PLAN Sovremenny DDG 136, 137, 138 & 139 Thread

para80

Junior Member
Registered Member
I kinda miss that look. "Mountain of steel" like battleships and cruisers of the old days.
 

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
I got no idea what that radar on the back of the 956EM is. My closest suspect is the Pozitiv-ME like here below or an older variant of such. Its a 3D phase array with a range of up to 80km, works in the X-band range and tracks up to 40 targets according to the factory information.



It would have to be for the support of the two Kashtans, doing what the Type 364 does in conjunction with CIWS.
Yeas, that's the so called "command module" for Kashtan and houses a Positiv-ME2
 

halflife3

Junior Member
Registered Member
They look so... chaotic compared to USN and PLAN ships.
The ship was designed during the 60s. Its US contemporary would be the Spruance class destroyer. But even by comparison, the design style looks a bit dated even by that time period.

This is not surprising as the US was always ahead when it comes to naval ship design and introduced the first modern guided missile destroyer, the Arleigh Burke, which is used as the basis for naval destroyer design even to this day by navies around the world.
spruance and sovremenny.jpeg
 

Team Blue

Junior Member
Registered Member
I knew it. When I first started studying Chinese ships I kept thinking "I know I've seen this somewhere before."
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
No, the succeeding Neustrashimyy, Admiral Grigorovich and Gepard class frigates all have full size 533mm torpedo tubes.

The reason why the Russians kept full sized tubes is these tubes are not primarily used for firing torpedoes. Instead they are used for firing long range stand off rocket propelled anti-submarine weapons like the RPK-2 Vyuga (SS-N-15). Unlike comparable weapons such as American VL-ASROC and Chinese CY-5 that fires vertical up from standard shipboard launch silos, the Russian weapon is fired horizontally over the side into the water like a conventional torpedo. Once it is in the water it orients itself into a nose up attitude, fire its rocket motor and take off onto its flight towards the target.

the reason why the Russians used this mode of operation is to enable the exact same weapon to be used by by submarines and surface ships. Submarines continue to use both full sized 533mm tubs and even larger 650mm tubes to allow long range high performance torpedo. So i5 behoves a submarine launched long range anti-submarine rocket to take full advantage of the full sized torpedo tube, In submarine operation it is also fired out of torpedo tube of a submerged submarine, float to the surface, orient itself vertically, and launch itself into its rock propellet trajectory. in surface ship operation, the weapons does exactly the same things, except the torpedo tube is above water.

the reason why the chinese gave up on these full size tubes is probably because RPK-2 is not a standard general issue weapon in Chinese service, and its Chinese equivalent does not use torpedo tubes.





I don't think nor have I seen any of the RPKs ever in Chinese service. They must either be using UGT or YU-6/10 on these ships.


I kinda miss that look. "Mountain of steel" like battleships and cruisers of the old days.

Angular stealth lines can look so boring...
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
The ship was designed during the 60s. Its US contemporary would be the Spruance class destroyer. But even by comparison, the design style looks a bit dated even by that time period.

This is not surprising as the US was always ahead when it comes to naval ship design and introduced the first modern guided missile destroyer, the Arleigh Burke, which is used as the basis for naval destroyer design even to this day by navies around the world.
View attachment 70066
The Spruance’s were dedicated ASW ships. Their direct equivalent were the Udaloys, not Sovremenys. The Udaloys looked a lot cleaner than Sovremneys too.

however, unlike the udaloys, which had at least credible self-defence capabiltiy against missiles and aircraft, the Spruance had negligible self defence capability. So it would not be too unkind to say the Spruance’s exceptionally spare, clean looks is the result of it being an overly large ship for its limited capability.

Sovremney were general purpose destroyer, with considerable area air defence capability, formidable anti-surface strike capability, a powerful shore bombardment capability, as well as creditable ASW capability.

The Spruance clsss was originally going to be general purpose destroyers just like the Sovremneys. They were even intended to have a massive single automatic 8 gun in the forward position for shore bombardment. But they were stripped down to almost pure ASW to save cost. When general purpose capabilities were restored to the very same Spruance hull a few years later, the result was the Ticonderoga class cruiser, the Ticos looked a lot less clean and uncluttered.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The ship was designed during the 60s. Its US contemporary would be the Spruance class destroyer. But even by comparison, the design style looks a bit dated even by that time period.

This is not surprising as the US was always ahead when it comes to naval ship design and introduced the first modern guided missile destroyer, the Arleigh Burke, which is used as the basis for naval destroyer design even to this day by navies around the world.
View attachment 70066

To add what Mr. Santos said, Sovremenny isn't the equal match to the Spruance; the Sovremenny's SAM defense way outclasses it. The Sovremenny's equal can be better found in the Kidd class, which has the poetic irony of all being ended up in Taiwan. Once you start having missile target illumination and more competent air search radars with a full 3D capability, the ship becomes more cluttered. Kidd's SPS-48 here, the large square arrays you see, are the direct equivalent to the Sovremenny's 'Top Plate' Fregats, with the same working principle. Main difference is the Fregats are double sided, so their update tick is double. Spruance's main search radar SPS-40 is only a 2D one, and the PLAN equivalents of such is like the Type 360 radars like you will find in the two Type 054.

The Mk. 26 arm launchers is also another parallel to the Shtil launchers on the Sovremenny. The Mk. 26 stores and launches 44 Sea Sparrows or Standards, while the Sovremenny stores and launches 48 Shtils missiles, which are similar to the early Standards. The Kidds also have 8 antiship missiles, same as the Sovremenny, but of course, the Sovremenny differs here packing a much bigger wallop from its antiship missile. The visual charisma of the Cold War Soviet warships comes from their enormous antiship or antisubmarine missiles.


