PLAN Type 051B/C Class Destroyers
- Thread starter supertran
- Start date
What if China's indigenous radar sets and UVLS for the 052C and 052D weren't ready in time, and China needs a 055 badly?
Here's how the hypothetical "181 destroyer", based on the extension and upgrade of the 051C, would've looked like had it been commissioned into the PLAN. All the following pictures are CG-illustreated by @大包CG on Weibo.
When put side-by-side with the real 055:
Truth-to-be-told, the hypothetical "181 destroyer", fabricated by a Chinese netizen in the 2000s and "popularized" among Chinese military fan circles, encapsuled the hopes and wishes by the Chinese military community that China, sometime in the future, can have her own powerful 10000-ton surface warships just like the Americans.
But now, we have successfully achieved that goal with the 055-class, and the 055s of today are capable of offering way greater effective firepower than what the hypothetical "181 destroyer" could ever dream of.
We have marched this far. Thank you to all the unsung Chinese designers, engineers and workers who made this goal a reality!
Here's how the hypothetical "181 destroyer", based on the extension and upgrade of the 051C, would've looked like had it been commissioned into the PLAN. All the following pictures are CG-illustreated by @大包CG on Weibo.
When put side-by-side with the real 055:
Truth-to-be-told, the hypothetical "181 destroyer", fabricated by a Chinese netizen in the 2000s and "popularized" among Chinese military fan circles, encapsuled the hopes and wishes by the Chinese military community that China, sometime in the future, can have her own powerful 10000-ton surface warships just like the Americans.
But now, we have successfully achieved that goal with the 055-class, and the 055s of today are capable of offering way greater effective firepower than what the hypothetical "181 destroyer" could ever dream of.
We have marched this far. Thank you to all the unsung Chinese designers, engineers and workers who made this goal a reality!
Last edited:
Truth be told, the hypothetical fan ship looks like it is still using the 052C's Type 346 radar and HHQ-9 systems, which we assume should have failed in this hypothetical scenario. The fan ship seems like an alternative what if the 052C ship failed as a ship per se.
These arrays would be too heavy to be put on a mast like that.
If Institute 17's Type 346 radars have failed, the other contender would have been Institute 23's HT-233 radars. These are the radars that you see with the land based HQ-9. In real history, Institute 23 were indeed developing a naval radar for the HHQ-9, and Institute 23 were the guys behind the HQ-9 in the first place. It would have meant they were in the first place or primary candidate position to win this contract. But in the end, the superior range performance of Institute 17's candidate, which led to the Type 346, won the competition and the Institute 23 radar candidate failed to reach the PLAN's lofty Aegis like requirements. However, Institute 23 failed to change the HQ-9's original C-band guidance datalink which is emanated from the HT-233 C-band array, which forced Institute 17 to add small C-band arrays to that purpose.
HT-233 radars
However, these radars work on the C-band, which has increased resolution but lacking the range of the S-band radars, so it simply would not have the range as the Type 346. You are looking around 90km to 125km here, probably estimated from FD-2000 brochures.
The question at that time is whether Institute 23 is working on an AESA variant of this radar, which we know they did, and subsequently later introduced to replace the PESA version of the radar for the PLA. But that's within the last decade, and I certainly won't know if they would have succeeded in doing so in the early to mid 2000s where the PLA's AESA tech isn't as advanced. So this gives us two options. The first is that if the AESA sea born HT-233 succeeded, and the second if the AESA failed, and the PESA had to be used instead.
As the HT-233 radar is physically smaller, it might be possible to put three C-band arrays on top like a mast like that. But you might be pushing it in terms of top heaviness. I do not think you are going to put a Type 347G fire control radar for the guns on top of that in order to conserve weight. The fan drawing has a Type 361 search radar. I'm going to delete that for weight purposes.
No gunnery fire control radar to reduce top weight, and instead you will have a gimbal optic and thermal sighting system for the gunnery that's been standard with PLAN ships. If you have noticed, this is how the Type 051C is gunned --- it doesn't have a gunnery radar at all, and relies on a gimbal optical system.
On the second mast, its not likely we should have the Type 381 search radar there, as this radar is more of an experiment and a first feet into the water for 3D search radars. Instead, we are going to see its far more obviously common successor, the Type 382 Sea Eagle. This is the ship's long range and main search radar. The ESM mast is moved from the main mast to the secondary mast. This is typical of the ESM mast location where we see it mainly behind the Type 382 radar.
What's going to be lacking is the common Type 364 secondary search radar that is ubiquitous with PLAN warships. The most logical position of it would be on top of the main mast where it is light and has an extended radar horizon for early warning against sea skimmers. However we are going to be tight for weight on this mast due to the four C-band AESAs. Another thing is that the Type 364 is a C-band radar itself so you have the potential for interference with the C-band panels. So let's say we just delete this radar and let the C-band panels do the secondary search themselves.
No Type 366 radar dome either, like the real Type 051C. That further reduces top weight and no interference on the C-band panels. We want the bridge deck to be as clean as possible.
I would get rid of all the 37mm guns and replace them with two typical Type 730 CIWS amidships. I certainly won't put a Type 347G fire control radar on top of the fourth C-band panel on the rear like the fan drawing depicts, that's potential interference. With two Type 730 CIWS amidships, we don't see the need to put a 347G there.
Now for the second option. What if development of the C-band AESAs should fail and a C-band PESA should be used instead. You will end up with a rotating pedestal over the hanger like the 051C, but instead of the Russian Flap Lid radar, you have the HT-233 instead. A similar arrangement with the rest of the Type 051C follows.
For all its worth, despite the much shorter range you will get with the C-band panels, it is not likely to suffer the issues of sea clutter when the beam is shone low and near the surface of the water, which can help the radar deal with sea skimming antiship missiles.
Last edited:
