PLAN Type 051B/C Class Destroyers

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
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.
6 052Cs or 3 051/052Bs load 48 missiles, not 64.

Also, that's why I said "theoretically". In a shooting war where the 052C/D has enough warning so that it is engaging enemy missiles at long range, there is plenty of time to assign only one missile per target and reassess the target after the initial missile makes contact.

As for SEAD, it's all or none, meaning you either destroyed your target or you didn't. It wouldn't take 3 missiles just because SEAD was there. It would still only take either 1-2 missiles or it would take none, because SEAD already killed its target.

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.
Antiradiation missiles in the case of naval engagements are effectively the same as any other standard ASCM as far as air defense missiles are concerned. It's not like a ship is somehow more or less vulnerable to antiradiation missiles compared to ASCMs. Actually probably less since they are almost invariably air-launched which means the defending ship/radar can easily identify them and at longer ranges.

So the idea that ASuW capabilities of a vessel like the Type 51B or Type 52Bs are somehow not effective is jut not so.
Where did I say the ASuW capabilities of the 051B or 052B are "not effective"? I have said that they are LESS effective against modern adversaries like the US and Japan, and also more than enough for most ASEAN navies.

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.
Yes it will be rare, which is why a single ship with 8 more missiles than another is not huge in the grand scheme of things. You don't need those 8 extra if you are dealing with ASEAN opponents, and 8 extra will be wholly insufficient if you are dealing with the US or with Japan. Besides, the PLAN will soon have only 5 ships (051B, 2x 052s, 2x 052Bs) that load 16 antiship missiles, as the rest of the Ludas are rapidly being phased out of service in the next few years. Most modern destroyers only load 8 ASCMs if they even carry any at all. Ships like the Slava with its rows upon rows of antiship missile canisters are almost anachronistic at this point in naval warfare history. I'm not saying 16 ASCMs on a ship are somehow definitely wrong, just that they are not as important as they used to be in the face of modern network centric air defense and advanced combat management systems where an attacker literally needs several hundred ASCMs to be able to penetrate such a defense.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
6 052Cs or 3 051/052Bs load 48 missiles, not 64.

Also, that's why I said "theoretically". In a shooting war where the 052C/D has enough warning so that it is engaging enemy missiles at long range, there is plenty of time to assign only one missile per target and reassess the target after the initial missile makes contact.

As for SEAD, it's all or none, meaning you either destroyed your target or you didn't. It wouldn't take 3 missiles just because SEAD was there. It would still only take either 1-2 missiles or it would take none, because SEAD already killed its target.


Antiradiation missiles in the case of naval engagements are effectively the same as any other standard ASCM as far as air defense missiles are concerned. It's not like a ship is somehow more or less vulnerable to antiradiation missiles compared to ASCMs. Actually probably less since they are almost invariably air-launched which means the defending ship/radar can easily identify them and at longer ranges.


Where did I say the ASuW capabilities of the 051B or 052B are "not effective"? I have said that they are LESS effective against modern adversaries like the US and Japan, and also more than enough for most ASEAN navies.


Yes it will be rare, which is why a single ship with 8 more missiles than another is not huge in the grand scheme of things. You don't need those 8 extra if you are dealing with ASEAN opponents, and 8 extra will be wholly insufficient if you are dealing with the US or with Japan. Besides, the PLAN will soon have only 5 ships (051B, 2x 052s, 2x 052Bs) that load 16 antiship missiles, as the rest of the Ludas are rapidly being phased out of service in the next few years. Most modern destroyers only load 8 ASCMs if they even carry any at all.

Ships like the Slava with its rows upon rows of antiship missile canisters are almost anachronistic at this point in naval warfare history. I'm not saying 16 ASCMs on a ship are somehow definitely wrong, just that they are not as important as they used to be in the face of modern network centric air defense and advanced combat management systems where an attacker literally needs several hundred ASCMs to be able to penetrate such a defense.
Well, since there has never been such a confrontation...and we can all hope and pray there never will be...the statement that it would take several hundred ASCM to penetrate such a defense is simply not known.

My own guess, having spent many years analyzing it and having worked extensively in the industry earlier in my own career, is that it will not take anything approaching several hundred in a huge mass attack to penetrate a battle groups defense...with this caviat...once the attacking entitity actually knows for sure where the battle group is and can target it..

Several groups of a dozen modern missiles coming in from different azimuths simultaneously are apt to have quite a few of one or more of those groups get through.

The key, as I say, is being able to get the platforms close enough in, with strong enough targeting of the actual vessels to be able to effectively launch such an attack.

Both the active and the passive counter measures that nations like the US and other top tier countries have, along with the C4ISR to activate and effectively communicate with them all bfore the attacking entity actually knows where you are becomes the key. and that is not an easy thing to do, even for an advanced near peer attacker.

