PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Arienai said:

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.

Click to expand...

China, Russia and North Korea have had ballistic missiles capable of attacking land targets for decades.
They are the primary reasons the SM-3 was developed.

Yes, I agree a moving ABM base is nice to have for the Chinese military.
But a land based ABM system is far cheaper than a ship-based one.
There's a reason why Japan is building AEGIS ashore systems, rather than relying on the AEGIS aboard destroyers.

But I would disagree ship-based ABM capability is the highest priority, because China doesn't face any AShBMs and it's better for land-based ABM to deal with the incoming ballistic missiles.

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?

Click to expand...

You would need a THAAD/S-500 level system to intercept an ICBM in the terminal phase, which is what China would face in a nuclear exchange.
SM-3s aren't good enough.
And if you're in the position of exchanging ICBMs, a few expensive THAADs will cost far more than large numbers of cheaper incoming ICBMs.

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.

Click to expand...

As I say, ship-based ABM is a nice to have.
But it's not the highest priority, nor is it an obvious shortfall currently.

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...

1- Having the land frontier doesn't mean you have to neglect any sea intrusions lmao. Notably when this frontier is Siberia. A major threat of the North Fleet was the soviet Pacific fleet. Also thinking that relations don't change is quite dangerous, notably when you see what happened between soviets and chineses in the 50' and 60'. Sino-russian relations might be good now, but who knows in 5-10 years. We already see many ruptures as China enters the international scene. But that's more politic than naval related.

2-India has the Dhanush anti-ship ballistic missile. Considering that the Indian Ocean is decisive for China, this threat is real. You can be sure that this kind of weapon will be used in any sino-indian conflict. The democratization of ASBM is real, China is the first one to sell them to the more offering.

4-5- that Literally the point of SM-3IIA.. Allowing naval based BMD to intercept ICBM in Mid-course. It's all a question of envelop. Also let's not forget that the US are seeking to deploy ballistic missiles in the pacific, notably Guam. ship-based anti-ballistic missiles will be extremely important to ensure a full interception spectrum-short, mid course and terminal.

6- Yeah I would like you to prove that one LOL.

Also: "There's a reason why Japan is building AEGIS ashore systems, rather than relying on the AEGIS aboard destroyers. " Japan has numerous destroyers based on the Aegis combat system. In fact SM-3 has been tested numerous times on japanese vessels AKA Kongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Chōkai...

AndrewS said:

China, Russia and North Korea have had ballistic missiles capable of attacking land targets for decades.
They are the primary reasons the SM-3 was developed.

Yes, I agree a moving ABM base is nice to have for the Chinese military.
But a land based ABM system is far cheaper than a ship-based one.
There's a reason why Japan is building AEGIS ashore systems, rather than relying on the AEGIS aboard destroyers.

But I would disagree ship-based ABM capability is the highest priority, because China doesn't face any AShBMs and it's better for land-based ABM to deal with the incoming ballistic missiles.



You would need a THAAD/S-500 level system to intercept an ICBM in the terminal phase, which is what China would face in a nuclear exchange.
SM-3s aren't good enough.
And if you're in the position of exchanging ICBMs, a few expensive THAADs will cost far more than large numbers of cheaper incoming ICBMs.



As I say, ship-based ABM is a nice to have.
But it's not the highest priority, nor is it an obvious shortfall currently.

Click to expand...

I guess you don't understand the importance of defending possible nuclear attacks. The ability to intercept ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead is not something you'll find the most cost-effective method on.

Yes SM-3 on a ship alone won't be good enough to intercept ICBMs, but modern military units don't operate alone. The SM-3 Block IIA that successfully intercepted a IRBM was guided by an AN/TPY-2 radar far away from the land-based AEGIS system (the experiment wasn't done from a actual ship that time). With how much China has focus on CEC abilities, it's obivious the up coming ABM will have that capability as well. And I did not say the up coming ship-based ABMs or even the land based ones will be SM-3 or THAAD equivalents. No body knows how they work right now.

