All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
China has launched the lead ship of its second-generation Aegis destroyer among a new wave of shipbuilding, while the hull number of the country's first aircraft carrier was also revealed, Chinese online news portals reported.
According to major online military news sites such as Netease, the newest destroyer was launched in a shipyard in Shanghai at the end of August. As the most sophisticated combat ships, Aegis destroyers are commonly referred to as air-defense destroyers equipped with phased array radars and modern ship-to-air missiles, which enable the ships to provide regional air defense shields for the entire fleet.
Meanwhile, photos released by the news portals showed that China's first aircraft carrier, a carrier hull bought from Ukraine and overhauled by the Chinese navy, was painted with the hull number "16."
The carrier may be named after Liaoning Province, as the giant ship was overhauled in Liaoning's Dalian shipyard, the Shandong-based Qilu Evening News reported on Tuesday, adding that the hull number suggested the carrier is one step closer to being commissioned.
The new type destroyer is the highlight in the second wave of massive shipbuilding after 2000. After an interval of about seven years, a total of six follow-up ships of the first-generation Aegis destroyers have been launched in very short intervals since the end of 2010, with at least one already being commissioned this year, according to Modern Ships and other military magazines on the Chinese mainland.
"The mass production of the Aegis destroyers shows that after seven years of sea trials and evaluations of domestic radar and missile systems, the first -generation Aegis destroyers have matured," Lan Yun, editor of Modern Ships, a Beijing-based military magazine, told the Global Times.
The first wave of shipbuilding after 2000 saw the complement of four modern destroyers, among which were the lead and second ships of the first-generation Aegis destroyers dubbed as type 052C, with hull numbers 170 and 171, which were commissioned in 2005.
"Judging from the photos released, the lead ship of the second generation Aegis, presumably type 052D, seems to have a bigger main gun and 64 missile vertical launch tubes that are compatible with several types of missiles," Lan said, noting that the new type of destroyer is more fit to escort the carrier battle group.
"We'll see more ships of the 052D class coming," he said.
Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo told China Central Television in a recent interview on Sunday that the Chinese navy's equipment will witness major improvements in the near future.
so despite furious mijjile-maalish by PLA's "8 Anna" web-brigade, those other hull-forms did not exactly have a happy-ending, eh? Khan would be smiling at these antics
Interesting design but lack of point defense SAM would be its Achilles heal, one of reasons USN pressed ESSM into service. P-15A should be bigger than 052Ds' in terms of armament and final displacement (should be tad bigger than Sovernmenny) but still nothing compared to the Korean Sejong class DDG which should be classified as cruisers not destroyers.
none of their AAW ships 052C or 051C seem to have a smaller SRSAM for anti-ASM defences....just the big SAM for long range attacks.
they need a high-lo combo like barak1-8, aster15-30, sm2-essm to properly cover everything down to terminal defence.
the numer of ciws guns also looks low vs peers worldwide.
Singha wrote:none of their AAW ships 052C or 051C seem to have a smaller SRSAM for anti-ASM defences....just the big SAM for long range attacks.
they need a high-lo combo like barak1-8, aster15-30, sm2-essm to properly cover everything down to terminal defence.
the numer of ciws guns also looks low vs peers worldwide.
They will have other ships for that. They would not have overlooked something so straightforward as that. What you need to see here is not this ship in itself, but rather the very dedicated and specific role it will play inside their carrier groups (and frankly, we could do with a few such ships ourselves, Barak SAM etc notwithstanding the point). The Chinese are putting a lot of effort into the whole concept of Carrier Groups. Don't expect them to overlook anything like that.
Khan can smile all he wants and I couldn't care less. He is not the one providing any security for India in the Bay of Bengal.
