052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Looking at the growth of PLAN over the last few years I can't help but think of the German naval build up in the years leading up to the First World War. Like China Germany was a continental power with little naval tradition apart from some coastal defence vessels. A political decision was made to join "the big league" and the navy was massively expanded, by the time the war broke out the High Seas Fleet was still numerically inferior to the Royal Navy but it's most modern ships were largely the equal, and in some respects superior to their British equivalents.

Despite all the recent progress China is still in the catch up phase. It's most modern ships would still be inferior to American or Japanese equivalents but the gap has narrowed considerably. If China tried now to build a straight challenger to the Burke or Atago classes they would probably fall flat on their faces as the complexity of it would be beyond them. Everything I've seen about PLAN's building programme tells me that they're taking their time making incremental improvements and making sure they're confident before taking the next step. It took Germany about 25 years from beginning it's build up to the point where it was the technical equal of it's rival. China is unlikely to close the numercial gap in that time but it is very capable of having warships equal and possibly superior to Western rivals by the end of that period.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Neutral Zone said:

Looking at the growth of PLAN over the last few years I can't help but think of the German naval build up in the years leading up to the First World War. Like China Germany was a continental power with little naval tradition apart from some coastal defence vessels. A political decision was made to join "the big league" and the navy was massively expanded, by the time the war broke out the High Seas Fleet was still numerically inferior to the Royal Navy but it's most modern ships were largely the equal, and in some respects superior to their British equivalents.

Despite all the recent progress China is still in the catch up phase. It's most modern ships would still be inferior to American or Japanese equivalents but the gap has narrowed considerably. If China tried now to build a straight challenger to the Burke or Atago classes they would probably fall flat on their faces as the complexity of it would be beyond them. Everything I've seen about PLAN's building programme tells me that they're taking their time making incremental improvements and making sure they're confident before taking the next step. It took Germany about 25 years from beginning it's build up to the point where it was the technical equal of it's rival. China is unlikely to close the numercial gap in that time but it is very capable of having warships equal and possibly superior to Western rivals by the end of that period.

Click to expand...

Naval improvement in the early 1900s was way easier than today. Back then the only technological edge you could have was hull strength and speed, other than that, it was all about cramming as heavy guns on the ship as possible. Thus, ships spent much longer in service before being outdated, and it was relatively easy for an industrial power to have the same technical capability, albeit not the resources (or personnel skill) of its superior. Today, improvements are mostly electronic (i.e. the computer suite or the missile weaponry), and improvements can be made much more frequently, which allows decades old designs like AB to actually still be superior to a ship like the 052C, even if the latter might look more futuristic and have a more stealthy design.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

How good is the combat management system on the 052C DDG?

I've heard that it's roughly as good as a late 80s-mid 90s AEGIS (if nothing else, the Chinese have modern computers to manage all the data from those four AESA radars and the KJ-2000 is pretty good by all accounts, showing competence in building C3I systems), but that's like comparing a Playstation to a PS3.

Re: DDG 052C Thread



Where are the rotary launchers? Are they too small to be seen? Is the angle wrong? Or are they absent?

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Roger604 said:

[qimg]http://i52.tinypic.com/2wn6a9j.jpg[/qimg]

Where are the rotary launchers? Are they too small to be seen? Is the angle wrong? Or are they absent?

Click to expand...

They can't be seen in that photo, look to the one where mao highlights it in a red box...

@skywatcher, where exactly did you hear it was as good as 80s/90s aegis? I don't know how anyone could know how effective the 052Cs CIC and AB's CIC both are...

And have there been any major changes in the aegis system from the nineties to now? I know some have been modified to be better in littoral waters, and the effectiveness would've been incrementally improved, but I'm not sure if it had been upgraded in a magnitude of playstation to playstation3 (using the analogy skywatcher gave).

and I imagine the combat system of the 052C should be quite good, i'd think it's similar to networking all the sensors and electronics together in an aircraft to a cockpit (only comparison I had, someone correct me if i'm wrong), which China's shown it can do quite well. Put that together with a modern AESA MFR then I'd imagine it should be comparable to aegis, the only advantage the latter having would be the fact that it's a mature system that's proven itself (well sort of, apart from that iranian passenger plane i don't remember any other aircraft or missiles it had ever shot down). Aside from the availability of a missile like Aster 15, I'd say the combat system overall should be similar to the european PAAMS.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

If the PLAN is interested in adopting box arrangement hot launch version of HQ-9 they may decide to redesign a new destroyer completely. If you can fit more with box arrangement you might as well take full advantage of it by going larger tonnage.

They may have decided that type 052c is not worth further improved upon given it's hull design, and the new 052c(s) comming out could be a stop gap until they get the design of the new ship sorted out.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

As much as we would like an improved destroyer design with either the electronics and sensors to match AEGIS or a design which houses more VLS hot launched missiles or with improved ASW/LACM capability, I think having an extra pair of 052C is not bad. It demonstrates the maturity of the design and PLAN's satisfaction and confidence in it. Also, it breaks the common pair-by-pair construction trend in PLAN destroyers and it is good to see that the PLAN is finally breaking this trend by making the 052C into a proper class of destroyers as opposed to what many may think as a mere "experimental" pair.

The 052C, despite not being the most cutting edge vessel, is nonetheless a highly capable platform that should be looked at quite favourably. While not an AEGIS platform, it will give PLAN a powerful air defence ship which is comparable or not too far behind current air defence destroyers and frigates that are entering service in Western and East Asian fleets. Having four of these will give the PLAN an air defence capability it never possessed and could very well form the basis of the first PLAN CVBG.

