052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Actually ther US Navy removed the single arm launchers in 2000 from the Perrys because they were only capable of firing earlier generation Standard SM-1MR, which were outmoded and not capable enough to defend against newer anti-ship missiles, and the US did not want to expend the funds to upgrade them all, particularly with the large numbers of Burke class DDGs, and with the decision already being made at the time to go for a new class of vessel...which has turned into the LCS.

Now, long after the fact, they find that the expense to upgrade those Perry FFGs like Australia, Turkey and Taiwan have done would have been far less expensive and filled a gap that the ultimate capabilities of the LCS has left between that class and the Burkes.

So, now we in the US are looking at a possible new class FFG, when a Perry with the more capable VLS launchers and upgraded data links and cooperative engagement would have been a much cheaper and equally capable solution...albeit not one that will be as stealthy as the potential new FFGs...if they are ever acquired.

IMHO, this is one decision (like taking the S-3s away from the carrier) that the US missed badly on. We now have 20 fairly toothless frigates that they are using for drug interdiction and limited ASW duties...though they are still very capable at that function. They have a 76 mm gun, a 25mm gun, a 20mm CIWS and the helos. No appreciable AAW defense and no anti-surface capability to speak of. They will all be retired now by 2019. With a decent SLEP and upgrades, they could easily have served into the 2030s.

Oh well such is life...and such are the opinions of us arm chair admirals...LOL!

Click to expand...

Interesting, I was not aware there was so much regret over the OHP decision within the USN.

Although, form what you are saying, it sounds like the 054A is exactly what the USN is looking for, with MK41s and harpoons of course. Maybe there is a deal to be had here.

I never suggested that the PLAN adopt a similar policy as the USN and only build 052C/Ds and the new future cruisers, with it's 052c/D DDGs, 054A FFG and 056 corvettes, I really do not see any holes in the PLAN force structure that would be left if all of the Jiangweis and 051 and 052s were replaced with more of these ships.

The only reason to keep the older ships around would be because they PLAN has already bought and paid for them. But there is little need to sink valuable funds into giving these old ships comprehensive weapons and sensors upgrades when those funds are far better spent on more new ships.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:

Although, form what you are saying, it sounds like the 054A is exactly what the USN is looking for, with MK41s and harpoons of course. Maybe there is a deal to be had here.

Click to expand...

Always good for some laughs there plawolf! LOL! but the 054A is precisely the type of FFG navies should be building IMHO if they can...including the US Navy.

plawolf said:

I never suggested that the PLAN adopt a similar policy as the USN and only build 052C/Ds and the new future cruisers, with it's 052c/D DDGs, 054A FFG and 056 corvettes, I really do not see any holes in the PLAN force structure that would be left if all of the Jiangweis and 051 and 052s were replaced with more of these ships.

Click to expand...

I think the PLAN surface force structure as it is developing is very strong and tight...not many holes in it at all. The FFGs and DDGs are coming along nicely and at a fast rate and they are very strong combatants. They have a ways to go in terms of commoanlity of systems and logistics before they match something like what the US Navy fields, but the o54A FFGs and the 052C/D DDGs are all top notch and getting there.

The carrier and naval air arm are developing faster than most thought they would.

The amphibious forces have made a huge step forward with the LPDs.

They do need to really beef up their SSN force though...that is one glaring area that would be a huge disadvantage and vulnerability in any serious engagement.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:

Agree that not every ship in a fleet has to be comprehensive in of themselves. However, some of this debate stems from how to streamline the fleet, reduce op costs, fleet commonality. One off classes with "weaker" weapons suites and older units should be the focus of such efforts.

Click to expand...

Good points, and what you are saying certainly has merit. However, one must also take into account the vast existing munitions stocks the PLAN has, and how much shelf life they have left in them as well as China's production capacity for newer weapons.

