PLA Navy news, pics and videos

FarkTypeSoldier

FarkTypeSoldier

Junior Member
hullopilllw said:
What are those metals bars in 14:46 for ?
Click to expand...

Hi, they are elected permanent structure (or holders) for the ASM launcher tubes. The ASM are either removed for filming purposes or awaiting stocks arrival during their time in the harbour.
 

Attachments

  • a3tuxr1887308868619.jpg
    a3tuxr1887308868619.jpg
    40.5 KB · Views: 93
M

Mirabo

Junior Member
Registered Member
Adding on to the discussion regarding Chinese ABM/SAM capability versus the Japanese/American AEGIS destroyers:

We have to remember that AEGIS refers to the whole integrated system of anti-air and anti-ballistic missile capabilities. So an analyst must pay attention to these key areas:

- Hull or platform
- Radar
- Missiles
- Datalink

The Type 052D and Type 055 are exceptional designs with excellent hardware. The VLS is standardized and also very large, which means they can fit very large missiles, or multipack several missiles without issue. The radars are also very impressive pieces of equipment, with both the 052D and Type 055 featuring large and sophisticated dual-band AESAs for air search and tracking. In the case of the Type 055, it even has AESA for horizon search and targeting.

AEGIS ships are ultimately limited by their hulls. They cannot fit larger missiles because the Mk 41 VLS is only so large. They cannot fit larger radars because the hull is only so large. To improve an existing AEGIS ship, one would have to redesign the hull from the ground up, with new powerplants and a deeper draft, for a new and larger VLS, and a larger deckhouse to accomodate more powerful radars. On the other hand, Type 052D and 055 has already solved these issues by making the deckhouse and the VLS massive.

Unfortunately, where Chinese destroyers fall short is in terms of missiles, and combat data integration. There is no equivalent of the SM-3 missile for ABM, or the SM-6 long-range SAM for the Chinese UVLS on the 052D and 055. There is also no short to medium-range multi-pack SAM, like the quad-packable ESSM. The Chinese Navy has the HHQ-9 for long-range anti-air, but it is over 20 years old now, and the Chinese Navy will undoubtedly be looking for a newer, more advanced missile for its new surface combatants.

For data, not much is known about Chinese military data links, and while they undoubtedly have something under development (and some equipment fitted to warships), we are not sure about its capabilities.

So while the Type 052D and 055 have much greater potential than existing AEGIS platforms, they don't have the missiles and other supporting equipment to reach maximum potential. If the Chinese Navy can produce an ABM to launch from the CUVLS, then the Type 052D and 055 would undisputably be the best surface combatants in the world.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Higgle said:
Unfortunately, where Chinese destroyers fall short is in terms of missiles, and combat data integration. There is no equivalent of the SM-3 missile for ABM, or the SM-6 long-range SAM for the Chinese UVLS on the 052D and 055. There is also no short to medium-range multi-pack SAM, like the quad-packable ESSM. The Chinese Navy has the HHQ-9 for long-range anti-air, but it is over 20 years old now, and the Chinese Navy will undoubtedly be looking for a newer, more advanced missile for its new surface combatants.
Click to expand...

Just one point.

The lack of a Chinese equivalent to the SM-3 for ABM is not a shortfall.

Realistically, the Chinese Navy doesn't face any incoming ballistic missiles.
 
T

Tetrach

Junior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Just one point.

The lack of a Chinese equivalent to the SM-3 for ABM is not a shortfall.

Realistically, the Chinese Navy doesn't face any incoming ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...

SM-3, particulary later Block IIA is meant for early and late midcourse engagements of ICBM, as well as somewhat terminal interception of TBM, and proved to be anti-satellite capable. It's unrealistic to think that any conflict with Russia or the US, but also India, SK, Japan, will exclude any of these potential targets. With the proliferation of ballistic missiles, and the weaponization of space, this kind of missile is a strategic investment.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
asif iqbal said:
they also dont need carriers because realistically they won't face any incoming carriers, this type of statement has no significance
Click to expand...

