052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

nemo said:

That's assuming a missile can turn sharply enough to exploit that opening.

Click to expand...

But what if they (AShM mission profile programmers; I'm not one of them LOL) assumed a swarm of missiles could first move around the ship and then one or two missiles would come from the direction discussed here? I don't know, maybe this tactics would be unnecessary, I mean any saturation attack would likely work (or wouldn't at the end

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Its a traditional naval weakness, look at navy ships from any era and the same until you hit trireems of classical Greek and Roman periods then the ram was the main weapon of battle. If you think about it there is only one ship class that had equal fire power across all her sides. The American Union Monitor class ironclad of the 1860s. That was because her main guns were turreted in here singular Turret that pulled double duty as her deck house.

Click to expand...

TE, I think this is the type of argument chuck731 would've used LOL
I'm giving you Like!

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

That wasn't my intention Jara. I was simply stating that from a historical perspective the two least defended locations on a navy ship are at the bow and the stern. The strongest are at the sides. Where generally all a ships weapons have free rein.

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

TerraN_EmpirE said:

That wasn't my intention Jara. I was simply stating that from a historical perspective the two least defended locations on a navy ship are at the bow and the stern. The strongest are at the sides. Where generally all a ships weapons have free rein.

Click to expand...

My remark was unnecessary, but I truly liked that post, TE. I don't want to go off-topic (again so just have look at this incredible Italian battleship design from the interwar period: (you need to click again on the picture to see it all; never built, of course; send me a Private Message in case you wanted to know more)

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Nice pics of a Type 052C DDG (150), and a Type 054A FFG (549), doing simultaneous UNREP with the 890 replenishment vessel.

​

Nice.

Click to expand...

Must admit that is a outstanding replenishment picture

But favourite is this

We re making our PLAN Naval forum a little more specific and a lot easier to work with on certain classes.

The TYpe 052 Thread will be come the Type 052/052B Thread and going forward will only be for those two Classes.

We will have a separate thread for the Type 052C052D classes.

Post your discussions accordingly. I will move (over time) many of the specific posts about those two classes away from this thread and to that thread.

Thanks.

So, let's get back to the Type 052, the Luhu class.

There are two of these destroyers and the first was built in the late 1990s. Considered, and in fact were, the most modern Chinese DDGs at the time. Harbin, 112, and Qingdao, 113, are the two vessels. Each has a helo landing pad and a hanger for two helicopters.

In 2011, both of them were upgraded.

The four old Type 76A guns were replaced by two Type 730 CIWS which were both placed on top of the helicopter hangar. The Crotale/HHQ-7 short-range SAM were supposedly upgraded to the newer model (FM-90 I believe) which are better at intercepting low level targets, including potentially sub sonic anti-ship missiles. Two Type 726-4 decoy launchers were installed on both sides of the forward bridge for better self-protection. In addition, various onboard systems were integrated together where the = Thomson-CSF TAVITAC combat system is thought to have been replaced by a new indigenous C3I system (ZJK-4B or a newer model). The indigenous Type 518 Hai Ying radar was replaced by a Type 517M long-range air search radar. The Type 362 air/surface radar installed on top of the aft mast was been replaced by a Type 364. A pair of SATCOM antennas have been installed on top of the helicopter hangar as well. A fairly significant upgrade for these.

Here's pictures of Qingdao, 113, as she looks after the refit.


With the new CIWS, the better AAW missiles (though an FL-3000N launcher would have been far better IMHO), the newer sensors, and her 16 ASMs, the PLAN has demonstrated that they do not plan to retire these vessels any time soon...and with those 16 ASMs, they carry a strong punch.

Jeff Head said:

So, let's get back to the Type 052, the Luhu class.

There are two of these destroyers and the first was built in the late 1990s. Considered, and in fact were, the most modern Chinese DDGs at the time. Harbin, 112, and Qingdao, 113, are the two vessels. Each has a helo landing pad and a hanger for two helicopters.

In 2011, both of them were upgraded.
......
.....

With the new CIWS, the better AAW missiles (though an FL-3000N launcher would have been far better IMHO), ............

Click to expand...

Hi Jeff,

Why would FL-3000N be better?, it has shorter range than FM-90!

antiterror13 said:

Hi Jeff,

Why would FL-3000N be better?, it has shorter range than FM-90!

Click to expand...

things like firing rate, reaction/launch time and single shot kill probability are a lot more important than range.

tphuang said:

things like firing rate, reaction/launch time and single shot kill probability are a lot more important than range.

Click to expand...

I thought FM-90 was faster and had higher shot kill probability than FL-3000N. Thanks anyway