Type 052D DDG News & Discussions

[Martian2]

Are you thinking about the similar analogy for the Type 093G and the Type 095?

The Type 052D's VLS needs to be fully quad-packed for the long ranged SAM such as the HQ-9B.

I think a balanced Navy needs a distributed hi-lo mix.

Powerful units are great, but one missile or torpedo can eliminate a destroyer or submarine.

Lesser units can be upgraded, so the technological difference isn't that large.

China's Navy looks like a pyramid.

Type 052C and 052D Chinese Aegis destroyers
Type 054A Jaingkai II frigates
Type 056 Jiangdao light frigates/corvettes
Type 022 Houbei missile boats

Contrary to perception, the Type 022 Houbei missile boats are quite deadly. They can fire eight C-803/YJ-83 (subsonic cruise with a supersonic terminal phase) anti-ship missiles. The Type 022 only needs targeting data from a satellite, drone, or aircraft.

Reference: YJ-83

"PLAN YJ-83 anti-ship missile December 2013
Copyright © : People's Republic of China Government"
Picture link at Deagel: PLAN YJ-83 anti-ship missile December 2013

The point is that it is unclear how many high-end units should be produced. It depends on the military strategy. If the goal is to interdict the US Navy in deeper waters then more high-end units are needed. However, the US Navy is strongest in deeper waters. The Chinese Yuan, Song, and Kilo submarines operate best in shallower waters.

However, if the goal is to use the South China Sea islands as a base then more lower-end units like the Type 056 and Type 022 (within reason) should be produced.

I think "Beast" was arguing that a high-end unit was always preferable (because it presumably incorporates the best technology). However, survivability due to more units and faster replacement are equally important considerations.

You need to run thousands of detailed computer simulations and war games to find the optimal mix for China's Navy and its intended missions.
----------

To answer your question, the answer is "yes."

China's Navy will probably keep producing Type 093Gs despite the availability of the Type 095. Having more Type 093G submarines (which is also a more mature platform) makes sense in a fleet with Type 095s.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I think a balanced Navy needs a distributed hi-lo mix.

Powerful units are great, but one missile or torpedo can eliminate a destroyer or submarine.

Lesser units can be upgraded, so the technological difference isn't that large.

China's Navy looks like a pyramid.

Type 052C and 052D Chinese Aegis destroyers
Type 054A Jaingkai II frigates
Type 056 Jiangdao light frigates/corvettes
Type 022 Houbei missile boats

Contrary to perception, the Type 022 Houbei missile boats are quite deadly. They can fire eight C-803/YJ-83 (subsonic cruise with a supersonic terminal phase) anti-ship missiles. The Type 022 only needs targeting data from a satellite, drone, or another aircraft.

The point is that it is unclear how many high-end units should be produced. It depends on the military strategy. If the goal is to interdict the US Navy in deeper waters then more high-end units are needed. However, the US Navy is strongest in deeper waters. The Chinese Yuan, Song, and Kilo submarines operate best in shallower waters.

However, if the goal is to use the South China Sea islands as a base then more lower-end units like the Type 056 and Type 022 (within reason) should be produced.

I think "Beast" was arguing that a high-end unit was always preferable (because it presumably incorporates the best technology). However, survivability due to more units and faster replacement are equally important considerations.

You need to run thousands of detailed computer simulations and war games to find the optimal mix for China's Navy and its intended missions.
----------

To answer your question, the answer is "yes."

China's Navy will probably keep producing Type 093Gs despite the availability of the Type 095. Having more Type 093G submarines (which is also a more mature platform) makes sense in a fleet with Type 095s.

- The first batch for the Type 055 will be eight.

- China will add the third production line for the Type 052D in Guangzhou.

- A second production line for the nuclear sub will also be opened soon.

 

[cnleio]

- The first batch for the Type 055 will be eight.

2016.03 to see 1st type055 DDG's hull out in China !

- China will add the third production line for the Type 052D in Guangzhou.

I heard the news, 2016 we can see 3x China shipyards building type052D DDGs together.

China type052C/D will be the 2nd largest DDG fleet behind U.S 'Arleigh Burke'-I/IIA in the world.

 

[Akasa]

2016.03 to see 1st type055 DDG's hull out in China !

Highly unlikely. Steel cutting took place in December 2014 while module construction did not start until March 2015; it takes at least two years to go from construction of the individual modules to the final assembled product.

 

[cnleio]

Highly unlikely. Steel cutting took place in December 2014 while module construction did not start until March 2015; it takes at least two years to go from construction of the individual modules to the final assembled product.

I didn't say the final assembled product of type055 DDG, 2016.03 to see the hull of type055 DDG (Hull modules) just like 1st type052D hulls assembly in JN shipyard.

