It's relatively affordable and comes with a decent number of VLS. I'm surprised the PLAN doesn't have an equivalent of the Arleigh Burke, though. They jump straight from 64 with the 052D to 112 with the 055 with no in-between like the AB's 90/96.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Surface action group (SAG) is flexible in terms of what type of warships and how many warships from those types made up the SAG's composition, as it mainly depends on mission requirements, expected threat scenarios and available units for such deployments.
There are no set rules on how every SAG is made of, other than it must have more than one surface combatant warship.
All the post-MLU DDGs before the 052C-class that are equipped with VLS cells field HHQ-16s, not HHQ-9s.
I agree that PLAN does not necessarily need to match or exceed USN in all counts. However I am not so sure PLAN plans to stop producing more destroyers any time soon. You mention how PLAN is planning on building more carriers so it only makes sense PLAN will produce more destroyers for escorting those carriers. Further there aren't that many obsolete legacy destroyers in PLAN service. Some of them received upgrades in mid 2010s so they aren't going to be retired before 2030 probably.
This batch of destroyer construction alone featured 12 052D. Even if PLAN decided to focus on retiring old ships (Sovremenny, 051B, 051C, 052, 052B for total of 11 destroyers) asap for whatever reason that would only be roughly 1 batch of 052D. Even if you throw in the older 2 052C commissioned in 2004/2005, there's just not a lot of legacy PLAN destroyers to replace. Given the scale of ongoing 052D and 055 construction it seems unlikely we'll see the PLAN destroyer count plateau in the near future.
052D does seem a little light on VLS compared to many other modern destroyer classes like Zumwalt (80), Sejong the Great (128 or 88), Maya/Atago/Kongo (96/96/90), etc. However PLA VLS is larger and it's not like 64 is majorly inadequate plus 052D has HHQ-10 which most of those do not (they're retrofitting Burkes with an 11 cell launcher for the US equivalent apparently) and so some of those VLS will probably be quad packed RIM-162s which are essentially baseline on 052D.
It could be the case that in a high intensity war having 6 destroyers with 60 VLS is better than 4 destroyers with 90 VLS even though both sets of destroyers have 360 total VLS. It's hard to know but maybe more network nodes and sensors to distribute over a larger area is better as long as those destroyers have at least a reasonable number of VLS. Also there's geographical considerations where for USN which more frequently operates far from their home bases might prefer less warships with more VLS each. PLAN might focus their mission closer to home and not be too concerned about deploying to the other side of the Pacific so might prefer more warships with less VLS each.
Oh thanks for the correction. Still could be useful in second line roles I think. Otherwise I'm not really sure why PLAN would go through the trouble of giving them those upgrades.
Many folks tend to focus on operational requirements, but I dare say thats at best part of these equations. There are political and industrial aspects too. This sort of MLU work is quite valuable to build expertise and keep maintainers busy with more comprehensive work than just the run of the mill overhaul. It benefits competency also beyond purely domestic considerations. Speculative but I suspect these are factors.
They said 40, not 50
So, i'm curious whether Export oriented "Type-052DE" will be in early "short hull" Type-052D or "Stretched" 052DL variant ?
lcloo
Captain
Normally the customers can choose what they want, and change the design to suit their needs. They can also ask for non-Chinese made sub-system or components to be fitted on the ships they purchased.
Examples are type 071E and type 053 variant with US engines sold to Thailand, and frigates and submarines sold to Pakistan.
So, It is customer's choice to choose whether they want a short hull or stretched variant of type 052D. We will know which variant if and when there is a sales done and made known to public.
It's certainly plausible that building expertise and keeping the shipyards busy was a motivating factor for the PLAN. However I'm very doubtful that the PLAN would order this work done if they didn't believe the resulting ships were actually operationally viable. If their only goal was to build expertise and keep the shipyard workers employed with the intention that the resulting ships were basically useless then those ships would probably have been decommissioned and would go to the shipyards to serve as training aids essentially. Surely at least some of the motivation was getting a more capable platform that could give relevant service for longer.
There are people who do this type of VLS counting.
As @Andy1974 stated, I'm going to berate those for focusing on VLS counting.
It's a misleading metric since not all VLS are the same. Some are wide; some are long; some can even hold 2-4 missiles or launch ballistic size missiles.
It's pointless to compare such metrics.
What really matters in naval warfare are two things; sensors and networking.
Ships have to constantly worry about what's flying in the air and what's swimming underneath them. And so the type of sensors--radars, sonars, etc--they can employ is what matters, not VLS counts.
In fact, the biggest important piece for PLAN is AWACS. They need to have plenty of them to cover and help protect their ships. Without AWACS, ships will find it really difficult defending against OVTH missiles.
It's why investment in aircraft carriers are so important. The carriers are going to be the ones mostly defending the surface fleet and not the other way around. The ability to launch AWACS on these carriers is possibly the most single important aspect about them.
So what needs to be focused on is how many AWACS each side has and even more how many carrier-type AWACS each side has; not VLS counts.
It's a misleading metric since not all VLS are the same. Some are wide; some are long; some can even hold 2-4 missiles or launch ballistic size missiles.
It's pointless to compare such metrics.
What really matters in naval warfare are two things; sensors and networking.
Ships have to constantly worry about what's flying in the air and what's swimming underneath them. And so the type of sensors--radars, sonars, etc--they can employ is what matters, not VLS counts.
In fact, the biggest important piece for PLAN is AWACS. They need to have plenty of them to cover and help protect their ships. Without AWACS, ships will find it really difficult defending against OVTH missiles.
It's why investment in aircraft carriers are so important. The carriers are going to be the ones mostly defending the surface fleet and not the other way around. The ability to launch AWACS on these carriers is possibly the most single important aspect about them.
So what needs to be focused on is how many AWACS each side has and even more how many carrier-type AWACS each side has; not VLS counts.
Last edited: