Questions regarding the Chinese 052C and 051!

[dabrownguy]

Seems to me the 052C is a cold launch VLS system. But what missiles does it really use? Is it even armed right now? And the 051 is rumored to be equiped with the RIF system. Doesn't a dystoryer need to be atleast 8000 tons to have RIF system?

[tphuang]

Seems to me the 052C is a cold launch VLS system. But what missiles does it really use? Is it even armed right now? And the 051 is rumored to be equiped with the RIF system. Doesn't a dystoryer need to be atleast 8000 tons to have RIF system?

052C uses HHQ-9A.
it's maximum altitude 30KM
minimum altitude 500 meters
maximum distance 120KM
minimum distance 6 KM
maximum speed mach4.2
missile length 6.8 meters
missile radius 0.47 meter
missile weight 1.3 tonne
missile warhead 180 KG+

radar search 450 to 500 KM.

051C is often called the "mini-Udaloy". It got a lot of help from the Ukrainians and the Russians, so I'm guessing they were able to solve that 8000 tonne issue.

[dabrownguy]

052C uses HHQ-9A.
it's maximum altitude 30KM
minimum altitude 500 meters
maximum distance 120KM
minimum distance 6 KM
maximum speed mach4.2
missile length 6.8 meters
missile radius 0.47 meter
missile weight 1.3 tonne
missile warhead 180 KG+

radar search 450 to 500 KM.

051C is often called the "mini-Udaloy". It got a lot of help from the Ukrainians and the Russians, so I'm guessing they were able to solve that 8000 tonne issue.

If your taking the missile stats from FT-2000 missile then why would the HQ-9 have greater range, or even such a large warhead when it's smaller than the S-300. I do recall remembering the Kirov, the large Russian Navy Carrier having 4 PAR and using Nacal Gecko on VLS. Having a PAR doesn't always mean you need such a long range missile. Is there a possibility that 052C is PLANNED to be fitted with KS-1A SAM? The 051 has S-300 which has the same stats as the much heard HQ-9. Why would there be need to install a RIF system? If the 052C proved to have such a long range missile? And is there a chance it could be hot launch system?
---------------------------------------
My mistake I mean't to say Kuznetev. Also the Kirov uses 96 S-300 missiles for fighting aircraft beyond the horizon and has large surface to surface attack capability, thats why they are in large numbers. The Slava carries 64 S-300 missiles for the same job and her displacement is 10000 tons. Compared to the 051 which is a lot smaller.

[tphuang]

If your taking the missile stats from FT-2000 missile then why would the HQ-9 have greater range, or even such a large warhead when it's smaller than the S-300. I do recall remembering the Kirov, the large Russian Navy Carrier having 4 PAR and using Nacal Gecko on VLS. Having a PAR doesn't always mean you need such a long range missile. Is there a possibility that 052C is PLANNED to be fitted with KS-1A SAM? The 051 has S-300 which has the same stats as the much heard HQ-9. Why would there be need to install a RIF system? If the 052C proved to have such a long range missile? And is there a chance it could be hot launch system?

yeah, the original HQ-9 had similar stats to FT-2000, but that has been improved with HQ-9A. http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/ft-2000.html (it looks like HQ-9A is FB-2000B?) Apparently, China learnt quite a bit from licensed production of the S-300PMU. That's how they got improved performance on HHQ-9A. As for KS-1A, it is unlikely that 052C can fit another SAM in there, so it's low altitude defense against sea-skimming missiles will have to be done by escorting ship like 054. As for HQ-9 vs S-300, HQ-9 sounds alright, but nobody outside of China actually knows how effective it is. Although, the sale of KS-1A to Malaysia does show that Chinese SAMs are alright.

---------------------------------------
My mistake I mean't to say Kuznetev. Also the Kirov uses 96 S-300 missiles for fighting aircraft beyond the horizon and has large surface to surface attack capability, thats why they are in large numbers. The Slava carries 64 S-300 missiles for the same job and her displacement is 10000 tons. Compared to the 051 which is a lot smaller.

I believe 051C only has a 48 cell VLS, that's why it can be smaller. Also due to space shortage, it might only be able to carry 6 SSMs.

[dabrownguy]

Heres the big question, if the HQ-9 has a range of a 100 and can defend against aircraft at these distances why the purchase of a RIF system expecially when the 051C is so small that it won't be able to carry as much as a Salva Class to have effective surface attack capability?

[tphuang]

Heres the big question, if the HQ-9 has a range of a 100 and can defend against aircraft at these distances why the purchase of a RIF system expecially when the 051C is so small that it won't be able to carry as much as a Salva Class to have effective surface attack capability?

Many reasons:
could be pricing. Believe it or not, 052C actually costs 900 million US each, whereas 051C costs 750 million each. Another reason 051C can carry RIF is because it left no room for a helicopter hanger.

could be shipyard. China has so many modern shipyards. Dalian handles 051C and the 051B and early 051. Whereas JiangNan in Shanghai handles 052C, 052B, 052. I have a feeling that China wants both shipyards to be building DDGs at the same time, and 051 and 052 series use relatively different hulls, so both shipyards are probably more familiar with each.

could be something like the Tico/Burke situation in USN. China wants to separate classes of dedicate air defense DDGs.

[dabrownguy]

Many reasons:
could be pricing. Believe it or not, 052C actually costs 900 million US each, whereas 051C costs 750 million each. Another reason 051C can carry RIF is because it left no room for a helicopter hanger.

could be shipyard. China has so many modern shipyards. Dalian handles 051C and the 051B and early 051. Whereas JiangNan in Shanghai handles 052C, 052B, 052. I have a feeling that China wants both shipyards to be building DDGs at the same time, and 051 and 052 series use relatively different hulls, so both shipyards are probably more familiar with each.

could be something like the Tico/Burke situation in USN. China wants to separate classes of dedicate air defense DDGs.

Then PLANs anti-missile defence is pretty damn weak. Only the HQ-7 (correct?) seems to have a good capability to intercept sea skimmers.

[tphuang]

Then PLANs anti-missile defence is pretty damn weak. Only the HQ-7 (correct?) seems to have a good capability to intercept sea skimmers.

that would be a pretty good assessment. Although the 052B and souvernmy should all be equipped with Shtil.

[dabrownguy]

The 052B probabily has the best all around defence in the PLAN IMO. Two rail launchers with a reload time of six seconds means it can fire a missile every 3 seconds.

[tphuang]

The 052B probabily has the best all around defence in the PLAN IMO. Two rail launchers with a reload time of six seconds means it can fire a missile every 3 seconds.

well, there was talk of possibly two layers of SAMs on 051C, I doubt that's the case. In term of defending just itself, 052B is probably the best.

[dabrownguy]

well, there was talk of possibly two layers of SAMs on 051C, I doubt that's the case. In term of defending just itself, 052B is probably the best.

A RIF system and a single PAR. 052C PAR didn't prove to be effective and met the same fait as the Russian Sky Watch or it was just cheaper. Which one?

[tphuang]

A RIF system and a single PAR. 052C PAR didn't prove to be effective and met the same fait as the Russian Sky Watch or it was just cheaper. Which one?

I generally look at 051C and 052C as Chinese way of experimenting with different platforms. You see the same thing with China's AWACS program. There is at least 3 different types of AWACS it is testing out right now. There are arguments on which ship is better. I would think they are similar, but 052C is more stealthy.

RIF with tombstone PAR is already a proven system, so it doesn't hurt to try it out.

052C PAR definitely is effective. We know that it had a lot of cooperation with kvant. Whether or not it's equipped with the kvant APAR is still debated.