052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ARH and TVM are not muturally exclusive. A TVM missile could have an active radar on its nose for terminal guidance, but beam all the radar data back to the ship for processing via datalink. The ship then sends real-time command instruction back to the missile. Considering the fact that the round trip time for data link signal between the missile and the ship is 0.0006 seconds when the missile is 50NM from the ship, and during the time it takes for the signal to make the round trip a missile traveling at Mach 5 at 30,0000 feet would have moved only 50cms, A TVM ARH arrangement seem eminantly doable.

A autonomous ARH missile would be limited by the amount of processing power that can fit into the missile without compromising its range, warhead size, and radar size. ARH and TVM combination would seem to be a good way to give the missile far more signal processing and analysis power than is possible to fit into the missile itself. It also afford the chance to use the space in the missile that would otherwise be take by the signal process for something else, like a larger warhead, more fuel, or a secondary means of homing like a TV camera or a IR seeker.

If 052C/D uses TVM, then which of the radome domes houses the data link antenna? It would be interesting to know how many channels the ship's TVM missile signaling and processing system has, and how many missiles in terminal stage it can serve at the same time.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

chuck731 said:

ARH and TVM are not muturally exclusive. A TVM missile could have an active radar on its nose for terminal guidance, but beam all the radar data back to the ship for processing via datalink. The ship then sends real-time command instruction back to the missile. Considering the fact that the round trip time for data link signal between the missile and the ship is 0.0006 seconds when the missile is 50NM from the ship, and during the time it takes for the signal to make the round trip a missile traveling at Mach 5 at 30,0000 feet would have moved only 50cms, A TVM ARH arrangement seem eminantly doable.

A autonomous ARH missile would be limited by the amount of processing power that can fit into the missile without compromising its range, warhead size, and radar size. ARH and TVM combination would seem to be a good way to give the missile far more signal processing and analysis power than is possible to fit into the missile itself. It also afford the chance to use the space in the missile that would otherwise be take by the signal process for something else, like a larger warhead, more fuel, or a secondary means of homing like a TV camera or a IR seeker.

If 052C/D uses TVM, then which of the radome domes houses the data link antenna? It would be interesting to know how many channels the ship's TVM missile signaling and processing system has, and how many missiles in terminal stage it can serve at the same time.

Click to expand...

my belief has always been ARH + TVM, but we won't know if it is ARH until more material comes out on this.

There are one or more data link bulbs around where the Type 517M radar is installed.

A list off topic, but where did you get the figure of data link signal at 50 nm? That's approximately what it is for the latest civilian technology for something like this but I didn't know this information was in public sphere.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Both S-300PM and Patriot missiles, which allegedly have significantly attributed in creating HQ-9, have TVM missiles. No big surprise that HQ-9 has been reported to be TVM as well. Haven't encountered reports that it has AR terminal homing, though.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

tphuang said:

my belief has always been ARH + TVM, but we won't know if it is ARH until more material comes out on this.

There are one or more data link bulbs around where the Type 517M radar is installed.

A list off topic, but where did you get the figure of data link signal at 50 nm? That's approximately what it is for the latest civilian technology for something like this but I didn't know this information was in public sphere.

Click to expand...

It was a straight forward deduction based on speed of electromagnetic radiation in air.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

chuck731 said:

It was a straight forward deduction based on speed of electromagnetic radiation in air.

Click to expand...

I think tphuang was saying nm as in nanometer while you meant NM as in nautical miles.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

chuck731 said:

It was a straight forward deduction based on speed of electromagnetic radiation in air.

Click to expand...

Last from me on this one. Theoretical latencies don't necessarily hold when applied. Technologies like this exist in commercial sphere at latencies close to what you stated but a little slower than 0.0006 rtt for 50 nautical miles. I didn't think data for such transmission was available.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

FarkTypeSoldier said:

Surprised there are no top view ...yet!

Anyway this is a very very nice ship. A class of its own I would say

Click to expand...

Interesting to see 730 in front while FL-3000N in the back. It is rare to see 2 different CIWS on the one destoryer / frigate, looks like Chinese Navy is not sure which one to go for yet.

And since FL-3000N is supposed to be able to counter saturated attack while 730 can not, it would probably make more sense to put FL-3000N in front. It gives me a feeling that they are not confident FL-3000N is as reliable as RIM-116 RAM and they trust 730 more.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

williamhou said:

Interesting to see 730 in front while FL-3000N in the back. It is rare to see 2 different CIWS on the one destoryer / frigate, looks like Chinese Navy is not sure which one to go for yet.

Click to expand...

