That's irrelevant because the opinions from Xaiver were in context of differences between the 052D he was on and other modern warships.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
That's irrelevant because the opinions from Xaiver were in context of differences between the 052D he was on and other modern warships.
This is what I was looking at. Teaching everyone firefighting is very important because other approaches have shown to be significantly worse.
Looking broadly, I think we should avoid both overly negative and overly positive verdicts. Some aspects of the PLA likely fell behind the overall pace of modernization. Watertight doors might be one of those. That 2015 paper calling for higher and more universal standards is noteworthy. On the other hand, claiming that PLAN ships have low survivability is also wrong. First of all we can't evaluate that from a single corridor. Furthermore, survivability is a multi-layer phenomenon.
You can find many different versions of this survivability onion. But they are roughly the same if you ignore categorization.
The HHQ-9B and Type 346 are survivability features. I laughed at that "they don't plan to stay" comment. Not getting hit is way better than being able to firefight better. Of course, damage control is important. It improves survivability at low cost and low extra weight addition. But pretending damage control equals survivability is simply wrong.
There's no need to give the sprawling pronouncements/conclusions in the statements with particular weight. The useful part is more dissecting the specific individual objective observations and to see whether they make sense.
As I've written on the last page, based on the likely journey of the tour, they went past the 01 deck on one of the DC corridors, and on PLAN ships at that location and that level there apparently usually are not watertight doors and are also designed to be relatively unimpeded as a thoroughfare for DC response.
As I've written on the last page, based on the likely journey of the tour, they went past the 01 deck on one of the DC corridors, and on PLAN ships at that location and that level there apparently usually are not watertight doors and are also designed to be relatively unimpeded as a thoroughfare for DC response.
Although I don't disagree, those other modern warships also come from a long pedigree that dates far back compared to the PLA's relatively more recent experience in warship construction, some features found in other navies may still be part of historic intertia rather than practical design consideration.
Well, it's reasonable to say that differences in practices are a result of past historical experiences, but I think saying that the practices of other navies with more past experience in suffering from battle damage as being impractical or "inertia" or somehow impractical, is pushing it a bit.
I feel like this gentleman was just giving his impression of touring the 052D vs. some other ships he has toured recently. I think it is important to note that he clearly stated he is not a naval architect and started the discussion on the 052D by stating that the state of the ship is almost "surreal" in terms of cleanliness. He specifically said that the only time he has seen a ship in such a state is before it had been delivered to the French Navy, and this was after the 052D in question had returned from a deployment.
So maybe he is wrong about the ability of the 052D to sustain damage, but I don't think he is a hater, at least he didn't come off like that during the podcast.
So maybe he is wrong about the ability of the 052D to sustain damage, but I don't think he is a hater, at least he didn't come off like that during the podcast.
Thx for posting the podcast.
This is the transcript:
"Yeah, I would just like to mention something
that really struck me and surprised me during one of the tour of the ships I was lucky enough
to do this year. So it was in the UAE. I had a rare chance to tour a Chinese Type 052D or DL
destroyer. That's one of the destroyers with the extended flight deck for those familiar with this
class of ships. The ship in question was the Nanning. So two very important, the main things
that really stood out for me were first, the ship was really in pristine conditions.
I've been touring quite a few ships in my short career so far. And I actually, I've never seen
a vessel in such a good condition, except when I was touring brand new ships about to be delivered
to the French Navy at the Naval Group Shipyard in Brittany. And that Chinese destroyer has been
deployed for a number of months. It had just participated in an international exercise in
Pakistan. And there it was calling in Abu Dhabi and it was looking like a brand new vessel. So
that was very surprising and almost surreal to me. And while touring the ship, I could not help
but notice compared to other vessels I'm used to tour now. So European frigates or even the
US Navy destroyers and so on. What really stood out to me was the lack of firefighting and damage
control equipment inside the vessel. It was very, very strange. And now I pay attention to those
details whenever I visit a vessel. And now, I mean, the more I pay attention to it, the more I
realize that the Chinese destroyer was very different. For example, there was walking from
the helicopter deck to inside the vessel. There was only a single watertight door. The second
door was not watertight. I was lucky enough to tour USS John Finn in Japan probably three weeks
after touring the Chinese landing destroyer. And I really felt the difference between USS John Finn
and that Chinese destroyer. Other things that really stood out was that they were storing a
vessel inside the ship with gas tanks next to that small boat. And a few feet ahead of the small boat
was the triple torpedo launcher with no separation whatsoever between the fuel tanks and the torpedo
launcher, no damage control equipment, nothing. Walking from aft to the front of the ship, I
could not find any kind of watertight door inside the vessel except the watertight door at the very
after and at the very front of the vessel. I mean, again, very, very surprising. And
like I said, I've toured the Japanese FFM, I've toured the Italian PPA, heck, I even toured the
South Korean built frigate of the Philippine Navy. And they all featured double watertight doors,
pressurized atmosphere, controlled atmosphere, and so on. And none of which I found on the
Chinese destroyer. So that's very surprising. I don't know what your opinion is about this,
but maybe that's why the Chinese managed to build in such large number. Maybe the quality
of the vessels is not there. I mean, I'm not a naval architect, but it's just what I could observe
while touring that Chinese destroyer. Yeah, that very much matches what we heard from
Admiral Greenert, Chris, last week, when he toured ships that were being built,
almost 10 years ago now. And he was struck by the same thing that the idea of fighting the ship
was just not the same in the Chinese lexicon as it was in US and partner navies.
