PLAN Type 051B/C Class Destroyers

FORBIN said:

Hangar for 2 helos enough rare only 052 can host same number.

Click to expand...

Exactly Forbin.

it is good to see the two hangers on the 167:



...and on the 112 and 113 (Type 052):



But that's it! For the PLAN, those are the only ones.

I think one of the weaknesses that the PLAN has in terms of ASW is the lack of two helo hangers on such a vast majority of their combatants.

If you look at the major combatants, particularly with all of the new ones, you find:

10 x Type 053H3
02 x FFG Type 054
25 x FFG Type 054A

That's 37 Frigates...not a single one of them can carry two helos.

01 x Type 051B (two helo hangar)
02 x Type 051C
04 x SOV
02 x Type 052 (two helo hangar)
02 x Type 052B
06 x Type 052C
11 x Type 052D

That's 28 destroyers...only three (167, 112,and 113) can carry two helos.

So, with 65 very decent major surface combatants (and more building), you have only three that can carry two helos.

Look at the US.

The OH Perry Frigates are about all gone now...but every one of those ships could carry two ASW helos.

Now they are being replaced by the LCS...and every LCS can carry two helos.

06 x Freedom LCS (two helo hangar)
07 x Indenpendence LCS (two helo hangar)

With destroyers:

28 x Burke I and II (no hanger, just pad for refueling/rearming))
37 x Burke IIA (two helo hangar)
02 x Zumwalt DDG (two helo hangar)

Cruisers

22 x Ticonderoga (two helo hangar)

So the US Navy has 102 major surface combatants launched right now (and more building). Of those, 74 of them can carry two ASW helos each.

It a HUGE advantage when it comes to ASW warfare...as well as SAR, ASuW, VREP, Patrol, etc.

With two, you can always have them out there...as one nears bingo fuel, the other takes its place.

For ASW this ability to continuously prosecute targets is a key advantage.

LCS Hangar



Burke Hangar



Tico Hangar



Zumwalt Hangar

MwRYum said:

Well it took 2 decades to finally get the VLS everyone expected it to have...

Plus, the deck below the helipad is now totally enclosed, the practive is in-line with the current generation of PLAN surface combatants.

Click to expand...

Well, that show how backward was china in 1980's. But without Luhu and Luhai class there won't be the advance Luyang I,II, III class

It show how much progress China has made during the last 30 yrs

Luhu and luhai are the first attempt by China to design ad built ship with point(local) air defense.So they are experimental ships

During the brief honeymoon period of mid 80's, suddenly western radar, fire control,battle management are available to import.
The idea was to built air defense ship using imported component. But due to TAM this become moot point as China is put under embargo

Beside trying to fuse and integrate different sensors from different origin, that are not meant to work together, is almost impossible. Those ships never work properly as combat ships

So they built slightly larger hull this time using domestic components . But due to backwardness of Chinese radar,sensors and other electronic, They never reached it expected specification.
Luhai serve the last 20 years as ambassador of good will for the Chinese navy.

So I am glad now that finally they are refurbished to become effective combat ships and reached their full potential.

Nothing is built in a day and in China case it is harder due to embargo, low industrial base back then.
If credit must be given, it should be given to Soviet Union. The breakup and dissolution of Soviet Union is heart wrench but without it Chinese navy never modernized.
The west make a strategic blunder by breaking up Soviet Union

Ok so VLS and CIWS is the two major changes in the armaments

What's happening to 115 and 116? Also 112 and 113

I would not be one bit surprised if during their midlife refits the 115 and 116 had their Rif-M systems replaced with the shorter ranged HHQ-16 or another domestic medium range air defense missile. The 051C's current air defense system is totally incapable of resisting multi-axis saturation attacks with its single-panel Tombstone illuminator and would be severely handicapped in a modern naval engagement against an advanced adversary. In its current form a 051C would pretty much be good for little more than to serve as a missile truck for remote launch of Rif-M missiles by allied 052C/D and 055 ships, assuming the PLAN has some semblance of a CEC-like capability.

asif iqbal said:

...Also 112 and 113

Click to expand...

Both Type 052 destroyers (112 and 113) were upgraded in 2011.

The four Type 76A guns were replaced by two Type 730 CIWS on top of the helicopter hangar for better CIWS defense.