It would be a travesty if the PLAN had vast numbers of HQ7s with a decade or more of shelf life left in them that would be wasted if they phased out the HQ7s on their ships, at the same time combat effectiveness of new ships are adversely affected because the factories cannot make HQ10s fast enough to equip all the new ships as well as retrofit the old ships.

If it was a choice between buying more HQ7s or HQ10s now, there would be no contest. However, we need to remember that the PLAN has already bought and paid for vast numbers of HQ7s, and that stockpile will have a impact on what the PLAN ultimately decides to do in terms of ship upgrades.

051B, 052s - Hull displacements make them suitable for major overhauls to include items like VLS and up-to-date sensors but only if CN decides if its worthwhile. Would they operate them for at least another decade? If they are to be upgraded with more ASW focus, you would still want to give them credible AAW defense. But as you pointed out, there are shipyards that could use more orders so in this depressed market, it would certainly be very plausible that building a new platform be far more cost effective. Which is why I see a simpler retrofit to CG duty be the best choice after weighing the cost analysis.

Click to expand...

Well, if we look at the 052 upgrade, it seems that the PLAN is content to just add some Type 730s and retain the HQ7s for AAW.

The HQ7 is still a very capable SAM, and for self defense, it is still perfectly respectable.

However, I do not think any of the older ships would be very suitable for the Coast Guard, especially when you consider what their roles has increasingly become in recent years.

Firstly, iirc, one of the coast guard agencies already operate some ex-navy warships, but they do not like them at all. The ex-navy ships are old, so they are crew intensive, expensive to run, and I don't imagine the crew accommodations compare very favorably to more modern designs either.

Secondly, the Chinese coast guard is increasingly taking point when it comes to territorial disputes, and they are taking point because their ships are unarmed. Even so, you get hilariously theatrical complaints and certain countries playing the victim when it's their warships facing off against unarmed Chinese coast guard ships. One can only imagine the hysterics that would ensure if the Chinese coast guard sent an ex-PLAN warship to one of these meet and greets.

Retired PLAN warships would only be a massive resource drain for the Chinese coast guard agencies, they are far better off with their own purpose built patrol and monitoring ships.

Jiangweis (053H2G & 053H3) are relatively new, especially the last batches. They can upgrade them with FL-3000Ns, AK-176, and remote 30mm cheaply and quickly. Would make them more robust and useful. Can get rid of obsolete HQ-61Bs and the HQ-7s can be spares for the remaining ships in the fleet with such system such as 051B until it gets phased out.

Jianghu Vs (053H1G) were purpose built for SCS duty. Considering the 056 has a huge backlog in replacing 037s, Jianghu Is, and Jianghu IIs, I still see these guys doing work horse duty for some time. Also giving them FL-3000Ns, AK-176, and remote 30mms would beef them up cheaply.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how cheap such upgrades would be. Since the HQ7 does pretty much the same job as the HQ10s, I really don't see the need for such an upgrade.

You make a good point about the number of ships the 056 needs to replace, and I am sure the Jiangweis will soldier on for many years to come. I just don't see the need to upgrade them.

The Jiangweis will be operating in low threat environments to start with, and would receive massive PLAN support in any combat scenario that I really do not see them getting into any realistic situation where HQ7s would not be up to the job.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Always good for some laughs there plawolf! LOL! but the 054A is precisely the type of FFG navies should be building IMHO if they can...including the US Navy.

Click to expand...

I've always held the belief that the USN has had an immensely top heavy surface combatant fleet for the last decade or more... So many 9000+ ton destroyers and cruisers with a much smaller number of aging and reduced capability frigates simply doesn't look healthy or logical to me (26 frigates to 62 destroyers and 22 cruisers! That just isn't right to me)

I think the PLAN surface force structure as it is developing is very strong and tight...not many holes in it at all. The FFGs and DDGs are coming along nicely and at a fast rate and they are very strong combatants. They have a ways to go in terms of commoanlity of systems and logistics before they match something like what the US Navy fields, but the o54A FFGs and the 052C/D DDGs are all top notch and getting there.