Well, the Koreans do it with their Se Jong class AEGIS DDG. RAM forward and a Goal Keeper 30mm CIWS aft. That AEGIS vessel is the most heavily armed AEGIS vessel yet developed and they have three of them to date.


BTW, IMHO, that is pretty close to what a Burke III should look like. She has 128 VLS cells, plus the 21 RAM, plus the 16 SSMs ( a total of 165 missiles), and then the Goal Keeper 30mm, the 127mm main gun, the 2 x 3 Torpedo tubes and the two helos. Heck of a well armed destroyer.

williamhou said:

And since FL-3000N is supposed to be able to counter saturated attack while 730 can not, it would probably make more sense to put FL-3000N in front. It gives me a feeling that they are not confident FL-3000N is as reliable as RIM-116 RAM and they trust 730 more.

Click to expand...

Well the CIWS gun is going to be for "leakers" that get past the area air defense missiles, and then any of that get past that would be taken up by the FN-3000N, and finally, any leakers would be for the CIWS gun.

The ship handler is going to have to be able to maneuver the vessel as best they can to let that CIWS come into play...the missiles could be coming from any direction.

I personally believe a large DDG should have one of each fore and aft. The Russian Kashtin CIWS is a great solution. Two 30mm CIWS guns and 8 x Anti-missile missiles ready to fire with 32 automatic reloads for each installation.


IMHO, probably the best potential for the most effective CIWS weapon system out there

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Well, the Koreans do it with their Se Jong class AEGIS DDG. RAM forward and a Goal Keeper 30mm CIWS aft. That AEGIS vessel is the most heavily armed AEGIS vessel yet developed and they have three of them to date.

​

BTW, IMHO, that is pretty close to what a Burke III should look like. She has 128 VLS cells, plus the 21 RAM, plus the 16 SSMs ( a total of 165 missiles), and then the Goal Keeper 30mm, the 127mm main gun, the 2 x 3 Torpedo tubes and the two helos. Heck of a well armed destroyer.

Well the CIWS gun is going to be for "leakers" that get past the area air defense missiles, and then any of that get past that would be taken up by the FN-3000N, and finally, any leakers would be for the CIWS gun.

The ship handler is going to have to be able to maneuver the vessel as best they can to let that CIWS come into play...the missiles could be coming from any direction.

I personally believe a large DDG should have one of each fore and aft. The Russian Kashtin CIWS is a great solution. Two 30mm CIWS guns and 8 x Anti-missile missiles ready to fire with 32 automatic reloads for each installation.

​

IMHO, probably the best potential for the most effective CIWS weapon system out there

Click to expand...

Okay the Korean destroyer gives me a feeling they are not so confident about the RIM-116 RAM on board, either, so still have one gun based CIWS aft. instead of 2 RAM. If they trust the newer and more advanced RAM I think they would do that, which is able to target multiple "leakers" simultaneously (I expect quite a few of "leakers" in a major attack. Especially for the 052C/D where the large HQ9 is its only area defense anti-air missile and obviously not designed to shoot down anti-ship missiles. If it is not a large scale attack there is not much we need to worry about anyways)

It is also interesting to note the Korean destroyers being the first (maybe still the only?) Aegis destroyers to carry RIM CIWS. IMHO we will see more and more vessels solely employ missile based CIWS as people gain confidence in them, as they are able to handle tougher scenarios by design. We are already seeing this trend in newer ships like LCS, 056, San Antonio Class, etc

Back to the 052D, I think if they have to have both 730 and FL-3000N, I think the Koreans have a better arrangement to have the RAM forward. In a combat scenario I am not sure there is enough time for the captain of the ship to receive missile alert and maneuver the destoryer so that both 730 and FL-3000N can engage incoming sea-skimming missiles. For USN / Israeli Navy ships sailing everywhere in hostile water, you are right missiles may come from any direction. But for defensive forces like the Korean Navy or the Chinese Navy, they are likely aware of the direction of the enemy fleet. So unless the Chinese Navy are prepared to run away from engagement, the more reliable CIWS should be placed forward.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

I personally believe a large DDG should have one of each fore and aft. The Russian Kashtin CIWS is a great solution. Two 30mm CIWS guns and 8 x Anti-missile missiles ready to fire with 32 automatic reloads for each installation.

​

IMHO, probably the best potential for the most effective CIWS weapon system out there

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, PLAN do not think kashtan is a great solution. They have it armed on their PLAN Sov 138 and 139. But they never look beyond that weapon. No further attempt to buy more this system or clone it on future PLAN warship.

More or less tell us the performance of this system.