I get more worried by the day the more I watch the Chinese grow they naval legs. I sure as hell wonder how long it will be before the Chinese start fielding dedicated carrier groups in the Indian ocean.
vivek_ahuja wrote:They will have other ships for that. They would not have overlooked something so straightforward as that. What you need to see here is not this ship in itself, but rather the very dedicated and specific role it will play inside their carrier groups (and frankly, we could do with a few such ships ourselves, Barak SAM etc notwithstanding the point). The Chinese are putting a lot of effort into the whole concept of Carrier Groups. Don't expect them to overlook anything like that
The Destroyers along with Sovernmenny will operate with carrier fleet i doubt any other ships will be part of it unless you meant Type 054s which cannot be part of any fleet with DDG. The frigates' are CODAD vs Sovernmenny and 052 DDGs which are gas turbine powered latter have far better cruising speed and former are designed for patrol, so moving them together you take away both their advantages. It is like operating Talwar and P-28 corvettes' together.
Also other thing it is cold launch system which is quite dangerous if there is failed launched you have 1 ton missile that is ejected out coming back down (same applies for Brahmos but they claims it is safer since missile is canisterized when it is manufactured but same cannot be said about the Klub) may be one of the reasons' navy was hesitant to go with VL-Shtil.
That does bring up need to develop a future hot launch vls system that can handle both Brahmos, future LACM and Barak-8.
limiting a ships close protection capability when operating alone or with weaker ships is not a good choice.
but these are big ships. perhaps they are working on a barak1 type system to be installed somewhere near the helicopter area.
a couple of ciws guns could also be put in along the sides. relatively minor changes needing little to no deck penetration.
their build times for ships and submarines are less compared to ours, it cannot be denied.
note the use of "long wave radars" on some of their ships....to track VLO/LO flyers.
The time taken by them to churn out ships compared to our pathetic PSU shipyards is the biggest cause of concern, not their quality. Far outstripping us in numbers is not good no matter how much more superior in tech we claim to be.
Lack of numbers will come to bite us in the ass someday.
Can anyone tell me why they are called Aegis ships? The Aegis in the USN are capable of shooting down BMs in mid phase. Does China have a similar capability? If so, please provide the details because there is no BMD mentioned in the report.
The 52D is hot launch. You don't have a qualitative advantage either. China can also churn these out 4 to 6 ships at a time. Good luck!
Qualitative advantage would be in sensors. Even if 52D is hot launch can you claim with any justification that Chinese SAMs are better that what IN has?
wong wrote:The 52D is hot launch. You don't have a qualitative advantage either. China can also churn these out 4 to 6 ships at a time. Good luck!
There is no proof to confirm that is hot launch lets wait till dust settles when i see some better image of cells can't confirm till then. What do you mean in qualitative advantage for what purpose for AAW? IN doesn't have any pure AAW vessels P-15s are multi purpose destroyers. Sovernmenny-IIs are the only ones' similar to it.
In other hand if you compare to the Korean Aegis DDG IMO even 6 52D can't equal one of those in terms of capability, it is quite amazing how much Korean packed into it.
John wrote:Interesting design but lack of point defense SAM would be its Achilles heal, one of reasons USN pressed ESSM into service. P-15A should be bigger than 052Ds' in terms of armament and final displacement (should be tad bigger than Sovernmenny) but still nothing compared to the Korean Sejong class DDG which should be classified as cruisers not destroyers.
Wong,
i don't see any exhaust vents notice how Mk 41 has small panel between the two rows of vls cells in fact those launchers resemble the Universal vls system for Klub/Brahmos. Anyway reason why i compared with Korea is because IN doesn't operate pure AAW vessels.
Khan can smile all he wants and I couldn't care less. He is not the one providing any security for India in the Bay of Bengal.
I get more worried by the day the more I watch the Chinese grow they naval legs. I sure as hell wonder how long it will be before the Chinese start fielding dedicated carrier groups in the Indian ocean.
My comment was purely about blind PLAN experimentation (in the absence of trusting and experienced marine design partners) with hull-forms and sea keeping. There seems to be way too many hull-forms, instead of standardizing on one (like AB/Kongo/Sejong or the Euro ship families) as a primary surface combatant. But you did a sunnath of my post and took it off in a dothi-shiver direction? What saar.....
