052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
franco-russe
Senior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Well, right now it is just two 052C. By 2014 it will be six, and by 2016 likely ten.
Well, right now it is just two 052C. By 2014 it will be six, and by 2016 likely ten.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I donno if #7 and #8 would still be 052Cs.
or even if it is then would prob stop at #8.
they have that big 130mm L70 auto cannon they have been testing.
that thing was surely not intended for 052C.
developemental timeline would have that cannon nicely lined up with #7 if they hurry it up or #9 #10 if they are going at orderly pace.
I donno if #7 and #8 would still be 052Cs.
or even if it is then would prob stop at #8.
they have that big 130mm L70 auto cannon they have been testing.
that thing was surely not intended for 052C.
developemental timeline would have that cannon nicely lined up with #7 if they hurry it up or #9 #10 if they are going at orderly pace.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
That was fast, they were just shadowy sillhouettes three days ago?
I suppose crunch time is now to see whether #7 is still 052C or a follow on
Pics of 5th and 6th:
That was fast, they were just shadowy sillhouettes three days ago?
I suppose crunch time is now to see whether #7 is still 052C or a follow on
kwaigonegin
Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
If a missile flying 10 ft off the sea level at mach 2 and it hasn;t been blown up a mile or two away you better be putting as much lead out there as you can! otherwise buh bye...
I don;t care how accurate a missile is it can't replace a wall consisting of 2000 rounds of hot depleted uranium shells as a barrier. Not to mention a swarm attack to saturate air defences with multiple AShMs with fancy maneuvering during the terminal phase.
If you ask me I think the next evolutionary step in the development of CIWS is in laser although not in the near future but laser by it's very definition would make ideal almost perfect CIWS since they are instantaneous, it's super accurate and obviously it's light speed! The biggest problem is scaling down the power generators themselves to be practical enough to power these types of weapon systems.
not sure what you're talking about because varyag has CIWS also. Are you refering to the FL3000 RAM? I think they both work in concert together. I don;t think that a missile defensive system alone can replace CIWS at this stage in time for point defence system.
If a missile flying 10 ft off the sea level at mach 2 and it hasn;t been blown up a mile or two away you better be putting as much lead out there as you can! otherwise buh bye...
I don;t care how accurate a missile is it can't replace a wall consisting of 2000 rounds of hot depleted uranium shells as a barrier. Not to mention a swarm attack to saturate air defences with multiple AShMs with fancy maneuvering during the terminal phase.
If you ask me I think the next evolutionary step in the development of CIWS is in laser although not in the near future but laser by it's very definition would make ideal almost perfect CIWS since they are instantaneous, it's super accurate and obviously it's light speed! The biggest problem is scaling down the power generators themselves to be practical enough to power these types of weapon systems.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
You probably have the wrong example there buddy, as a supersonic AShM doing fancy maneuvering is precisely the kind of target a missile based CIWS would be better at handling compared to a traditional gun-based CIWS.
The faster a target moves, the more lead-time you need for a gun based CIWS, the more extreme maneuvers a target is pulling, the less chance of a successful intercept when leading a target.
You also should check how much ammo modern CIWS carry if you think they will be firing anything close to 2000 rounds at any one target.
Missiles CIWS has the advantage of longer range and better hit rate against supersonic missiles. Gun based CIWS is more flexible (can engage small boats for example), is more reliable (they have their own dedicated sensors and/or are tied into the ship's sensors, all of which are much more powerful than anything you can fit in a missile seeker. There is also the man-in-the-loop option so the chances of a gun base CIWS being fooled by potential future stealthy or decoy carrying missiles is much reduced compared to missiles), better at multi-target engagement (you can shoot loads of SEARAMs at different targets, but there is always the chance they will all go chasing the same target while leaving others unengaged) and is cheaper.
As for the future, well I have a feeling railgun based CIWS may become operational before lasers.
You probably have the wrong example there buddy, as a supersonic AShM doing fancy maneuvering is precisely the kind of target a missile based CIWS would be better at handling compared to a traditional gun-based CIWS.
The faster a target moves, the more lead-time you need for a gun based CIWS, the more extreme maneuvers a target is pulling, the less chance of a successful intercept when leading a target.
You also should check how much ammo modern CIWS carry if you think they will be firing anything close to 2000 rounds at any one target.
Missiles CIWS has the advantage of longer range and better hit rate against supersonic missiles. Gun based CIWS is more flexible (can engage small boats for example), is more reliable (they have their own dedicated sensors and/or are tied into the ship's sensors, all of which are much more powerful than anything you can fit in a missile seeker. There is also the man-in-the-loop option so the chances of a gun base CIWS being fooled by potential future stealthy or decoy carrying missiles is much reduced compared to missiles), better at multi-target engagement (you can shoot loads of SEARAMs at different targets, but there is always the chance they will all go chasing the same target while leaving others unengaged) and is cheaper.
