PLAN Sovremenny DDG 136, 137, 138 & 139 Thread

A

antiterror13

Brigadier
MwRYum said:
The problem is, you're talking about half of the East Sea Fleet's DDG taken out of battle order for an extended period of time, even when they rotate 2 to undergo work each time that's still a quarter of the DDG components took leave. Given the reality in terms of East Sea Fleet faces (war plan on Taiwan now once again on the table), those 4 Sovremenny class DDGs won't have the luxury to enjoy a facelift that's even more extensive then the one 136 now undertake .
Click to expand...

true ... but there are also plenty of 054A (10) there, and 4 052C++ is extremely powerful force already, also remember one 051D and many many Jiangwei and 7 modern SSK

Also if worse comes to worse, there is nothing stop PLAN sending other DDG from other fleets to East

I am pretty sure they know what they are doing

and last but not the least .....I don't see any possibility of war between Taiwan and PRC
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Given the massive fleet expansion the PLAN is currently engaged in, I really don't think they will miss those Sovs over much even if they were all taken off the line to be upgraded together.

The fact that the aft gun seems to be retained is a good indication of the limited scale of the upgrade.

If they really wanted to cram in as many VLS cells as they can manage, the best solution would have been to extend the aft raised superstructure and extend the VLS all the way to the aft gun.

However, I think the biggest limiting factor to such extreme makeovers would be weight distribution and stability/sea worthiness.

VLS cells and missiles add up to a lot of weight, but warships need to be well balanced it else it will suffer performance and maybe even safety problems.

The biggest problem with retrofitting new weapons and equipment onto old ships is usually not the available real estate on the deck plan, but rather how all that weight shift might impact the balance of the ship overall.

The choice to install equal numbers of VLS cells both front and aft is a nice and easy way to ensure the upgrades have minimal impact on the overa balance of the ship.

Installing say, 24 cells up front and another 72 in the rear will require you to somehow shift a similar mass from the rear to the front of the ship. That would require a massive amount of internal reworkings on an existing design, and may not even be physically possible.

Had they also changed the engines, such a comprehensive upgrade might have been possible. But with the minimal observable changes below the waterline on the rest of the ship, it's extremely unlikely they could shift the internal weight distribution enough to allow an offset of more than a modest number of VLS cells extra at the back.

Currently I am thinking of 24 front and back, with maybe a maximum of 24 up front and 48 at the back.
 
Last edited:
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Those guns weigh 102 tons with the complete mount, ammo feed and control system. (don't know if ammo weight itself is included, possibly not). 8 cell module mk41 of strike length weighs 15 tons without missiles. I'd say it's quite realistic to cram at least 24 cells, weight wise, where one gun was. Deck surface might be another issue though.
 
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
plawolf said:
The fact that the aft gun seems to be retained is a good indication of the limited scale of the upgrade.

If they really wanted to cram in as many VLS cells as they can manage, the best solution would have been to extend the aft raised superstructure and extend the VLS all the way to the aft gun.

However, I think the biggest limiting factor to such extreme makeovers would be weight distribution and stability/sea worthiness.

VLS cells and missiles add up to a lot of weight, but warships need to be well balanced it else it will suffer performance and maybe even safety problems.

The biggest problem with retrofitting new weapons and equipment onto old ships is usually not the available real estate on the deck plan, but rather how all that weight shift might impact the balance of the ship overall.

The choice to install equal numbers of VLS cells both front and aft is a nice and easy way to ensure the upgrades have minimal impact on the overa balance of the ship.

Installing say, 24 cells up front and another 72 in the rear will require you to somehow shift a similar mass from the rear to the front of the ship. That would require a massive amount of internal reworkings on an existing design, and may not even be physically possible.

Had they also changed the engines, such a comprehensive upgrade might have been possible. But with the minimal observable changes below the waterline on the rest of the ship, it's extremely unlikely they could shift the internal weight distribution enough to allow an offset of more than a modest number of VLS cells extra at the back.