I would get REALLY worried if they churn out 10s of Deepak-class vessels or convert their submarines from being pontoon launchers to long-patrol SLBMs. Or say add CATs to their carrier and then have a week long excersize in bad sea states. Until then, as Austin-saar pointed out in another context ("ex-Varyag looks as impressive as a USN CVN"), it is really nice to watch. Both for their public and us.
Singha wrote:hot or cold, the thing thats coming out will be a Shtil (?), while AB/T45 unleashes a SM6/SM2/Aster30.
If those images are legit it is definitely a cold launch system the design is step up for prior 052 vessels'. I expect future design to be larger and also have phased array radars to be located higher in the mast like we seen with Sachsen which should double its range against low flying targets.
Khan can smile all he wants and I couldn't care less. He is not the one providing any security for India in the Bay of Bengal.
I get more worried by the day the more I watch the Chinese grow they naval legs. I sure as hell wonder how long it will be before the Chinese start fielding dedicated carrier groups in the Indian ocean.
China fielding a carrier battle group in the Indian Ocean against India is as much use to it as it is for India to field one in the South China Sea. A sqn of Su-30 MKI's loaded with Brahmos would send any Chinese battle group to Davy Jones Locker in double quick time. Their Carrier groups wont have the capability in the near or mid term future to go up against land based aircraft of the IAF and IN loaded with bear
Last edited by Will on 13 Sep 2012 23:51, edited 1 time in total.
Also India has just started taking its navy seriously. Its only recently that the IN has been receiving relatively decent funding. Give it some time , the IN will be ahead of the PLAN capability wise. One thing the IN really needs to get down to is to increase the number of submarines. Its pathetic the state the IN is in on that front.
why exactly did the chinese go for the DDG52 style low mounted radar panels and not the high mast mounted ones seen in their own older ships(Top plate) and the Euro DDG designs (sachsen, de zeven provincien, horizon, T45) which would give better coverage against low flying sea skimmers? the T45 went to great lengths to mount it as high up as possible to generate earliest possible data for the outbound volley of Aster15 and ciws guns.
was it a question of not knowing how to balance such a 6t load high up the mast? a desire to ape the looks of the asli Aegis ? risk reduction?
overall among the whole lot the T45 looks to be best design for modern era, provided it is armed to its potential.
the Sejong is probably a korea specific need in that land targets will pounded by Noko artillery, so anything at sea needs to carry a lot of rounds and not depend on easy reloads.
When it comes to Aegis, SPY-1 was never designed for tracking low flying targets. Where as RN designed Type 45 after the lessons' it learned from Falklands and the shortcomings' of its Type 42 Destroyers armed with Sea Dark missiles'.
As for mounting a large radar on the tip of the mast it would require the vessel to be designed around those requirements T-45 where designed to have superb detection against missiles'. As for China IMO has more or less stuck with original 052 design with few tweaks here and there to minimize risk and keep pushing them out the pipeline.
indeed the 051C design seems to be a evolutionary dead end . since Rus considers the S300 as legacy these days, I am sure all the tech and production tools for that family has been sold so that china can produce a naval SAM of 100km range using bits and pieces + local work and close the gap.
and the fruit of that is the HHQ-9 long range naval SAM.
This is the careful photo-op that caused the lungi-shiver TOI-let article posted above.
Personal comments: their paint scheme looks scary. Will make me lose about half second of sleep tonight. TOI "military observers" (phrase from article above) however, felt the sudden urge to go to the restroom.
^^Really, what would we do without China. It is indeed heaven sent to spur us forward. Whenever we slack or take it easy they take it upon themselves to educate us otherwise. Be it economically or militarily, without China, many of our "leaders" (so called) would have a lot more excuses for holding us back. Just as we hear that a mountain strike Corps is being moved to the back burner, we have China obliging us with new dog and pony shows. I implore them, please do. Also, would you mind moving a division or two into Tibet? Would help our "leaders" a lot in making up their minds.
so despite furious mijjile-maalish by PLA's "