The carrier and naval air arm are developing faster than most thought they would.

The amphibious forces have made a huge step forward with the LPDs.

They do need to really beef up their SSN force though...that is one glaring area that would be a huge disadvantage and vulnerability in any serious engagement.

Click to expand...

I think limited SSN numbers have to do with the fact that the PLAN aren't satisfied with their performance yet. When they get something nearing seawolf/virginia we might finally start seeing mass production.

I'd like to see a 10k+ ton cruiser on top of continued DDG, FFG and corvette production and development. Standardize the future surface combatant fleet to 05X CG, 052C/D/E DDG, 054A/B FFG, 056/X corvette. Keep the ship classes and missions conservative but modern and sensible -- not necessary to go for an all mission LCS ship or a specialized gunfire support, trailblazing behemoth like zumwalt that could increase risk and cost.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

...IMHO, this is one decision (like taking the S-3s away from the carrier) that the US missed badly on. We now have 20 fairly toothless frigates that they are using for drug interdiction and limited ASW duties...though they are still very capable at that function. They have a 76 mm gun, a 25mm gun, a 20mm CIWS and the helos. No appreciable AAW defense and no anti-surface capability to speak of. They will all be retired now by 2019. With a decent SLEP and upgrades, they could easily have served into the 2030s.

Oh well such is life...and such are the opinions of us arm chair admirals...LOL!

Click to expand...

To continue the role of arm chair admirals, I think the LCS program went off course big time, now leaving a gap with the Perry's retiring. I think it's still not too late to retain the remaining active ships. A mild SLEP would make them still very useful in the less intense theaters. Put a SeaRAM on that former MK 13 mount. I think there are two US Reps still making that fight to keep the Perrys beyond 2019.

plawolf said:

...If it was a choice between buying more HQ7s or HQ10s now, there would be no contest. However, we need to remember that the PLAN has already bought and paid for vast numbers of HQ7s, and that stockpile will have a impact on what the PLAN ultimately decides to do in terms of ship upgrades.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, my outline was premised on the factories being able to meet HQ-10 demands, although fitting a 056 takes far longer than producing a HQ-10 so I really don't think it's much of an issue with available HQ-10s.

plawolf said:

.....However, I do not think any of the older ships would be very suitable for the Coast Guard, especially when you consider what their roles has increasingly become in recent years.

Firstly, iirc, one of the coast guard agencies already operate some ex-navy warships, but they do not like them at all. The ex-navy ships are old, so they are crew intensive, expensive to run, and I don't imagine the crew accommodations compare very favorably to more modern designs either....

Click to expand...

I'm not espousing converting the older frigates for CG use. I'm only espousing converting the 051B and 052s. They are of a higher tonnage and I don't think any of the maritime depts have many larger tonnage vessels. You don't need these to be involved in some of the recent territorial spats but they would make great ocean going units for other purposes such as UN/humanitarian missions or anti-piracy. This becomes a tool for soft power. Well worth it in my opinion.

plawolf said:

I'm not sure how cheap such upgrades would be. Since the HQ7 does pretty much the same job as the HQ10s, I really don't see the need for such an upgrade.

You make a good point about the number of ships the 056 needs to replace, and I am sure the Jiangweis will soldier on for many years to come. I just don't see the need to upgrade them.

The Jiangweis will be operating in low threat environments to start with, and would receive massive PLAN support in any combat scenario that I really do not see them getting into any realistic situation where HQ7s would not be up to the job.

Click to expand...

