PLAN Type 051B/C Class Destroyers

Iron Man said:

My only question for this class is whether the PLAN will be willing to spare 4-8 VLS tubes for CY-5s and cut down its HHQ-16 complement to only 24-28 missiles. For a ship of that size, this is a rather small number of air defense missiles. They could instead sacrifice some antiship capability and load some rocket-boosted torpedoes (CY-2/CJ-1) in the slant ASCM launchers instead of the YJ-83s.

Click to expand...

I think they will simply go with 16 ASMs amidships in the 4 x 54 cannister launchers. Then either use all of the VLS for AAW, or perhaps in fact sacrifice four tubes for VL ASROCs.

Perhaps these VLS tubes will be more robust and allow quad pack short-medium range missiles too. That's why I want to get a good look at them and see which VLS they put there.

4 ASROCs, 24 HQs and 16 short-medium range AAW, along with the 16 cannister launched ASMs would make for a very robust capability.

On the other hand, if the VLS only allow for HQ-16 and VL ASROC, then it will either be 32 HQ-16, or a mix of 28 HQ-16 and 4 VL ASROC...or something like that.

Jeff Head said:

I think they will simply go with 16 ASMs amidships in the 4 x 54 cannister launchers. Then either use all of the VLS for AAW, or perhaps in fact sacrifice four tubes for VL ASROCs.

Perhaps these VLS tubes will be more robust and allow quad pack short-medium range missiles too. That's why I want to get a good look at them and see which VLS they put there.

4 ASROCs, 24 HQs and 16 short-medium range AAW, along with the 16 cannister launched ASMs would make for a very robust capability.

On the other hand, if the VLS only allow for HQ-16 and VL ASROC, then it will either be 32 HQ-16, or a mix of 28 HQ-16 and 4 VL ASROC...or something like that.

Click to expand...

That still depends on what role it got designated to play in the surface group.

MwRYum said:

That still depends on what role it got designated to play in the surface group.

Click to expand...

Yep...they could load it out accordingly.

I still want to see which VLS they have.

Are they the same as the Type 054A? or could they perhaps be the newer variety? Given the sensor suite, probably the same as the Type 054A. That would alllow them HQ-16 and Yu-8 VLASROC mixing if they so desired.

Jeff Head said:

I think they will simply go with 16 ASMs amidships in the 4 x 54 cannister launchers. Then either use all of the VLS for AAW, or perhaps in fact sacrifice four tubes for VL ASROCs.

Perhaps these VLS tubes will be more robust and allow quad pack short-medium range missiles too. That's why I want to get a good look at them and see which VLS they put there.

4 ASROCs, 24 HQs and 16 short-medium range AAW, along with the 16 cannister launched ASMs would make for a very robust capability.

On the other hand, if the VLS only allow for HQ-16 and VL ASROC, then it will either be 32 HQ-16, or a mix of 28 HQ-16 and 4 VL ASROC...or something like that.

Click to expand...

The relatively smaller size of the 051B's foredeck compared to the 052C/D virtually guarantees a 054A-style bank of 8x4 hot-launch VLS modules, in which case it seems unlikely a quad-packed MRSAM will be carried by the 051B.

MwRYum said:

That still depends on what role it got designated to play in the surface group.

Click to expand...

Its dual hangar makes this ship a perfect ASW destroyer. Its relatively short-ranged SAMs make this ship a poor air defense destroyer.

Iron Man said:

The relatively smaller size of the 051B's foredeck compared to the 052C/D virtually guarantees a 054A-style bank of 8x4 hot-launch VLS modules, in which case it seems unlikely a quad-packed MRSAM will be carried by the 051B.


Its dual hangar makes this ship a perfect ASW destroyer. Its relatively short-ranged SAMs make this ship a poor air defense destroyer.

Click to expand...

It has strong ASW and ASuW capabilities and could function in either role in any SAG.

Those 16 ASMs amidhsips are a strong ASuW punch.

No long range area AAW coverage for sure, but 40km for aircraft and 20km for missiles is still a decent short to medium range coverage for itself and other ships it may be grouped with, and the VLS will give it the opportunity to engage more rapidly than the single arm launchers of the Sovs, and certainly far more capability than the old French derivative octuple missile launcher they had.

So, all in all, a great upgrade for the 167, and we know two of the Sovs (and ultimatley probably all four are getting similar upgrades to their missiles, but with perhaps 48 cells all together.

Jeff Head said:

It has strong ASW and ASuW capabilities and could function in either role in any SAG.

Those 16 ASMs amidhsips are a strong ASuW punch.

No long range area AAW coverage for sure, but 40km for aircraft and 20km for missiles is still a decent short to medium range coverage for itself and other ships it may be grouped with, and the VLS will give it the opportunity to engage more rapidly than the single arm launchers of the Sovs, and certainly far more capability than the old French derivative octuple missile launcher they had.

So, all in all, a great upgrade for the 167, and we know two of the Sovs (and ultimatley probably all four are getting similar upgrades to their missiles, but with perhaps 48 cells all together.

Click to expand...