The Crotale/HHQ-7 short-range SAM were replaced by the newer model (FM-90) I believe which provides better interception against sea-skimming AShMs.

Two Type 726-4 decoy launchers were installed on both sides of the forward bridge for better self-protection.

Apparently various onboard systems were integrated together by a new indigenous C3I system (ZJK-4B or a newer model).

The Thomson-CSF Sea Tiger air/surface search radar was replaced by a Type 517M long-range air search radar.

The Type 362 air/surface radar installed on top of the aft mast has been replaced by a Type 364.

Finally, a pair of SATCOM antennas have been installed on top of the helicopter hangar as well

Jeff Head said:

I think one of the weaknesses that the PLAN has in terms of ASW is the lack of two helo hangers on such a vast majority of their combatants.

Click to expand...

But when you consider the PLAN has a very small helicopter fleet and not likely getting that resolved soon enough, having duo hangers doesn't serve much purpose other than wasting real estate on the hull. Alas, if they could utilise one of the redundent hanger as a UAV operation module...

asif iqbal said:

What's happening to 115 and 116?

Click to expand...

DDG 115 and 116 of the 051C class are stop-gap measures to provide the fleet with long range SAM umbrella, at the time when 052C is still getting their kinks sorted out. But with the serial production of 052D class and even the advent of 055 class, 051C will soon be redundent if not obsolete. However, I won't expect them to be touched until the last of the Luda still in NSF is replaced by the newer ships now churning out from shipyards.

Iron Man said:

I would not be one bit surprised if during their midlife refits the 115 and 116 had their Rif-M systems replaced with the shorter ranged HHQ-16 or another domestic medium range air defense missile. The 051C's current air defense system is totally incapable of resisting multi-axis saturation attacks with its single-panel Tombstone illuminator and would be severely handicapped in a modern naval engagement against an advanced adversary. In its current form a 051C would pretty much be good for little more than to serve as a missile truck for remote launch of Rif-M missiles by allied 052C/D and 055 ships, assuming the PLAN has some semblance of a CEC-like capability.

Click to expand...

051C use same radar as CGN Velikiy Tombstone can eng. simult 6 targets but 2 missiles guided on each it is not negligible ofc much less than AEGIS like don' t know for Chinese but all others btw 12/22, the best with SPG-2 is the US.

Velikiy have also as first Kirov and Slava predecessor of Tombstone, the Top Dome ( 2 for first Kirov ) can eng. simult 3 targets, 2 missiles guided on each.
So Velikiy is more capable can eng. simult 9 targets but clearly less as an AEGIS like.

Others ships with less big fire control radars in general engage 1/2 targets by radar, btw 2/6 max
With MR-90 Front Dome as Chinese 054A, 051B etc... 1 target by radar Sovremn have 6, 054A, 052B x 4.

In more SA-N-20 /S-300FM is ABM up to 40 km ( as S-300PM/PMU 1/2 ) possible also HHQ-9 very close i have HQ-9 up to 25 km.

Remains to know if these combattants with her radars are able to destroy BM.

Interesting they are keeping the 16 AShM load out.

I wonder if they would give them a AShM upgrade, and/or allow them to carry LACMs in place of AShMs on those slant launchers.

16 LACM would be a significant long range strike capability to add to any expeditionary fleet.

According to producer "Almaz-Antey":

Rif-M:
8 simultaneously engaged targets, 16 missiles per salvo. Distance (min-max) 2km-150km, Altitude (min-max) 7m-30000m. 48N6, 48N6D and 9M96 missiles.

Rif: 6 simultaneously engaged targets, 12 missiles per salvo. Distance (min-max) 8km-120km, Altitude (min-max) 10m-25000m. 48N6 missile.

Export version on 051C corresponds to Russian Rif.

plawolf said:

Interesting they are keeping the 16 AShM load out.

I wonder if they would give them a AShM upgrade, and/or allow them to carry LACMs in place of AShMs on those slant launchers.

16 LACM would be a significant long range strike capability to add to any expeditionary fleet.

Click to expand...

Logic they have keep, 16 in canister but don' t exist LACM more big in canisters the only who
have existed is the Armored Box Launcher on Iowa etc... for all Tomahawk variants thinking a majority of LACM about 2/3.


China have a test ship with canisters but not used by combattants.

In more now don't need, LACM in " big " VLS, universal VLS.