Type 052D China's New Guided Missile Destroyer

[p2prada]

I disagreee. You dont need to pack all the different missiles in one single ship. You can if you are US who can afford it.

It all depends on your enemy. If you want to counter USN, you are going to need technology and capability at that level. PLAN is not like the Soviet Union with a 100+ SSNs to do ship killing.

In a decade you will be as big as the US, so you can afford it.

I fail to see why you have to pack everything in one single ship. The keyword here is fleet defence.

Ticonderoga for American CBGs. They pack everything, even the Arleigh Burke. Russia - Kirov class and Slava class. They pack everything too, but older tech. I am talking about Tier 1, 2 and 3 capability. No doubt the ships are bigger than P-15A or 052D.

HQ-16 is missing on the 052C, maybe not on the 052D. So, there is a chance you will see all 3 tier defences on the 052D.

IN already has Tier 1 and 2 on most ships. Barak 8 only exceeds that capability. What we don't know is if the new P-15A/B and P-17A will come with a Tier 3 AAD. If they do, then we will have all 3 Tiers on one ship.

I see no problem with 054A operates closely with 052D. They are not meant to operate alone. Like I said before, they are meant to stay together to provide Tier 1, 2, 3 defences.

Maybe, but you are only increasing weak links. One ship goes down, then the fleet loses an entire Tier defence system. Even France and Britain are planning a 3 Tier defence system with Aster 15/30 and Block 2 planned on their new Frigates.

You are wrong on ROKN too. China has much closer tie with ROKN than Japan for two reasons. To keep north koreans in North Korea and Japan. It is a common mistake to assume that ROKN and China are enemies because of North Korea. In reality North Korea binds those two countries together.

Well, regardless this capability will keep you on par with JMSDF even if ROKN is eliminated from the list of enemies.

Well, maybe PLAN does not need it. Can't say what IN is planning either. But we can see that other countries have such plans.

 

[tony4562]

If I'm not wrong, the only warships that are known to carry 3 different SAMs (not counting manpads) are the Soviet/Russian Kirov class battle cruisers which carry SA-4, SA-6 and SA-9. The soviets were left no choice as their technoligies were not good enough to develop a SAM that can be used for multi-tier air defence. The same can be said for many of their other weapon systems.

Today one would be crazy to put 3 different types of SAMs on a new design.

 

[ice berg]

It all depends on your enemy. If you want to counter USN, you are going to need technology and capability at that level. PLAN is not like the Soviet Union with a 100+ SSNs to do ship killing.

In a decade you will be as big as the US, so you can afford it.

Maybe in numbers, but not capacity. PLAN talks about sea denial. Not confronting US head on.

Ticonderoga for American CBGs. They pack everything, even the Arleigh Burke. Russia - Kirov class and Slava class. They pack everything too, but older tech. I am talking about Tier 1, 2 and 3 capability. No doubt the ships are bigger than P-15A or 052D.

HQ-16 is missing on the 052C, maybe not on the 052D. So, there is a chance you will see all 3 tier defences on the 052D.

IN already has Tier 1 and 2 on most ships. Barak 8 only exceeds that capability. What we don't know is if the new P-15A/B and P-17A will come with a Tier 3 AAD. If they do, then we will have all 3 Tiers on one ship.

Different country, different doctrines.
You dont nedd to be a mini US.
Maybe, but you are only increasing weak links. One ship goes down, then the fleet loses an entire Tier defence system. Even France and Britain are planning a 3 Tier defence system with Aster 15/30 and Block 2 planned on their new Frigates.

The best defence is offence. If your enemies get past your air wings, you are pretty much lost already. No matter how many ships you got left. Besides you are hardly defenceless if one ship goes down.
Well, regardless this capability will keep you on par with JMSDF even if ROKN is eliminated from the list of enemies.

Well, maybe PLAN does not need it. Can't say what IN is planning either. But we can see that other countries have such plans.

Compared with JMSDF, both IN and PLAN are hopelessly weak in subs.

 

[p2prada]

@iceberg

It is a defence system, not an offensive system. Everybody is in fact trying to emulate the US.

