>Photographs posted on Chinese online forums indicate that a second Type 055 destroyer on order for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) was launched on 28 April at the Jiangnan Changxingdao shipyard in Shanghai.
>The Type 055 is the largest class of surface combatants built for the PLAN. It is 180 m (262 ft) long and is expected to displace more than 10,000 tonnes (11,023 tons), making it comparable in size to the US Navy’s Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
The Dragon is stirring...
janes.com
Nice boat, got any clues about her capabilities?
Being a target for harpoons.
!
I can already see metal cellulite
Good idea, the warship is never going to suspect a sneak attack from a whaling ship
六四事件
Tiananmen Square 1989
八九民运
vodka putin cheka rodina?
Oh look they built another shitty knock off arleigh burk Americas days are numbered
The highlights are
>dual band AESA radar (C/S and X)
>112 VLS
>heavy, 13,000, classified as a cruiser by the US
>IEP, China says it has plans to use it as a testbed/deploy energy weapons on it
>heavy, 13,000, classified as a cruiser by the US
Except it's neither 13,000 tons nor classified as a cruiser by the US. For that matter Zumwalts are destroyers at 15,000 tons.
Q U A N T U M
>not 13,000 tons
Full displacement is 13,000 tons
english.chinamil.com.cn
>not classified as cruiser
Don't ask me why the US does what it does
defense.gov
Can't rely on the US to protect shipping forever. Chinese need their own ships to prevent themselves from being choked-out thousands of miles away if someone chooses to block oil shipments eastward.
>Full displacement is 13,000 tons
Li Jie's guesstimate is not fact.
>Don't ask me why the US does what it does
The US calls it a Renhai.
They'll just absorb russia and stripmine it with their gene edited mutant soldiers
If anyone has any Chinese questions I'll be lurking. Lived in China for a while, was on TV for a bit as Mandarin speaking whitey.
Korea too, but I wasn't as popular. But I guess I know more about national issues there.
*Type 055 blocks your path*
>what was the cruiser gap
Basic Navy history, guys, the US does this shit for a REASON.
A fucking PYRAMID
This is the most circumspect way possible to say that China intends to overmatch the US Navy.
Please tell me there's more
>knock off arleigh burk
you're retarded as fuck.
>was on TV for a bit as Mandarin speaking whitey.
no way! tell us more.
>The US calls it a Renhai.
The state of American education.
Renhai is it's NATO designation, Cruiser is it's US classification. Type 055 is it's Chinese Class.
Just like Arleg Burke is it's NATO designation, Arleg Burj is it's Class and it's an Arlen Butch in the classification.
+2 yaun
CHINA HAS BEEN GENEROUS
Work on your english skills.
>wake up
>china still hasn't been turned into a nuclear wasteland
Shit timeline
Sorry, but we missed that opportunity in the 50s.
Are you calling it an Arley Burk because they look the same
Pretty much lad
All you'd get is a Nuclear Dragon
Or a couple hundred million flaming radioactive chinamen
get back to your timeline flintstone
look up AMDR and it's current status you stupid fuck.
which turn into a nuclear dragon, come over, rape your family to death, then impale you on one of its radioactive spikes.
>15k tons and has fewer cells than a fucking 12k ton ship.
>12k
That’s because the zumwalts made from balsa and plywood
Bottom looks impressive, has superior firepower and looks like it has no analogue anywhere in the world. Top one looks pretty expensive for such little capability.
I’ll have you know it’s not regular plywood it’s Lockmart brand composite multilayered tactical organic radar absorbing cladding.
Also the production supervisor is willing to sell you a sample at £1500 per square feet. We’ll throw you in a F22 engine blade as well. Usual place by the Israeli embassy
Sure it's expensive, but do we want our enemies to get ahead in tactical organic composite Ochroma pyramidale?
Why not just buy Chinese Quantum Bamboo?
>Just like Arleg Burke is it's NATO designation, Arleg Burj is it's Class and it's an Arlen Butch in the classification.
Fucking kek.
Actually I'm pretty sure Japan is a major concern for the PLAN
>12k ton ship with fewer cells than a 9k ton Ticonderoga
Actually more, if you count the 24-cell HHQ-10s.
>if you count the 24-cell HHQ-10s.
You don’t, that would be like counting a Tico’s box launchers as VLS.
>mfw china starts sinking us carriers in the south china sea
Chinese ships are AESTHETIC
>major concern
Without the USN the JMSDF is barely a threat.
For how long do you think they PLANned to do this?
The type 055 is CUTE!
We went so many chink shill threads without anyone making this pun and you just had to ruin it didn't you
>author cant decide what flavor to give this shipgirl because the name is still unconfirmed.
>if north chinese city name, she will be an alpha dyke
>if south chinese city name, she will be meek princess
His Guangzhou is pretty nice. Very southern chinese flavor.
Love the hair and fan.
