Chinese Naval Platform & PLAN discussions

[Zarvan]

The Type 052D is a mature design that has been refined over the years, for example with the lengthening of the helipad in the 052DL class, new defence systems in terms of the Type 1130 CIWS and towed decoys, and the new Type 368 surface search radar. It packs a solid amount of firepower in its 64 VLS cells. It offers somewhat more distributed firepower compared to the larger Type 055, offering a balance between capability and affordability.

The key problem with producing more units of this class - not saying it won't be done but this will be a downside - is that there is no feasible way to fit more capability into this hull. Its powerplant won't be powerful enough to support better sensors going forward (e.g. Type 346B and the X-band AESA panels on the Type 055). 64 VLS cells could be limiting relative to USN destroyers, depending on whether the new quad-packed medium-range SAM is available in good numbers yet. Just 16 of its 64 cells are the longer 9-metre standard VLS, which is almost certainly required to launch the YJ-21 and YJ-18, which is a far lower proportion of 9-metre cells to the Type 055.

There are certainly reasons why the PLAN will want more Type 052D, but also good reasons why it might not be all the way to 60 units.

They have one such destroyer under development. With 80 VLS. Rumours are there on Chinese social media.

 

[FuturePAF]

CCTV's "A Comprehensive View of Weapons" recently aired a program titled "Refining Deep Blue Sword with New Qualities of Warfare". The subtitles showed that the latest version of 052d (should be 052DL) added sea based anti missile capabilities, leading people to speculate that this is a new type of sea based anti missile (Hongqi 26?) that was publicly tested and exposed on a Chinese experimental ship two years ago and has already been equipped with the latest 052d，Used to intercept medium and long-range ballistic missiles inside and outside the atmosphere, enabling these large air defense destroyers to have sea-based anti missile capabilities.View attachment 38453View attachment 38454View attachment 38455

Any indication this has a hit to kill warhead (2nd/3rd stage) like the MBDA Aquila?

IMHO, China also needs a smaller version of this missile, the size of the HQ-16FE to take on the threat of supersonic and hypersonic anti ship cruise missiles. It would also be a very sought after export missile along side offerings of the Type 054A.

 

[guangdongt]

Any indication this has a hit to kill warhead (2nd/3rd stage) like the MBDA Aquila?

IMHO, China also needs a smaller version of this missile, the size of the HQ-16FE to take on the threat of supersonic and hypersonic anti ship cruise missiles. It would also be a very sought after export missile along side offerings of the Type 054A.

View attachment 38808

When we talk about sea based missile defense, we refer to the mid range interception capability. The second stage is the mid range, from the shutdown of the final stage engine to the re-entry of the missile into the atmosphere. China first conducted land-based mid range missile defense tests in 2010, which has been 14 years since then. This type of missile looks larger than the hq9b, let alone the hq16. It should only be installed in the universal vertical launch system of our destroyer，
Aquila for the Study of Hypersonic Defense Interceptor (HYDIS) ²）， This is a three-year concept research project, with the support of four partner countries (France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands), to develop the design of various interceptor concepts. The project will review and select one of these options for further development at the end of the research.

 

[guangdongt]

IMHO once the current batch is completed , PLAN should seriously look for a successor design (type 57!?) , with 9k-10k displacement. As current displacement is certainly on the low end of modern destroyer so much so even newer frigates classes world wide are nearer or even bigger than it. Even within PLAN with induction of type 54B now with 6k tons displacement puts it very near type 52D (albeit with much less firepower) , so room exist between it and the 13k ton type 55 for a new workhorse destroyer with revised design/propulsion to be firmly in response to the newer USN arleigh burke batch IIIs.

052d itself has undergone three batches of construction upgrades, and there are rumors that its tonnage will increase with the new batches

 

[ety]

Then why is the Parade Line Army remodeled itself like the US military? Why did China essentially abandoned Mao's concept of "The People's War", which is a defeatist way of conducting war? The kind of weapons you have and influences, if not outright dictate, the kind of war doctrines you WILL develop. Not 'may' develop', but WILL. So, if China built the J-20, that mean what? Against sheep herders or against a modern military? What is an aircraft carrier for? Against rioting universities students and angry failed real estate investors? No, the PLA leadership remodeled because they knew that what they had would lose.