Currently I am thinking of 24 front and back, with maybe a maximum of 24 up front and 48 at the back.
Click to expand...
Project 956 Sarych DDG was designed in the days and age that "upgrade potential" or "modular design" wasn't in the mind of the Soviet design bureau that drawn it up; and that, as you could imagine, compounds the problem when comes the time to modernise / upgrade the ship. While they could certainly replace the bulky and outdated Soviet/Russian parts to free up more room and tonnage, the Chinese will definitely need to make some more cuts and structural reinforcements to build the hold that they'll eventually install the new modules.

Given they're still older hulls even with the said upgrades, the safe and economical option is to let them "do better" not necessary "do more", so to give them HQ-16 + ASROC capable VLS modules would fit the bill.
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
The current consensus is that they will be the universal cells, which essentially quadruples its firepower from the existing canister YJ-12 launchers.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why this would be the "current consensus" because you would be removing all anti-air capabilities in exchange for anti-shipping capability. This doesn't make any practical sense. There is no need to quadruple a Sov's firepower in this manner. If the Sovs are refitted with universal cells, they would all or almost all be used for air defense missiles. The only good reason to install universal cells in a Sov would be to load HHQ-9 missiles, in which case they would most definitely have to rely on offboard targeting. And if they will not load HHQ-9, what's the point? I seriously doubt the Sovs could fit more than 2 8-cell universal VLS forward and the same number aft, for a total of 32 universal cells. There is as of yet no evidence that a quad-packed VL MRSAM is available to the PLAN which means all or almost all cells would be needed for air defense missiles and none or next to none for ASW or antiship, which the Sovs already load anyway in canted cannisters port and starboard, which I'm guessing will be transitioned from Sunburn to YJ-12 or maybe YJ-18. This class also is an easy and natural transition to the HHQ-16/Orekh pairing given that it essentially is already that in form if not in fact with its Buk/Orekh pairing. I think this is the same reason the 052B will not receive universal VLS when it undergoes refit and will transition instead to the HHQ-16-style VLS. IMO only ships that can provide guidance to the HHQ-9 without relying on offboard sensors will actually carry them.

I think the only way the Sov will be fitted with universal VLS is if the PLAN does in fact have a quad-packed MRSAM already available or soon to be available.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Iron Man said:
I have no idea why this would be the "current consensus" because you would be removing all anti-air capabilities in exchange for anti-shipping capability. This doesn't make any practical sense. There is no need to quadruple a Sov's firepower in this manner. If the Sovs are refitted with universal cells, they would all or almost all be used for air defense missiles. The only good reason to install universal cells in a Sov would be to load HHQ-9 missiles, in which case they would most definitely have to rely on offboard targeting. And if they will not load HHQ-9, what's the point? I seriously doubt the Sovs could fit more than 2 8-cell universal VLS forward and the same number aft, for a total of 32 universal cells. There is as of yet no evidence that a quad-packed VL MRSAM is available to the PLAN which means all or almost all cells would be needed for air defense missiles and none or next to none for ASW or antiship, which the Sovs already load anyway in canted cannisters port and starboard, which I'm guessing will be transitioned from Sunburn to YJ-12 or maybe YJ-18. This class also is an easy and natural transition to the HHQ-16/Orekh pairing given that it essentially is already that in form if not in fact with its Buk/Orekh pairing. I think this is the same reason the 052B will not receive universal VLS when it undergoes refit and will transition instead to the HHQ-16-style VLS. IMO only ships that can provide guidance to the HHQ-9 without relying on offboard sensors will actually carry them.

I think the only way the Sov will be fitted with universal VLS is if the PLAN does in fact have a quad-packed MRSAM already available or soon to be available.
Click to expand...

The addition of the universal VLS isn't so much about augmenting its anti-surface capability as it is about providing the Sovs a degree of tactical flexibility. You could retrofit the Sovs to become an arsenal ship or air defense destroyer without having to go to the docks; that would place them ahead of every single PLAN destroyer short of the 052D in terms of modularity. Moreover, these vessels are spacious enough to accommodate strike-length VLS, which I suspect will become more or less the "standard" aboard future PLAN vessels and MLUs.

The DK-10A is the most likely candidate for a VL, quad-packed SAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top