>alpha dyke
If going by Chinese stereotypes of the North she'd be a tall intellectual
Him drawing the type 055 as a cat girl is pretty interesting. In Chinese 0 is Ling, but there's a naval tradition of 0 being Dong. So it's Dong Wu Wu, and Dong Wu sounds like animal.
Harbin in comparisson. Northerner.
>Dong Wu
Shit, I get that at least.
Arse-anal ships? Since every Americoon is worth 4 chinks I sketched this up quickly. pls no bully.
I liked it more when Chang posted leaks about their semi-submersible arsenal ship projects.
Other than it moving at 5 knots it's good
Isn't this just a submarine
Basically the same concept as this one.
Battleship that can evade return fire/detection by submerging some dozen meters.
Or the modern French version.
What's the point though when the Type 93G has VLS for AsHM anyway?
>concept art
>leak
SSGNs cant into air-defense. One MPA or ASW helo and they are dead meat, even if they can attempt to shoot it down with a MANPAD from the conning tower or those new fiber optic guided torpedo tube launched AAMs.
A submersible arsenal cruiser would have the full complement of AAW weapons and sensors like any surface combattant of that same size.
Pic; subscale model has been tested already.
But naval guns have been replaced with missiles and modern subs have the capability to fire missiles to the surface. They can surface but it's not needed
I don't understand what I read, it says it speeds into the battlefield then submerged and fights like a sub? Aren't modern subs as fast underwater as a ship at around 30-40kn?
Yep
It's hull is stil optimized for surface cruise like any surface warship. It's submersible features are only for defensive purpose. If, for example a huge swarm of anti-ship missiles are coming in that it would not be able to intercept, it would simply submerge until the swarm passes. The submersible ship can also launch its missiles while submerged - even its SAM, as it can raise its radar-equipped conning tower over the surface to search for air-targets.
Due to its hull design, it's submerged speed is rather slow compared to a proper nuclear submarine.
This concept is actually not new and has been played with for a long time.
But... is that actually a good idea? Is not like you cannot easily program those missiles to go for the last known position and knowing the dept capabilities you could have quite accurate stimates of where it is, and not even that, but we can have missile/torpedo hybrids.
It seems like one of those tricks that will work only once or two or against poorer enemies with specialized navies.
How does the average Chinaman view the West? What does their propaganda look like? How anti- U.S. is it?
I would say this will be the only viable defense measure against future naval railgun bombardment.
It is literally "active stealth".
Yeah, they would make things quite deadly. But still, you could also pop chaff first and throw decoys and then submerge. And not to mention there are ATT weapons/measures.
There are actually cruise missile torpedo hybrids in PLAN service, although more aimed to give the smaller non-VLS capable Type 056 corvettes long range ASW tools. But the Yu-11 or similiar long range cruise missiles with torpedo payloads would be the go-to measure to combat these submersibles.
burks still have pesa only, meanwhile type 055 has dual band aesa radar lol
flight 3 burke is DOA, usn is pathetic
how tf is america getting overtaken despite the budget difference
You're a fucking idiot. Of course the Burkes still have PESA, we have 68 of them in service. Their GaN AESA radar (AMDR aka SPY-6) is expected to enter IOC in 2019 and will be present on all future flight 3s. You ought to do your research before spouting horseshit, Chang.
>butthurt burgers
Nice rebuttal.
plan has more aesa on warships than usn lolol
How are their carrier-borne AESA equipped AWACS? Oh wait, they don't have any!
why would an access denial force use gimped carrier borne awacs you fucking retard
Are Chinks nationalist, or do they view their regional governments, with which they share language and ethnic bonds as the greater power?
Gee Chang, I don't know why you'd want redundant capabilities in a modern military, it really eludes me. Nor do I know why you'd desire the ability to deploy advanced warning aircraft from a forward position, such as a navy, rather than from stationary, rear positioned airbases. It's a mystery.
Oh, and I wouldn't exactly call the E-2D, "gimped," considering it's capable of providing targeting solutions for SM-6s on 5th gen aircraft. I'd also like to see some sources for those figures, considering all of that data is likely highly classified. The only figure I could confirm is the sentry's range for "low flying aircraft", however, the generation of these aircraft was left unspecified. I reverse image searched the infograph, and the only two results pulled up were a Chinese nationalist PLA fanclub website, and a slideshow.
what the fuck is this word salad lmao
mainland china has enough hardened airbases and tankers to provide redundancy for its awacs
the reason the USN uses E2 is because they are an expeditionary force not A2Ad, get it through your thick skull
and yes an E-2 is gimped compared to an E-3 moron
Redo your chart with an E-2D.
>Army Navy
Navy Seal Marines tier
Do you know the fucking definition of the word redundancy? The US has plenty of forward allied airbases in the Pacific to base all of its land based AWACS out of, but the navy brings redundant capabilities like the E-2D to provide operational flexibility and prevent over reliance on any given system. Also, I'm still waiting on you to stop talking out of your ass and provide your figures on E-2D detection ranges, but I doubt you will, since it's all fucking classified. I think you may be forgetting that the E-2D is almost 2 decades newer than the last AWACS radar upgrade, but you wouldn't know that, because you're full of shit. I find it funny when people adamantly apply labels like A2/AD to the Chinese Navy. By the admission of your own government, China has global aspirations. To believe that the Chinese Navy doesn't desire to be able to project force beyond the island chains is stupid, and runs contrary to their heavy investment in carriers, and statements made by the Chinese government.
