PLAN Type 051B/C Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 051C Thread

Well if the Chinese made the provisions for 9M96E, there must have been some kind of interest, regardless of future expectations in prices. Or are you saying the Chinese are not interested in buying the S400?

Re: DDG 051C Thread

FugitiveVisions said:

Well if the Chinese made the provisions for 9M96E, there must have been some kind of interest, regardless of future expectations in prices. Or are you saying the Chinese are not interested in buying the S400?

Click to expand...

We don't know what provisions they made for. We know that rif-m right now does not have anti-missile capability and they are negotiating for the software upgrading to allow for that. Why do you think they would be interested in S-400?

Re: DDG 051C Thread

The main difference between the PMU-2 and the S-400 is greater engagement range of the latter, about 250 mi. against aircraft versus 125 mi., a larger number of targets it can track and improved electronic counter-countermeasures.

Click to expand...

The 9M96 medium-range missile, which comes in two versions (9M96E and 9M96E2), is designed to destroy aircraft and air- delivered weapons at ranges in excess of 120 km.

Click to expand...

The 9M96E2 missile can intercept all types of aircraft, including tactical ballistic and medium-range theater missiles flying at altitudes from 5 meters to 30 kilometers. Their exceptionally high accuracy is ensured by the missile's main secret, the so-called transverse control engine, which rules out misses during the final approach trajectory. The transverse control engine is still without parallel in the world.

Click to expand...

These new missiles can be accomodated on the existing SAM system launchers of the S-300PMU family.

Click to expand...

Given the capabilities of 9M96E missile, it would not be a total surprise if the Chinese built the 051Cs with them in mind. Like you said, the current 48N6 missiles lack the capability to engage AshMs. Unless China has something superior, which is possible, but unlikely considering that Chinese SAM technologies have been heavily based on Russian systems, China would potentially learn a lot by purchasing a S400 system. I think the better question is, why don't you think China would be interested?

Re: DDG 051C Thread

What I see is that the 48N6E may have problems engagings AshMs at a certain altitude, probably a minimum altitude. Does not mean the AshM can be engaged while during a higher midphase flight before it enters the low flight terminal stage.

9M96E is also intended to be TVM. It is not active version, which is the S-300V. Being TVM makes it directly compatible with the existing S-300 FCRs.

The missile size is a fair issue. It's not easy for a big missile to intercept a target smaller than it is, because the bigger missile is generally less maneuverable than the smaller missile, making it vulnerable to evasive measures. Thus the 9M96. Usually a ship with RIF is covered by smaller missiles such as the Klinok, which is based on the Tor, or the Shtil.

Original version of the naval S-300 uses 5V55 (SARH), but later versions including RIF-M, uses 48N6E and 48N6E2 (TVM).

Re: DDG 051C Thread

FugitiveVisions said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Given the capabilities of 9M96E missile, it would not be a total surprise if the Chinese built the 051Cs with them in mind. Like you said, the current 48N6 missiles lack the capability to engage AshMs. Unless China has something superior, which is possible, but unlikely considering that Chinese SAM technologies have been heavily based on Russian systems, China would potentially learn a lot by purchasing a S400 system. I think the better question is, why don't you think China would be interested?

Click to expand...

I already stated in the past why I think 051C is a wasted class, but two main ones are:
1) The Russian VLS are known to take up a lot of space and before 9M96E had no common VLS. And considering that China would not be interested in my opinion to purchase Russian ASROC type or AShM type, it would be a huge problem to integrate their own anti-ship missiles, LACMs and ASROC onto a Russian VLS. And with the size of VLS, you see on 051C that they don't even have hangar space.
2) Buying naval S-400 means they would have to use the Russian naval system of having that one huge illuminating FCR in one direction (unless they choose to build cruiser, they won't be able to have more than that. You are basically back to using the Soviet cold war AD philosophy rather than the more modern western AD philosophy that China is finally subscribing to with 052C. And you have the other problem of how that will fare in a AD system with ships operating the HH-9/APAR combination.

One final issue is cost:
I remember reading on kanwa that the cost of each rif-m system is $150 million, now if they are getting this upgrade for anti-missile capability + 9M96E missiles, the cost will easily go up to $200 million and maybe more. So, you will end up paying more for just the long range AD of this ship than the entire cost of a 054A.

Re: DDG 051C Thread

tphuang said:

I already stated in the past why I think 051C is a wasted class, but two main ones are:
1) The Russian VLS are known to take up a lot of space and before 9M96E had no common VLS. And considering that China would not be interested in my opinion to purchase Russian ASROC type or AShM type, it would be a huge problem to integrate their own anti-ship missiles, LACMs and ASROC onto a Russian VLS. And with the size of VLS, you see on 051C that they don't even have hangar space.
2) Buying naval S-400 means they would have to use the Russian naval system of having that one huge illuminating FCR in one direction (unless they choose to build cruiser, they won't be able to have more than that. You are basically back to using the Soviet cold war AD philosophy rather than the more modern western AD philosophy that China is finally subscribing to with 052C. And you have the other problem of how that will fare in a AD system with ships operating the HH-9/APAR combination.

Click to expand...

I agree that the 051C class is not as capable as the 052C class; I don't think it is without use in the PLAN though. How do you know that the Chinese want to integrate Chinese missiles into the Russian VLS? Wouldn't it be an invalid argument if they don't want to do that? I don't think the current issue is whether China will build more ships using the Russian system, it's a no brainer that the next class of ships will feature indigenous systems, in the mode of the 052C. Rather, it is how China can or planned to upgrade the existing 051Cs to increase their capabilities. Making the current 051Cs compatible with 9M96E would be a huge plus, because not only would you have the capabilities to intercept low flying targets, you can also almost double the number of missiles the ship is carrying.

