PDA

View Full Version : China's New Battleships



Djuice
11-10-2006, 12:19 PM
In your title you stated Battleships. I nearly creamed myself as the last battleships were constructed in WWII.. Don't get my hopes up. These are not "Battleships with 8+ inch guns" But nonetheless they are beautiful ships, too bad they aren't putting the TYPE 051B,TYPE 051C, TYPE 052, TYPE 052B and TYPE 052C into serial production. There are like 2 of each ship class.. They seems more like prototype then true sea worthy combatant warships.

xepharo
11-10-2006, 12:31 PM
I saw a few with Japanese flags on it...

PeoplesPoster
11-10-2006, 12:34 PM
I saw a few with Japanese flags on it...

Those are navel signals not japanese flags.

Satellite Weapon
11-10-2006, 12:37 PM
Copy Strong !!

phoilme
11-10-2006, 12:40 PM
"Battleship" is a generic term, i.e. ship for battle. Japan uses same hull number scheme as USN.

They certainly are not battleships, but today qualify for cruisers.

Yaro
11-10-2006, 12:42 PM
Amazing pics,thx for posting.

Djuice
11-10-2006, 12:46 PM
The hull number 171 is a Type 052C Guided Missile Destroyer with a displacement of 6,500t and a dimensions of 154m/17m/6m. It armaments compromises of 48 air defence missiles from a vertical launch system (VLS) and 8 C-602 Anti-Ship missiles, with a range of 280KM with a subsonic (0.9 mach) sea-skimming profile, in 2 4 cell VLS type launchers.

PeoplesPoster
11-10-2006, 01:06 PM
Copy Strong !!

Copy of what exactly?

akd
11-10-2006, 01:15 PM
"Battleship" is a generic term, i.e. ship for battle. Japan uses same hull number scheme as USN.

They certainly are not battleships, but today qualify for cruisers.

No it's not. "Warship," however, is a generic term. I don't think those are cruisers either. They look like destroyers and frigates.

phoilme
11-10-2006, 01:26 PM
Journalist using term. I know what a battleship is.

Satellite Weapon
11-10-2006, 01:27 PM
Copy of what exactly?
It's design was inspired heavily from British systems and US and Russian ships for example the similarity with the Kotlin or the 'Fearless' destroyer

tomcat1974
11-10-2006, 01:35 PM
It's design was inspired heavily from British systems and US and Russian ships for example the similarity with the Kotlin or the 'Fearless' destroyer

You never seen a Project 56 until now? It ain't nothing like the ships in the picture...
Keep dreaming

Djuice
11-10-2006, 01:36 PM
It's design was inspired heavily from British systems and US and Russian ships for example the similarity with the Kotlin or the 'Fearless' destroyer

LMAO, thats like saying the Greek Hydra Class Frigate, Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan Class Frigate, Saudi Al Riyadh (F3000S) Class frigates were all just copy of American/British ships.

Praet
11-10-2006, 01:42 PM
It's design was inspired heavily from British systems and US and Russian ships for example the similarity with the Kotlin or the 'Fearless' destroyer
I think you're mistaking them with the various Luda type destroyers in service since the 70s. While the types currently under construction are probably influenced by experience gained by operating the earlier types, they are otherwise unrelated designs.

Satellite Weapon
11-10-2006, 01:42 PM
LMAO, thats like saying the Greek Hydra Class Frigate, Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan Class Frigate, Saudi Al Riyadh (F3000S) Class frigates were all just copy of American/British ships.



Yeah you're right I'm just saying destryoers like Luyang and Luhu class aren't totally unique ships, China does borrow heavily from other nation's designs.


I think you're mistaking them with the various Luda type destroyers in service since the 70s.

Thanks Praet, I think they were the ones that were almost directly based on Soviet designs

Chulo
11-10-2006, 02:34 PM
"Battleship" is a generic term, i.e. ship for battle. Japan uses same hull number scheme as USN.

They certainly are not battleships, but today qualify for cruisers.
battleship is hardly a generic term.. and they wouldnt even fit in a cruiser catorgy.. maybe Destoroyers

phoilme
11-10-2006, 02:43 PM
battleship is hardly a generic term.. and they wouldnt even fit in a cruiser catorgy.. maybe Destoroyers

Sure they can be considered battleships. Simply the biggest gun and armorment is the definition. Line of battle. Ships in the line of battle. I made a cruise with the USS Iowa battle group. Iowa is out of commission so what ever ship leads in the order can technically be considered a battle ship. You want to get really technical a carrier can be considered a battle ship even though its only guns are 20mm.