People like you with that line of 'criticism' against US are ignorant and proud of it. They think that the more they mock US, the 'smarter' they sound. I bet you never served a single day in service.

Dont flatter yourself, Chinese create its military for its own purpose, not modeled after your arrogant American Run Away Army or ignorant Vietnamese, lol. Your Run Away Army doesnt have a monoploy on modern high-tech warfare just as you Americans dont have a monopoly on modernity. Dont talk nonesense.

 

[FuturePAF]

When we talk about sea based missile defense, we refer to the mid range interception capability. The second stage is the mid range, from the shutdown of the final stage engine to the re-entry of the missile into the atmosphere. China first conducted land-based mid range missile defense tests in 2010, which has been 14 years since then. This type of missile looks larger than the hq9b, let alone the hq16. It should only be installed in the universal vertical launch system of our destroyer，
Aquila for the Study of Hypersonic Defense Interceptor (HYDIS) ²）， This is a three-year concept research project, with the support of four partner countries (France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands), to develop the design of various interceptor concepts. The project will review and select one of these options for further development at the end of the research.

Aquila is a endo-atmospheric missile and designs to take on the hypersonic cruise missile threat. It’s an area that looks to be limited in the PLAN, especially in the terminal phase. Sure the ABM/BMD role is important, but so is the within 160 km range ship defense role against sea skimmers.

 

[FuturePAF]

052d itself has undergone three batches of construction upgrades, and there are rumors that its tonnage will increase with the new batchesView attachment 38847

The gas turbine engines are of the 30 MW rating, and there is a 40 MW turbofan engine in development. If the two gas turbine engine reach that level, it will be equal that of the Arleigh Burkes 78 total MW power.
Then look at replacing the diesel engines with cruising (fuel efficient / modest speed) turbofan engines so all engines use one fuel type and get better performance and usage of internal space in the ship.

Considering the Burkes weigh just under 10k tons, a variant of the Type 052D (with shaping similar to the Type 055) but in the 9-10k ton size, could be just large enough to hold another 32 VLS and be a good cost effective destroyer for the PLAN.

A 96 cell 9kton Type 052D derivative with Type 55 shaping and high speed performance all under $1 billion each could sell really well, especially in the GCC.

Heck if the PN could afford it, it would purchase 6, per its desire for Blue Water Destroyers, especially to be able to really do full EEZ ASW in force.

 

[guangdongt]

Aquila is a endo-atmospheric missile and designs to take on the hypersonic cruise missile threat. It’s an area that looks to be limited in the PLAN, especially in the terminal phase. Sure the ABM/BMD role is important, but so is the within 160 km range ship defense role against sea skimmers.

Hypersonic speeds are at Mach 5 and above. If an object's motion speed can exceed times the speed of sound, which is 5 Mach, it can be considered hypersonic. In terms of intercepting hypersonic cruise missiles, China will only publicly disclose its live ammunition after it enters service. Precise interception rather than occasional interception of hypersonic cruise missiles is a future project worldwide. For example, the Russian "Zircon" hypersonic cruise missile has been deployed on the Ukrainian battlefield, and whether it has been shot down is still controversial, Based on the existing publicly disclosed interception equipment (consisting of the vertically launched "Sea Red Flag" 9B, 130 naval guns, the tilted launched 24 unit "Red Flag" 10, and 1130 close range anti-aircraft guns), I believe that the effective defense is traditional supersonic/subsonic cruise missiles, short-range tactical missiles, aircraft, and so on.

Export grade HQ 9be, estimated to be better for self use

 

[gambit]

Dont flatter yourself,

We do not have to. Your Parade Line Army flatter US.

Chinese create its military for its own purpose, not modeled after your arrogant American Run Away Army or ignorant Vietnamese, lol. Your Run Away Army doesnt have a monoploy on modern high-tech warfare just as you Americans dont have a monopoly on modernity. Dont talk nonesense.

Absolutely the PLA modeled itself after US, after Desert Storm.

 

[ety]

We do not have to. Your Parade Line Army flatter US.

Absolutely the PLA modeled itself after US, after Desert Storm.

They learned from it as all armies learn from battles in history, US army doesn't have a monopoly of modern high-tech warfare.

 

[gambit]

They learned from it as all armies learn from battles in history, US army doesn't have a monopoly of modern high-tech warfare.

Who had their own version of Desert Storm before Desert Storm?

