052/052B Class Destroyers

S

Schumacher

Senior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

duskylim said:
....
The only modern ocean-going warship the PLAN is producing in quantity is the 054A class FFG.
Is the reason for the dearth of newer destroyers that the PLAN is so pleased with the 054A series that it is willing to wait a longer time for better and cheaper designs?
Did the 054A kill the upgrades to the 052's?
.....
Click to expand...

New 052s' deployment, or whatever they call them, will be timed to coincide with that of the carriers where they are most needed as part of the carrier battle group.
Currently the needs of a carrier'less PLAN is adequately met by 054s.
 
EDIATH

EDIATH

Junior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

duskylim said:
Its been almost 8 years since the 052C AAW destroyers 170 and 171 were launched and out-fitted, without any successors being built, that's a long time, even for a navy as cautious as the PLAN.

They represented a remarkable demonstration of modernization for the PLAN and for China's shipbuilding capabilities.

We all know that the 052B multi-purpose destroyers 168 and 169 were basically intended as more-advanced Chinese-built versions of the Soviet-era Sovremmeny class DDGs, sharing many Russian built and supplied systems and therefore were unlikely to be built in quantity - except maybe in an emergency over Taiwan.

One could argue that they were built mainly for practice and experience before attempting to build the 052C's.

If we take the PLAN's experience with the 039 Song class SSK as an example, the PLAN, before it begins mass-production of a new class of warship likes to iron out all the kinks - in the case of the 039's successor, that took about 8 to 10 years (please correct me if I am wrong) for the improved 039G's and 039A's to be built - but at least they were built.

Now that they are approaching nearly a decade of operational experience with the 052C class, what do you expect the PLAN to do?

Will they start to produce and improved version or will they make an entirely new warship?

The launch of the new 051C AAW class destroyer complicates this picture as they seem to constitute a step backwards in design and capabilities, - why would the PLAN spend the time and resources to build an inferior ship when they can already build one that is clearly superior?

The only modern ocean-going warship the PLAN is producing in quantity is the 054A class FFG.

Is the reason for the dearth of newer destroyers that the PLAN is so pleased with the 054A series that it is willing to wait a longer time for better and cheaper designs?

Did the 054A kill the upgrades to the 052's?

Why did they build the awkward 051C's in the first place?

Is it a need to place an S-300 analogue at sea to provide air defence in a Taiwan scenario?

Maybe the surface-warfare faction has less priority than the submarine faction within the PLAN, as the Yuan's now seem to be beginning their mass-production.

Your comments and analysis are very welcome.
Click to expand...

Why did they stop building 052C?

They run out of money :p nobody can afford that during the global financial melt-down (perhaps except India whose pocket seems bottomless), besides they were testing the domestically manufactured gas turbine around the time, a few years' waiting period could save lots of money from importing engines from Ukraine.

Why did they build 051C?

Rumor says S-300FM was incredibly available at the time & steam engine wasn't a problem at all for Dalian Shipyard & 051B is a proven design, the bottom line is...it's cheap.

Did 054A kill the future of 052C?

No, they are assigned with different roles. Also there are three times more frigates in PLAN needs replacement than destroyers. And again, 054A is not suffering from delay in domestic engine supply (a smooth transition from the French imports).

Roughly what I know, could be wrong though. ;)
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Re: DDG 052C Thread

Schumacher said:
New 052s' deployment, or whatever they call them, will be timed to coincide with that of the carriers where they are most needed as part of the carrier battle group.
Currently the needs of a carrier'less PLAN is adequately met by 054s.
Click to expand...

However you cannot expect the Navy personnel to be immediately proficient in running and operating the 052 to its fullest capacity immediately. The Chinese should already get a few of these 052 up and running, all the while training her personnel on board. And once the carrier is readied, it will immediately had a fleet of 052 and 54A ready as escort.
 
S

Schumacher

Senior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

rhino123 said:
However you cannot expect the Navy personnel to be immediately proficient in running and operating the 052 to its fullest capacity immediately. The Chinese should already get a few of these 052 up and running, all the while training her personnel on board. And once the carrier is readied, it will immediately had a fleet of 052 and 54A ready as escort.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of noises, almost confirmations actually if you read this thread, of new destroyers being built now to be launched about the same time as the carriers.
Naturally trainings on operating them, and the carriers, will proceed together. Of course, nothing to stop some trainings to be done on currently existing PLAN 052s.
 
Asymptote

Asymptote

Banned Idiot
Re: DDG 052C Thread

tphuang said:
From all I've seen, it looks pretty official. The surprise is obviously that HQ-12 is about the same size as HQ-12.

Well, I think you can make conclusions on what the differences are between a naval SAM and a ground based SAM especially in terms of guidance. The fact that they conscious called one HHQ-9 and the other one HQ-9 should tell you they are not exactly the same.
Click to expand...


Yeh, I am surprised by the size part too. I don't understand why Chinese arm industries continue to limit themselves with the weapon they make? What I mean is, why are they making HQ-9 so small that the range is limited to 200 km? Why not enlarge the size like the Russian S-300 to extend the range and deterrence? If adding one more stage or increasing a little bit more length and diameter could increase the range, why not do it??
 
Z

ZTZ99

Banned Idiot
Re: DDG 052C Thread

duskylim said:
Why did they build the awkward 051C's in the first place?

