052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Re: DDG 052C Thread
That's the "oh well, at least..." answer. No doubt one single 052C is more preferable than an entire flotilla of Luda class destroyers, but I'm sure most people here were hoping for more than more of the same not-quite-there design. Don't deny. Recognize.
Yes. Several possibilities here: 1) the PLAN is developing a new VLS to be used on a new ship class ("052D" or whatever) and has no plans to and/or is not ready to install the new VLS on the 052C class, 2) the PLAN does not have a new destroyer class or VLS on the horizon and is simply unable to make the HQ-9 compatible with the HQ-16 VLS for reason(s) already mentioned, or 3) the PLAN is happy with the cold launch system.
Quickie
Colonel
Re: DDG 052C Thread
A valid reason. A slower warship need good range with its SAMs to defend against much speedier fighter jets. And then there's the question of putting too many weapons in a single warship although I admit I'm not sure how much is too much.
A valid reason. A slower warship need good range with its SAMs to defend against much speedier fighter jets. And then there's the question of putting too many weapons in a single warship although I admit I'm not sure how much is too much.
sealordlawrence
Junior Member
»Ø¸´: Re: DDG 052C Thread
There is nothing to deny, the Chinese Navy has acquired a highly modern warship that is indicative of the countries technological developments. It validates the earlier ships as being successful and adds to the fleet. Just because it does not meet your exact requirements does not mean it is in some-way deficient.
There is nothing to deny, the Chinese Navy has acquired a highly modern warship that is indicative of the countries technological developments. It validates the earlier ships as being successful and adds to the fleet. Just because it does not meet your exact requirements does not mean it is in some-way deficient.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
I don't see this as a disappointment at all actually. It took them a lot of times to figure out all of the problems on the first 2 052Cs and then JN shipyard was out of commission. It was not until at least 2008 that they were able to start building things again in JN. At this point, they need more new DDGs and the technology for something that is larger is not fully ready yet. You build the best you can build at a reasonable cost and that's what they are doing. The fanboys only want bigger and better. You don't build a navy through fantasy.
And as far as I'm concerned, we have to wait to see if there are more changes. I think there will be more VLS cells than the first 2 units, but will have to wait for more photos.
052C displacement figure is iffy as explained before. Different sources were giving different figures, so it could be a few hundreds tons high than 5840. Also, there is nothing to suggest that the new 052Cs are 900 tons heavier than the older ones at this point.
I don't see this as a disappointment at all actually. It took them a lot of times to figure out all of the problems on the first 2 052Cs and then JN shipyard was out of commission. It was not until at least 2008 that they were able to start building things again in JN. At this point, they need more new DDGs and the technology for something that is larger is not fully ready yet. You build the best you can build at a reasonable cost and that's what they are doing. The fanboys only want bigger and better. You don't build a navy through fantasy.
And as far as I'm concerned, we have to wait to see if there are more changes. I think there will be more VLS cells than the first 2 units, but will have to wait for more photos.
MwRYum
Major
Re: DDG 052C Thread
You guys have valid points but why I said it was a disappointment is because drawing the US as a yardstick, the US has standardized on the hot-launch MK-41 platform which afford them a far more flexible, not to mention efficient, mission payload options, not just for SAMs but for the offensive punch like cruise missiles as well. Inch for inch and pound for pound, the circular cold-launch arrangement ain't as efficient, though the space and displacement would be required to house the cold-launch system that's unavoidable.
Plus, there has been 4 years since the first 2 boats launched and there was no apparent improvement in terms of loadout, that's another reason for disappointment...it's not like the 2-year gap with 071 LPD. It's 4 years we're talking about! Whatever China hoped to close the gap already pulled further ahead by all its neighboring enemies.
If anyone gonna say adopting a more modular, more offensive-capable launch system would be too aggressive, I'd tell you the day when the world stop saying China is a threat would be when China's army reduced to using arrows and stones.
And I agreed with ZTZ99, contend with "at-least" ain't gonna cut the mustard. Certainly I don't buy the "next-generation DDG design" as yet.
Anyway, after 4 years still rolling out with a less-efficient, less-modular launch system is a disappointment.
You guys have valid points but why I said it was a disappointment is because drawing the US as a yardstick, the US has standardized on the hot-launch MK-41 platform which afford them a far more flexible, not to mention efficient, mission payload options, not just for SAMs but for the offensive punch like cruise missiles as well. Inch for inch and pound for pound, the circular cold-launch arrangement ain't as efficient, though the space and displacement would be required to house the cold-launch system that's unavoidable.
Plus, there has been 4 years since the first 2 boats launched and there was no apparent improvement in terms of loadout, that's another reason for disappointment...it's not like the 2-year gap with 071 LPD. It's 4 years we're talking about! Whatever China hoped to close the gap already pulled further ahead by all its neighboring enemies.
If anyone gonna say adopting a more modular, more offensive-capable launch system would be too aggressive, I'd tell you the day when the world stop saying China is a threat would be when China's army reduced to using arrows and stones.