USN only uses 5" 54's now, so that's the biggest gun we have. All hulls in DDG's and CG's are similar so they can be considered battle ships.

ice55
11-10-2006, 03:18 PM
Warships yes..........Battleships................no..............

These are battleships!

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/USS%20New%20Jersey-aerial%20view%203%20guns%20firing.jpg

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/USS%20Iowa-bow%20aerial%20view%20firing%203%2016-inch%20guns.jpg

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Tomahawk%20launch.jpg

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Missouri-Kawishiwi-Kitty%20Hawk-6-25-86.jpg

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/USS%20Missouri-View%20from%20bridge%20turrets%201%20and%202%20firing.jpg

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/USS%20Missouri-Angle%20view%20Turrets%201%20and%202%20firing.jpg

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/USS%20Missouri-firing%20gun%20from%20astern.jpg

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/USS%20Missouri-16%20inch%20projectile%20leaving%20barrel.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_iowa_bb61/08_uss_iowa_bb61_stern.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_iowa_bb61/11_uss_iowa_bb61_norfolk_drydock.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_iowa_bb61/12_iowa_class_firing.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_iowa_bb61/13_uss_iowa_bb61_firing.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_iowa_bb61/14_uss_battleship_iowa_bb61.jpg

http://www.sff.net/people//K-Mac/images/aerial/CV12-BB62-CV41-BB63-CV20-CV34_at_Bremerton_7Jul1994.jpg

Great picture for perspective on size of these beauties...

phoilme
11-10-2006, 03:22 PM
Are they all battleships? What are those flat thingies?

http://www.sff.net/people//K-Mac/images/aerial/CV12-BB62-CV41-BB63-CV20-CV34_at_Bremerton_7Jul1994.jpg

Djuice
11-10-2006, 03:42 PM
lol, Well usually a Battleship is classified as the most heavy armed, heavily armoured, and largest vessel in your navy.. So you can consider a SSBN a battleship.. :P

gowen816
11-10-2006, 03:52 PM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c136/xingbake/2279307_180082361.jpg
That's not a battleship.

THAT's a Battleship.
http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/USS%20Iowa-bow%20aerial%20view%20firing%203%2016-inch%20guns.jpg

p-)


Are they all battleships? What are those flat thingies?
Aircraft Carriers. From the left, Hornet, Midway, Bennington and Oriskany. The Battleships are the New Jersey and Missouri

Ordie
11-10-2006, 04:22 PM
Those are navel signals not japanese flags.

Naval norms dictate that foreign visiting vessels fly the host country's flag while transiting into and out of port. I assume this photograph was taken when the vessel was making a port visit to Japan.

davido7
11-10-2006, 07:11 PM
It looks like their CIWS is a Goalkeeper copy.
Can anyone confirm?

phoilme
11-10-2006, 07:14 PM
lol, Well usually a Battleship is classified as the most heavy armed, heavily armoured, and largest vessel in your navy.. So you can consider a SSBN a battleship.. :P

No, Subs are "boats."

Praet
11-10-2006, 07:22 PM
It looks like their CIWS is a Goalkeeper copy.
Can anyone confirm?
The Type 730 was developed based on a cooperation with France and their 80's SATAN/SAMOS systems - which were indeed based on the Goalkeeper.
However, Type 730 is chambered for the Eastern bloc standard 30 mm x 165 calibre, and - unlike Goalkeeper - does not have an own search radar, therefore requires data from the ship's sensor suite for surveillance and initial target information.

SBL
11-10-2006, 07:23 PM
Naval norms dictate that foreign visiting vessels fly the host country's flag while transiting into and out of port. I assume this photograph was taken when the vessel was making a port visit to Japan.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Captainbadd/signal4.gif



Besides, I can't imagine why the Chinese would sail their latest aquisition into a Japanese port.

jango
11-10-2006, 08:15 PM
China right at the moment is going through an industrial boom of the kind never seen anywere before. And they also are upgrading their military force from the taxs that they are now getting from it and they also have companys from all around the world providing the technologie to have the largest and most up to date force in the world that will make nato and the united state become small frys.

