052/052B Class Destroyers

A

ahadicow

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

IMO antishipping warships like the Sovremenny class are now floating anachronisms unsuitable for the modern world of high end naval warfare where masses and masses of antiship missiles are needed to overcome a fleet of warships all networked together by robust datalinks and shared defenses.
Click to expand...

They are not "unsuitable", they are just part of the answer. You can't expect a ship with only its own radar and missles to achieve anything in front of such a group, be it Sovermenny or any other ship. There's no modern equivalent of dreadnought.
 
Last edited:
Mysterre

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ahadicow said:
They are not "unsuitable", they are just part of the answer. You can't expect a ship with only its own radar and missles to achieve anything in front of such a group, be it Sovermenny or any other ship. There's no modern equivalent of dreadnought.
Click to expand...
They are unsuitable because 2 fighters could carry just as many antiship missiles as an entire Sov faster and farther than the ship and at far less expense and vulnerability. Back when PLANAF consisted of J-7's and J-8's along with shore batteries consisting of those stunted Seersuckers, ship-based antishipping was pretty much all PLAN had in terms of anything that could extend any distance out from shore. With the introduction of the Su-30MK2's, JH-7/A's, J-10's, and J-11B's along with the development of more powerful fleet antimissile defenses, these ship-based YJ-8's and even the YJ-62's are fast slipping into irrelevance except against the most paltry of Asia's navies. The advent of domestic carrier aviation will make this irrelevance even more glaring in the years to come. IMO it is no wonder that the USN's warships have all shed their antiship missile complement in favor of weight, space and/or cost savings and delegated the role of strike purely to their carrier fighters.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:
I don't understand what this fascination with comparing the PLAN against the combined Japanese and South Korean navies is about, I don't think it makes much sense. With the way relations between the three are at present, the South Koreans are more likely to side with the Chinese to fight the Japanese than the other way around.
Click to expand...
I was responding to a contention by a poster that the PLAN could overcome and outbuild the Japanese and South Koreans in a very rapid fashion. I asked how long they thought it would take to over come the 18 DDG disparity and they indicated they could do it in a single year, and continuing producing at that rate for as long as they desired. That led to the discussion,.

As to your contention that the South Koreans are as likely to side with the PRC as with the Japanese, I regard that as highly uinlikely. It would depend on the nature of the altercation.

If it was something that was against the interests of Japand and South Korea, and particularly if the US became involved, then there is no doubt that the South Koreans would not side with the Chinese. On the other hand, if a South Korean and Japanese disagreement escalated into open fighting and the Chinese intervened on the South Korean side, that would pose a significant issue.

timepass said:
HD....they have 4 construction births adjacent to each other & can construct FFGs simultaneously.
HP....they have 2 halls adjacent to each other & can construct FFGs simultaneously.
JN....they have 3 halls assigned to PLAN & adjacent to each other & can construct DDGs simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you account for 9 vessels in two yards...but still have twenty vessels to go. Where would they be built to produce the 29 vessels "simultaneously>" My point wass that there would have to be so many yards dedicated to this one task that it would be far past the cost benefit equation. They would then, as I said, have to man, supply, fuel, arm, train, outfit, etc. 29 vessels at once too.

Not going to happen...particularly not when there is no major war effort that threatens China's very survival.

China is simply exerting her cpabilities and economies to rapidly close the gap, and is doing so even then in a very dramatic fashiopn that is already worrying its neighbors. To opush harder would only make that condition worse and their task harder. it is a razor's edge and right now the PLAN is walking it fairly well I would say. Another 10+ years and they will have that many vessels and probably catch up in that regard. But if they do, it will not be because "catching up," was their goal, it will because they feel they need that many vessels to porotect their gorinw interests on, around, and across the seas.

tphuang said:
Let's move on from this China vs Japan stuff. This really will get no where. Japan has a really modern navy and China is catching up. China may catch up to Japan at some point in the future (you can also argue it will not). All we are going through here is how long it would take China to catch up or if it can.
Click to expand...
Just saw this and agree. Will comply.
 
Last edited:
A

ahadicow

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:
They are unsuitable because 2 fighters could carry just as many antiship missiles as an entire Sov faster and farther than the ship and at far less expense and vulnerability. Back when PLANAF consisted of J-7's and J-8's along with shore batteries consisting of those stunted Seersuckers, ship-based antishipping was pretty much all PLAN had in terms of anything that could extend any distance out from shore. With the introduction of the Su-30MK2's, JH-7/A's, J-10's, and J-11B's along with the development of more powerful fleet antimissile defenses, these ship-based YJ-8's and even the YJ-62's are fast slipping into irrelevance except against the most paltry of Asia's navies. The advent of domestic carrier aviation will make this irrelevance even more glaring in the years to come. IMO it is no wonder that the USN's warships have all shed their antiship missile complement in favor of weight, space and/or cost savings and delegated the role of strike purely to their carrier fighters.
Click to expand...

You're assuming AShM carried by planes are equivalent to SS-N-22 carried by Sovremenny. They are not. Even if they are, you cannot reduce the value of a platform to the weapon it carries. Destroyer are not moving arsenal of missles, they are the principle combatant of naval warfare, their mere presence are irreplaceble by any planes. Planes need to be armed, scrumbered, briefed on where to fly and what to strike and form formations. A salvo of missles can be launched in seconds.
 
