What's new

China building new Type 052D guided missile destroyer

cant win a debate, then resort to abuse....Indian trait :lol:

didnt i tell you to go to indian defence and discuss your imported military....go on mate i know you can find it

Yeah right, the guy has been calling everyone moron, retard, idiot, and if I call him a nincompoop in return(which mind you he really is) then I am the one resorting to abuse?

Cool story chinese bro:angel:
 
since you're not making much sense, the least you could is spell right.

nice try changing topic since you know you got burnt :lol:.....if you cant handle the heat dont start it....or we will finish it...just like 1962 your delusional boy nehru started to invade, we drove your arse back in no uncertain terms...

im off to eat then hit the weights.

ill be back in a couple of hours.

wasting my time with 2 indian airheads, bu**hur* about the type 052D.....
 
The Japanese Aegis is equivalent to the Aegis 3.6.1, the version on-board majority of USN's Ticonderoga class cruiser's and Arleigh Burke Destroyers. Japanese Destroyers have also participated in the Aegis BMD tests, scoring 3 direct hits out of 4. :wave:

Versions of Aegis BMD System

Currently fielded versions of the Aegis BMD system are called the 3.6.1 version and the newer and more capable 4.0.1 version. MDA and Navy plans call for fielding increasingly capable versions in coming years; these planned versions are called 5.0, 5.1, and 5.2. Improved versions feature improved processors and software, and are to be capable of using improved versions of the SM-3 interceptor missile (see Table 1). MDA states that an in-service Aegis ship with a 3.6.1 BMD capability can be upgraded to a 4.0.1 BMD capability for about $45 million to $55 million.

Allied Participation and Interest in Aegis BMD Program
Japan

Japan’s interest in BMD, and in cooperating with the United States on the issue, was heightened in August 1998 when North Korea test-fired a Taepo Dong-1 ballistic missile that flew over Japan before falling into the Pacific.[SUP]25[/SUP]

In addition to cooperating with the United States on development of technologies for the SM-3 Block IIA missile, Japan is modifying all six of its Aegis destroyers with an approximate equivalent of the 3.6.1 version Aegis BMD system. (Japan’s previous plans called for modifying four of the six ships.) As of December 2010, four of Japan’s Aegis ships had received the modification.[SUP]26[/SUP]

Japanese BMD-capable Aegis ships have conducted four flight tests of the Aegis BMD system using the SM-3 interceptor, achieving three successful exo-atmospheric intercepts

2em04tv.jpg


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf
 
The Japanese Aegis is equivalent to the Aegis 3.6.1, the version on-board majority of USN's Ticonderoga class cruiser's and Arleigh Burke Destroyers. Japanese Destroyers have also participated in the Aegis BMD tests, scoring 3 direct hits out of 4.

Inferior versions of comparable American Aegis.

In the F-35, the stealth was significantly reduced. In the M1 Abrams, the armor was significantly reduced.

With the Aegis, I would guess the range, resolution, number of simultaneous targets, etc. were all reduced.

----------

I will make one last attempt to explain the concept of "downgraded equipment" to retarded people.

Downgraded equipment does not mean the equipment doesn't function. Your citation only proves that Japanese Aegis is functional equipment. So what? A downgraded Iraqi M1 Abrams can also fire a shell. A downgraded Australian F-35 can fly.

However, it does not change the fact that Iraqi M1 Abrams lack state-of-the-art armor, which is present on American Abrams. Similarly, Australian F-35s are significantly less stealthy (beach ball RCS) than American F-35s (marble size RCS).

Do you get it now?

Japanese Aegis is inferior to American Aegis. That was my claim from the beginning and it remains my claim now. Your citation proved zilch. You're a stupid person.
 
Inferior versions of comparable American Aegis.

In the F-35, the stealth was significantly reduced. In the M1 Abrams, the armor was significantly reduced.

With the Aegis, I would guess the range, resolution, number of simultaneous targets, etc. were all reduced.

This is exactly why no one takes you seriously. I gave you proper source (a report from the Congressional Research Service!), which says that Japanese Destroyers are equipped with Aegis 3.6.1, same as what USN cruisers and destroyers have on board. Even then you keep blabbering on like a broken record.

Its time for you to prove that the Chinese system is better than the Aegis 3.6.1, if you can't do that then shut your trap and save yourself from further embarrassment.
 
This is exactly why no one takes you seriously. I gave you proper source (a report from the Congressional Research Service!), which says that Japanese Destroyers are equipped with Aegis 3.6.1, same as what USN cruisers and destroyers have on board. Even then you keep blabbering on like a broken record.

Its time for you to prove that the Chinese system is better than the Aegis 3.6.1, if you can't do that then shut your trap and save yourself from further embarrassment.
Roy, he is actually right. The SM3 is available only on the American Aegis. Just for future info.
 
Roy, he is actually right. The SM3 is available only on the American Aegis. Just for future info.

Wrong Hyperion, read my previous post, the SM3 has been developed in collaboration with the Japanese.

