052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Roger604 said:

In the fourth instance, two 052C+ are built using the lessons PLAN learned operating the 052C for the past 7 years. Meanwhile, two more 052D destroyers with square hot-launch VLS and integrated mast sensors are built at nearly the same time for trial.

Click to expand...

I still think the 2008 Olympics had something to do with the delays in PLAN surface fleet acquisition during that period. The ~$40 billion dollars spent had to come from somewhere. But, the infrastructure improvements (airport, subway, not the bird nest!) would benefit the economy in the long run.

Had PLAN been allocated the funds, they could've ordered more 052C's earlier. Instead, we saw no new destroyers for years, and the Varyag did not go into drydock until 2009.

IMO the new 052C should have some incremental improvements, but 052D is just speculation at this point.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Third DDG launched?

Re: DDG 052C Thread

this is the most recent picture of the 3rd 052C from JiangNan shipyard.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

I guess that would make the picture posted by no_name fake?

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Nope. It is still outfitting. This is a PS. But soon enough, the PLAN will have four and then six of them plowing the waves...just not yet.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Jeff Head said:

I agree.

But the 052C as it is, is a powerful addition for the PLAN. Now with 4-6 of them apparently coming online, I believe the PLAN is preparing to create large, well defended CSGs and SAGs. When you look at the 054As for FFG duties, the 052C for area anti-air, perhaps complemented with the o51Cs as needed, and the 052Bs and Sovs for general purpose DDG duties.

...and with the addition of the LPDs and the Shilang (if that is what they end up naming the Varyag), the PLAN is positioning itself to become arguably the second most powerful Navy in the WESTPAC, next to the US, although the Japanese JMSDF will give them a run for their money as their own carriers come online, particularly if they add the F-35 to the mix. The Japanese DDG force is very powerful i its own right.

...and that is why so many other countries are hurriedly building their own new amphibs and multi-task VTOL carriers.

Interesting times. The advancement of Naval Technology is being fueled rapidly by events and conditions in the WESTPAC before our very eyes.

Click to expand...

Since I am not into navy, I got a question.
WHY do you need so many different types of ships for SAG/CVBG?
I mean, why not incorporate all the features into one hull and build one version that's versatile for most situation?

I mean, I can't quite tell the differences between 054A, 051B, 052B, 052C - it just seems there are a lot of feature overlaps, and that could probably all get streamlined into one hull across production line to cut down the cost and provide maximum flexibility. Why make all those different hulls to complicate the production?

I mean, what's the primary difference between FFG and DDG? Why not merge the 2 into one? It just seems overtly complicated for a CVBG/SAG to have so many different types of ships in the group for the operation. Its like a soldier carrying a machine gun, a rifle, a grenade launcher, a submarine gun, a pistol, and a taser! I understand there is no "one size fit for all" but I felt the technology is reaching a point where it can blur the line of what traditionally is highly "segregated" specialization of different class of warships.

Take the USAF for example, it seems they are starting the "streamlining" process, the "joint" strike fighter is suppose to be the versatile "one size fit all" fighter/bomber/close air support/recon platform. I thought the same thing might start happening to the navy world with the hull types and functions merging all together.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

The argument can be made for "Jack of all trade, master of none" Anti Air, Anti Surface, Anti Submarine, etc can be specialized by each of the type of vessel. If you try to make them into all in one, then it will be difficult to make them the best at what they do.

JSF can be best describe as a bomber with limited air to air capability. That why the US AF is using the Raptor and Navy using the Super Hornet as air dominance fighter.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

jwangyue said:

The argument can be made for "Jack of all trade, master of none" Anti Air, Anti Surface, Anti Submarine, etc can be specialized by each of the type of vessel. If you try to make them into all in one, then it will be difficult to make them the best at what they do.

JSF can be best describe as a bomber with limited air to air capability. That why the US AF is using the Raptor and Navy using the Super Hornet as air dominance fighter.

Click to expand...

Well, my argument is that, why make all these different hull types? Maybe it can be streamlined to one common hull type for different radars/sensor packages fit outs and weapon systems depending on the need.

Also, since Anti-Air, Anti-Surface, Anti-Submarine all depends on the missile nowadays, there are many areas of overlap already - 051/052/054 all carrying similar weapons - HHQ-9/S-300FM/HQ16; YJ-83/YJ-62/C-803, all use Type 730 CIWS...etc. The differences are mainly the radars and sensor packages, and the amount of these weapons they carry.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Asymptote said:

Well, my argument is that, why make all these different hull types? Maybe it can be streamlined so one common hull type for different radars/sensor packages fit outs and weapon systems depending on the need.

Also, since Anti-Air, Anti-Surface, Anti-Submarine all depends on the missile nowadays, there are many areas of overlap already - 051/052/054 all carrying similar weapons - HHQ-9/S-300FM/HQ16; YJ-83/YJ-62/C-803, all use Type 730 CIWS...etc. The differences are mainly the radars and sensor packages, and the amount of these weapons they carry.

Click to expand...

As already mentioned, it is the problem of the impossibility of being best in all areas. Let's say you get a fixed hull that you could configure any way you wanted. You could churn out a bunch of them with a mix of the basic stuff of all mission types. But if the enemy then came along with the same hull, although wholly configured for anti-ship warfare, it would have a huge advantage over your ships.

The solution would be to increase the hull size. Larger hull=more sensors, more weapon systems etc. But then you have the problem of a rapidly increasing size of propulsion units and proportionally less maneuverability. A huge, lumbering, heavily loaded ship would easily be taken out by a bunch of small, agile ships. And you can't use carrier-sized ships racing around chasing subs either. Of course, if the enemy could force you to use such a huge and important ship to chase some speedboat or dwarf submarine, he would have the upper hand in any case.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

As for the concrete examples of attempts to make a one-size-fits-all (i.e. JSF among others) the problems of being possibly beaten in all circumstances (by specialized aircraft), in these cases this fact is outweighed by greatly increased efficiency in training and maintenance (as well as production)