Well I would start from the other end of the spectrum, do the units without HQ-7s first. Jianghu Vs and Jiangwei Is. I'm pretty sure no one will miss the HQ-61Bs on the latter. By the time you get through them, the stockpile of HQ-7s should be smaller, munitions is time sensitive and some will be have expired of useful life. Yes, Jiangweis will operate in low theater environments but I think it's great if they can be prepped for mid theater environments too. Gives your overall naval force more flexibility and resiliency.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:

051B, 052s - Hull displacements make them suitable for major overhauls to include items like VLS and up-to-date sensors but only if CN decides if its worthwhile. Would they operate them for at least another decade? If they are to be upgraded with more ASW focus, you would still want to give them credible AAW defense.

Click to expand...

A ship with an ASW focus does not necessarily require "credible" ASW defense. HQ-10's for self defense would be just fine. OTOH I think these hulls would be very suitable for upgrade to ASW platforms. I like the idea of replacing the SSM's with ASROC-type missiles, and the two-helo capacity of both the Luhu and Luhai is perfect for ASW.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

jobjed said:

Actually, the Beiyang fleet lost because even though their ships were superior, their men were trash.

If the PLAN all have Type 052C type ships then they would dare to go anywhere in the world confident that their advanced capabilities would protect them (and it probably would). However, this is a waste of resources because it costs a lot to build a 052C and China needs less capable ships for less capable opponents. It's a waste of money to build a 052C for patrolling against The Philippines navy when existing 051's can easily suffice.

Nothing in war is expendable, there is only expendable relative to others. Is a UAV expendable? No, it costs money and resources to build; but in contrast to a manned aircraft, then its worth is vastly inferior. Is a 056 expendable? No, it possesses advanced capabilities and has human lives onboard; but in contrast to a 052C, it is inferior. No navy in the world especially makes ships to take hits for other ships lol. Each ship has its role and if a ship needs to take a hit for another, then the battle/war is probably already lost. However, the concept of "sandbag" still exists.... in today's missiles. Those expensive flying pencils are the new generation sandbags, ships are not. You do NOT mix expendable and capable ships together because no ship is expendable and especially designed to act as sandbags. That might have been the way of warfare in the days of old but it's the 21st century now.

Click to expand...

what two long paragraphs to argue sematics. As to how Chinese lost the battle at yellow sea, please read history carefully before coming here and argue. Chiese sailors and captains are not trash, they fought valiently. Both sides came away with loss, Japanese carried on, Chinese decided to ground their ships.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ahadicow said:

what two long paragraphs to argue sematics. As to how Chinese lost the battle at yellow sea, please read history carefully before coming here and argue. Chiese sailors and captains are not trash, they fought valiently. Both sides came away with loss, Japanese carried on, Chinese decided to ground their ships.

Click to expand...

The fact that a materially superior fleet lost so decisively is testament to their lack of professionalism. From the bureaucrats in the imperial court to the gunners who can't aim, they were all trash. Just be glad such a worthless administration has been overthrown today and is replaced by one who is competent in ruling a world power.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I think jobjed is emphasising the need for training where he is not wrong, the machine is only as good as the person who is operating it

Training, experience, tatics, strategy, information, intelligence, code breaking, element of suprise they all form the overall package that results in a win

Having shiney new ships is one thing having the men to operate them effectively using full thier full capabilitys is another

No one is saying PLAN sailors are not good but it is a observation

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Now, long after the fact, they find that the expense to upgrade those Perry FFGs like Australia, Turkey and Taiwan have done would have been far less expensive and filled a gap that the ultimate capabilities of the LCS has left between that class and the Burkes.
So, now we in the US are looking at a possible new class FFG, when a Perry with the more capable VLS launchers and upgraded data links and cooperative engagement would have been a much cheaper and equally capable solution...albeit not one that will be as stealthy as the potential new FFGs...if they are ever acquired.
!

Click to expand...

IMO the RAN FFG upgrade is very capable, but the price tag was ridiculous. For the same money (upgrade 4 OH Perry), the Danes can build 4 new Iver Huitfeldt class frigates and buy a bunch of loaded stanflex modules. The Iver Huitfeldt class frigate has better AAW and multi-mission capability than upgraded OH Perry, or even new build 054A's.