>foreignpolicy.com
I believe they have 2 carriers on the way, with the Liaoning serving as a testbed for Chinese carrier activity. China's fleet composition also lends credence to the idea that the PLAN is not a solely defensive force, as it, in many ways, mirrors the fleet composition of the USN. A true example of an A2/AD focused navy would be the late Soviet Navy.
It isn't his infograph, and he has no sources.
foward airbases which will be immediately plastered with big dong Chinese ballistic missiles.
you arguing that the E-2 exists in the usn to provide 'redundant capability to avoid over-reliance on E-3' is so disingenuous; we both know that is not why a fucking carrier strike group carries around awacs..
any confrontation with the usn would indeed be A2/AD, despite what global ambitions china has; and this is what china is building its surface combatants for and what its building its ballistic missile force for, and what its building its airforce for..
chinas idea of global ambitions is entirely different to the usns idea of global ambitions
>sinks your transports
funny how posting this early in the thread eliminates 90% of "vatnik" and "fatnik" posters
I think firing ballistic missiles at Japan would be a fantastic way to provoke a nuclear strike, considering we’d have no way to determine the payload of said ballistic missiles. In that case, I think a lack of land based E-3s would be the least of the USNs concerns. Also, I don’t think it’s disingenuous. In a limited naval exchange, having carrier based awacs provides flexibility and gives a CSG the ability to have immediate early warning capabilities. It also provides redundancy in the event that land based systems are destroyed or unavailable.
Also, it is naive to believe that the entire Chinese military doctrine revolves around A2/AD. I understand that they’d likely engage the Pacific fleet using defensive tactics, and that much of their ballistic missile fleet is tailored to this goal, but the US surface fleet isn’t the only strategic threat they face. There is plenty of benefit to be had for China in the fielding of carrier based AWACS. In a similar vein there is plenty of benefit to be had for the US in fielding only AESA systems, but there are more pressing matters to attend to for both the USA and China. To be frank, I’d also like to say it’s fucking stupid for either of us to think we have the all the information about the “silver billet that will BTFO -insert country here,” and most of these capabilities work as part of an overarching strategy which we don’t really have the qualifications to make conclusions about. It’s just LARPing, honestly.
六四天安門廣場大屠殺
June 4 Tiananmen square massacre 1989
>I think firing ballistic missiles at Japan would be a fantastic way to provoke a nuclear strike, considering we’d have no way to determine the payload of said ballistic missiles.
retards say this, chinese ICBM aren't even kept with their warheads; no one is expecting a first strike from china. everyone knows that the posture of their nuclear and conventional ballistic missiles. Chinese nukes are counter-value not aimed at airbases.
>. In a limited naval exchange, having carrier based awacs provides flexibility and gives a CSG the ability to have immediate early warning capabilities. It also provides redundancy in the event that land based systems are destroyed or unavailable.
they aren't going to tanker E-3s constantly out into the middle of the ocean this is why E-2s exist, not in case E-3s get destroyed. they are not to provide 'flexibility' they are to provide a basic and necessary part of an expeditionary carrier strike group.
>Also, it is naive to believe that the entire Chinese military doctrine revolves around A2/AD. I understand that they’d likely engage the Pacific fleet using defensive tactics, and that much of their ballistic missile fleet is tailored to this goal, but the US surface fleet isn’t the only strategic threat they face. There is plenty of benefit to be had for China in the fielding of carrier based AWACS.
much less benefit than the US because the Chinese first rate systems are all for fighting a defensive war against the USN; its 'global ambitions' are with the third and second world
Is this supposed to prove something?
that china is an industrialised nation with a manufacturing base and that the USA is just a service economy now.
The PLAN is rapidly catching up to the USN on 1/10th the budget lmao
Aviation petroleum cannot change physical state of solid steel to liquid
Fuck, your right about the nuke thing. I even knew about NFU but it slipped my mind in the heat of the moment. I still maintain that mass bombardment of airbases is a quick way to escalate the situation. As for the E-2D, I never claimed it’s some purpose was to provide redundancy, but it does serve that purpose. However, what you just said about American land based AWACS applies to the Chinese as well, in the event of an engagement happening at sea, the Chinese navy would be left out to dry until land based awacs arrived to provide support. It’s worth mentioning that the E-3 has a 4,000 mi range and thus would be capable of providing at least moderate coverage in a Taiwan scenario. This does not mean it would be the primary AWACS used, but it cannot be discounted.
well I guess if the us tries to bombard the mainstay bases then LA will be nuked lol
六四事件
Tiananmen Square 1989
八九民运
I can already see the metallic cellulite