As for the future, well I have a feeling railgun based CIWS may become operational before lasers.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I am aware that CIWS can be both missile or gun based. The reason I'm asking is because it seems that even if they have a missile/gun combination of CIWS on the type 052c they can only have one type in the forward section and one type in the back, so they won't exactly be working in concert if the threat comes from certain directions unlike the varyag. (unless they redesign/modify and allow for more space).
Also do supersonic anti-ship missiles do terminal maneuvers? Would supersonic terminal maneuver results in significant speed decrease/requires reinforced/heavier missile body? I was under the impression that terminal maneuvering is more important for subsonic missiles where their approach speed is slower, whereas supersonic missiles relies on their fast approach speed and coordinated mass attacks to break through defenses. Can the soviet supersonic anti-ship missiles do terminal maneuver? I don't think missiles like brahmos was originally designed to do it (?) If having more speed constrains them to follow a more predictable path then they might turn out to be easier to engage and stop.
Missile based CIWS have advantage in that you can engage multiple targets in the sense that you can move on to a new target after firing missiles without needing to confirm that the old one was destroyed first. For gun you'd have to prioritise and pipeline their engagement.
I am aware that CIWS can be both missile or gun based. The reason I'm asking is because it seems that even if they have a missile/gun combination of CIWS on the type 052c they can only have one type in the forward section and one type in the back, so they won't exactly be working in concert if the threat comes from certain directions unlike the varyag. (unless they redesign/modify and allow for more space).
Also do supersonic anti-ship missiles do terminal maneuvers? Would supersonic terminal maneuver results in significant speed decrease/requires reinforced/heavier missile body? I was under the impression that terminal maneuvering is more important for subsonic missiles where their approach speed is slower, whereas supersonic missiles relies on their fast approach speed and coordinated mass attacks to break through defenses. Can the soviet supersonic anti-ship missiles do terminal maneuver? I don't think missiles like brahmos was originally designed to do it (?) If having more speed constrains them to follow a more predictable path then they might turn out to be easier to engage and stop.
Missile based CIWS have advantage in that you can engage multiple targets in the sense that you can move on to a new target after firing missiles without needing to confirm that the old one was destroyed first. For gun you'd have to prioritise and pipeline their engagement.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Well, look at the LD2000. There is a model with 3 short range missiles strapped to each side of it. If it was really deemed necessary to have both gun and missiles, they could do the same thing for the naval 730s almost overnight.
As for supersonic AShMs doing terminal maneuvers, well I seriously doubt something massive like the Brahmos would be very good at it even if it could do it. But extreme end-game maneuvering is certainly one of the big selling points of the Klub. But the point I was making was that the faster a missile is going, the longer a gun-based system would need to lead it, and that means even small changes in speed and/or vector could easily be enough to spoil a shot. Certainly, a faster missile would not need to maneuver anywhere as much as a slower missile to spoil a shot. Also, subsonics rely more on saturation than end-game maneuvering to defeat modern, layered defenses.
Also, gun based CIWS can engage multiple targets at the same time. You could easily set the gun to automatically fire off 1-2 second bursts at multiple targets, and then switch back to fire more bursts at anything the first bursts missed.
You will have a more limited firing ark as the turret itself needs time to traverse, but in that narrow field, you have the advantage that your shots are going against exactly the targets you want, whereas will missiles, there is always the chance some missiles might all go for the same target.
I am also unconvinced about just how well missiles like SEARAM would cope in a saturation attack scenario where AShMs are exploding left right and center as they are intercepted, but more are still coming in seconds behind the destroyed ones. Can their IR sensors even still function when a ton of HE just went off in their face?
Well, look at the LD2000. There is a model with 3 short range missiles strapped to each side of it. If it was really deemed necessary to have both gun and missiles, they could do the same thing for the naval 730s almost overnight.
As for supersonic AShMs doing terminal maneuvers, well I seriously doubt something massive like the Brahmos would be very good at it even if it could do it. But extreme end-game maneuvering is certainly one of the big selling points of the Klub. But the point I was making was that the faster a missile is going, the longer a gun-based system would need to lead it, and that means even small changes in speed and/or vector could easily be enough to spoil a shot. Certainly, a faster missile would not need to maneuver anywhere as much as a slower missile to spoil a shot. Also, subsonics rely more on saturation than end-game maneuvering to defeat modern, layered defenses.
Also, gun based CIWS can engage multiple targets at the same time. You could easily set the gun to automatically fire off 1-2 second bursts at multiple targets, and then switch back to fire more bursts at anything the first bursts missed.
You will have a more limited firing ark as the turret itself needs time to traverse, but in that narrow field, you have the advantage that your shots are going against exactly the targets you want, whereas will missiles, there is always the chance some missiles might all go for the same target.
I am also unconvinced about just how well missiles like SEARAM would cope in a saturation attack scenario where AShMs are exploding left right and center as they are intercepted, but more are still coming in seconds behind the destroyed ones. Can their IR sensors even still function when a ton of HE just went off in their face?