Type 052D destroyer VS Horizon-class frigate

[RAMPAGE]

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 engine, each generate 28MW of power and two diesel engine each generate 6 MW of power.
Speed: 30 knots
Complement: 280
Sensors and
processing systems: Next generation shipborne AESA radar
Type 517M L band long range radar [1]
Armament: 1 x H/PJ-38 130mm gun
1 x FL3000N CIWS
64 VLS for surface to air missiles, cruise missiles, anti submarine missiles, anti ship missiles, some of which can be quad packed
2 x 30 mm remote controlled gun
H/PJ-12 / 1 x Type 730 CIWS
6 torpedo tubes
4 x 18-tube decoy rocket launcher
Aviation facilities: Stern hangar
Helicopter landing platform



Horizon-class frigate



Type: Frigate
Displacement: 7,050 t (6,940 long tons; 7,770 short tons), full displacement[1]
Length: 152.87 m
Beam: 20.3 m
Draught: 5.4 m
Propulsion:
Two 31,280 hp GE/Avio General Electric LM2500 gas turbines
Two 5,875 hp SEMT Pielstick 12 PA6 STC diesels
Speed: In excess of 29 kn (54 km/h; 33 mph)[2]
Range: 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km) at 18 kn (33 km/h)
3,500 nmi (6,480 km) at 25 knots (46 km/h)
Complement: 180
Sensors and
processing systems:
EMPAR Phased Array G band multi-purpose radar
S1850M long range radar
Thales UMS 4110 CL sonar
Armament:
Anti-air missiles:
PAAMS air-defence system.
A 48-cell A50 Sylver Vertical Launching System for a mix of up-to 48×:
Aster 15 missiles (range 1.7–30 km)
Aster 30 missiles (range 3–120 km)

Anti-ship missiles:
8× Exocet MM40 (France)
8× TESEO Mk-2/A (Italy)

Guns & CIWS:
2× Otobreda 76 mm Super Rapid guns(France)
3× Otobreda 76mm Super Rapid guns (Italy)
1× Sadral Mistral CIWS (France)[3][4]
2× 20 mm modèle F2 guns or 2× KBA Oerlikon 25/80 mm guns

Anti-submarine warfare:
2× MU90 Impact double torpedo tubes
2× SLAT anti torpedo system

Aircraft carried: 1 maritime helicopter
Aviation facilities:
Flight deck
Hangar

 

[RAMPAGE]

@AUSTERLITZ @Neptune @gambit @Oscar @Penguin @cnleio @SinoSoldier @ChineseTiger1986 @cirr @tanlixiang28776

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The Type 052D, 4 X AESA radars + CCL VLS is the clear answer.

The Type 052D's better opponent is Burke IIA.

 

[gambit]

Whose navy have the better combat experience in what ship? That is the more relevant question.

We are not talking about a combat experienced WW II era ship versus a modern one, even though a modified and modernized American battlewagon like the USS Iowa will give any opponent a fatal migraine, rather, we are talking about two post WW II ships that are relatively comparable in technology but whose RECENT institutional memories have a gross difference in combat experience to the same degree as if we are comparing a WW I ship against a modern one.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Whose navy have the better combat experience in what ship? That is the more relevant question.

We are not talking about a combat experienced WW II era ship versus a modern one, even though a modified and modernized American battlewagon like the USS Iowa will give any opponent a fatal migraine, rather, we are talking about two post WW II ships that are relatively comparable in technology but whose RECENT institutional memories have a gross difference in combat experience to the same degree as if we are comparing a WW I ship against a modern one.

According to your logic, then neither F-22 or Zumwalt have the combat experience.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Whose navy have the better combat experience in what ship? That is the more relevant question.

We are not talking about a combat experienced WW II era ship versus a modern one, even though a modified and modernized American battlewagon like the USS Iowa will give any opponent a fatal migraine, rather, we are talking about two post WW II ships that are relatively comparable in technology but whose RECENT institutional memories have a gross difference in combat experience to the same degree as if we are comparing a WW I ship against a modern one.

ok

 

[gambit]

According to your logic, then neither F-22 or Zumwalt have the combat experience.

