052/052B Class Destroyers

Mysterre said:

What I'm more interested in is the minimum altitude of the HQ-9B. The current HQ-9 supposedly has a minimum altitude of 20m or something like that, which makes it incapable of engaging pretty much any modern sea-skimmer in the terminal stage, a problem it shares with the S-300F on the 051C's. I don't know if this is a missile or radar or software problem (or combination), but the HQ-9B needs a 5m or even 3m minimum altitude if it wants to be able to engage all threats.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I believe land based SAMs would have different minimum altitudes compared with sea based.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I feel like we need to point out the 20m figure has only ever been taken from brochures for the land based version of HQ-9. I believe land based SAMs would have different minimum altitudes compared with sea based.

Click to expand...

hmmwv said:

Correct, due to the absence of terrain or other obstacles I believe the missile should be able to approach the target at a flatter trajectory without worrying about flying into a 30m tall tree, also the ocean is a much cleaner background so the proximity fuse continue to be operable at a lower altitude without being falsely triggered. Besides, with a 180kg HE warhead you don't need to fly at 5m to successfully intercept a sea skimmer, a detonation at 15-20m will most likely knock anything flying under it into the water.

Click to expand...

Mysterre said:

Why? Trees? If the land-based system is limited by terrain there is no reason to state any specific numbers since trees and hills are obviously never uniformly the same height and would therefore present different limitations at any given time. A land-based system located on a hilltop would have no minimum altitude restrictions at all. If there are differences in minimum altitude between land and sea-based systems in terms of quotes in brochures, I doubt it's the terrain. Then again, you have not demonstrated there are actually any such differences to begin with.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

As I see these vessels, I realize that we are spoiled now with the PLAN shipbuilding capability. I remember when those first two Type 052Cs were built side by side how so many marveled...now it is common place for the PLAN. Whether its FFGs, DDGs, OPVs, etc.

Anyhow, as I said, a force of six Type 052C Lanzhow class DDGs followed by 8-12 Type 052D DDGs will place the PLAN in a very powerful position regarding very capable multi-function DDGs within the world's Navies. Not to mention the 16 Type 054A FFGs and who knows how many (30+) Type 056 OPVs. The PLAN surface combvatants are very well rounded IMHO, and very capable on the world's scene.

But, thosee DDGs and FFGs are certainly very squared away and very powerful vessels. It takes them all to be effective in the blue water when it comes to sea lane control and area denial.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Well you're the one making the assumption that the numbers of the brochure for a land based SAM system are directly transferable for the naval version.

Click to expand...

hmmwv said:

Correct, due to the absence of terrain or other obstacles I believe the missile should be able to approach the target at a flatter trajectory without worrying about flying into a 30m tall tree, also the ocean is a much cleaner background so the proximity fuse continue to be operable at a lower altitude without being falsely triggered. Besides, with a 180kg HE warhead you don't need to fly at 5m to successfully intercept a sea skimmer, a detonation at 15-20m will most likely knock anything flying under it into the water.

Click to expand...

noone536 said:

It depends on what kind of missile if its a terrain following missille then no this would not be true like the tomahawk where more terrain like mountains and trees would help find its impact point better.

Click to expand...