052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 052C Thread

The main purpose of 052C is AAW, as such its main armaments are large, long-range SAM to intercept enemy aircraft/missiles and provide fleet protection.

Assuming that the HQ-16's range is similar to VL-Shtil or ESSM (40-50 km), it's good enough for protection vs. AShM's, but doesn't really pack the range to reach out and touch someone.

Just my $0.02, but as an armchair admiral, I'd rather have a 052X equipped with 48 x navalized S-400 with range up to 400 km, and better radar/sensors to utilize the extended range. Then add 1 x FL-3000N and 1 x Type 730 for CIWS. I'd take that over quad-packing a lot of HHQ-16's. For that you should have 054X's data-linked to the 052X AAW destroyer to utilize its HHQ-16's in additional fleet defense role.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

why 3 ships in the same time?
I thought PLAN used to build his ships in pairs

Re: DDG 052C Thread

escobar said:

why 3 ships in the same time?
I thought PLAN used to build his ships in pairs

Click to expand...

We will see what happens exactly, but back in the days, JN shipyard was building two at a time. Now that it is much larger, it certainly has the capacity to build 3 at a time.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

adeptitus said:

The main purpose of 052C is AAW, as such its main armaments are large, long-range SAM to intercept enemy aircraft/missiles and provide fleet protection.

Assuming that the HQ-16's range is similar to VL-Shtil or ESSM (40-50 km), it's good enough for protection vs. AShM's, but doesn't really pack the range to reach out and touch someone.

Just my $0.02, but as an armchair admiral, I'd rather have a 052X equipped with 48 x navalized S-400 with range up to 400 km, and better radar/sensors to utilize the extended range. Then add 1 x FL-3000N and 1 x Type 730 for CIWS. I'd take that over quad-packing a lot of HHQ-16's. For that you should have 054X's data-linked to the 052X AAW destroyer to utilize its HHQ-16's in additional fleet defense role.

Click to expand...

The HQ-16 is about the same size and weight as the Standard. Both missiles are probably more limited by the illumination radar's own slant range and line of sight than by their sheer ballistic flight capability. Same goes with ESSM. Range is also determined by flight profile.

Neat thing about longer range TVM systems like the S-300, is that they may have an onboard emitter on the nose, although they still have to broadcast the data back to the surface station. This lets them escape from the limits of the ground radar's slant range. If you simplify that system, you get an autonomous active homing system.

Put an active seeker on the HHQ-16 and some form of command guided or updated mid phase flight control, you can extend the missile's range.

I kind of think the HHQ-16 is a bit too big to be quad packed. You need a smaller missile, something like the Russian 9M96 that can be quad packed on a single S-300 tube. As a matter of fact, the HHQ-16 launcher itself can potentially quad packed with even smaller missiles, something like the size of a PL-12.

In theory, both the 052C and 051C can be quad packed with 9M96 like missiles.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

HQ-16 is almost as big as HQ-9. Really not a lot in it. 5-6m vs 6-7m. What HQ-9 gains in smaller diameter, it almost loses in wings etc. Not say HQ-16 isn't smaller mind. What is more compact is the VLS arrangement.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

this is actually kind of unbelievable, but one of the webmasters of a major Chinese military bbs said that the new destroyer will be emphasizing ASW, it will hold many anti-submarine missiles. We will see if that's true.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

tphuang said:

this is actually kind of unbelievable, but one of the webmasters of a major Chinese military bbs said that the new destroyer will be emphasizing ASW, it will hold many anti-submarine missiles. We will see if that's true.

Click to expand...

Not surprising since the major weakness of the PLAN is ASW capability, or the lack thereof capability.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

crobato said:

The HQ-16 is about the same size and weight as the Standard. Both missiles are probably more limited by the illumination radar's own slant range and line of sight than by their sheer ballistic flight capability. Same goes with ESSM. Range is also determined by flight profile.

Neat thing about longer range TVM systems like the S-300, is that they may have an onboard emitter on the nose, although they still have to broadcast the data back to the surface station. This lets them escape from the limits of the ground radar's slant range. If you simplify that system, you get an autonomous active homing system.

Put an active seeker on the HHQ-16 and some form of command guided or updated mid phase flight control, you can extend the missile's range.

I kind of think the HHQ-16 is a bit too big to be quad packed. You need a smaller missile, something like the Russian 9M96 that can be quad packed on a single S-300 tube. As a matter of fact, the HHQ-16 launcher itself can potentially quad packed with even smaller missiles, something like the size of a PL-12.

In theory, both the 052C and 051C can be quad packed with 9M96 like missiles.

Click to expand...

Hi Crobato. TVM systems do not emit as you state. They are passive and operate much like a semi-active homing missile. The ground station illuminates the target, and the receiver on the missile receives the reflected energy from the target. On a semi-active missile, the missile has a computer on board that uses information from the reflected energy to compute an intercept path and this guides the missile to the vicinity of the target, close enough at least for the target detector to detect the target and detonate the warhead.
With TVM however, there is no on board computer. Data from the missile's antenna is relayed back to the ground via a data link. The ground station calculates the intercept course and relays this back to the missile via the same data link. The only emissions from a TVM guidance would be via the data link, and this usually faces aft.

TVM systems suffer from many of the same problems that SAHR missiles do, the necessity of an illuminator for each target being engaged, and the vulnerability to jamming of both the illuminator and the data link.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

The ESSM's range is not limited by the SPG-62 fire control radar, which has a range of 200,000 yards based on its SM-1-controlling predecessor's range, aka SPG-51. Nor is SM-2 limited by radar range, since it is quoted in its SM-2MR iteration as having a range of 170km.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Wolverine said:

The ESSM's range is not limited by the SPG-62 fire control radar, which has a range of 200,000 yards based on its SM-1-controlling predecessor's range, aka SPG-51. Nor is SM-2 limited by radar range, since it is quoted in its SM-2MR iteration as having a range of 170km.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see an illuminator that has greater tracking range than its radar horizon.

Hi Crobato. TVM systems do not emit as you state. They are passive and operate much like a semi-active homing missile. The ground station illuminates the target, and the receiver on the missile receives the reflected energy from the target. On a semi-active missile, the missile has a computer on board that uses information from the reflected energy to compute an intercept path and this guides the missile to the vicinity of the target, close enough at least for the target detector to detect the target and detonate the warhead.
With TVM however, there is no on board computer. Data from the missile's antenna is relayed back to the ground via a data link. The ground station calculates the intercept course and relays this back to the missile via the same data link. The only emissions from a TVM guidance would be via the data link, and this usually faces aft.

TVM systems suffer from many of the same problems that SAHR missiles do, the necessity of an illuminator for each target being engaged, and the vulnerability to jamming of both the illuminator and the data link.

Click to expand...

I think Crobato's original point was addressing the idea that 052C doesn't have an illuminator, I could be wrong here.