And instead of people having alarm bells ringing they are just giving china more bussiness and money to do this. China has a record on human rights that who if it was a smaller nation would be up before the UN to answer for their action but the dollars seem to matter more so we let it slide and give them the olympic games instead.

Forget about america being the only superpower left becouse in the next couple of years china will have become stronger and richer becouse we let them and they won't care what any of us think about their goverment actions becouse they will be to strong to stop. And our greed let it all happen.

2Sheds_Jackson
11-10-2006, 08:27 PM
Well I agree that we should start putting the brakes on a bit with regard to China...but think you're overstating their capabilities a bit. In terms of pure GDP, they’re behind the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, and Italy (in that order) - plus they are woefully dependent upon all the above, since they barely have an internal consumer economy yet. The spread on the above stats is pretty wide too, with the US at $11.6 trillion, and China at $1.6 trillion. Just sayin'...

Praet
11-10-2006, 08:28 PM
and they also have companys from all around the world providing the technologie to have the largest and most up to date force in the world that will make nato and the united state become small frys.
Yet to be proved.
While a load of new projects is being followed, many of them are not up to latest standards, and many are limited in numbers procured. In addition, a lot is the result of international cooperation, with little actual local capabilities other than copying stuff and putting a new label on it.
What having a 'white elephant' helps in building up modern and effective armed forces can be seen on the example of Thailand and their sole carrier.

SBL
11-10-2006, 08:33 PM
Well I agree that we should start putting the brakes on a bit with regard to China...but think you're overstating their capabilities a bit. In terms of pure GDP, they’re behind the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, and Italy (in that order) - plus they are woefully dependent upon all the above, since they barely have an internal consumer economy yet. The spread on the above stats is pretty wide too, with the US at $11.6 trillion, and China at $1.6 trillion. Just sayin'...


Yup. China's economy is almost entirely dependent on FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) and "outsourcing".
If trends continue, India will out***** China in the long-term.

Djuice
11-11-2006, 12:55 AM
The infrastructure to build excessively large surface combatant vessels in China is not all that big. The building process also rather slow, 3-5 per vessel, also in each class of newer vessels there are hardly more then 2 of it's kind.

It would be a while before China achieves a true blue water fleet comprising of modern warships.

iGrooCk
11-11-2006, 01:02 AM
anything china builds, its either a copy from another country, like Russia(mostly), and others or looks 90% similar.

dont believe me? compare ships and hardware, etc.

Hawk of prairie
11-11-2006, 01:05 AM
anything china builds, its either a copy from another country, like Russia(mostly), and others or looks 90% similar.

dont believe me? compare ships and hardware, etc.
You may need some pics to baak you up,I can PM you a link if you are interested in it;)

AT-T
11-11-2006, 08:24 AM
Forget about america being the only superpower left becouse in the next couple of years china will have become stronger and richer becouse we let them and they won't care what any of us think about their goverment actions becouse they will be to strong to stop. And our greed let it all happen.

USA always demanded other countries to pursue capitalism, now don't complain about china following these demands and proving to be able to play this game too.

Djuice
11-11-2006, 09:00 AM
I dont see anything wrong with China becoming a superpower, they are the longest existing civilisation in history.. Its about time too..

Hawk of prairie
11-11-2006, 10:18 AM
USA always demanded other countries to pursue capitalism, now don't complain about china following these demands and proving to be able to play this game too.
simple idea,man

giggler
11-11-2006, 02:17 PM
It's a tin can folks

iGrooCk
11-11-2006, 03:05 PM
You may need some pics to baak you up,I can PM you a link if you are interested in it;)
no need to back up anything, search and see for yourself

EMPEROR ATTiLA
11-11-2006, 05:07 PM
It looks like their CIWS is a Goalkeeper copy.
Can anyone confirm?

LD-2000 CLOSE-IN WEAPON SYSTEM (CIWS)

dont you know china is great master of copying?
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2k_1.jpg (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2000_gallery1.asp)

Praet
11-11-2006, 05:37 PM
Read post #26 :roll:

LD-2000 is, btw, the designation of the truck-mounted variant.