RED CHINA LAUNCHES FIRST HOMEMADE AEGIS DESTROYER

They look alike. However, the important issue is the equipment of the ships.
How does the C4I compare with the Aegis system? (given the vast improvement in computers over the past 20 years, it is not inconcievable that the Chinese destroyers have systems equal to early Ticonderoga Cruisers.
Weapons: How does the S-300 variant compare with the SM-2?
What other missles are carried on the chinese destroyers, the SS-N-25?
Radar: How good is the ChiCom phased-array radar? How does it compare with the SPY-1D?
Sonar: How good are the ASW detection capabilites? Historically, China and Russia have been far behind, although Chinahas bought and copied French equipment.

Just another example of something we can lay at the door of the Clinton administration. His real legacy will be realized as the gifts he bestowed begin to bear dangerous fruit. This is just the beginning.

Been thinking more and more lately that sometimes international events taste uncannily like reality-based fiction .

The PRC has a new toy that looks just like one of ours. Aint "free trade" wonderful.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you.

Of course the equipment loadout is the critical issue. There can be some basic assumption that if the Chinese are spending the money to build an "Aegis like" ship, that clearly resembles our own, that the loadout will also resemble or surpass our own in as much as the Chinese are able.

As to specifics, here are some comparisons:

Surface Attack Missile (Ship to Ship):
US:
Harpoon (SLAM-ER): Subsonic, range in excess of 150 miles.
China:
3M-80E (SS-22 Sunburn): Mach 2.5+ supersonic, range in excess of 100 miles. (The Chinese also employ a Harpoon knock off called the C-802, or Ying-Ji-802 with similar range (80 miles), speed and operating characteristics to the Harpoon)
Anti-aircraft Missile (Ship to Air):
US:
SM-2 MR/ER (Standard Missile, extended range): Range 100+ miles, Anti-ballitic variants (Block IVA w/200+ mile range), Mach 3+
China:
S-300PMU, SA-10/6 Grumble (HQ-15 Chinese designation): Range 50 miles, limited ABM capability, Mach 3.5+ S-300V, SA-12 Gladiator (HQ-18 Chinese designation) Range 60+ miles, more ABM capability, Mac 3.5+
Phased array radar:
We have no details on the Chinese phased array system. We know that the American SPY-1D, AEGIS system is the world's premier DDG borne, phased array defensive system and we know that the Chinese are designing a system to compete with it.
Some of the known, historical weaknesses of the SPY-1 system have been the fact that it has a decreased overall range from the latest AN/SPS-49 because it does not sit as high, onf the Arleigh Burke's there is no conventional AN/SPS-49 backup system, follow-on salvos are not fired until aftert a kill evaluation is made (dangerous in saturation attacks), etc.
The Chinese are well aware of these deficincies and may well have designed corrections into their ew system, we just don't know yet.
Despite that, America holds a decided advantage though in our Carrier Battle Groups where the AN/SPS-49 is abundant and where crossover fire capability via CEC is available, essentially making the entire CBG a single defense system. In addition, our operational experience gives us a very decided and significant edge.
Submarine Warfare :
The United States holds a decided edge in this are, both in detection and submarine warfare. The Chinese are building a new class of nuclear attack subs, but their numbers will be very limited and their technology well behind the Virginia and Sea Wolf class boats.

All of this is not to say that the Chinese are not a threat. These new class ships, weapons systems and equipment are being designed specifically to counter the U.S. Navy, particularly when coupled with land-air support. Having said that, short of some very significant multiplier, or technological development (like I describe in through a super supercavitating weapon they develop in the fictional

Dragon's Fury Series,

the Chinese will be unable to achieve their goal of countering our advantage in the forseeable future.

We just cannot rule out the possibility that they may surprise us with such a technological or asymetric warfare achievement that negates our Sub-surface and Carrier Battle Group edges, particularly since through our economic and diplomatic policies we are providing them with ample hard currency to pursue such options...and that is exactly what they are doing IMHO.

As always, thanks Joanie.

See my post number 44.

The situation with N. Korea and its potential for sucking us in (and setting us up) similar in principle to Dragon's Fury, while we are engaged in the Mid East (Iraq and Afghanistan) is very concerning.