052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
My guess is that it's either a TAS or some internal cable system for the ship. Compare the cable to the artist impression of the AN/SQR-19B here:
My guess is that it's either a TAS or some internal cable system for the ship. Compare the cable to the artist impression of the AN/SQR-19B here:
Attachments
-
tas.jpg
Last edited:
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
original 052 pre-modernization had a VDS. so I guess they are phasing themout with TAS.
original 052 pre-modernization had a VDS. so I guess they are phasing themout with TAS.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
People keep saying the 48 VLS cells on the Type 052C are insufficient, but really are 48 air defence missiles too few in a modern warfare scenario?
Would the PLAN ever need more than the 96 HQ-9's that would be carried by 2 Type 052C's in a future PLAN CBG? Not even accounting for the HQ16's carried by type 054A's.
I think the Type 052C is fine as is, and the PLAN should just churn out as many as possible. If they can improve what ASW capabilities it has, a few anti-sub missiles here, a bigger gun there, and the 052C would be one well rounded piece of naval machinery. There's no need to try and build South Korea style missile cruisers, and I say cruisers because those things pack one hell of a punch. The PLAN should focus on quality, not quantity when it comes to VLS cells. I know, ironic.
Thoughts?
People keep saying the 48 VLS cells on the Type 052C are insufficient, but really are 48 air defence missiles too few in a modern warfare scenario?
Would the PLAN ever need more than the 96 HQ-9's that would be carried by 2 Type 052C's in a future PLAN CBG? Not even accounting for the HQ16's carried by type 054A's.
I think the Type 052C is fine as is, and the PLAN should just churn out as many as possible. If they can improve what ASW capabilities it has, a few anti-sub missiles here, a bigger gun there, and the 052C would be one well rounded piece of naval machinery. There's no need to try and build South Korea style missile cruisers, and I say cruisers because those things pack one hell of a punch. The PLAN should focus on quality, not quantity when it comes to VLS cells. I know, ironic.
Thoughts?
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Considering the pk ratio of missiles against a modern opponent it not likely to reach even 50%, we're talking almost 3 missiles per threat. That is one wave of 12 planes thwarted. The second such wave is very likely to go through mostly unimpeded. And afterwards it's a clear area. Or double that for two 052c. I can certainly see a scenario where multiple such waves are launched within several hour period. And a 052c needs probably a day or even days to go back to harbor, rearm and get back where it was. And if we're talking intercepting missiles i shudder to think how low the pk would be as hq9 wasn't really designed to battle manouvering low flying missiles.
Considering the pk ratio of missiles against a modern opponent it not likely to reach even 50%, we're talking almost 3 missiles per threat. That is one wave of 12 planes thwarted. The second such wave is very likely to go through mostly unimpeded. And afterwards it's a clear area. Or double that for two 052c. I can certainly see a scenario where multiple such waves are launched within several hour period. And a 052c needs probably a day or even days to go back to harbor, rearm and get back where it was. And if we're talking intercepting missiles i shudder to think how low the pk would be as hq9 wasn't really designed to battle manouvering low flying missiles.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
^ I think tphuang's said HQ-9 was effective against manouvering sea skimmers in past posts? And note HQ-9's slant range of 500m doesn't mean it's "effective altitude" (from previous discussions with numbers from sinodefence).
... And I'm not sure about that 50% number, but I wonder how that will translate to potential future anti AShBM defence...
But anyway, the point is that massive king sejong with 120+ VLS cells isn't quite necessary for the PLAN at the moment and building more, smaller DDGs might be more effective and flexible. Though I would like to see an AB flight iia peer from chinese shipyards soon.
And out of the US, how many countries will be able to mount waves after waves of attacks like such? I do not believe PLAN intends to use their carriers against the USN -- it will be for projecting power abroad, protecting interests in times of conflict where you need airpower... and it will be against smaller far less capable countries. A couple of 052Cs and 054As will be more than enough for security at that point... and if it comes down to a sh*tfest with the US then everyone's screwed anyway.
so I agree with kingsley, 052C at the moment is a good choice to mass produce. though the next class should be approaching cruiser size and be much more multi role.
Welcome to the forum to kingsley too.
^ I think tphuang's said HQ-9 was effective against manouvering sea skimmers in past posts? And note HQ-9's slant range of 500m doesn't mean it's "effective altitude" (from previous discussions with numbers from sinodefence).
... And I'm not sure about that 50% number, but I wonder how that will translate to potential future anti AShBM defence...
But anyway, the point is that massive king sejong with 120+ VLS cells isn't quite necessary for the PLAN at the moment and building more, smaller DDGs might be more effective and flexible. Though I would like to see an AB flight iia peer from chinese shipyards soon.
And out of the US, how many countries will be able to mount waves after waves of attacks like such? I do not believe PLAN intends to use their carriers against the USN -- it will be for projecting power abroad, protecting interests in times of conflict where you need airpower... and it will be against smaller far less capable countries. A couple of 052Cs and 054As will be more than enough for security at that point... and if it comes down to a sh*tfest with the US then everyone's screwed anyway.
so I agree with kingsley, 052C at the moment is a good choice to mass produce. though the next class should be approaching cruiser size and be much more multi role.
Welcome to the forum to kingsley too.
MwRYum
Major
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
In terms of ammo/cell density, the system 052C uses is quite wasteful, but that's what you get with cold-launch system; the missile themselves ain't the primary issue but certainly hot-launch system is more preferable.
Besides, modular hot-launch system can load more than just SAM, cruise missiles like the US with the Mk41 / BGM-109 combo, not to mention VLS helps to make the vessel profile more stealth-oriented.
It's true that the current cruise missile, CJ-10 is too large for such, but if the news that Chinese success in a new kind of common VLS system is true, it shouldn't be long before they implement it.
In terms of ammo/cell density, the system 052C uses is quite wasteful, but that's what you get with cold-launch system; the missile themselves ain't the primary issue but certainly hot-launch system is more preferable.
Besides, modular hot-launch system can load more than just SAM, cruise missiles like the US with the Mk41 / BGM-109 combo, not to mention VLS helps to make the vessel profile more stealth-oriented.
It's true that the current cruise missile, CJ-10 is too large for such, but if the news that Chinese success in a new kind of common VLS system is true, it shouldn't be long before they implement it.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
48 rounds of long range sam and 4 fixed phased array in a 6000 ton hull is as economical as one can get.
I personally don't believe bigger ship = better. its the efficiency that matters.
I would even go extreme and argue to get rid of that helicopter hangar and put 2-4 more dums in there.
who cares about land attack and ASW, let 054A handle it.
48 rounds of long range sam and 4 fixed phased array in a 6000 ton hull is as economical as one can get.
I personally don't believe bigger ship = better. its the efficiency that matters.
I would even go extreme and argue to get rid of that helicopter hangar and put 2-4 more dums in there.
who cares about land attack and ASW, let 054A handle it.