052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

How exactly am I the one trolling when plawolf and i.e. have both been attacking me? Also, note that people being frustrated at not being able to assail my plain logic about the status of the sino-VLA does not constitute me being "unnecessarily stubborn". In fact I think some people here are being unnecessarily stubborn. The reasoning is very simple to understand, and Bltizo certainly stated so finally, regardless of whether he agrees. My approach has been "let's wait for more evidence", while some others here have been ready to abuse and crucify anyone not ready to accept a full on VLA capability based on one sign alone without any other corroborating evidence, which when compared to every other PLAN weapon system, is highly unusual. Well too bad for them, because truth isn't arrived at by gangbanging and arm-twisting but by a systematic approach to evaluating limited evidence.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I just want to say that I understand mysterre's logic in that the placard's phrasing does not clearly say a VLA like weapon is in service and could only be reference to that the 054A VLS is "capable of firing" or "fitted for but not with" a VLA like weapon.

... But I think that's also being unnecessarily pedantic, when we have heard for years of such a weapon being under development and 054A possibly having such a capability (that is to say it isn't just "one sign alone". Ask anyone half credible or knowledgable around here and they'll say that they have been expecting such a weapon. The reactions to that picture when it was first posted was along the lines of "at last, confirmation of sino VLA"...)

The fact that there have been no pictures of it (which is perfectly reasonable especially if we consider it is a VL weapon and that it may only recently have finished testing), and that there are few clear write ups about it (simply being less interesting than SAMs or AShMs? But if you do want references, you could try asking on CDF. posters there seem better versed on BBS shenanigans than SDF here) shouldn't cast doubt on the massive sign's credibility. If you consider the PLAN's (and PLA at large) attitude to making references to new weapons, they are always very very conservative, and unlike them to make "equipped for but not with" type claims especially on such public displays.
(Hell, at a recent showing of WZ-9s for reporters they only showed HJ-8 and TY-90 missiles, even we've had pictures and CCTV footage of WZ-9s firing HJ-10.)


---

Basically I disagree with the notion that our evidence in support of this weapon is "one sign alone" (I should add that this one sign, if it were alone, should be enough for us anyway) -- as we've been expecting it for a while, and the "lack" of distinct write ups and/or pictures are perfectly reasonable given the relative obscureness of this class of weapon.

I agree with the logic that the phrasing of the sign can mean it is "fitted for but not with," but from current and past PLA habits this is extremely unlikely. Put together with the commonly accepted fact that a VLA weapon has been in the works for the last few years, at the very least this should suggest that such a weapon exists, if not in some form of service with 054As.


This is all I have left to say on the matter.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Well, I dont know whether this is mentioned here already, but I believe there's very good chance that not only the CY-1/2 are compatible with the HQ-16 VLS, but also the YJ-8X series of AShM.
The CY-1 was made with C-801 and the CY-2 was made with C-802 launchers in mind and hence feature diameters of at least under 400mm (the C-802 is 360mm, wingspan when folded abour 720mm). Coincidently, the HQ-16 which was based on the 9M317 missile has a diameter of 400mm with a stored unfolded wingspan of 860mm, that makes the HQ-16 VLS potentially compatible with both the CY series as well the YJ-8X series of missiles.
The fact that the CY-1 is compatible with the HQ-16 VLS would also prove a second thing: That the lenght of the VLS are indeed deeper than originally needed for the HQ-16 SAM only, which has about a lenght of 5.5 meters. The CY-1, when launched from the C-801 canister probably would need the typical booster stage of the C-801 AShM, effectively increasing the total lenght of the missile to more than the quoted 5.81m for the C-801 and the 6.392m of the C-802 (that the CY-2 is suppossed to be based on), which means that the VLS on the 054A has good chance be deep enough to house full sized C-802 AShM too.

On a second thought, the HQ-16 VLS may also be compatible with CJ-10 LACM. The HQ-16 SAM, if closely resembling the 9M317 SAM, is stored without its wing-surfaces folded, which requires the VLS to have at least a diameter of 860mm - which would be plenty for the CJ-10, if it resembles anything like its russian development base, the Kh-55 which has a diameter of 514mm and is stored with its wing-surfaces retracted. The lenght of the Kh-55 is quoted to be around six meters without boosters. Even with boosters and with an increased lenght of about half a meter, it would still fit into the HQ-16 VLS if the CY-1 or CY-2 could fit in.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

How exactly am I the one trolling when plawolf and i.e. have both been attacking me? Also, note that people being frustrated at not being able to assail my plain logic about the status of the sino-VLA does not constitute me being "unnecessarily stubborn". In fact I think some people here are being unnecessarily stubborn. The reasoning is very simple to understand, and Bltizo certainly stated so finally, regardless of whether he agrees. My approach has been "let's wait for more evidence", while some others here have been ready to abuse and crucify anyone not ready to accept a full on VLA capability based on one sign alone without any other corroborating evidence, which when compared to every other PLAN weapon system, is highly unusual. Well too bad for them, because truth isn't arrived at by gangbanging and arm-twisting but by a systematic approach to evaluating limited evidence.