Even the Russians are planning for an AEGIS type system for Tier 4 and so are the French with the Aster Block II as a Tier 3 missile. Everybody is trying to be a mini-US.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

@iceberg

It is a defence system, not an offensive system. Everybody is in fact trying to emulate the US.

Even the Russians are planning for an AEGIS type system for Tier 4 and so are the French with the Aster Block II as a Tier 3 missile. Everybody is trying to be a mini-US.

Without X band radar I wonder how close the copycats can get?
By the time they get close USA will be using dual band radar.

 

[shiphone]

something for reference:

I'm afraid the model numeber " HHQ16" doesn't exit...
054A Frigate has HQ16
PLA army has the HQ16A

the next model of HQ16 family will be HQ16B...

1.semi active/active seeker. dual mode
2. ship bone
3. Fire Control Radar(with limited searching ability): single plane, AESA ,high speed rotation.
4.reduced dimensions, it's available for 4 missiles in one cell of the 2nd generation VLS, but for the first generation VLS on 054A , 1 missile for 1 cell only
5.extended range: around 50 Kms
6. current status: under test on 892 weapon test vessel

------------------------------
some requirements of new Generation VLS in the Biding proposal year: 2006

-------------------------------

the two generations of VLS on 054A and 052D

------------------------------
some new AESA FCR

------------------------------
the test of 2nd gen VLS

-----------------------------
if you're talking about the 3 different ranges of SAM on one destroy ...I'm afraid the 052D has such ability
HHQ9A HQ16B and HQ10(the FL3000 was the failed project in competition with the another project later named as HQ10)

the tier 4 missile? it's not far...but no more comments. as usual , we would like to discuss only those things you could have seen here.

and the combination of 052 destroyers and 054 frigates is the standard formation of PLAN high sea fleet...

 

[huaxia rox]

Old news concerning P-17A. The plan was to purchase something like the GCS or FREMM, very early plans. Then it changed to indigenous design but 2 to be built in a foreign shipyard due to modular construction. Now it will be built entirely in India.

Navy seals 45,000-cr deal: seven warships - Indian Express


Another article with some extra information and it is more recent.
India finalizing mega stealth frigates' project for over Rs 50,000 crore - Times Of India

These ships may have AEGIS like capability. So, we may see the AEGIS itself, or an Indian version of the PAD on it with mid course interception. It should be around P-17 Shivalik's size and weight, not lower.

i though u can provide me with some info from IN outlets....u know these days every1 doing some CG pics and u said the p-17 pic was from the navy (IN) but anyway good info.......i know your Kolkata class before which is p-15.....and what about the radar......i checked wiki and it turned out to be IAI EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Multi-mission radar......an AESE right?? so can u introduce that a bit and when u talking about p-17A u said the frigate may have AEGIS like capability......so its IAI EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Multi-mission radar??? after all i only heard some EU contries use AEGIS like in their frigates... ......

 

[huaxia rox]

Without X band radar I wonder how close the copycats can get?
By the time they get close USA will be using dual band radar.

we r not talking about some nuclear war senario or launching ballistic missiles with conventional warheads in the tip to go across continents....we r talking about destoryers here in non-ww3 war.....

but what u said leads to some of my thoughts..........u know.....to make the US worry and not think too much about interfering taiwan u need to develope the ability of attcking the US soil in an effective conventional way not just the nuke way (which is actually a bluffing way that cant stop anything literally).......so new deterrent here is conventional but not nuke 1.........

then when things like CJ-10 can be finally mounted in our new destoryers and 039B subs or even 093 nuke subs......and when enough ACs can be finished the US will have to really think twice if they wanna take any actions regarding protential taiwan conflict..........

 

[p2prada]

if you're talking about the 3 different ranges of SAM on one destroy ...I'm afraid the 052D has such ability
HHQ9A HQ16B and HQ10(the FL3000 was the failed project in competition with the another project later named as HQ10)

Yeah. So, this is what I was pointing out. What the 052C may lack, may be alleviated with the coming of the 052D.

the tier 4 missile? it's not far...but no more comments. as usual , we would like to discuss only those things you could have seen here.