I don't understand why you keep arguing about the necessity of a thing that's already proven to be existing already. Yes we don't know much detail about how they works and have they been equipped yet, but we know they are there for quite a while now. What's the point of saying it's now cost-effective and not necessary? It's already been developped¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, I don't want to argue with you about this on a news thread anymore. Although I don't think there's a ship-based ABM thread yet?

Tetrach said:

1- Having the land frontier doesn't mean you have to neglect any sea intrusions lmao. Notably when this frontier is Siberia. A major threat of the North Fleet was the soviet Pacific fleet. Also thinking that relations don't change is quite dangerous, notably when you see what happened between soviets and chineses in the 50' and 60'. Sino-russian relations might be good now, but who knows in 5-10 years. We already see many ruptures as China enters the international scene. But that's more politic than naval related.

Click to expand...

In 5-10 years, Sino-Russian relations will likely still be very good.
The key reason is that Russia is locked in a competition against NATO/US/EU.


2-India has the Dhanush anti-ship ballistic missile. Considering that the Indian Ocean is decisive for China, this threat is real. You can be sure that this kind of weapon will be used in any sino-indian conflict. The democratization of ASBM is real, China is the first one to sell them to the more offering.

4-5- that Literally the point of SM-3IIA.. Allowing naval based BMD to intercept ICBM in Mid-course. It's all a question of envelop. Also let's not forget that the US are seeking to deploy ballistic missiles in the pacific, notably Guam. ship-based anti-ballistic missiles will be extremely important to ensure a full interception spectrum-short, mid course and terminal.

6- Yeah I would like you to prove that one LOL.

Also: "There's a reason why Japan is building AEGIS ashore systems, rather than relying on the AEGIS aboard destroyers. " Bullshit. Japan has numerous destroyers based on the Aegis combat system. In fact SM-3 has been tested numerous times on japanese vessels AKA Kongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Chōkai...
[/QUOTE]

Tetrach said:

1- Having the land frontier doesn't mean you have to neglect any sea intrusions lmao. Notably when this frontier is Siberia. A major threat of the North Fleet was the soviet Pacific fleet. Also thinking that relations don't change is quite dangerous, notably when you see what happened between soviets and chineses in the 50' and 60'. Sino-russian relations might be good now, but who knows in 5-10 years. We already see many ruptures as China enters the international scene. But that's more politic than naval related.

Click to expand...

In 5-10 years, Sino-Russian relations will likely still be very good.
The key reason is that Russia is locked in a competition over Ukraine against NATO/US/EU.
And Ukraine sits next to the core population and industrial heartlands of Russia.

A Sino-Russian breakdown is a possible threat in the future.
But in comparison, there is a REAL breakdown in US-China relations, and a definite military threat from conventional US military forces.

A sea-based ABM system is therefore low prority.

2-India has the Dhanush anti-ship ballistic missile. Considering that the Indian Ocean is decisive for China, this threat is real. You can be sure that this kind of weapon will be used in any sino-indian conflict. The democratization of ASBM is real, China is the first one to sell them to the more offering.

Click to expand...

The Indian Ocean is not decisive for China.
The Coastal waters next to China mainland are decisive, because control of these waters means mainland China is secure.
You're talking about a small, possible threat from a distant India VERSUS a definite threat to China's coastal areas.

4-5- that Literally the point of SM-3IIA.. Allowing naval based BMD to intercept ICBM in Mid-course. It's all a question of envelop. Also let's not forget that the US are seeking to deploy ballistic missiles in the pacific, notably Guam. ship-based anti-ballistic missiles will be extremely important to ensure a full interception spectrum-short, mid course and terminal.

Click to expand...

Yes, the US is seeking to deploy ballistic missiles.
But guess what, we're at least 5 years from AshBMs from being deployed.
So why is the current lack of Chinese sea-based ABM a big deal?
In comparison, there are much greater and pressing threats to deal with first.

And how is the US getting along with developing expensive ABM systems to deal with inexpensive Chinese ballistic missiles?
The answer is that it is a losing competition.

6- Yeah I would like you to prove that one LOL.

Click to expand...

It's very simple.
You need 2-3 ships to keep 1 on station at any time.
A single land-based ASAT system is much cheaper.
That is obvious

Also: "There's a reason why Japan is building AEGIS ashore systems, rather than relying on the AEGIS aboard destroyers. " Bullshit. Japan has numerous destroyers based on the Aegis combat system. In fact SM-3 has been tested numerous times on japanese vessels AKA Kongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Chōkai...

Click to expand...

If the best platform for Japanese SM-3s was their AEGIS destroyers, then why didn't they continue using them?
Because you need 2-3 destroyers to keep 1 on station at any time.
Hence Japan building AEGIS ashore installations.

Arienai said:

I guess you don't understand the importance of defending possible nuclear attacks. The ability to intercept ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead is not something you'll find the most cost-effective method on.

Click to expand...

You're basically saying that it is feasible to defend against a possible ICBM nuclear attack.
Good luck with trying to sustain that line of argument.

If so, then why aren't the USA or Russia doing so?

The answer is that both the USA and Russia understand that ABM systems are extremely expensive.
In comparison, ICBMs and other offensive ballistic missiles cost far less.

That is because an ICBM just has to hit a fixed target, whilst the ABM missile is trying to hit a small target travelling at Mach 20.

It's easier to build more inexpensive ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defenders.
So it's a losing competition for the defender.

Anyway, I think that is enough on the topic.

I have been meaning to ask, but don’t know where to put this.

Regarding the armament of the PLAN destroyers, how comes they went with 1x CIWS and 1x missile SAM only in terms of additional weaponry on top of the VLSs and main gun? Is it like a doctrine thing or something else?

I have noticed that a lot of the possible adversary these ships might face have double CIWS and more addition weaponry on top of the VLS and main gun. Whereas the new destroyers of the PLAN seems a bit sparse on weaponry, it’s true for 55s and 52ds.

Is it just me not understanding modern warfare or are the roles of destroyers in PLAN a bit limited and relying too much on frigates and corvettes as support and defensive elements in the task forces and fleets? I can understand it for the 55s as a potential future platform for rail guns but for 52ds I am not so sure such limitation is healthy for survival of the vessel in combat situations. Btw if there is already a thread where this have been discussed, please point me in the right direction.

Mt1701d said:

I have been meaning to ask, but don’t know where to put this.

Regarding the armament of the PLAN destroyers, how comes they went with 1x CIWS and 1x missile SAM only in terms of additional weaponry on top of the VLSs and main gun? Is it like a doctrine thing or something else?

I have noticed that a lot of the possible adversary these ships might face have double CIWS and more addition weaponry on top of the VLS and main gun. Whereas the new destroyers of the PLAN seems a bit sparse on weaponry, it’s true for 55s and 52ds.

Is it just me not understanding modern warfare or are the roles of destroyers in PLAN a bit limited and relying too much on frigates and corvettes as support and defensive elements in the task forces and fleets? I can understand it for the 55s as a potential future platform for rail guns but for 52ds I am not so sure such limitation is healthy for survival of the vessel in combat situations. Btw if there is already a thread where this have been discussed, please point me in the right direction.

Click to expand...

The placement of the CIWS alows it to cover most angles with just one unit, same with the launcher. The newer burkes only have one CIWS aswell and no RAM launcher. The new U.S Frigate has a RAM launcher but no CIWS.

CIWS is not the primary defence against incomming missiles, its the last line of defence and if you are in that situation you are in big trouble.
Modern defence is layered and would look simplified something like this
1 Destroy the ship or plane before it can get in range to fire Missiles
2 Intercept Missiles with long range SAMs fired from the VLS
3 Intercept Missiles with Medium Range SAMs fired from the VLS
4 Intercept Missiles with Short Range SAMs like the RAM or HHQ-10
5 CIWS
During this you would also try softkill measures like and chaff aswell as ECM
Note that not all ships have all of these layers, a type 056 corvette only have a HHQ-10 launcher for airdefence for instance but during a battle scenario it would have bigger more capable ships nearby that would provide longer range air defence.

As for other weapons im not sure what you mean, the VLS cells or slanted canisters are the primary weapons of a modern Destroyer and the more you can fit the better, Guns would play little role in a naval battle betwen two modern navies since they would take place at very long ranges.
Some ships have some small caliber guns like 50 cal or the 25mm bushmaster on the burke but thats more for protection against small boat terrorist attacks etc during peacetime.