In addition to cooperating with the United States on development of technologies for the SM-3 Block IIA missile, Japan is modifying all six of its Aegis destroyers with an approximate equivalent of the 3.6.1 version Aegis BMD system. (Japan’s previous plans called for modifying four of the six ships.) As of December 2010, four of Japan’s Aegis ships had received the modification.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...guided-missile-destroyer-3.html#ixzz256rzbmJf

Page 12 of this report,

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf
 
Roy, he is actually right. The SM3 is available only on the American Aegis. Just for future info.

Thank you. I hate dumb Indians. Where the hell am I going to find specifications for a classified Aegis system to prove the specific downgrades? It's hard enough to find the citations for the specific F-35 and M1 downgrades.

Unless some government ministry in a foreign country unintentionally releases the information, it is virtually impossible to prove. However, it does not change the fact that it is official U.S. government policy to downgrade military equipment for export (see citation below).

Anyway, I'm done with the Indian trolls. They've wasted enough of my time for tonight.

----------

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au

"Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters

GR4UW.jpg

Like a beach ball on the radar … the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the fighter.
Photo: Jason South

By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department."
 
Thank you. I hate dumb Indians. Where the hell am I going to find specifications for a classified Aegis system to prove the specific downgrades? It's hard enough to find the citations for the specific F-35 and M1 downgrades.

Unless some government ministry in a foreign country unintentionally releases the information, it is virtually impossible to prove. However, it does not change the fact that it is official U.S. government policy to downgrade military equipment for export.

Anyway, I'm done with the Indian trolls. They've wasted enough of my time for tonight.

----------

The difference between him and you is that he will see the source and stand corrected. You on the other hand will keep going on like a broken record:lol:

33oph8o.jpg


Japanese navy has coducted BMD tests and intercept with SM3 missiles.:lol:

Yeah yeah only Martian2 is the most credible person on this planet, with his google images and wikipedia "citations", Rest of us are "idiots", "dumb", "trolls":rofl:
 
Japanese Aegis are inferior to current American Aegis

The Japanese Kongo Aegis are equivalent to the earliest American Flight I Arleigh Burke.

The Japanese Atago Aegis are equivalent to the third-generation American Flight IIA Arleigh Burke.

The current American Aegis is the fourth-generation Flight III.

Want me to say it again? The United States only exports inferior military equipment. The Japanese Aegis are equivalent to old Flight I and IIA Arleigh Burkes. I am willing to bet they have been downgraded in important ways.

For the last time, only stupid Indians believe exported American military equipment is just as good as the real original American versions. That is simply false.

----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

"Fully loaded:

Flight I: 8,315 t (8,184 long tons; 9,166 short tons)
Flight II: 8,400 t (8,300 long tons; 9,300 short tons)
Flight IIA: 9,200 t (9,100 long tons; 10,100 short tons)
Flight III: 10,000 t (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons)[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

"The Kongō class (こんごう型護衛艦 Kongō-gata Goeikan?) of guided missile destroyers serves as the core ship of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)'s Escort Flotillas. They are a modification of the United States Navy's Arleigh Burke class (Flight I)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atago_class_destroyer

"The Atago class of guided missile destroyer (あたご型護衛艦|atago-gata-go-ei-kan?) is an improved version of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)'s Kongō class destroyers. It is a Japanese variant of the United States Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Flight IIA)."
 
Japanese Aegis are inferior to current American Aegis

The Japanese Kongo Aegis are equivalent to the earliest American Flight I Arleigh Burke.

The Japanese Atago Aegis are equivalent to the second-generation American Flight II Arleigh Burke.

The current American Aegis is the fourth-generation Flight III.

Want me to say it again? The United States only exports inferior military equipment. The Japanese Aegis are equivalent to old flight I and II Arleigh Burkes. I am also willing to bet that they have been downgraded in important ways.

For the last time, only stupid Indians believe exported American military equipment is just as good as the real original American versions. That is simply false.

----------

Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fully loaded:

Flight I: 8,315 t (8,184 long tons; 9,166 short tons)
Flight II: 8,400 t (8,300 long tons; 9,300 short tons)
Flight IIA: 9,200 t (9,100 long tons; 10,100 short tons)
Flight III: 10,000 t (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons)[3]"

Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Kongō class (こんごう型護衛艦 Kongō-gata Goeikan?) of guided missile destroyers serves as the core ship of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)'s Escort Flotillas. They are a modification of the United States Navy's Arleigh Burke class (Flight I)."

Atago class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Atago class of guided missile destroyer (あたご型護衛艦|atago-gata-go-ei-kan?) is an improved version of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)'s Kongō class destroyers. It is a Japanese variant of the United States Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Flight IIA)."

So now its down to tonnage? :lol: I thought we were talking about BMD and Radar capabilities! You are giving a bad name to the famed chinese high IQ. Give it a rest mate, learn to accept your mistakes , you can't always be right.
 

Back
Top Bottom