I don't understand what you mean by this?

and the combination of 052 destroyers and 054 frigates is the standard formation of PLAN high sea fleet...

It depends on the size of the task force. The IN one that visited Shanghai is an example. A Frigate, a Destroyer, a Corvette and a Tanker. More or less what we normally send into the South China sea. A 4 ship task force.

If we plan a 3 Tier defence system on both the Frigate and the Destroyer then the loss of either does not mean loss in capability. So, this was my point.

It is natural for all Navies to get this 3 Tier defence system. Everybody is planning it.

@Shiphone

How will the missile numbers be managed? We are talking about Tier 2 and Tier 3 SAMs in the VLS along with AShM and LACM. Maybe even an ASM, if there are plans for carrying it. If we go by the Type 052C figures for HHQ-9A then we will see 48. That leaves 16 launchers for other missiles on D. Mix and match can be done with other ships, but the VLS numbers are not as high as what's on AB or Ticonderoga, so flexibility in missile choice is lower than what the Americans can manage. Meaning a "minimum" numbers in SAMs are expected for fleet defence. So, what is your opinion regarding this?

 

[p2prada]

i though u can provide me with some info from IN outlets....u know these days every1 doing some CG pics and u said the p-17 pic was from the navy (IN) but anyway good info.......i know your Kolkata class before which is p-15.....and what about the radar......i checked wiki and it turned out to be IAI EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Multi-mission radar......an AESE right?? so can u introduce that a bit and when u talking about p-17A u said the frigate may have AEGIS like capability......so its IAI EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Multi-mission radar??? after all i only heard some EU contries use AEGIS like in their frigates... ......

Kolkata class is P-15A. The older Delhi class is P-15.

There is limited info on the MF-STAR system. It is not an official source but we have a member called Pack Leader on the forum who works for the Israeli defence industry. He gave it a 300Km range against aircraft, 50Km against missiles on Frigates, 80Km on Destroyers, 500Km against ships. It can track 3000 targets and engage 16 targets.

First delivery in 2010.
IAI MF- STAR Multi Function Surveillance & Threat Alert Radar delivered | Atlantic Organization for Security.

Information directly from IN is hard to come by, especially on something that is yet to be operational.

P-17A will carry the MF-STAR, but if we looking at AEGIS capability, it will need a different radar for tracking ballistic missiles like the SPY-1 which is placed lower to the MF-STAR like radar. So, both will be needed.

If we are going for an Indian option, then we need to see what will happen because Greenpine(Swordfish) and MF STAR are quite similar.

Also, we need to know what kind of threats will the Tier 4 system face for IN. The only nuclear threats to India are Pakistan and China. Both share borders and missiles will come over land. So, the biggest threats will come from SLBM launched by PLAN SSBNs which is fairly limited right now. So, a THAAD like system based on land is a better option for IN compared to AEGIS.

US offers India the Aegis Combat System, the worldÂ’s most advanced shipboard weapons system : Defense news

What cutting edge technologies will Lockheed Martin bring to India as part of its offsets requirement?

Roger Rose: We are in touch with the Indian MoD regarding the Indian Navy's consideration of the world's most advanced shipboard Weapons System, the Aegis Combat System (ACS). The US Navy has briefed the Indian Navy on the capabilities of the world's premier area air defense combat system; other Asia Pacific navies operating Aegis systems are Japan, South Korea and Australia. Lockheed Martin and Hyundai Heavy Industries also included the Aegis CMS concept when answering the Project 17A RFI.

So, from this we can only guess that the P-17A is being planned with AEGIS like concept in mind. We don't know who else could be participating in this project.

 

[huaxia rox]

so basically u were saying indians gonna use AEGIS like air defence radas no matter where it is from to try to detect and then intercept ballistic missiles in p-17A which is a frigate???

 

[p2prada]

so basically u were saying indians gonna use AEGIS like air defence radas no matter where it is from to try to detect and then intercept ballistic missiles in p-17A which is a frigate???

It is only speculated. But RFI's are known to increase in specification because one manufacturer offered something more like Boeing's offer to provide AESA in the MRCA deal forced everybody else to offer one to India.