 

[ety]

Who had their own version of Desert Storm before Desert Storm?

US army was the first to engage in a large scale modern high-tech war, so what.

 

[guangdongt]

The gas turbine engines are of the 30 MW rating, and there is a 40 MW turbofan engine in development. If the two gas turbine engine reach that level, it will be equal that of the Arleigh Burkes 78 total MW power.
Then look at replacing the diesel engines with cruising (fuel efficient / modest speed) turbofan engines so all engines use one fuel type and get better performance and usage of internal space in the ship.

Considering the Burkes weigh just under 10k tons, a variant of the Type 052D (with shaping similar to the Type 055) but in the 9-10k ton size, could be just large enough to hold another 32 VLS and be a good cost effective destroyer for the PLAN.

A 96 cell 9kton Type 052D derivative with Type 55 shaping and high speed performance all under $1 billion each could sell really well, especially in the GCC.

Heck if the PN could afford it, it would purchase 6, per its desire for Blue Water Destroyers, especially to be able to really do full EEZ ASW in force.

If a destroyer is used for export, it will definitely not be cheap and beautiful. This is a high-end integrated system that combines offense and defense. Setting aside the high cost of AESA radar and electronic systems, first of all, our destroyer has a large universal vertical launch device, which can be equipped with offensive weapons that clearly surpass frigates. For example, our destroyer is equipped with the Long Sword 10 subsonic cruise missile for long-range ground attacks, with a range of 2500 kilometers. This does not take into account future improved missiles, which means that the offensive potential of this platform far exceeds that of defensive frigates. It's not that I'm boasting. Selling this type of general-purpose destroyer to a medium-sized military country can affect the balance of the surrounding area. If you don't sell offensive weapons, it's also a sufficient threat as a large air defense destroyer. The reason is still due to the diversity of air defense weapon types. China will not only launch a limited sales destroyer for a single country, at least in my opinion. Secondly, we must consider geopolitical issues. For example, some countries are within the traditional sphere of influence of US military sales, and their equipment systems and maintenance are deeply tied to US military sales. Even if we do not consider politics and only discuss military matters, we can first exclude them. Because the economic cost of changing clothes and the cost of personnel training are not cheap. Next, let's take a look at European destroyers and frigates. Europeans seem to be infatuated with frigates, and as they grow larger, their frigates are even larger than traditional destroyers. For example, the German 10000 ton frigate F-126 is even more exaggerated. This class of frigates is 166 meters long, 21.7 meters wide, and has a full displacement of up to 11000 tons; The shipborne armament consists of one Ottomella 127mm naval gun, two 27mm Rheinland metal MLG27-4.0 rapid fire guns, two Hylams, 16 unit Mk 41, and 8 NSM anti-ship missiles; The tail of the aircraft is equipped with a double hangar and a flight deck. If there is a demand, making slight modifications to the F-126 can easily increase the number of hanging hair units from 16 to 64 or even more. And the F-126 adopts a modular design that can quickly switch between various modules. The US media theater of war stated that the F-126's anti submarine warfare module will apply "the latest active and passive sonar technology". On ships, the combination of European platforms and US weapon systems may be more in-depth than that of Air Force fighter jets. Therefore, when selling large destroyers, you will face the most intense geopolitical competition, compared to traditional frigates with a wider range of options.

 

[gambit]

US army was the first to engage in a large scale modern high-tech war, so what.

Desert Storm was more than just the US Army. Since this is about ships and you mocked US, where did the PLAN learned of naval battles that were just as severe as Desert Storm? Remember, I said that the PLA remodeled itself, meaning all branches, to US. And that you guys disagreed. You mocked US for our war record, and yet your military took after US.

 

[ety]

Desert Storm was more than just the US Army. Since this is about ships and you mocked US, where did the PLAN learned of naval battles that were just as severe as Desert Storm? Remember, I said that the PLA remodeled itself, meaning all branches, to US. And that you guys disagreed. You mocked US for our war record, and yet your military took after US.

Say remodeled after US army, it's an overstatement no doubt. For example, the Chinese army still has the commissar system embedded that is essential to the PLA, and where is the commissar system in US army ? Mao's thoughts of war and military are still taught, but maybe not to the same levels as in the early stages of PLA. Sure, PLA learned some lessons from the Desert Storm in the Gulf War.