 

[hk299792458]

The admission of the 3rd Type 052D destroyer, 174 Hefei, was occured this morning in the South Sea Fleet.

Henri K.

 

[Beast]

The admission of the 3rd Type 052D destroyer, 174 Hefei, was occured this morning in the South Sea Fleet.

Henri K.

Impressive, DDG175 will also join the fleet soon.

 

[hk299792458]

Impressive, DDG175 will also join the fleet soon.

According to my prediction model, not before mid of 2016.

Henri K.

 

[Beast]

According to my prediction model, not before mid of 2016.

Henri K.

Everything looks done except painting the pennant number for DDG175. PLAN seems to have speed up the induction of Type052D destroyer.

 

[neytirilover]

I wonder if there's still anyone thinking that the INS Kolkata Class is on par with type 052D...

 

[Beast]

I wonder if there's still anyone thinking that the INS Kolkata Class is on par with type 052D...

There is an article raising this issue 1 year back. Both have their advantage. INS Kolkata is strong in ASW as they can house 2 ASW helo compare to Type052D one. What makes Type052D apart from Kollkata is the Type052D universal VLS system that can house many types of missile from quad pack medium range SAM, to CJ-1000 LACM or HQ-9 LRSAM.

The 130mm main gun vs 76mm main gun is also a massive different.

 

[neytirilover]

There is an article raising this issue 1 year back. Both have their advantage. INS Kolkata is strong in ASW as they can house 2 ASW helo compare to Type052D one. What makes Type052D apart from Kollkata is the Type052D universal VLS system that can house many types of missile from quad pack medium range SAM, to CJ-1000 LACM or HQ-9 LRSAM.

The 130mm main gun vs 76mm main gun is also a massive different.

What do you think about the comparison between MF-STAR and Type 348 AESA arrays?

There is an article raising this issue 1 year back. Both have their advantage. INS Kolkata is strong in ASW as they can house 2 ASW helo compare to Type052D one. What makes Type052D apart from Kollkata is the Type052D universal VLS system that can house many types of missile from quad pack medium range SAM, to CJ-1000 LACM or HQ-9 LRSAM.

The 130mm main gun vs 76mm main gun is also a massive different.

Furthermore, as they are both intended to be used as protectors of Carriers against incoming air-borne threat, how do you think the combinations of Type 348+HQ-9B and MF-STAR+Barak 8 compare?

 

[Beast]

What do you think about the comparison between MF-STAR and Type 348 AESA arrays?


Furthermore, as they are both intended to be used as protectors of Carriers against incoming air-borne threat, how do you think the combinations of Type 348+HQ-9B and MF-STAR+Barak 8 compare?

I will skip the radar comparison as Chinese source for their AESA is scarce.

Destroyer in nowadays modern warfare do not just seek one primary role. Let's give example of Syria crisis. Russian send warship to fire cruise missile at ISIS position from Mediterranean sea. If Russia equipped with Type052D destroyer. Will it be more flexible in planning of their ops as the VLS is modular and universal. And so it can also maximise the firepower.

While that can't be say for INS Kolkata which VLS is fixed and non universal. This greatly reduces it combat flexibilites and limit its role.

H-9 has proven its capabilities during Turkish LRSAM bid and distinguish herself in the tender.

 

[neytirilover]

I will skip the radar comparison as Chinese source for their AESA is scarce.

Destroyer in nowadays modern warfare do not just seek one primary role. Let's give example of Syria crisis. Russian send warship to fire cruise missile at ISIS position from Mediterranean sea. If Russia equipped with Type052D destroyer. Will it be more flexible in planning of their ops as the VLS is modular and universal. And so it can also maximise the firepower.

While that can't be say for INS Kolkata which VLS is fixed and non universal. This greatly reduces it combat flexibilites and limit its role.

H-9 has proven its capabilities during Turkish LRSAM bid and distinguish herself in the tender.

Yeah it's quite a big headache about all that scarcity of Chinese AESA performance data. But judging from available publications, in terms of GaAs MMIC capabilities, Chinese tech is at least on par with Israelis now, on this ground and considering the significantly larger aperture of Type 348, I think we can safely conclude that Type 348 is better than MF-STAR, at least in terms of AESA antenna performance.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yeah it's quite a big headache about all that scarcity of Chinese AESA performance data. But judging from available publications, in terms of GaAs MMIC capabilities, Chinese tech is at least on par with Israelis now, on this ground and considering the significantly larger aperture of Type 348, I think we can safely conclude that Type 348 is better than MF-STAR, at least in terms of AESA antenna performance.

The Type 346A is almost as good as the AN/SPY-3, so I don't think Israel got anything comparable to this.