Btw, if you are ridiculing the size of the Frigate, then P-17A is at least expected to be between 6200 tons or higher, P-17s size and weight. That's more or less the same size as the Aegis class frigates that Norway and Spain are planning. Even Australia's Hobart class destroyer is of similar weight as the Shivalik and is smaller than PLAN's Type 052C destroyer. Don't know if they will carry the SM-3 missile for sure, but they do carry the Mk 41 VLS and the SPY-1 radar, so it is possible. What you call a Frigate and what we call a Frigate is different.

Your best Frigate weighs near 4000 tons, our best Frigate weighs more than 6000 tons.

FYI, SM-3 is as big as the HHQ-9. If you can have 48 on destroyers, then why not us? Even with smaller numbers.

It depends on IN's priority too. Like I said, a land based THAAD is more important to India than a sea based AEGIS. It is different for you guys in comparison because your enemies are across the sea and don't share land borders except for India and Russia. Also, we can only use smaller SRBMs and IRBMs and not long range ICBMs if we fight a war. Only SSBNs can and PLAN does not have enough as of today.

So, AEGIS may or may not be a priority, but we know it can be an option.

If you ask me, if we get a 3 Tier system working on all our ships, that's plenty for any crisis that we can think of. Land based AAD/PDV will handle everything else for us.

 

[tony4562]

It is only speculated. But RFI's are known to increase in specification because one manufacturer offered something more like Boeing's offer to provide AESA in the MRCA deal forced everybody else to offer one to India.

Btw, if you are ridiculing the size of the Frigate, then P-17A is at least expected to be between 6200 tons or higher, P-17s size and weight. That's more or less the same size as the Aegis class frigates that Norway and Spain are planning. Even Australia's Hobart class destroyer is of similar weight as the Shivalik and is smaller than PLAN's Type 052C destroyer. Don't know if they will carry the SM-3 missile for sure, but they do carry the Mk 41 VLS and the SPY-1 radar, so it is possible. What you call a Frigate and what we call a Frigate is different.

Your best Frigate weighs near 4000 tons, our best Frigate weighs more than 6000 tons.

FYI, SM-3 is as big as the HHQ-9. If you can have 48 on destroyers, then why not us? Even with smaller numbers.

It depends on IN's priority too. Like I said, a land based THAAD is more important to India than a sea based AEGIS. It is different for you guys in comparison because your enemies are across the sea and don't share land borders except for India and Russia. Also, we can only use smaller SRBMs and IRBMs and not long range ICBMs if we fight a war. Only SSBNs can and PLAN does not have enough as of today.

So, AEGIS may or may not be a priority, but we know it can be an option.

If you ask me, if we get a 3 Tier system working on all our ships, that's plenty for any crisis that we can think of. Land based AAD/PDV will handle everything else for us.

Regarding tonnage, I believe PLAN and IN use different standards

Here are the official tonnage of some familar ships
PLAN:
052B 154m x 17m 5850t
054A 134m x 16m 4053t

IN:
P17 142.5m x 16.9m 6200t
Talwar 124.8m x 15.2m 4035

So Talwar which is about 10 m shorter and slightly narrower than 054A weights as much, and P17 which is subtantially shorter than 052B weighs actually more. Something tells me that we are comparing apples with oranges.

 

[p2prada]

Regarding tonnage, I believe PLAN and IN use different standards

Here are the official tonnage of some familar ships
PLAN:
052B 154m x 17m 5850t
054A 134m x 16m 4053t

IN:
P17 142.5m x 16.9m 6200t
Talwar 124.8m x 15.2m 4035

So Talwar which is about 10 m shorter and slightly narrower than 054A weights as much, and P17 which is subtantially shorter than 052B weighs actually more. Something tells me that we are comparing apples with oranges.

Ok, if this is an indication of tonnage then how about Rajput class,
147m x 15.8m 5000t

As big as Shivalik but lesser weight. And with a draught that is deeper than P-17. But compare Rajput to 052B, now does it make sense.

A lot of our systems are foreign, so there is that advantage of having more mature systems on our ships which can be lighter, carrying lesser space and still provide more than others.