Is it a need to place an S-300 analogue at sea to provide air defence in a Taiwan scenario?
Click to expand...
The PLAN had to find a ship to house the S-300 system, 2 of which they bought from Russia many years ago. The available Luhai/051B class and the S-300 may have led to an uncomfortable marriage of convenience, as the 051B design is obviously ill-suited to carry this missile, having had to give up both its hangar spots while also leaving a large portion of the ship's forward quadrant completely unprotected by the S-300 fire control radar.

Asymptote said:
Yeh, I am surprised by the size part too. I don't understand why Chinese arm industries continue to limit themselves with the weapon they make? What I mean is, why are they making HQ-9 so small that the range is limited to 200 km? Why not enlarge the size like the Russian S-300 to extend the range and deterrence? If adding one more stage or increasing a little bit more length and diameter could increase the range, why not do it??
Click to expand...
The HQ-9 is not a small missile. In fact as shipborne SAM's go it is a huge missile. It is almost twice the weight of the SM-2MR (708kg vs 1,300kg) and only has a 30km range advantage over the US missile. The range of 200km seems somewhat suspect to me, however. Many years ago the FT-2000 system, which is basically an HQ-9 with a different (passive) guidance system, was being promoted to the international market with quoted ranges of "90km" or "100km" and netizens were bemoaning the poor range performance of this missile. While this system does not seem to have been financially successful, the HQ-9 iteration has obviously been adopted by the PLAN. Over the last few years I have seen the quoted ranges of the HQ-9 increase from "150km" to the latest "200km". Whether this represents improved intelligence or improved wishful netizen thinking is not clear. But in the end at a weight of 1,300kg a range of 200km does not seem that unreasonable. If quoted statistics are to be believed, a slant range of 200km for an naval air defence missile is nothing to sneeze at, though. It's more than the Aster-30's 120km range, more than the SM-2MRIIIB's 170km range, and more than the Rif-M's 150km range.
 
S

Skywatcher

Captain
Re: DDG 052C Thread

Jane's has talked about HQ-9A and HQ-9B versions, which could account for the improved 200km range. And as for rocket motors, the Chinese could have gotten access to Patriot missile motors and scaled those up for the HQ-9 if the reports of the Israelis passing on Patriot guidance systems are true.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

EDIATH said:
Why did they stop building 052C?

They run out of money :p nobody can afford that during the global financial melt-down (perhaps except India whose pocket seems bottomless), besides they were testing the domestically manufactured gas turbine around the time, a few years' waiting period could save lots of money from importing engines from Ukraine.

Why did they build 051C?

Rumor says S-300FM was incredibly available at the time & steam engine wasn't a problem at all for Dalian Shipyard & 051B is a proven design, the bottom line is...it's cheap.

Did 054A kill the future of 052C?

No, they are assigned with different roles. Also there are three times more frigates in PLAN needs replacement than destroyers. And again, 054A is not suffering from delay in domestic engine supply (a smooth transition from the French imports).

Roughly what I know, could be wrong though. ;)
Click to expand...

Hmm I don't think they stopped building the 052C because there wasn't enough money. In China, if there's the need, then there's the money.

I feel that they were waiting for the technology on the 052C to be matured before rolling out a new, more composed destroyer in the form of 052D. The systems on the 052C (new AESA, long range HQ-9) would've needed substantial amounts of testing to familiarize crews with the next gen of destroyers which would be built en masse.
We'll have to see when the weapons on 052D become recognizable.
 
EDIATH

EDIATH

Junior Member
Re: DDG 052C Thread

Bltizo said:
Hmm I don't think they stopped building the 052C because there wasn't enough money. In China, if there's the need, then there's the money.

I feel that they were waiting for the technology on the 052C to be matured before rolling out a new, more composed destroyer in the form of 052D. The systems on the 052C (new AESA, long range HQ-9) would've needed substantial amounts of testing to familiarize crews with the next gen of destroyers which would be built en masse.
We'll have to see when the weapons on 052D become recognizable.
Click to expand...

What you said might be true for the civilian sector, not for defense though. Spending only 1.5-2% of GDP with literally millions of service men & women to take care of, PLA struggles with the budget restraint perhaps tougher than any other major armed forces in the world.

The follow-up of 052C were supposed to come out 2-3 years after the commission of hull 171, which coincided with the starting of global financial crisis. What chance had PLAN got as Chinese government pledged 600 billion USD to save the economy from recession?*

Besides PLA is battling inflation much as any*civilian employers, the double digit budget growth is matched against rapidly increasing salary rates, either to keep talents or at least hold the morale together. The traditional PLA doctrine is "people first, equipment second", recruiting top minds among uni. graduates meanwhile improving skills of existing personnel might be higher on the priority list in comparison to acquiring a few more *052C.

However I agree with you on the technical side of the delay, the air defense system on 052C is after all new to PLAN. Apart from the engine, I suspect they have been taking time developing a new fleet-wise combat command/control system with higher degree of sensor integration and data sharing to meet the requirements of a carrier battle group.
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
Re: DDG 052C Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the article said" discussing the development of next generation of destroyer"
the drawing show there are not much different between image in the magazine and 051 and 052 ,except the yagi antenna been replace by new "smart-L' type long range surveillance radar.
in fact I already posted the picture few monthas ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top