Then it depends on the level of training. Remember, we have the world's best training program that everyone wish they could have. Prior to Desert Storm, we have nothing to the same scale since WW II. But self criticisms and persistence in training made possible the spectacular combat successes of Desert Storm. I know the Chinese members here have little respect for Desert Storm and that will be why the PLA will lose in any shooting fight against US.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Then it depends on the level of training. Remember, we have the world's best training program that everyone wish they could have. Prior to Desert Storm, we have nothing to the same scale since WW II. But self criticisms and persistence in training made possible the spectacular combat successes of Desert Storm. I know the Chinese members here have little respect for Desert Storm and that will be why the PLA will lose in any shooting fight against US.

yaar we are just technologically comparing the two vessels !!!

 

[gambit]

yaar we are just technologically comparing the two vessels !!!

Then if one ship have one more gun/missile/torpedo/whatever that ship is the 'superior'?

 

[RAMPAGE]

@ChineseTiger1986 yaar type 52c uses hhq-9 so what sam will the type 52d use ????

Then if one ship have one more gun/missile/torpedo/whatever that ship is the 'superior'?

lol !!! u cannot compare hq-7 to hq-9 , no matter how many of them u put on a vessel !!! btw i'm just trying to learn something here !!!!!!!

 

[RAMPAGE]

@gambit @ChineseTiger1986

how would u guys compare HHQ-9 and PAAMS ???

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

@ChineseTiger1986 yaar type 52c uses hhq-9 so what sam will the type 52d use ????

lol !!! u cannot compare hq-7 to hq-9 , no matter how many of them u put on a vessel !!! btw i'm just trying to learn something here !!!!!!!

The Type 052D's VLS is universal, it can be fit with any type of missile.

So each unit of the VLS can either have one HHQ-9 or four HQ-16Bs, meanwhile it can include the YJ anti-ship missiles, the CJ/DH cruise missiles, and the anti-sub missiles.

Even the HQ-26 (China's own SM-3) can be fit into a canister of the CCL VLS.

@gambit @ChineseTiger1986

how would u guys compare HHQ-9 and PAAMS ???

The HHQ-9 is more than 200km, the improved version is about 300km according our PLAN General.

PAAMS is comparable to the HQ-16B, which both are about a bit over 100km.

 

[RAMPAGE]

The Type 052D's VLS is universal, it can be fit with any type of missile.

So each unit of the VLS can either have one HHQ-9 or four HQ-16Bs, meanwhile it can include the YJ anti-ship missiles, the CJ/DH cruise missiles, and the anti-sub missiles.

Even the HQ-26 (China's own SM-3) can be fit into a canister of the CCL VLS.



The HHQ-9 is more than 200km, the improved version is about 300km according our PLAN General.

PAAMS is comparable to the HQ-16B, which both are about a bit over 100km.

ok , what about the radars and sensors on both vessels ????

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

ok , what about the radars and sensors on both vessels ????

The Type 052D uses four huge dual band AESA radars, it is far superior to the four PESA radars used by the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA.

Only the Arleigh Burke Flight III with its AN/SPY-3 is comparable.

But i say the Arleigh Burke Flight III is superior to the Type 052D, since it is larger with more firepower.

Anyway, Type 346A = AN/SPY-3 & CCL VLS = MK 57

 

[gambit]

@ChineseTiger1986 yaar type 52c uses hhq-9 so what sam will the type 52d use ????

lol !!! u cannot compare hq-7 to hq-9 , no matter how many of them u put on a vessel !!! btw i'm just trying to learn something here !!!!!!!

I understand. Nothing wrong with speculating as long as one knows one's limitations.

Speaking for US air power, Top Gun or Fighter Weapons School or Red Flag, have one final exercise where there are only two rules: no live weapons and altitude limit (hard deck).

That is as close to real combat as you can get. That is why a lot of foreign pilots came away exhausted mentally, intellectually, and physically. They have never experienced that kind of intensity in such a short time, the same way real combat is. That is why they do not want to face US in a real war: If the Americans are this intense in training, what are they willing to do in a real war?

For the US Navy, at one time the USS Ranger enacted EMCON Alpha and basically disappeared. For two weeks, her aircraft attacked Hawaii and in that same time span, the Pacific defenses could not find her. She conducted air operations in complete radio silence, her crew used only memory and hand signals. If this was against another carrier, even if the opponent is of superior size and armament, he would be dead.

The US Navy have Emission Control (EMCON) procedures and routine exercises to ensure that if necessary, our ships will have consistent proficiency across the fleet. EMCON exercises are underestimated by other navies and that is how we like it.