Or it must be that the chinese have lost interest on them because they are imported equipment, and now have indigenous replacements which dont require foreign expertise/spare parts.
956em sovs
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Or it must be that the chinese have lost interest on them because they are imported equipment, and now have indigenous replacements which dont require foreign expertise/spare parts.
Maggern
Junior Member
Indeed, it could be that the Chinese wanted them first and foremost to get access to the technology, and not actually use them as front-line units. They could serve as nice reserve units now that the Chinese are churning out naval vessels that are similar in capability. Of course, one could also specualte it's all about prestige. They tied them up in port to say "See, we don't really need these things. We can make due with our own vessels"
Maybe if we wait a few more years and more 52C and D are being churned out from the shipyards, we might see the Sov being transfered to the other departments, like they did with one of their frigate or destroyer.
The only modification was to remove the missiles and retain the guns.
The only modification was to remove the missiles and retain the guns.
EDIATH
Junior Member
A question here, what's the average useful life for Soviet/Russian-built warships?*
I suspect it would be the first two P.956's turn after 13 Type 051 destroyers retire within the next decade, so we are looking at probably 2021-2025 timeframe (they would be perfectly out of date by then too).
I also wish PLAN could group all steam engine powered ships together, since their relatively slow engine starting cycle might hamper the overall performance (on mission response rate) from a mixed fleet. E.g. All 956s plus 167, 115& 116 could form 1-2 "steam" flotillas serving a supporting/reserve role.
I suspect it would be the first two P.956's turn after 13 Type 051 destroyers retire within the next decade, so we are looking at probably 2021-2025 timeframe (they would be perfectly out of date by then too).
I also wish PLAN could group all steam engine powered ships together, since their relatively slow engine starting cycle might hamper the overall performance (on mission response rate) from a mixed fleet. E.g. All 956s plus 167, 115& 116 could form 1-2 "steam" flotillas serving a supporting/reserve role.
There might be a lot of truth to this, as the Russian Navy itself doesn't use it's own Sov's very much.
It appears that many Soviet-era vessels have relatively low endurance and short lifespans.
In contrast, look at China's equivalent in engine design (steam propulsion) and appearance - the single-vessel Luhai class DDG and it's half-sisters the 051C DDG's.
It regularly goes out to show the flag, and has been doing so for about 10 years now - if I'm not mistaken.
Although it was already obsolete when launched and commissioned, it nevertheless served the PLAN rather well on it's 'PR' patrols.
I have a feeling the the Sov's machinery may not be that reliable nor the vessel itself very habitable for long deployments.
The only time I can recall them being used in a PR mission was a visit back to Russia some time ago.
Aside from the transfer of technology issue, I believe these vessels were procured in haste to have something more modern (for the time) for the PLAN to use in the event of a 'hot' confrontation with Taiwan over independence.
After that possibility faded with the defeat of the DPP and Chen Shui-bian, the PLAN now uses them mainly for anniversaries, preferring to keep them in port, not operating these expensive and difficult-to-maintain assets.
To add to your point, maybe there is some contract with the Russians that require maintenance work or spare parts to be provided by them. Not wearing out the ships means not spending money and not offending the Russians either.
zoom
Junior Member
]
Figure 1: Observed Deployments, Operations, and Exercises for PLAN’s "High Confidence (Surface) Fleet," 2005-2010
Surface Ship Class
Near Coast/Near Seas
Far Seas
Destroyers (11)
Sovremenny (Project 956E/956EM)
Sept 2005; Oct 2008; Apr 2010 (2-3);
July 2010 (3); July 2010; July 2010
Luzhou (Type 051C)
Mar 2010; July 2010; July 2010
Luhai (Type 051B)
Second APF
Luyang I (Type 052B)
First APF; Fifth APF
Luyang II (Type 052C)
July 2010; July 2010
First APF; Sixth APF
Frigates (21)
Jiangkai I (Type 054)
Oct 2008; July 2010
Fourth APF (2)
Jiangkai II (Type 054A)
Oct 2008; July 2010; July 2010
Second APF; Third APF (2); Fifth APF
Jiangwei I (Type 053H2G)
Apr 2010 (2); July 2010; July 2010
Jiangwei II (Type 053H3)
Mar 2010 (2); Apr 2010; July 2010; July 2010; July 2010
Fast Attack/Patrol Craft (50+)
Houbei (Type 022)
July 2010 (?)