I mean, it really sounds like echoes of the old Soviet Navy in the Cold War. And in those days,
people decried the appearance of American and NATO ships, and the Russians and Soviets,
that the Soviets were just covered in sensors and weapons everywhere. Wasn't a whole lot below decks.
But one of the big differences was these were, to a great extent, one-shot ships. They had a
life expectancy of hours, if not minutes. Their job was to shoot off all their missiles,
and then probably die. And that was a tactic. It is definitely a tactic if you're trying to,
if your primary target is a US Navy carrier strike group, get in somewhere within range,
and just shoot everything. But they don't have staying, they don't really don't seem to have
staying power. And that's one reason I think they're able to build so fast, and so many,
they just don't worry about it. And they have numbers, but they don't have staying power,
the individual units. So I mean, more and more, this is coming out that when we look at the
Chinese Navy, what are we looking at? And in many cases, we're looking at another version of the US
Navy. But that's true, but it's more superficial than internal. And then you get inside their
ships, and you see these things, these very perceptive observations about a lack of damage
control, a lack of thought about fires. This is not a Navy that's had to deal with a lot of fires,
and a lot of damage. And while that's not something anybody aspires to, most naval damage control
lessons are bought and paid for in blood. And if you haven't shed too much blood in there,
you haven't really, you know, your culture doesn't really deal with it. Or you just don't care,
one way or the other. And if you don't care, you don't have to spend money on it. It's a lot
cheaper. It's a lot quicker to build things. It's a lot easier to keep them up, because you just
you have a lot less to keep up. It's a very interesting observation. And Xavier, like you
said, that is a new destroyer. The Chinese are very proud of it, Nanning, the 52D. It's actually
right now in West Africa with its escort group. And the Chinese like to show this off. But yeah,
you know, you talked about the Jose Rizal class, which is the Philippine two frigates built in
Korea. And you felt like these were real warships. They had all the systems that you would expect on
a real professional high-end frigate. Not a ton of money. It's the Philippines. They're not going
to invest in a major ship. But for their purposes, a much more solid ship than even a high-end
Chinese destroyer. Would you agree with that? Absolutely. Yeah, I mean, totally. And
I guess what they were missing for firefighting and damage control equipment inside the vessel
was compensated by loads of propaganda. They had all sorts of posters and even like LED
lights, displays with like, you know, typical like communist propaganda. I asked one of our
escort for like a translation and one of the signs said something along the lines of,
"No matter how far you're sailing on the seas of the world, never forget who you're fighting for,
for motherland China." Okay. Well, on that relatively sobering note, Xavier, this has been
fascinating. I really appreciate it. Again, I envy you. You're just all you're out there,
out and about all over. And folks, I highly recommend Xavier's website, navalnews.com and his
many videos on YouTube. He really covers the world like nobody. Xavier, thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Chris, for the opportunity. It was an honor. It was my very first podcast. I
hope people could cope with my French-American accent. And my next event is in a couple of
weeks actually in Turkey. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to get aboard another motor ship of sorts.
The Anadolu LHG and drone mothership of the Turkish Navy."
kwaigonegin
Colonel
If it's just an avg joe, agreed 100% however I like to think that someone like Xavier would be more astute in his observations and opinions on these things and (hopefully) not just make generic remarks that can be misinterpreted.
With that said the statement about torpedo tubes didn't make much sense to me either. I think FREMM may have it segregated with bulkheads but not 100% sure.
There is a tendency worldwide to make the upper structure of the ship out of composites for weight and stealth reasons. Those burn a lot easier than a steel structure would. You just need to look at what happened to that fire on the Russian Project 20385 corvette Provornyy at the shipyards in St. Petersburg. Only the lower part of the hull, made of steel, survived the fire.