1280px-Kee_Lung_(DDG-1801)_and_Ma_Kong_(DDG-1805)_shipped_in_Zhongzheng_Naval_Base_20130504b.jpg


The Udaloy, even though it is dubbed as an ASW vessel, has some top level clutter too in its original fit. But it differs with the Spruance because it has such a formidable, if not ridiculous, close in air defense suite, with 64 Klinoks, or another way to describe it, a floating Tor-M1 arsenal. The Spruance with its 8 cell launcher with Sea Sparrows, isn't close in the same league. Of the four destroyers mentioned here, the Udaloy might be the best short ranged AAW brawler here even for a purposed ASW ship.


2bfff2ee43cac6f4acb6c86b3245093b.jpg
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Spruance clsss was originally going to be general purpose destroyers just like the Sovremneys. They were even intended to have a massive single automatic 8 gun in the forward position for shore bombardment. But they were stripped down to almost pure ASW to save cost. When general purpose capabilities were restored to the very same Spruance hull a few years later, the result was the Ticonderoga class cruiser, the Ticos looked a lot less clean and uncluttered.
They eventually did become "near general purpose" destroyers. They retained a point-defense capability against aerial targets, but upgraded it with time (2xCIWS, 1xRAM, 1x8 Sea Sparrow). 21 out of 24 ships were upgraded with a 61 cell VLS capable of launching Tomahawk and ASROC missiles. Some ships got 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles as well. Because they lacked area defense SAM capability, they did not get the letter 'G' added to their DD designation. Sovremmeny's lacked cruise missile land attack capability, so the two classes were roughly similar in their degree of general purpose role.
 
Last edited:

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
To add what Mr. Santos said, Sovremenny isn't the equal match to the Spruance; the Sovremenny's SAM defense way outclasses it. The Sovremenny's equal can be better found in the Kidd class, which has the poetic irony of all being ended up in Taiwan. Once you start having missile target illumination and more competent air search radars with a full 3D capability, the ship becomes more cluttered. Kidd's SPS-48 here, the large square arrays you see, are the direct equivalent to the Sovremenny's 'Top Plate' Fregats, with the same working principle. Main difference is the Fregats are double sided, so their update tick is double.
The Kidd class DDGs were a lot more powerful at air defense than the Sovremmenys. The SPS-48 has a much larger array compared to Top Plate, which makes up for lower update rate by being able to detect targets at longer ranges and use less radar time to track each target. These ships complemented the S-band SPS-48 with an additional air search radar, the L-band SPS-49.
The Mk. 26 arm launchers is also another parallel to the Shtil launchers on the Sovremenny. The Mk. 26 stores and launches 44 Sea Sparrows or Standards, while the Sovremenny stores and launches 48 Shtils missiles, which are similar to the early Standards.
That's 44 per launcher vs 24 on the Sovremmeny (on the Kidd only the aft one housed 44 missiles I think). The Mk. 26 are dual arm launchers, while those on the Sovremenny are single arm, so all other things equal they would have double the firing rate. Another difference is that Mk-26 could also launch ASROC missiles.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The Kidd class DDGs were a lot more powerful at air defense than the Sovremmenys. The SPS-48 has a much larger array compared to Top Plate, which makes up for lower update rate by being able to detect targets at longer ranges and use less radar time to track each target. These ships complemented the S-band SPS-48 with an additional air search radar, the L-band SPS-49.

That's 44 per launcher vs 24 on the Sovremmeny (on the Kidd only the aft one housed 44 missiles I think). The Mk. 26 are dual arm launchers, while those on the Sovremenny are single arm, so all other things equal they would have double the firing rate. Another difference is that Mk-26 could also launch ASROC missiles.

Better range does not compensate for a higher update rate, as tracking rate and range are just two different things, neither compensates the other. From a defensive standpoint I would go with tracking rate. Maximum uptick for SPS-48 is about 15 times a minute based on its rate of rotation, while the Fregat is about 12 RPM, so a double face is about 24 times a minute. (Type 382 rotates about 30 times a minute, so it can reach an update rate of 60 times, so that's a boost for the 136 and 137 ship refits.) The oldest Sovs have a different radar, they use the Top Pair instead of the Top Plate of the later batches.

I forgot, the Kidd has 24 in the front and 44 at the back launcher. Each dual arm launcher has the rate of 2 missiles at 9 seconds, while the Shtil fires a missile every two seconds, or one missile every four seconds per launcher, for a total of 4 missiles in 8 seconds. (Wiki info for both).

Kidd only has two target illuminators, as clearly seen in the photograph, the Sovremenny has six. So the capacity to engage more targets simultaneously goes to the Sov.

As for ASROC, the Kidds has a separate launcher, but the Sov can do ASROC from its 533mm torpedo tubes.

Kidds have main guns, front and rear, so does the Sov, with the Sov having dual guns per turret, so it has a much higher firing rate. SPQ-9A handles the gunnery for the Kidds, while the MR184 handles it for the Sov. I remember in one exercise, a Sov was able to take out cruise missile targets with its main guns.

Kidds, as per Taiwan version, has two 20mm Phalanx, while the Sovs in their original fit, have four 30mm AK630s guided by two MR123. So close range I would go with the Sov here.

No equivalent to the Mineral radar and antiship targeting, which has active and passive OTH via atmospheric ducting. In terms of direct line of sight engagement using antiship missiles, the Kidd has to rely on the SPQ-9A, while the Sov relies on the Mineral. The Soviets prefer, up to this day as the modern Russian Navy, to have two distinct separate fire control radars for antiship missiles vs. gunnery, while the West prefers to integrate both functions in a single radar.
 
Last edited:
Top