And I agreed with ZTZ99, contend with "at-least" ain't gonna cut the mustard. Certainly I don't buy the "next-generation DDG design" as yet.
Anyway, after 4 years still rolling out with a less-efficient, less-modular launch system is a disappointment.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
I really don't see what the big debate is about. Currently China lacks modern destroyers in quantity, with 80% of the destroyers being old refitted ones. The 052C is a decent modern destroyer it can pull its weight in naval warfare, and carrier escorts. This brings to another agenda, future carrier battle group. Destroyers will need to be assigned to the Carrier group, which means China will need more destroyers than it has now to defend its interest. Cause you will have your normal naval vessel inventory and then one assigned to the carrier battle group. The HQ-9 has better air coverage range than the HQ-16. China frigate modernization of phasing out the older vessels or implementing modern ones is rapid.
While its destroyers are lagging behind, with only pairs of each model destroyers being inducted awhile ago. None have been seen in serial production as like the 054A. They need something modern and capable before something better comes up, or they already have something on the tables but are not yet ready. They can't keep sitting still until the ultimate vessel comes out, that will leave them vulnerable.
Since its introduction the 052C still hasn't had any solid specifications other then some approximations or educated guesses. So we really don't know how much she can really carry. Since China has been using such old destroyers mainly it needs vessels to train its crew members to operate modern destroyers. Currently their just isn't enough of them.
I really don't see what the big debate is about. Currently China lacks modern destroyers in quantity, with 80% of the destroyers being old refitted ones. The 052C is a decent modern destroyer it can pull its weight in naval warfare, and carrier escorts. This brings to another agenda, future carrier battle group. Destroyers will need to be assigned to the Carrier group, which means China will need more destroyers than it has now to defend its interest. Cause you will have your normal naval vessel inventory and then one assigned to the carrier battle group. The HQ-9 has better air coverage range than the HQ-16. China frigate modernization of phasing out the older vessels or implementing modern ones is rapid.
While its destroyers are lagging behind, with only pairs of each model destroyers being inducted awhile ago. None have been seen in serial production as like the 054A. They need something modern and capable before something better comes up, or they already have something on the tables but are not yet ready. They can't keep sitting still until the ultimate vessel comes out, that will leave them vulnerable.
Since its introduction the 052C still hasn't had any solid specifications other then some approximations or educated guesses. So we really don't know how much she can really carry. Since China has been using such old destroyers mainly it needs vessels to train its crew members to operate modern destroyers. Currently their just isn't enough of them.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
We are seeing the destroyer launched from the shipyard. If we go back to the moment when first two 052c destroyers were launched, we'll see that was in 2003. So that is full seven years later.
I am looking really hard for any meaningful external differences but can't find any. Thus i seriously doubt it's possible they crammed in more VLS cells or anything. While i do believe it's likely there are differences from the first two ships, they are probably internal, electronics, etc.
Reasons for not seeing a whole new class of ship is, partly, because the shipyard was moving, true, and it seems this shipyard is the only one with enough skill to pull off such projects, but also because the next generation of destroyers just isn't ready. So maybe PLAN got impatient and said 'fine, build 2 or 4 more 052c, so we don't wait another 3-4 years for 052d'.
We are seeing the destroyer launched from the shipyard. If we go back to the moment when first two 052c destroyers were launched, we'll see that was in 2003. So that is full seven years later.
I am looking really hard for any meaningful external differences but can't find any. Thus i seriously doubt it's possible they crammed in more VLS cells or anything. While i do believe it's likely there are differences from the first two ships, they are probably internal, electronics, etc.
Reasons for not seeing a whole new class of ship is, partly, because the shipyard was moving, true, and it seems this shipyard is the only one with enough skill to pull off such projects, but also because the next generation of destroyers just isn't ready. So maybe PLAN got impatient and said 'fine, build 2 or 4 more 052c, so we don't wait another 3-4 years for 052d'.
joshuatree
Captain
Re: DDG 052C Thread
For those that keep insisting its a disappointment, at the end of the day, would you rather see one additional 052C to the fleet or nothing at all, just because you can't get the HQ-16 or more VLS(s)?
As for using the USN and the AB as a benchmark, how is that even a fair or realistic comparison? Doesn't the AB flight IIA displace over 10,000 tons? Where does the 052C come in at? Less than 7,000 tons. Let's suppose they did figure out the wrinkles with installing the HQ-16 into the 052C. What makes one think you can simply add more without weight considerations? Not only do the ABs displace more tonnage, but they are bigger in length, beam, and draft.
Is there any indication that the new 052C under construction is significantly bigger in dimensions?
For those that keep insisting its a disappointment, at the end of the day, would you rather see one additional 052C to the fleet or nothing at all, just because you can't get the HQ-16 or more VLS(s)?
As for using the USN and the AB as a benchmark, how is that even a fair or realistic comparison? Doesn't the AB flight IIA displace over 10,000 tons? Where does the 052C come in at? Less than 7,000 tons. Let's suppose they did figure out the wrinkles with installing the HQ-16 into the 052C. What makes one think you can simply add more without weight considerations? Not only do the ABs displace more tonnage, but they are bigger in length, beam, and draft.
