. And we saw pictures of 052Cs sitting in the dock de-magnitizing for like a year and heard rumours of heat problems on the AESA radar. Basically, it does seem like there are some important issues that PLAN is trying to sort out with 052C, but most people believe that they are satisfied enough with it to use it as the basis for the next generation of PLAN DDGs.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
sunjerem said:
It appears that 052C has been a valiant try by Chinese engineers at coming up with something that is similar to early Flight I Arleigh Burke, but has failed miserably and will stop at just 2 ships constructed.
What the chinese have been doing is short runs of builds so as to develop and finesse concepts.

Because they have a healthy economy they can afford to undertake such development approaches. Its not a process employed elsewhere as its not regarded as viable or efficient - that doesn't mean that its wrong though. If everyone had spare money to throw around in developing operational CTD's - then we'd all be doing it.

The advantage is that these CTD's are used as operational platforms - and allow them to finesse the next iteration without going through traditional project mgt and development cycles.

They've taken the same build and development cycle with submarines, AWACs and to some extent - missiles.
 

chinawhite

New Member
sunjerem said:
Anyway, you said that 052C has AESA radars, which is obviously NOT confirmed. In terms of command control, I'd put Kidd's system ahead of 052C's TAVITAC-2000 copy.
you go on to say that the 052C has not been confirmed and we cant say for sure what systems are emplaced while a little way down you make a statement that the 052C difinatly has a TAVITAC-2000 copy

:eek:hwell
 

sunjerem

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
chinawhite said:
you go on to say that the 052C has not been confirmed and we cant say for sure what systems are emplaced while a little way down you make a statement that the 052C difinatly has a TAVITAC-2000 copy

:eek:hwell
According to sinodefence, 052C's ZJK-4 command and control is a copy of TAVITAC 2000. But, then again, nothing about Chinese military equipment is EVER confirmed. So, we shouldn't even be talking about Chinese military equipment.

Mod edit:path:please don't tell others what or what not to discuss. We have already talked about irrelevant comments before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
I don't have quite much more to add to this thread, though contedicavour's points about the Kidds' attributes was very interesting.

Personally I would prefer the Kidds because they have Harpoons and Standard Missile IIs, as well as a great ASW capability.

tp makes interesting points about the 052C's steal hull, but it's impossible to say how useful that is yet.
 
Top