052C/052D Class Destroyers

MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
It's as much about the keep getting new ships into the fleet to replace the obsolete hulls, but also to keep the production line alive with its experienced hands intact. If the 055 experience major hiccup with its lead ship, the follow-on construction plans will be put on hold during the debug, so during the debugging we might actually see small batch orders of 052D running at slower construction speed.

This is a likely scenario, for the 055 won't be merely bigger displacement than the 052D.
 
by78

by78

General
More photos from Jiangnan...

(1500 x 1000)
25763567783_ef408e4fca_o.jpg


All guns turned to port... (1500 x 1000)
26366298775_6d05771c18_o.jpg
 
T

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
Since China hasn't placed any SAM on the firery cross, subi, and mischieve islands, shouldn't they place 052D permanently on each island to provide miminal air defences?

So, it made sens to increase to the production of 052D to 15 from 12. The extra 3 will permanently assigned to the 3 islands.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
tidalwave said:
Since China hasn't placed any SAM on the firery cross, subi, and mischieve islands, shouldn't they place 052D permanently on each island to provide miminal air defences?

So, it made sens to increase to the production of 052D to 15 from 12. The extra 3 will permanently assigned to the 3 islands.
Click to expand...

Makes little sense to permanently base an 052D at each of those locations. It would be a logistical nightmare to house the crew there and asking the crew to stay onboard while docked would be trying. When not at homeport, ships like the 052D are best served underway.

These bases will be better served manned by non-military assets like CG assets, including CG patrol planes. Is there currently a threat requiring air defense? Aside from the US fly-bys, are there other claimant air assets flying over these features and pose an offensive threat? If there is, then implementing something like SAMs still make more sense than parking an 052D there.
 
T

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
joshuatree said:
Makes little sense to permanently base an 052D at each of those locations. It would be a logistical nightmare to house the crew there and asking the crew to stay onboard while docked would be trying. When not at homeport, ships like the 052D are best served underway.

These bases will be better served manned by non-military assets like CG assets, including CG patrol planes. Is there currently a threat requiring air defense? Aside from the US fly-bys, are there other claimant air assets flying over these features and pose an offensive threat? If there is, then implementing something like SAMs still make more sense than parking an 052D there.
Click to expand...


right now, CHina is hesitant to put SAMs on islands. Paracel , yes but not Spratley at this point.

come on now, those big island cannot host a destroyer and its crew?
They don't have to stay at ship 24/7. Only if real threat coming detected by early warning radar on the island.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
tidalwave said:
right now, CHina is hesitant to put SAMs on islands. Paracel , yes but not Spratley at this point.

come on now, those big island cannot host a destroyer and its crew?
They don't have to stay at ship 24/7. Only if real threat coming detected by early warning radar on the island.
Click to expand...

Hesitant to put SAMs in the Spratlys but to park an 052D permanently there doesn't incur the same if not more scrutiny?

Islands that need to have every resource shipped in. What is the crew size of an 052D vs a SAM battery? That is key.

I can see beefed up patrols by various classes of destroyers and frigates but not permanently basing them there.
 
T

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
joshuatree said:
Hesitant to put SAMs in the Spratlys but to park an 052D permanently there doesn't incur the same if not more scrutiny?

Islands that need to have every resource shipped in. What is the crew size of an 052D vs a SAM battery? That is key.

I can see beefed up patrols by various classes of destroyers and frigates but not permanently basing them there.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't heard any complaint related to warship parking there. Only heard complaint of SAMs and Jet fighters.

patrols aint gonna do it. SCS is big.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
tidalwave said:
No, I haven't heard any complaint related to warship parking there. Only heard complaint of SAMs and Jet fighters.

patrols aint gonna do it. SCS is big.
Click to expand...

Because there hasn't been any realistic talk of permanently stationing an 052D at those features. It's like saying there hasn't been any complaints of putting an ICBM on those features but one has to be naive to not expect tremendous dissatisfaction if they went ahead with ICBM plans.

Long story short, let's watch and see. I'm positive we'll see permanently deployed SAMs first before permanently deployed 052Ds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top