I was interested of what you think of China's interest in the land-based systems of the S-400. My bad for not making that clear. Chinese air-defense technologies is still very much reliant on Russian technology, you find Russian counterparts for every Chinese system. It was reported that China ordered 8 regiments of the S-300PMU2 in 2004, some say the Chinese only ordered the radars and the vehicles while using indigenous missiles. With the latest S-400 systems slated to protect Moscow in July of this year, do you think the Chinese would be interested in those systems? Especially since China's fast pace development in air defense has been largely augmented by imports of Russian systems and technology?

Re: DDG 051C Thread

While I agree that the costs are prohibitively high, you have to keep in mind that the original purchase of the RIFs are sunk cost, which means that you shouldn't use them when making decisions on future investments. If the marginal cost justifies the increase in capability, which is that you get anti-sea skimmng AshM and double the number of missiles on board, then you make that investment.

Re: DDG 051C Thread

FugitiveVisions said:

I agree that the 051C class is not as capable as the 052C class; I don't think it is without use in the PLAN though. How do you know that the Chinese want to integrate Chinese missiles into the Russian VLS? Wouldn't it be an invalid argument if they don't want to do that? I don't think the current issue is whether China will build more ships using the Russian system, it's a no brainer that the next class of ships will feature indigenous systems, in the mode of the 052C. Rather, it is how China can or planned to upgrade the existing 051Cs to increase their capabilities. Making the current 051Cs compatible with 9M96E would be a huge plus, because not only would you have the capabilities to intercept low flying targets, you can also almost double the number of missiles the ship is carrying.

I was interested of what you think of China's interest in the land-based systems of the S-400. My bad for not making that clear. Chinese air-defense technologies is still very much reliant on Russian technology, you find Russian counterparts for every Chinese system. It was reported that China ordered 8 regiments of the S-300PMU2 in 2004, some say the Chinese only ordered the radars and the vehicles while using indigenous missiles. With the latest S-400 systems slated to protect Moscow in July of this year, do you think the Chinese would be interested in those systems? Especially since China's fast pace development in air defense has been largely augmented by imports of Russian systems and technology?

Click to expand...

land based air defense and sea based air defense is a totally different issue here. If we are talking about sea based air defense, the issues I mentionned are hugely problematical. But if we are talking about land based, they are not as problematical. You have to be clear with your question.

Do I think they will import S-400 after the next batch of S-300PMU2? no. If what I read recently on their order of HQ-9 is correct, there is no place for more Russian air defense system.

While I agree that the costs are prohibitively high, you have to keep in mind that the original purchase of the RIFs are sunk cost, which means that you shouldn't use them when making decisions on future investments. If the marginal cost justifies the increase in capability, which is that you get anti-sea skimmng AshM and double the number of missiles on board, then you make that investment.

Click to expand...

I feel like you are changing your argument now. If you are just talking about upgrading existing 051C to have the capability to have anti-missile capability, I'm okay whether they do it or not.

As for this sunk cost, I don't believe this is an issue. It's all about the PLAN doctrine and how they want to use 051C. If they just want to use it to hit the strike planes before they can launch the missiles, then there is no need for 9M96E really. They can put some 054As in NSF to protect against sea skimming missiles. That way, the FCR on 051C can concentrate on aircrafts.

Re: DDG 051C Thread

I agree that it's really an issue of doctrine whether the Chinese will upgrade the 051C. However, since you raised the issue of cost, I just merely pointed out that sunk cost, the cost of acquiring Rif, should not be used in future investment decisions.

And I don't honestly believe that anyone on the internet really knows how many HQ-9 system China is going to order in the next few years. If China has intentions to make 9M96E missiles compatible with the 051C, it is reasonable to infer that they at least have some intention to upgrade their current S300PMUs with this missile.

And if the 051C can indeed carry both 9M96E and 48N6E, wouldn't it be advantageous for the Chinese to have a ship capable of providing multi-layered air defense? While the ship has shortcomings, the issue here isn't whether to build more of this class, but rather how to make improvements on the current platforms. I think I made that point clear in my previous post.

Re: DDG 051C Thread

不用消化，04年定型的hq9的某个型号到08年就要生产5000发，这根本就是为了打世界大 战预备的。
其实具体数据我是猜测的，我只是根据一个重要的弹上系统估计的，那个东西要了5000 套，08年产完，压力那个大，我最早以为是要备份所以这么大量，后来听他们说hq9是封装的不需要备份，再 说了，对空弹都是集群部署，打飞了就再打一个，所以在战术上也不需要备份，然后我就惊了，我们对台作战其实 一直是按照对美日作战来准备的。
我们的意图肯定是要在东部所有的重要地区都部署，那样算算就可想而知，不一定够用啊，还有战时的时候，我听 军代表说是按条件最差，2－4发打一个目标来算的。北京那几个营估计就不下千枚的备弹，还有上海，长三角地 区，珠三角地区，甚至到湖北境内。

Click to expand...

As for someone's claim that 5000 sets of HQ-9 missiles have been ordered, which you have posted on the "Chinese SAM" thread, the guy can't possibly be someone who worked on the HQ-9 project, because he said that he initially believed that the large order for the component is due to replacement on the missiles, only to learn later that once a missile is fired, there is no need to replace the components on that missile. Doesn't sound a whole lot like someone who knows a lot about missiles. Also says that he make an educated guess on the number of sets ordered based on the number of a certain missile component in the order list. Again, you'd have to seriously doubt that anyone who posts on the internet, much less someone who knows little about missiles, has access to the entire order list of all the components of the HQ-9 missile. If that is in fact the case, I can't imagine the job of a CIA China expert being hard at all. Then goes on to make more educated guesses on where the missiles will be allocated. Sounds like an chinese military forum boy seeking some attention.