Mt1701d said:

I have been meaning to ask, but don’t know where to put this.

Regarding the armament of the PLAN destroyers, how comes they went with 1x CIWS and 1x missile SAM only in terms of additional weaponry on top of the VLSs and main gun? Is it like a doctrine thing or something else?

I have noticed that a lot of the possible adversary these ships might face have double CIWS and more addition weaponry on top of the VLS and main gun. Whereas the new destroyers of the PLAN seems a bit sparse on weaponry, it’s true for 55s and 52ds.

Is it just me not understanding modern warfare or are the roles of destroyers in PLAN a bit limited and relying too much on frigates and corvettes as support and defensive elements in the task forces and fleets? I can understand it for the 55s as a potential future platform for rail guns but for 52ds I am not so sure such limitation is healthy for survival of the vessel in combat situations. Btw if there is already a thread where this have been discussed, please point me in the right direction.

Click to expand...

One CIWS plus one RAM type missile launcher is enough. You have to remember that the missile is coming at the side, and you have two assets there that can both overlap and cover the sides. Look at the potential arcs of each device. And of course, this comes after the threat missiles have managed to penetrate the LRSAM and MRSAM layers, plus there are also soft kill measures on board. Remember also, that 76mm guns you see among some ships also have an anti-aircraft function and work as a CIWS.

Compare it with layouts of those of other ships on other navies.

Double CIWS amidships. Seen in ships like Ticonderoga class, Type 45 destroyers, and also in PLAN ships like Type 054A, 052 refit, 051B refit, and 052B. The problem I see with this is that the anti ship missile typically goes towards the side. This means only one CIWS will be available to face this, in contrast to having two CIWS port and aft where both can swing around and face that missile. Did you notice that the Type 054A frigates were the first to get the Type 1130 over the 052D? The PLAN must know something.

Double CIWS fore and aft. Seen in earlier Burkes, but also in the Type 052C. Again, the PLAN must have a reason to move this layout to the one CIWS, one RAM clone launcher in the 052D, replacing one of the CIWS for the launcher. Sejong the Great class destroyer has a similar layout but reversed, with the RAM launcher in front and CIWS at the rear. Replacing one of the CIWS with a RAM launcher should tell you something.

Only RAM launchers. There are ships with no CIWS guns at all, relying only on the RAM. The Sachsen class has two RAM launchers front and rear. This is common with German ships, you also see this with their newest frigates and corvettes. Some Flight II Burkes have no CIWS but with only a RAM launcher at the rear, and one or two may be using SEARAM, which only has 8 missiles but has the Phalanx radar. FFG(X) is RAM only. In the PLAN, you have the 056 series relying on their HQ-10. This should tell you something about the high confidence on these weapons vs. CIWS.

Me thinks that the RAM is very effective against antiship missiles in testing, maybe more so than CIWS to account for this confidence. But PLAN doesn't want to rely purely on their RAM copy HQ-10. CIWS has a versatility that you can use it against small ships and boats in the water, so if you have RAM only, you might like to have machine guns on the side, like the 056 did. Those Burkes with RAM only also feature small guns at the side. Not surprisingly, so does the Sachsen class and these German ships.

So having a RAM type plus CIWS seems to be the most balanced arrangement the PLAN has figured out after having tried them all, and will institute on all later ships after the 052D as a doctrine. Its very likely, with high certainty, the next Chinese frigate will have this arrangement.

There are variations no one talks about. Like the 053H3 refits. You got one HQ-10 launcher in front, plus two CIWS amidships. The Sovremenny refits have one HQ-10 launcher in front, plus four CIWS (AK630) set amidships. Note how the HQ-10 has become a must, again indicating a high confidence on this weapon.

Thank you, @Derpy and @Tam for your responses, very enlightening. I guess I don't understand how modern naval defense works nowadays, and had a cave-man like thinking of more guns or longer list of guns/weapons = good.

From what the both of you said, its seems more of a fundamental shift in naval design.