You can only compare similar generation of ships carrying similar weapons and technology. That's why the 052D is comparable to P-15A/B.

As for the difference between Talwar and 054A, maybe the Russians are still better than both India and China when it comes to ship building. Perhaps why they are planning for heavier destroyers with nuke propulsion compared to our lighter and more conventional powered destroyers. Or the 054A figures on the internet may be wrong and it may infact be another 500 tons heavier.

Maybe the standards are different as you say, but that does not change the fact that you don't have an equivalent of the P-17 Frigate. There is only a difference of 1000-1500t between what IN is calling a Frigate and a Destroyer today. So, it was mainly to counter Huaxia's point about an AEGIS frigate. You won't find major differences between the P-17/P-17A frigates and what the Europeans call a Frigate, like FREMM.

There is no guarantee most of these tonnage figures are correct anyway.
P-15A, 163m x 17.4m 7000t
052C, 153m x 17m 7000t



So, just take it as it would seem. Our P-17s are large ships compared to PLAN Frigates. I think that's all there is to it.

 

[tony4562]

P-17 is somewhat larger than 054A, by perhaps 20%, no way it is 50% bigger. However, for indian warships P17 included from being laid down to gettting commissioned it takes 10 years on average. 054A on the other hand takes 3 years. In fact, all 3 P17 ships were launched before the first 054A even hit water, yet now there are 11 054A in service, with another 4 launched and a further one under construction. The gap in ship building capabilities between India and China is beyond comparison.

Also I've seen close-up pictures of welds on indian warships, not good at all. Well it is a reflection of India's overall weakness in manufacturing. It is possible that in order to compensate for the lack of welding quality Indian shipyeards have reosrted to using excessive amount of steel, thus making the ships top heavy.

 

[p2prada]

P-17 is somewhat larger than 054A, by perhaps 20%, no way it is 50% bigger.

That extra 9m length and 1m beam is enough to give it a 2000 ton advantage. It is plenty. It was always designed as a 5000 ton ship and was advertised as the same back in 1999. Shivalik's design happened in 1994. Can I help it if our design called for a heavier ship(4900 tons) compared to the 054A(3600 tons)?

Crew complement is 257 compared to 054A's ~180.

The French CODAD engines give something like 42000 HP(+16000HP) on 054A while the more advanced CODOG with US engines gives Shivalik 80000HP.

So, what are you trying to prove? You are just getting into a pissing contest.

The gap in ship building capabilities between India and China is beyond comparison.

No doubt. Nobody said otherwise.

Shipyards are expanding ship building capability only now.

Also I've seen close-up pictures of welds on indian warships, not good at all. Well it is a reflection of India's overall weakness in manufacturing. It is possible that in order to compensate for the lack of welding quality Indian shipyeards have reosrted to using excessive amount of steel, thus making the ships top heavy.

That's silly. While I can't comment on the quality of welding compared to China's, we wont be adding 2000 tons of extra steel by bad welding alone.

 

[tony4562]

054A is 10m longer than Talwar and 1 meter wider too, do you think that should give 054A 2000 ton in plus weight?

I don't know how indians came up with this 6200 ton figure, maybe they have not yet figured out how to calculate the tonnage. The dutch De Zeven Provinciën class frigate(widely regarded as world's largest frigate) weights just over 6000 ton, but is 2 meter longer than P17, and full 2 meters wider.

Besides bad building materials and technoliges I don't see any other explanation for P17s claimed 6200 ton full-load displacement.

 

[p2prada]

054A is 10m longer than Talwar and 1 meter wider too, do you think that should give 054A 2000 ton in plus weight?

That's by Russian prerogative, not ours. It is a Krivak III after all.The Talwar's full weight was increased by 500t by just increasing the Krivak III by 1.2m x 1m.

I don't know how indians came up with this 6200 ton figure, maybe they have not yet figured out how to calculate the tonnage. The dutch De Zeven Provinciën class frigate(widely regarded as world's largest frigate) weights just over 6000 ton, but is 2 meter longer than P17, and full 2 meters wider.