Mysterre

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ahadicow said:
You're assuming AShM carried by planes are equivalent to SS-N-22 carried by Sovremenny. They are not.
Click to expand...
8 supersonic missiles are hardly a challenge for the Aegis system, even when launched with hundreds of other antiship missiles. They would simply be higher priority targets and get engaged sooner than the others. And let's not even talk about how a CVBG would even allow a Sov to get within 200km in order to fire off those Sunburns. Not going to happen, sorry.

ahadicow said:
Even if they are, you cannot reduce the value of a platform to the weapon it carries. Destroyer are not moving arsenal of missles, they are the principle combatant of naval warfare, their mere presence are irreplaceble by any planes.
Click to expand...
This sounds all nice and flowery but let's talk about the "presence" of a Sov in "naval warfare". I'll start. Nice guns, alot of range. Oh wait, not so much. Nice SAM's, alot of range. Oh wait, not so much. Nice Sunburns, alot of range. Oh wait, not so much. What can a Sov do well these days? Not so much. Well, I guess it can contribute a helo to the ASW rotation.

ahadicow said:
Planes need to be armed, scrumbered, briefed on where to fly and what to strike and form formations. A salvo of missles can be launched in seconds.
Click to expand...
The pilots of planes can take a nap while the plane handlers sip tea and biscuits while the fuel truck drives from across town to get to the airfield.... and those planes would still get to their destinations faster than a ship at full steam.
 
Last edited:
P

PikeCowboy

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:
I don't think he was insinuating CJ-10 was an anti ship weapon, but rather it was a supersonic 4000 km LACM. Which is ridiculous of course.
Click to expand...

[video=youtube_share;Y0OtmM3_EWI]http://youtu.be/Y0OtmM3_EWI?t=9m1s[/video]

skip to 9m01s

This video seems to imply with little ambiguity that CJ-10 will have at least some anti-shipping role. If this is true, and the 052D will be armed with the CJ-10 then this cruise missile can be duel use...

of additional interest in a different topic.. at 15:56 杜文龙研究员 claims that the PARs on the 052C/D is not just a set of radars but is a component of a comprehensive PLAN 'Aegis' system. not sure if this has been confirmed before or if I am just a slowpoke...

And... the 071 LPD which is at 18000 tons displacement can carry 4 LCACs or 3 light tanks or 9 APCs in well deck and helicopter deck can carry 2 large helis or 4 med helis 16:34 (I believe there was some uncertainty about this a while back)

...uh... uh.. nothing really new but a few nice confirmations to have
 
Last edited:
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:
I don't understand what this fascination with comparing the PLAN against the combined Japanese and South Korean navies is about, I don't think it makes much sense. With the way relations between the three are at present, the South Koreans are more likely to side with the Chinese to fight the Japanese than the other way around.

In addition, it should be noted that China has massive long term advantages because their ships are 100% indigenous while the Japanese and Koreans need to import key systems, and more critically, munitions from the US.

In peacetime, these imported systems are a massive drain of resources because of the profit margin the exporting companies are making, and that is money that is flowing out of the economy so is a net loss to the economy. You can see that in the rate of construction of new warships. In addition, for China, warship construction serves a similar purpose as stimulus spending in that it boosts the economy in addition to the military, that is why we are seeing such large orders for new ships from the PLAN in recent years, as they step in to provide some demand to help cushion the impact of the global downturn and massive drop in civilian shipping orders. That is simply not an option, or at least, does not work as well for South Korea and Japan. That is why you tend to see a slowdown and reduction in military orders in South Korea and Japan when their economy are sluggish, while opposite is turn with China. On top of that, Chinese military spending will naturally pick up when their economy is doing well.

In war time, the need to import munitions could be a massive achilles heel, since nations tend not to keep large stockpiles of expensive imported munitions in peace time, and the supply chain to these weapons would be unlikely to be as responsive to emergency demand as it would be the case if those plants were making munitions for their own countries. That is assuming that munitions deliveries will even take place after hostilities have broken out.

So, in the long term, the growth potential of the PLAN is significantly greater than that of Japan or South Korea's navies, and the only realistic question is not whether, but when the PLAN will surpass them, what purpose does arguing about precisely when that might happen achieve?
Click to expand...

Well, honestly speaking, if a munition-draining war does break out between Japan and China, it's likely that the United States will support them indirectly with continued supply of weapons and probably ECM/EW support as well. And, honestly speaking again, the only dominant technological advantages that the japanese and South Koreans have are their DDGs and their SSKs; their aircraft and striking range doesn't really add up to an advantage over the PLAN; and therefore what China needs to do is to make sure that its crew are up to the job (i.e. start field training after working out at the gym).
 
Last edited:
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

t_co said:
So back to the point of Type 052s. I have a simple question: assuming a typical anti-surface patrol, what sort of missile loadout would you put into the 64 VLS launchers, and why?

I've also read that the 052D can carry the CJ-10, which would give the Type 052D a strike capability better than nearly all other ships in its weight class (supersonic cruise missile with 4000km range at <10m CEP). Does the Type 052D have the C4ISR necessary to utilize such a powerful weapon?
Click to expand...

CJ-10 doesn't have a 4000 km range but rather 1/2-2/3 of that (depending on its payload). I would assume that its guidance and microprocessors are all up to date but that would depend highly on the guidance platforms (i.e. J-STARS, satellite, etc), which China is building furiously but still needs catching up when compared to the USN.
 
L

leibowitz

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

J-XX said:
If you think the way China conducts its military modernisation is to appease its neighbours or the US, then you are sadly mistaken. If the neighbours are scared, that's the whole point. China needs the fear factor that it is currently lacking. The more these neighbours are petrified of China, then China can have peace and defend Chinese territory.
Appeasement is not an option.
Click to expand...

That's only half of the coin. The trick isn't just to make Asia littoral so scared of actively banding together against China that they don't do it; it's also to reduce the fear of banding together with China so that they will do it. I'd say that China needs substantive work on both those fronts if it wants to have a peaceful neighborhood in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top