No. Think about it critically.

In what scenario will the Chinese Navy ever need to defend against SRBMs, MRBMs or IRBMs?
That is why the lack of a defensive SM-3 missile is not a handicap.
Why spend the time and money on a capability which is not needed?

In comparison, aircraft carriers are platforms that can conduct offensive and sea control air missions far from Chinese shores.
And that is and will be very useful.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tetrach said:
SM-3, particulary later Block IIA is meant for early and late midcourse engagements of ICBM, as well as somewhat terminal interception of TBM, and proved to be anti-satellite capable. It's unrealistic to think that any conflict with Russia or the US, but also India, SK, Japan, will exclude any of these potential targets. With the proliferation of ballistic missiles, and the weaponization of space, this kind of missile is a strategic investment.
Click to expand...

Think about it.
Your scenarios are not relevant.

1. For Russia, why would China need a sea-based ABM? They share a land-border and China-Russia relations are good.

2. For India, why would China need a sea-based ABM? They share a land-border.

3. For Japan doesn't have any ballistic missiles, and no plans to build any.

4. For South Korea, the distance is only 400km and they don't have ASBMs.
So China would be better off using its land-based ABM systems.

5. For the USA, they don't have any ASBMs.
So against US TBMs launched at land targets, China is be better off having a land-based ABM system.
And against US ICBMs, there is no way a Chinese Navy ship will be in the correct location to intercept an ICBM.

6. And if you want to shoot down satellites,, a land-based ASAT system is better and cheaper than a sea-based one.


Just because the US has a system, doesn't mean China needs one as well
 
D

Daniel707

Junior Member
Registered Member
Higgle said:
Adding on to the discussion regarding Chinese ABM/SAM capability versus the Japanese/American AEGIS destroyers:

We have to remember that AEGIS refers to the whole integrated system of anti-air and anti-ballistic missile capabilities. So an analyst must pay attention to these key areas:

- Hull or platform
- Radar
- Missiles
- Datalink

The Type 052D and Type 055 are exceptional designs with excellent hardware. The VLS is standardized and also very large, which means they can fit very large missiles, or multipack several missiles without issue. The radars are also very impressive pieces of equipment, with both the 052D and Type 055 featuring large and sophisticated dual-band AESAs for air search and tracking. In the case of the Type 055, it even has AESA for horizon search and targeting.

AEGIS ships are ultimately limited by their hulls. They cannot fit larger missiles because the Mk 41 VLS is only so large. They cannot fit larger radars because the hull is only so large. To improve an existing AEGIS ship, one would have to redesign the hull from the ground up, with new powerplants and a deeper draft, for a new and larger VLS, and a larger deckhouse to accomodate more powerful radars. On the other hand, Type 052D and 055 has already solved these issues by making the deckhouse and the VLS massive.

Unfortunately, where Chinese destroyers fall short is in terms of missiles, and combat data integration. There is no equivalent of the SM-3 missile for ABM, or the SM-6 long-range SAM for the Chinese UVLS on the 052D and 055. There is also no short to medium-range multi-pack SAM, like the quad-packable ESSM. The Chinese Navy has the HHQ-9 for long-range anti-air, but it is over 20 years old now, and the Chinese Navy will undoubtedly be looking for a newer, more advanced missile for its new surface combatants.

For data, not much is known about Chinese military data links, and while they undoubtedly have something under development (and some equipment fitted to warships), we are not sure about its capabilities.

So while the Type 052D and 055 have much greater potential than existing AEGIS platforms, they don't have the missiles and other supporting equipment to reach maximum potential. If the Chinese Navy can produce an ABM to launch from the CUVLS, then the Type 052D and 055 would undisputably be the best surface combatants in the world.
Click to expand...

They have HHQ-9B for Long Range Anti Air Missile with up to 250km range.
And HHQ-9B is a new generation, not old one.

