PLAN Sovremenny DDG 136, 137, 138 & 139 Thread

[Iron Man]

Is it though? I think 32 054A pattern VLS and sensor suite, HHQ-10, possibly H/PJ-11, and YJ-12 or YJ-18 as AShM along with a likely modern combat management system and command/control suite and datalink I think would be quite a cost effective upgrade of the Sovs.

Cost-effective? Maybe. But that still leaves the Sov with essentially the armament of a frigate. I still think the AK-630s may have to remain due to lack of suitable mounting locations for 730s or 1130s, and may be why they chose to have only 2 VLS modules up front with an HHQ-10 launcher instead of 4 VLS modules.

 

[Blitzo]

Cost-effective? Maybe. But that still leaves the Sov with essentially the armament of a frigate. I still think the AK-630s may have to remain due to lack of suitable mounting locations for 730s or 1130s, and may be why they chose to have only 2 VLS modules up front with an HHQ-10 launcher instead of 2 VLS modules.

I think considering the Sovs before had a total of 48 Shtil SAMs using arm launchers, replacing those with 32 HHQ-16s using VLS is overall not a reduction in overall capability despite it is technically less firepower. In fact I would almost say that the contribution of VLS for increased firing rate, and the ability to field likely upgraded HHQ-16 variants in future (considering current HHQ-16s are probably already at least marginally better than the Shtil missiles the Sovs were equipped with from Russia), as well as the likely ability to fire the same VL-ASROC weapon as 054A would be an increase in overall capability relative to the Sovs before.

More important imo is to appreciate that there was only so much that could be done to modify the Sovs to begin with. Sure they could have maybe done something more extensive like give it the sensor and weapons suite of an 052D, or maybe something less like adding in more 054A VLS modules, but that would likely have resulted in more costly structural modifications as well.


As for mounting locations for 1130s -- I think either side of the helipad/hangar is suitable, aka the same spot where the kashtan ciws is mounted on the 956em sovs or where the aft AK630s are mounted on the standard 956 sovs. For a total CIWS fit of one bow HHQ-10, and two 1130s, but we'll see.


On balance, imo a Sov with 054A esque sensor suite, 32 054A VLS, 8 YJ-18 or YJ-12 AShM, 1 HHQ-10, 2 1130/730 CIWS, and modern combat management system and command/control and datalinking is a pretty good upgrade and far from disappointing for me, considering the kind of ship they had to work with.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Not too mention the Sov is now compatible with the rest of Chinese fleet in term of communication and network and data link. That is probably more important than number of missile
Her combat system is definitely a generation a head of the original system.
For a long time the Sov is odd duck out there All and all it is a good upgrade
Even the missile YJ 18 is an upgrade compare to the original.Better CIWS

On balance, imo a Sov with 054A esque sensor suite, 32 054A VLS, 8 YJ-18 or YJ-12 AShM, 1 HHQ-10, 2 1130/730 CIWS,
A thumb up
How about her sister ship is she going to get upgrade too?

 

[Iron Man]

I think considering the Sovs before had a total of 48 Shtil SAMs using arm launchers, replacing those with 32 HHQ-16s using VLS is overall not a reduction in overall capability despite it is technically less firepower. In fact I would almost say that the contribution of VLS for increased firing rate, and the ability to field likely upgraded HHQ-16 variants in future (considering current HHQ-16s are probably already at least marginally better than the Shtil missiles the Sovs were equipped with from Russia), as well as the likely ability to fire the same VL-ASROC weapon as 054A would be an increase in overall capability relative to the Sovs before.

Tough tradeoff for me. A 33% reduction in air defense firepower to achieve a faster firing rate is a marginal tradeoff at best. Those swingarm launchers could launch 1 missile every 6-8 seconds, making for 7-10 missiles/min or the entire 24-missile magazine in approximately 2-3 minutes, a very reasonable rate of fire. A VLS could launch missiles much faster but there are only Orekh 6 illuminators on the Sovs meaning you could at most have maybe 12 missiles in the air at once anyway. If you are facing an immediate all-out saturation attack against your ship, the VLS will have an advantage. But in a protracted conflict those extra 16 missiles would definitely be missed.

More important imo is to appreciate that there was only so much that could be done to modify the Sovs to begin with. Sure they could have maybe done something more extensive like give it the sensor and weapons suite of an 052D, or maybe something less like adding in more 054A VLS modules, but that would likely have resulted in more costly structural modifications as well.

I'm mostly concerned with the number of air defense missiles, not with giving the Sov a 052D air defense suite; who would be ridiculous enough to try for that? A 48-cell VLS is much more in line with what a destroyer the size of Sov should be loading and could easily have been achieved (with a little extra expense) had they not added the HHQ-10 launcher in the front. I think it could have been added to the rear instead IMO.