The retention of the Type 730 is the only surprise to me. Given that the FL-3000 is readied for service, as seen on the Varyag, one has to ask why it was not installed on the 052C. Perhaps the FL-3000 is in fact not the system many thought of as being comparable to RAM. While its external appearance looks like RAM, perhaps it is no more capable than short ranged SAM systems (like the HQ-7) albeit in a much smaller package, therefore it is not really a "CIWS" suitable of fending against AShMs at close range.

I hope the new pair of 052Cs retain the YJ62 AShM. The AShM has entered widespread service with the coastal defence units and, aside from the Moskit, it is PLAN's longest reach and hardest hitting AShM in service.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Additionally, I believe the relocation of JN shipyard played a part (although not entirely to blame) for the apparent 7 year gap in construction. While the new shipyard was relocated and put into operations quite quickly, perhaps it was not ready for warship construction (after all, for some time after the shipyard was operational, no naval vessels appeared) indicating that perhaps it took longer to restore/relocate/construct the naval construction capabilities of the shipyard.

While the destroyer may be the same, look at how they are constructing her. The practices are obviously different, a lot of the weapon systems don't have canvass wrapped over them and the whole process looks faster and much cleaner. So while there was a 6-7 year delay in production of 052C, I believe in the long run JN Shipyard will be able to construct destroyers much more efficiently than previously and this can only benefit the future 052D.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Regarding the FL3000, well I have heard that there were grumblings within the USN regarding the removal of the Phalanx, so maybe its a capability gap between the HQ10 and the RAM, or it may be simply a strategic choice of the PLAN not being entirely ready to give up on the good old solid round option.

There are good reasons to that, for example, the RAM may be good against currently deployed AShMs, but if it really starts to be that effective, how hard would it be to install some flares or other countermeasures already readily available to fighters and attack helicopters onto AShMs? How is the RAM's kill ratio going to be after such missiles become available?

On the building of the 052C again, well maybe we should not take that in isolation. Just have a look at all the other naval construction programmes the PLAN has got going. We have a second LPD launched, the usual run of 054A production, new corvettes reportedly being built, the Varyag showing real progress, a new huge SSK and rumored SSN production...

It could be that the PLAN is gearing up to assemble its first carrier battle group, and do not want to materially weaken its existing fleets by pulling fleet elements in as escort so they are building a escort fleet as well, or it might have something to do with the economic environment.

I don't have exact details, but I would be amazed if China's shipping industry weathered the global recession without any noticeable ill effects.

In the past, we have always heard how the Chinese shipyards were too busy with commercial work to build warships was fast as the PLAN wanted.

Well, maybe that has changed and much of the civilian work has been cancelled or pushed back, so suddenly there are slots opening up that the PLAN did not expect so soon. Instead of letting that pass, they might have said, 'ok, our next gen DDG design isn't ready yet because we didn't expect a slot to open till XXX, but we will take a couple of 052Cs while we are waiting, thank you very much!'

Lets not forget about China's massive stimulus package. If the global recession hit the Chinese shipyards harder then I thought and they were actually struggling, the PLAN would have probably have came to the rescue with some naval contracts to help keep the yards working while times are hard, and the PLAN get some pretty damn good and much needed DDGs out of it, so everyone wins.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

cloneattacks said:

As much as we would like an improved destroyer design with either the electronics and sensors to match AEGIS or a design which houses more VLS hot launched missiles or with improved ASW/LACM capability, I think having an extra pair of 052C is not bad. It demonstrates the maturity of the design and PLAN's satisfaction and confidence in it.

Click to expand...

Either that or it demonstrates that PLAN does not yet have a more capable successor. In any case it suggests to me that the combination of HQ-9/rotary launcher/ESA in this ship class may be an exclusive marriage of systems.

cloneattacks said:

The 052C, despite not being the most cutting edge vessel, is nonetheless a highly capable platform that should be looked at quite favourably. While not an AEGIS platform, it will give PLAN a powerful air defence ship which is comparable or not too far behind current air defence destroyers and frigates that are entering service in Western and East Asian fleets. Having four of these will give the PLAN an air defence capability it never possessed and could very well form the basis of the first PLAN CVBG.

Click to expand...

Well it's possible this ship has an AEGIS-like combat management system. It's simply impossible to tell. I doubt we'll know for many years to come, if ever.

cloneattacks said:

The retention of the Type 730 is the only surprise to me. Given that the FL-3000 is readied for service, as seen on the Varyag, one has to ask why it was not installed on the 052C. Perhaps the FL-3000 is in fact not the system many thought of as being comparable to RAM. While its external appearance looks like RAM, perhaps it is no more capable than short ranged SAM systems (like the HQ-7) albeit in a much smaller package, therefore it is not really a "CIWS" suitable of fending against AShMs at close range.

Click to expand...

Actually it's not that surprising. The limited deck space on that ship would not easily tolerate 2 additional pairs of E/O sensors and FCR's dedicated to the HQ-10/FL-3000 system, especially if you want to place them in optimum locations, whereas each Type 730 CIWS comes equipped with its own guidance. Solving that problem by integrating this weapon with the ship's combat system just creates another problem by decreasing the processing power available to guide additional HQ-9 missiles. But in any case, based on the photos of the ex-Varyag undergoing refit, it certainly does seem that the FL-3000 system is being used on that ship (in one form or another), so I doubt this system is not a capable CIWS.