If I'm not wrong, they also have HQ-19 and HQ-26 for ABM purpose that equivalent to SM-3.
 
Arienai

Arienai

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just chill... ABM is part of 055's designed job...

This is what the official statement says when Nanchang commissioned:
南昌舰是我国自主研制的055型万吨级驱逐舰首舰，先后突破了大型舰艇总体设计、信息集成、总装建造等一系列关键技术，装备有新型防空、反导、反舰、反潜武器，具有较强的信息感知、防空反导和对海打击能力。
(Highlighted part: It's equipped with Anti-Air, ABM, Anti-Ship and Anti-submarine weapons)

ABM on a ship doesn't mean it has to defend AShBM that targets it or the fleet, it's can basically become a moving ABM base. When you talked about SM-3, you should know it came out way before AShBM was a thing right? The ability to intercept ballistic missiles is on the highest scale of national security, and you need any help you can get. Land-based, sea-based, and in the future, air-based ABM units will together form a complete ABM system for the entire country.

AndrewS said:
5. For the USA, they don't have any ASBMs.
So against US TBMs launched at land targets, China is be better off having a land-based ABM system.
And against US ICBMs, there is no way a Chinese Navy ship will be in the correct location to intercept an ICBM.
Click to expand...

First of all, the US don't have AShBM right now doesn't mean they won't have it in the future. If you start developing it after the opponent already have it then good luck before you get it done...
And "there is no way a Chinese Navy ship will be in the correct location to intercept an ICBM", sounds like you assume the ship have to be right under the flightpath to intercept it?

HQ-19 can easily fit in the 850mm UVLS size wise, developing a ship based version won't be that hard (there's rumors that it's already equipped on 055, but again, rumors). There's also the HQ-26, but we don't know much about it besides the name. China gave very little information to the public and it's obiviously the right thing to do when they will be defending the biggest threat a country will ever face.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Think about it.
Your scenarios are not relevant.

1. For Russia, why would China need a sea-based ABM? They share a land-border and China-Russia relations are good.

2. For India, why would China need a sea-based ABM? They share a land-border.

3. For Japan doesn't have any ballistic missiles, and no plans to build any.

4. For South Korea, the distance is only 400km and they don't have ASBMs.
So China would be better off using its land-based ABM systems.

5. For the USA, they don't have any ASBMs.
So against US TBMs launched at land targets, China is be better off having a land-based ABM system.
And against US ICBMs, there is no way a Chinese Navy ship will be in the correct location to intercept an ICBM.

6. And if you want to shoot down satellites,, a land-based ASAT system is better and cheaper than a sea-based one.


Just because the US has a system, doesn't mean China needs one as well
Click to expand...

I think some people only have enough intelligence to think "oh he's got this, therefore I must have it!" with the failure to fielding one indicating the vessel or the ability to field one is less capable and non-existent.

China uses land based ABM and ASAT and has fielded them for over a decade now. An all out ICBM/SLBM strike will not be defendable anyway and out of China's neighbour's, only Russia has any serious ballistic missile capability. It's doubtful India even has fusion weapons but apparently they've got neutron bombs. However their delivery methods as of now are pretty shockingly bad. No country other than China fields AShBM so BMD for US and Japanese surface vessels certainly make more sense. Plus BMD is actually fantastically demanding on positioning. The earth is rather big. Ship launched BMD are only useful for US since they can position those ships in the right positions to intercept Chinese and Russian long ranged ballistic missiles. If it were of real usefulness for Russia or China's unique positions and situations, they would have rushed it. However if Japan develops ballistic missiles, there's a chance PLAN will integrate BMD into something like the 055. For India, their launch direction will be over land and no ships positions in the Indian Ocean or around south east Asian waters will be in the right positions to intercept anyway. So 055's hypothetical BMD is really only waiting for either Japan to field ballistic missiles or neighbours fielding AShBM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top