Is there any indication that the new 052C under construction is significantly bigger in dimensions?
Re: DDG 052C Thread
So let's sum up.
-Extra 052C good
-Would have been better if it was something a bit prettier
-USN is bigger and meaner than the PLAN
-RoKN and JSMDF has better ships
So, in summary, nothing we don't already know for years and years already.
Anyway, lots of issues with redesigning a ship to load a totally different VLS, top weight, internal structure, power routing, exhaust, etc, not so jolly simple as you seem to think (though with so many years they probably could have designed something if they really wanted to). Anyway look at it from a proper generational perspective. Prior to this the PLAN can be sunk by a pathetic A-7 spam and there's nothing to be done about it. Even HHQ-7s were only for the newer and better ships back then, and CIWS was limited to Type 76A and the like... rubbish EWar and some flares... truly pathetic. I don't know if you remember we actually got excited about the Type 730 when that first appeared.
So in 2002/3 they launch ships with AESA MFR, VLS, long-ranged SSM, CIWS... datalink, a modern (compared to the Soviet legacy systems and Tavitac clones they had) combat information system, etc.... It was always going to take time to make sure everything work... in isolation. Then the fun can start trying to integrate everything. And I am sure many of us remember seeing missiles being fitted and removed, the test-firings, etc.
The PLAN faced a very steep learning curve and I should be very much surprised if full feedback can be given to the shipyard at any time before 2006. Take into account the shipyard move, waiting to integrate things learnt on the 054As, and integrating new technology over the half-decade, and it's not surprising that the next ships take so long and appears mostly unchanged.
And if you think it's anything unusual, let me remind you that KD-I's design work began in the late 80s, the Atagos took five years to launch, Flight IIA ABs took nine years from the first ABs... and we are talking about nations with a much longer continuous cycle of building modern warships, lots of continuous naval architecture, ship design, system integration and shipbuilding expertise (or in the case of Korea, ready access to such expertise).
So let's live with our disappointment a bit and accept that some things you just can't speed up.
Besides, we still have no idea what are the guts of the thing. We shouldn't focus too much on outside appearance, lots of things like internal layout, CDS (hell, if we want to be really optimistic, it can even have a proto-AEGIS system and there's nothing we'd be able to tell by looking), source code, EW etc, could be different. And in many ways they are far more important than putting in another two rotary launchers. Honestly, the SAME 170 in 2003 and 2007 is the precise same ship, but I'd put my money on the 2007 any day of the week... system integration is the difference between a ship that has guns and missiles on it which you can sort of work one at a time as long as they are not too close together to an organic fighting whole.
So let's sum up.
-Extra 052C good
-Would have been better if it was something a bit prettier
-USN is bigger and meaner than the PLAN
-RoKN and JSMDF has better ships
So, in summary, nothing we don't already know for years and years already.
Anyway, lots of issues with redesigning a ship to load a totally different VLS, top weight, internal structure, power routing, exhaust, etc, not so jolly simple as you seem to think (though with so many years they probably could have designed something if they really wanted to). Anyway look at it from a proper generational perspective. Prior to this the PLAN can be sunk by a pathetic A-7 spam and there's nothing to be done about it. Even HHQ-7s were only for the newer and better ships back then, and CIWS was limited to Type 76A and the like... rubbish EWar and some flares... truly pathetic. I don't know if you remember we actually got excited about the Type 730 when that first appeared.
So in 2002/3 they launch ships with AESA MFR, VLS, long-ranged SSM, CIWS... datalink, a modern (compared to the Soviet legacy systems and Tavitac clones they had) combat information system, etc.... It was always going to take time to make sure everything work... in isolation. Then the fun can start trying to integrate everything. And I am sure many of us remember seeing missiles being fitted and removed, the test-firings, etc.
The PLAN faced a very steep learning curve and I should be very much surprised if full feedback can be given to the shipyard at any time before 2006. Take into account the shipyard move, waiting to integrate things learnt on the 054As, and integrating new technology over the half-decade, and it's not surprising that the next ships take so long and appears mostly unchanged.
And if you think it's anything unusual, let me remind you that KD-I's design work began in the late 80s, the Atagos took five years to launch, Flight IIA ABs took nine years from the first ABs... and we are talking about nations with a much longer continuous cycle of building modern warships, lots of continuous naval architecture, ship design, system integration and shipbuilding expertise (or in the case of Korea, ready access to such expertise).
So let's live with our disappointment a bit and accept that some things you just can't speed up.
Besides, we still have no idea what are the guts of the thing. We shouldn't focus too much on outside appearance, lots of things like internal layout, CDS (hell, if we want to be really optimistic, it can even have a proto-AEGIS system and there's nothing we'd be able to tell by looking), source code, EW etc, could be different. And in many ways they are far more important than putting in another two rotary launchers. Honestly, the SAME 170 in 2003 and 2007 is the precise same ship, but I'd put my money on the 2007 any day of the week... system integration is the difference between a ship that has guns and missiles on it which you can sort of work one at a time as long as they are not too close together to an organic fighting whole.