As for mounting locations for 1130s -- I think either side of the helipad/hangar is suitable, aka the same spot where the kashtan ciws is mounted on the 956em sovs or where the aft AK630s are mounted on the standard 956 sovs. For a total CIWS fit of one bow HHQ-10, and two 1130s, but we'll see.

On the 956EM this would be a suitable location but on the 956 those gun locations are right next to the helipad where a slightly off target landing could slice the CIWS in half and of course totally destroy the rotor blades in the process.

On balance, imo a Sov with 054A esque sensor suite, 32 054A VLS, 8 YJ-18 or YJ-12 AShM, 1 HHQ-10, 2 1130/730 CIWS, and modern combat management system and command/control and datalinking is a pretty good upgrade and far from disappointing for me, considering the kind of ship they had to work with.

Yes, those upgrades are pretty good and taken overall, it's a decent midlife refit. Nonetheless that tradeoff in missile armament was done at the expense of what would have amounted to not much more money IMO.

 

[Blitzo]

Tough tradeoff for me. A 33% reduction in air defense firepower to achieve a faster firing rate is a marginal tradeoff at best. Those swingarm launchers could launch 1 missile every 6-8 seconds, making for 7-10 missiles/min or the entire 24-missile magazine in approximately 2-3 minutes, a very reasonable rate of fire. A VLS could launch missiles much faster but there are only Orekh 6 illuminators on the Sovs meaning you could at most have maybe 12 missiles in the air at once anyway. If you are facing an immediate all-out saturation attack against your ship, the VLS will have an advantage. But in a protracted conflict those extra 16 missiles would definitely be missed.

If the Sovs were among the top tier of air defence vessels in the Navy then I would agree this may be a concern, but considering the weight of other air defence frigates and especially air defence destroyers, I think a difference of 16 VLS between 32 to 48 is a relatively minor issue at most.

I'm mostly concerned with the number of air defense missiles, not with giving the Sov a 052D air defense suite; who would be ridiculous enough to try for that? A 48-cell VLS is much more in line with what a destroyer the size of Sov should be loading and could easily have been achieved (with a little extra expense) had they not added the HHQ-10 launcher in the front. I think it could have been added to the rear instead IMO.

I think the issue is not so much that they chose to place HHQ-10 in front of the bow VLS so much as that the below-deck structures may not have allowed a VLS to be easily fit in the locaiton you describe without structural modifications.

If we look at the Shtil arm launchers on the Sovs and extrapolate where their under-deck reload magazine+apparatus is, that is essentially the below deck footprint/volume that the shipyard would have had to work with to try and fit their VLS in. Sure, they could probably have done work to modify/expand it further, but time+money would have to be put up vs just how valuable that additional bit of capability would be?

On the 956EM this would be a suitable location but on the 956 those gun locations are right next to the helipad where a slightly off target landing could slice the CIWS in half and of course totally destroy the rotor blades in the process.

Hmm I see little to no difference between these two in terms of available footprint for 1130s. I mean, yes, they would have to expand the base structure/deck for the 956s a bit more similar to the 956EMs to accommodate the slightly larger 1130s in lieu of the AK630s, but that is a relatively minor modification and is something they did to refit the two 052 class DDGs in their 730 CIWS fit as well.

Yes, those upgrades are pretty good and taken overall, it's a decent midlife refit. Nonetheless that tradeoff in missile armament was done at the expense of what would have amounted to not much more money IMO.

Hmm maybe. I personally think there must be a reason why they didn't add an additional VLS module where the HHQ-10 sits, probably due to the necessity of structural changes to make it happen, and probably thought the additional time and money to make it happen wasn't worth the minor increase in firepower.

I think if the Sovs were a more significant component of the Navy's overall air defence fleet then there might be more priority or expectation for expanding its VLS armament to its physical maximum even if it cost more. But with so many 052C/Ds that are up and coming, along with so many 054As themselves, not to mention upcoming 055 and the likely introduction of a next generation frigate around 2020, I think the difference between 32 and 48 VLS aboard one of the most difficult to modify "legacy" ships the Navy operates is almost inconsequential.

 

[Iron Man]

If the Sovs were among the top tier of air defence vessels in the Navy then I would agree this may be a concern, but considering the weight of other air defence frigates and especially air defence destroyers, I think a difference of 16 VLS between 32 to 48 is a relatively minor issue at most.

Here we obviously just disagree.

I think the issue is not so much that they chose to place HHQ-10 in front of the bow VLS so much as that the below-deck structures may not have allowed a VLS to be easily fit in the locaiton you describe without structural modifications.