Should I point out the Rajput class destroyer is larger by 4.5m x 1.1m and still weighs lesser than Shivalik.

Besides bad building materials and technoliges I don't see any other explanation for P17s claimed 6200 ton full-load displacement.

Well, whatever. Maybe the figures for Shivalik are wrong. It could very well be below 6000tons. Nevertheless carries more firepower than smaller frigates like Talwar class and Type054A. Let's just say Shivalik is above 5500t, to keep everyone happy. It does not make a major difference here.

 

[J20!]

It is only speculated. But RFI's are known to increase in specification because one manufacturer offered something more like Boeing's offer to provide AESA in the MRCA deal forced everybody else to offer one to India.

Btw, if you are ridiculing the size of the Frigate, then P-17A is at least expected to be between 6200 tons or higher, P-17s size and weight. That's more or less the same size as the Aegis class frigates that Norway and Spain are planning. Even Australia's Hobart class destroyer is of similar weight as the Shivalik and is smaller than PLAN's Type 052C destroyer. Don't know if they will carry the SM-3 missile for sure, but they do carry the Mk 41 VLS and the SPY-1 radar, so it is possible. What you call a Frigate and what we call a Frigate is different.

Your best Frigate weighs near 4000 tons, our best Frigate weighs more than 6000 tons.

FYI, SM-3 is as big as the HHQ-9. If you can have 48 on destroyers, then why not us? Even with smaller numbers.

It depends on IN's priority too. Like I said, a land based THAAD is more important to India than a sea based AEGIS. It is different for you guys in comparison because your enemies are across the sea and don't share land borders except for India and Russia. Also, we can only use smaller SRBMs and IRBMs and not long range ICBMs if we fight a war. Only SSBNs can and PLAN does not have enough as of today.

So, AEGIS may or may not be a priority, but we know it can be an option.

If you ask me, if we get a 3 Tier system working on all our ships, that's plenty for any crisis that we can think of. Land based AAD/PDV will handle everything else for us.

The IN would never get SM3 on P17B, it would amount to a massive capability overlap vis a vis P15A/B... Even if the P17A got Mk41 VLS, it would always be aimed at operating ESSM, never 48 SM3's. I can see what you're getting at, but even with AEGIS, P17A will always be a fleet ASW vessel, and a multipurpose frigate at best, in league with the FREMM and Type 26 GCS in tonnage and capability, it'll never compete with AAW vessels like the Hobart class, or even the 052C, let alone the 052D.

Its not about indulging in a pissing contest. The 054A frigate handles fleet ASW as well as carrying the PLAN's Tier 2 SAM in the HQ16. In ASW suite terms, it's sonar suite includes a bow mounted sonar as well as a towed array backed up with light torpedo's, an ASW rocket launcher and CY1 ASW missiles, making it a rough Talwar equivalent with better anti air and stealth capabilities. It also holds the advantage of carrying an ASW missile, as opposed to just short range rocket launchers on Talwars and Shivaliks.

The IN is following the Euro model of building large tonnage frigates, but is also ordering more n more Talwars from Russia. The PLAN is following a similar path to the Americans and the Ruskies with 4000 ton ocean going ASW platforms which can hold their own in AAW(LCS not included) with 50km SAMs.
Our best frigate will number 24 hulls in the water, as opposed to 3 Shivaliks and 6 Talwars(possibly more). If you consider the 7 P17A's, then it would be fair to include 054B frigate numbers as well, which will probably reach 24 as well to replace all the older frigates. The PLAN seems to be quite satisfied with a 4000 ton frigate, thus there really is no requirement for a Chinese Shivalik equivalent. Even the Americans are replacing their OHP frigates with the LCS for ASW, not 6000 ton frigates.

 

[J20!]

Incidentally, the 054A's VLS system is on the cover of "Shipborn Weapon" magazine. Article on VLS indicates, it has the ability to launch SAM and ASW rockets, the range of HQ-16 is 1.5 to 70km, altitude 5-25000m, the probability of hitting a target with a single missile is between 0.7 and 0.91.

The range ususally cited for the HQ16 is 50km, why this mag says 70km I don't know.