I tend to feel that a ship's antiship missile complement is becoming less and less important individually-speaking than an individual air defense missile these days. For example, a single 052C's air defense complement could theoretically neutralize the entire antiship complement of 6 other 052Cs or 3 051/052Bs. 8 more or 8 less antiship missiles make little difference against advanced adversaries like the US or Japan with powerful fleetwide air defenses. Only mass saturation attacks would work against such navies. Whereas you would hardly even need 16 antiship missiles against the much weaker surface forces that could be fielded by most ASEAN nations. That is why I think the 051B could easily give up 8 ASCMs in order to preserve its already modest air defense capability (modest for its size), and add additional ASW firepower to what I predict is its most likely post-refurbishment role within the PLAN.

I think "antishipping" is no longer a primary role that a ship can realistically specialize in. Modern surface combatants are going to be specialized more towards either AAW or ASW, while ASuW is going to have to be more of a 'team effort' coordinated amongst all members of a fleet. These days a single ship could hold back an entire squadron of fighters, a single ship could chase down and kill a sub, but a single ship would be unlikely to be able to kill even a single other ship.

Would it be any additional value (considering extra cost) to add 24 cell HHQ-10 like 052D ?

Iron Man said:

I tend to feel that a ship's antiship missile complement is becoming less and less important individually-speaking than an individual air defense missile these days. For example, a single 052C's air defense complement could theoretically neutralize the entire antiship complement of 6 other 052Cs or 3 051/052Bs. 8 more or 8 less antiship missiles make little difference against advanced adversaries like the US or Japan with powerful fleetwide air defenses. Only mass saturation attacks would work against such navies. Whereas you would hardly even need 16 antiship missiles against the much weaker surface forces that could be fielded by most ASEAN nations. That is why I think the 051B could easily give up 8 ASCMs in order to preserve its already modest air defense capability (modest for its size), and add additional ASW firepower to what I predict is its most likely post-refurbishment role within the PLAN.

I think "antishipping" is no longer a primary role that a ship can realistically specialize in. Modern surface combatants are going to be specialized more towards either AAW or ASW, while ASuW is going to have to be more of a 'team effort' coordinated amongst all members of a fleet. These days a single ship could hold back an entire squadron of fighters, a single ship could chase down and kill a sub, but a single ship would be unlikely to be able to kill even a single other ship.

Click to expand...

Don't neglect gun systems whether it be gun or laser CIWS, gunpowder or railgun main guns when it comes to anti-missile, post-missile-exhaustion, or CM-successful-environment combat. Smart weapons can be fooled while dumb weapons will just go where you aim them.

There is also the advantage of universal VLS hiding a ship's missile mix from opponents in addition to positional firing efficiencies, this favors larger ships with the space for universal VLS over smaller ones. Box launchers on large enough ships are definitely obsolete regardless of missile type.

One Type 052C is not going to down 64 missiles coming at it.

You have to figure that they will be firing two missiles at each anti-shipping missile to begin with, and then more should those not stop it.

I would be surprised, in an actual serious war at sea scenario where on side was able to get off 16-20 modern anti-shipping missiles, and coming in on the heals of SEAD missions that targeted their opponents radar, that it is going to take 3 or more missiles per anti-shipping missiles to kill them.

I also suspect, that even then, that they will have less than a 100% chance of killing them all.

It is likely in modern war at sea, that the opponent will be using, as I say, 1st anti-radiation missiles, which will home on the emmitter...and that they will also ave active ECM occurring at the same time as the ASM strike comes in.

So the idea that ASuW capabilities of a vessel like the Type 51B or Type 52Bs are somehow not effective is jut not so.

1st, a single ship will rarely be in a position where it is going against a task group of other vessels on the other side.

Second, each ship that carrier 16 missiles can add quickly to the more massive attack you mention.

In a war at sea likelihood, either surface engagements, or mixing naval air into it either from shore or from carriers, you are going to range everywhere from single engagements, to group engagements, to fleet wide engagements if one or the other fleet can force such an engagement on terms it feels likely to favor it.

In any of those situations, with ASuW scenarios, I believe the upgrade to the 167 was a smart move on the part of the PLAN.

Jeff Head said:

Yep...they could load it out accordingly.

I still want to see which VLS they have.

Are they the same as the Type 054A? or could they perhaps be the newer variety? Given the sensor suite, probably the same as the Type 054A. That would alllow them HQ-16 and Yu-8 VLASROC mixing if they so desired.

Click to expand...

To this point it indicates to pack the same as the 054A, and if it use the new VLS instead of the type as the 054A, why'd they keep the slanted anti-ship missile launcher rack? I mean, the room there could house a new, raised superstructure block, in it house the new VLS cells and loaded with primary anti-ship missile...or something like that.

That said, 167 after this MLU is about the same as per a 054A.

As for its role...the 167 is no longer the top-tier ship it used to be, but for a long time it serves in the flagship capacity. Assuming the C4ISR package has also been improved as well, the safest bet is that it serves as flagship for a tier-2 surface battle group comprises of 054As for air defense, with several 056s serving as workhorse...or backing up whatever inferior ships still within the SSF (the 053 series with very limited air defense capability) but won't be phased out within the next 10 years. using tier-2 ships in the regular patrol of SCS region should be enough to maintain the Chinese presense yet not enough to escalate the situation and even if that does, tier-1 ships can always be called up from Hainan homeport.