If we look at the Shtil arm launchers on the Sovs and extrapolate where their under-deck reload magazine+apparatus is, that is essentially the below deck footprint/volume that the shipyard would have had to work with to try and fit their VLS in. Sure, they could probably have done work to modify/expand it further, but time+money would have to be put up vs just how valuable that additional bit of capability would be?

This is where I mean that they would have had to commit some extra funds. How much extra funds? Not much in my view. The 24-missile magazine was cylindrical while the 16-cell VLS section is rectangular so regardless of similar volume there would have been bulkhead cutting. Also, judging by the red lines here it is clear to me that the forward red box would already have had to be shifted forward anyway and the rear red box would have had to be shifted rearward in order for a VLS section to clear the abovedeck structures. I don't see any vital machinery spaces forward of the front red box which would have made adding more VLS modules a financial hardship. Maybe someone who speaks Russian can translate what "3" and "28" are:

Hmm I see little to no difference between these two in terms of available footprint for 1130s.

No? Then this should help (note how close the rotor blades are to the rear 630s):

Hmm maybe. I personally think there must be a reason why they didn't add an additional VLS module where the HHQ-10 sits, probably due to the necessity of structural changes to make it happen, and probably thought the additional time and money to make it happen wasn't worth the minor increase in firepower.

I think if the Sovs were a more significant component of the Navy's overall air defence fleet then there might be more priority or expectation for expanding its VLS armament to its physical maximum even if it cost more. But with so many 052C/Ds that are up and coming, along with so many 054As themselves, not to mention upcoming 055 and the likely introduction of a next generation frigate around 2020, I think the difference between 32 and 48 VLS aboard one of the most difficult to modify "legacy" ships the Navy operates is almost inconsequential.

Again, not really that difficult to modify at all. Just look at the Sov cutaway I posted.

 

[Blitzo]

Here we obviously just disagree.


This is where I mean that they would have had to commit some extra funds. How much extra funds? Not much in my view. The 24-missile magazine was cylindrical while the 16-cell VLS section is rectangular so regardless of similar volume there would have been bulkhead cutting. Also, judging by the red lines here it is clear to me that the forward red box would already have had to be shifted forward anyway and the rear red box would have had to be shifted rearward in order for a VLS section to clear the abovedeck structures. I don't see any vital machinery spaces forward of the front red box which would have made adding more VLS modules a financial hardship. Maybe someone who speaks Russian can translate what "3" and "28" are:
View attachment 34812

I was thinking less in terms of vital machinery, and more in terms of the potential need for additional structural support/reinforcement to accommodate an additional VLS module, whereas I think the bulkheads immediately adjacent to the missile magazine may be more able to accommodate the weight and firing of a VLS module.

Obviously what you're suggesting is very possible to do, it's just whether the additional bit of money and time is necessary for that extra firepower given the Navy's overall air defence fire power that already exists (which we do indeed obviously disagree on).

No? Then this should help (note how close the rotor blades are to the rear 630s):
View attachment 34813
View attachment 34814

I see what you mean, however I do think modifying/reinforcing the platform/pedestal may permit 1130s to be mounted in a slightly more forward direction where the issue of vertical clearance is substantially lower (no pun intended).

It could even be placed directly to the sides of the "hangar" (or base of the extendable hangar, depending on how specific we want to be), if that is how much more forward it needs to be.


I'm not necessarily saying they will defiintely do so, but I do believe mounting 1130s in roughly the position of Kashtan or AK630s is not out of the question.

Again, not really that difficult to modify at all. Just look at the Sov cutaway I posted.

Yeah. Well as you said, we disagree on the necessity of such a modification in light of the Navy's overall air defence fleet, as well as probably disagree on just how much more money or time may be needed to allow such a configuration to work.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Maybe someone who speaks Russian can translate what "3" and "28" are:

3 - crew compartments;
28 - 130mm magazine.

 

[antiterror13]

interesting what Chinese going to do with the existing Shtil SAM and Sunburn AShM .... sell those back to Russia ?

 

[Jeff Head]

Is it though? I think 32 054A pattern VLS and sensor suite, HHQ-10, possibly H/PJ-11, and YJ-12 or YJ-18 as AShM along with a likely modern combat management system and command/control suite and datalink I think would be quite a cost effective upgrade of the Sovs.

This is a GREAT upgrade for the Sovs.

i gives the Chinese total control of their destiny weapons wise.

It upgrades them to the latest suite, and gives them much faster reaction capability for anti air, both long down to close range.

...and it means they will be able to keep them very functional and relevant for a much longer time frame in their fleet.

It will be interesting now to see if they do something similar to the Type 052B vessels.