Amphibious Ships (1)
Yuzhao (Type 071)
Sixth APF
Auxiliaries (5)
Fuchi (Replenishment Ship) (AORH)
Oct 2008
First APF; Second APF; Third APF; Fourth APF; Fifth APF; Sixth APF
Fuqing (Replenishment Ship) (AORH)
Mar 2010; Apr 2010
Anwei (Type 920) (Hospital Ship) (AHH)
Aug 2010
Notes: Each event listed individually by month and year except anti-piracy flotillas (APF). Two or more listings for a given month/year indicate multiple events for the period. Numbers in parentheses following each event indicates multiple units of the class participated. An unknown number of Houbei-class fast attack craft participated in the early-July 2010 exercise.
A better layout of this table and more detailed and expansionary information can be found at The Jamestown Foundation website by clicking the above link
Figure 1: Observed Deployments, Operations, and Exercises for PLAN’s "High Confidence (Surface) Fleet," 2005-2010
Surface Ship Class
Near Coast/Near Seas
Far Seas
Destroyers (11)
Sovremenny (Project 956E/956EM)
Sept 2005; Oct 2008; Apr 2010 (2-3);
July 2010 (3); July 2010; July 2010
Luzhou (Type 051C)
Mar 2010; July 2010; July 2010
Luhai (Type 051B)
Second APF
Luyang I (Type 052B)
First APF; Fifth APF
Luyang II (Type 052C)
July 2010; July 2010
First APF; Sixth APF
Frigates (21)
Jiangkai I (Type 054)
Oct 2008; July 2010
Fourth APF (2)
Jiangkai II (Type 054A)
Oct 2008; July 2010; July 2010
Second APF; Third APF (2); Fifth APF
Jiangwei I (Type 053H2G)
Apr 2010 (2); July 2010; July 2010
Jiangwei II (Type 053H3)
Mar 2010 (2); Apr 2010; July 2010; July 2010; July 2010
Fast Attack/Patrol Craft (50+)
Houbei (Type 022)
July 2010 (?)
Amphibious Ships (1)
Yuzhao (Type 071)
Sixth APF
Auxiliaries (5)
Fuchi (Replenishment Ship) (AORH)
Oct 2008
First APF; Second APF; Third APF; Fourth APF; Fifth APF; Sixth APF
Fuqing (Replenishment Ship) (AORH)
Mar 2010; Apr 2010
Anwei (Type 920) (Hospital Ship) (AHH)
Aug 2010
Notes: Each event listed individually by month and year except anti-piracy flotillas (APF). Two or more listings for a given month/year indicate multiple events for the period. Numbers in parentheses following each event indicates multiple units of the class participated. An unknown number of Houbei-class fast attack craft participated in the early-July 2010 exercise.
A better layout of this table and more detailed and expansionary information can be found at The Jamestown Foundation website by clicking the above link
Galrahn
New Member
One reason why the Sovs would not be the best choice for major deployments (like the transoceanic tours or pirate operations) is they are very big ships with very old engine designs - meaning they would be very expensive to operate on long cruises.
They are also poorly designed for the mission set most likely to be conducted by the PLA Navy outside of the territorial waters of China - as they are almost explicitly ASuW destroyers.
It should be noted that the Russian Sovs very rarely make long deployments either unless they are escorts for high value units. The Russians prefer to send their Udaloy class on such deployments instead - and indeed have put virtually all of their investment in restoring Udaloy class vessels for that specific purpose instead of restoring Sovs that still had life in their hull.
They are also poorly designed for the mission set most likely to be conducted by the PLA Navy outside of the territorial waters of China - as they are almost explicitly ASuW destroyers.
It should be noted that the Russian Sovs very rarely make long deployments either unless they are escorts for high value units. The Russians prefer to send their Udaloy class on such deployments instead - and indeed have put virtually all of their investment in restoring Udaloy class vessels for that specific purpose instead of restoring Sovs that still had life in their hull.
sealordlawrence
Junior Member
»Ø¸´: Re: 956em sovs
The steam propulsion plant in the Sovremenny class (most Russian steam plants for that matter) are notoriously unreliable and the class is believed to have been plagued with propulsion problems in Russian service.
You are absolutely right about them being primarily ASuW destroyers, and that is exactly why the Chinese purchased them when they did and based them where they did in the East Sea Fleet after the 1996 straights crisis.
The steam propulsion plant in the Sovremenny class (most Russian steam plants for that matter) are notoriously unreliable and the class is believed to have been plagued with propulsion problems in Russian service.
You are absolutely right about them being primarily ASuW destroyers, and that is exactly why the Chinese purchased them when they did and based them where they did in the East Sea Fleet after the 1996 straights crisis.