Click to expand...

don't worry Mysterre, that experience is not unique to you alone

many here are very ardent on defending the notion that China must be overly capable and over accomplishing across every research or production process, which is actually the norm in modern China, but certainly does not apply to everything

rather than having disgruntlement at each other every time such debate comes up, let's just say there are two schools of objectivity here on SDF regarding discernment of PLA capabilities, at face value and on proof value

engage with respect, certainly we all can

OT and out

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

The plaque put up on 054A is not by some tom, dick and harry! Its by the crew of 054A and going thru and approved by top brass of PLAN and CCP Chairman Hu Jingtao. Even it is just mention a sentence or plainly. It is taken with full approval and comfirmation.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

I think it's clear Mystere is now trolling Plawolf and Blitzo have provided enough evidence and this is not the first time

Click to expand...

Now now, that's going a bit far. I did make a bit of a flippant post first. That was largely because I feel that Mystere was being needlessly pedantic, which seemed to fit the hallmark of haters who will always demand now proof beyond what is reasonable, and are just asking for it because they know perfectly well no such proof exist in the public domain and are only asking to score cheap points.

Maybe I have been too quick to judge Mystere as such a person, but his aggressive manner does not really help his cause.

Nevertheless, I think a retraction and apology is due from me to Mystere, as his actions is not that of a hater and I hope he does not turn out to be a hater.

So Mystere, go and prove with your actions that I was wrong to dismiss your doubts as that of hater's cheap shots. Try to be more patient with your replies as it is harder to take your doubts seriously if you deliver them in an abrasive or dismissive manner.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

A charitable response, I have to say. I am definitely not a hater, and I have also been waiting for this system for many years, but I'm skeptical by nature and have a fairly high threshhold for throwing in my vote, which is why I have been insisting on seeing more evidence of this sino-VLA.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

A charitable response, I have to say. I am definitely not a hater, and I have also been waiting for this system for many years, but I'm skeptical by nature and have a fairly high threshhold for throwing in my vote, which is why I have been insisting on seeing more evidence of this sino-VLA.

Click to expand...

Well, you are not going to see it. The Chinese don't warship the tools of war like in the west. Instead, they warship the art of war. When the art calls for the showing of the tool, it will be shown. For now you will just have to make do with the plaque. Firing a torpedo into the air can't be that implausible for the Chinese. After all, they have demonstrably fired plenty of other things into the air.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

A charitable response, I have to say. I am definitely not a hater, and I have also been waiting for this system for many years, but I'm skeptical by nature and have a fairly high threshhold for throwing in my vote, which is why I have been insisting on seeing more evidence of this sino-VLA.

Click to expand...

Did you see the picture I posted? What do you think of that one? My information about this particular model is limited as well.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

hmmwv said:

Did you see the picture I posted? What do you think of that one? My information about this particular model is limited as well.

Click to expand...

I've had that same photo of the CY-1 in my archives for 4 or 5 years now, maybe longer. I have mentioned the "CY-series" in both this thread and the 056 thread ("CY-X missile") as possibilities for slant launch from the 056's YJ-83 tubes and as the basis for a VL iteration, though I have no idea if the CY-1 is in service, was in service, or whether it was supplanted by a "CY-2" or "CY-3", or any other ASROC-type missile. I don't know if anyone else knows something official about this series. I would guess that it's probably more than just rumor given how many variants we are talking about, but I have yet to see any other photos of either the CY-1 or any other CY-series missile. If this CY-1 had entered mass production you would think we would have heard something by now. Similar situation with the sino-VLA IMO. Maybe the PLAN put it in service for a couple years in small batches, didn't like it, and developed CY-2 and CY-3 as a result, and are currently testing these types. Who knows. And then there is the alleged "CJ-1", supposedly a copy of the ASW Klub. But there is not much substantial news about that either. IMO ship-launched ASW is a big "?" right now in my book, though I understand if others are more confident about this.