But, once an enemy who can get, say 72 modern missiles that they can launch from six different point on the compass simultaneously at the heart of the battle group (or at least arriving simultaneously), is going to have, IMHO, a strong chance of doing some serious damage.

But that's just my own thoughts on the matter...and if you were taking all of that into account, then fine, we are probably closer to agreement than not. Bit to me, until you have that solid location, launching missiles by the hundreds is a wasit anyway.

Now, if they one day truly do develop missiles that are intelligent enough to be hunters, and you could launch a couple of dozen long range, high altitude, hyper velocity missiles that could get that info for you, without getting the you know what jammed out of them before they got the inf from an E-2D or other asset way out on the peripheral of a threat axis...then maybe you could locate them easier.

But as I just demonstrated...a CBG commander is going to have his bases covered with assets that can keep that from happening once the balloons go up if he can.

As I say, the key s being able to get those launchers that close, with solid G2 about the absolute location of the group. Until that happens...its not an easy thing to do at all.

Anyhow, we're talking about a lot of what ifs. There are some good simulators out there...but all of them are programmed with the best what if info we can give them.

We have only a very few examples of modern naval missile exchanges...and then we have the SINKEXs we perform all the time. But nothing that truly tells us what we really need to know to perfect what we re talking about.

As t is, I believe AEGIS, and probably the UKs solutions are the best out there given what info we have...and everyone wants to figure out how to break them.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I have purchased and am now building a 1/350 scale model of 167...and I am making the changes to it to represent its new configuration after the refit. It may take me some time with my condition...but working on these helps me get through the condition somewhat, and I enjoy doing so.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Well, since there has never been such a confrontation...and we can all hope and pray there never will be...the statement that it would take several hundred ASCM to penetrate such a defense is simply not known.

My own guess, having spent many years analyzing it and having worked extensively in the industry earlier in my own career, is that it will not take anything approaching several hundred in a huge mass attack to penetrate a battle groups defense...with this caviat...once the attacking entitity actually knows for sure where the battle group is and can target it..

Several groups of a dozen modern missiles coming in from different azimuths simultaneously are apt to have quite a few of one or more of those groups get through.

The key, as I say, is being able to get the platforms close enough in, with strong enough targeting of the actual vessels to be able to effectively launch such an attack.

Both the active and the passive counter measures that nations like the US and other top tier countries have, along with the C4ISR to activate and effectively communicate with them all bfore the attacking entity actually knows where you are becomes the key. and that is not an easy thing to do, even for an advanced near peer attacker.

But, once an enemy who can get, say 72 modern missiles that they can launch from six different point on the compass simultaneously at the heart of the battle group (or at least arriving simultaneously), is going to have, IMHO, a strong chance of doing some serious damage.

But that's just my own thoughts on the matter...and if you were taking all of that into account, then fine, we are probably closer to agreement than not. Bit to me, until you have that solid location, launching missiles by the hundreds is a wasit anyway.

Now, if they one day truly do develop missiles that are intelligent enough to be hunters, and you could launch a couple of dozen long range, high altitude, hyper velocity missiles that could get that info for you, without getting the you know what jammed out of them before they got the inf from an E-2D or other asset way out on the peripheral of a threat axis...then maybe you could locate them easier.

But as I just demonstrated...a CBG commander is going to have his bases covered with assets that can keep that from happening once the balloons go up if he can.

As I say, the key s being able to get those launchers that close, with solid G2 about the absolute location of the group. Until that happens...its not an easy thing to do at all.

Anyhow, we're talking about a lot of what ifs. There are some good simulators out there...but all of them are programmed with the best what if info we can give them.

We have only a very few examples of modern naval missile exchanges...and then we have the SINKEXs we perform all the time. But nothing that truly tells us what we really need to know to perfect what we re talking about.

As t is, I believe AEGIS, and probably the UKs solutions are the best out there given what info we have...and everyone wants to figure out how to break them.

I always viewed multi-directional simultaneous attack to be more advantageous to the defender than attacker.

Even if we leave aside the exponentially greater co-ordination burden of managing a multi-vector attack with separate strike groups so that all missiles hit the enemy fleet at the same time (and said fleet could have ships spaced dozens of NM from each other); and ignoring the multiplied risk of detection and intercept.

The sheer physics would favour a focused, uni-directional attack in my view, especially against the ships in question.

If the 167 has the same weapons and sensors fit as the 054A, the it will be using SAR missiles that rely on illuminators, that is a bottleneck, since each illuminator could only designate so many targets at the same time.

They may be able to individually illuminate more targets if the incoming missiles are all coming from the same direction, however, I do not believe that will yield a 100-300% increase in the number of targets it could engage simultaneously, as would be the case if it faced an attack from multiple directions, allowing it to bring additional illuminators into play.

Similarly, a uni-directional focused attack has the greatest chance of successfully punching through a fleet's defences to get at the high value targets protected at the core of the fleet's defensive cordon, by focusing all attacking resources on a single enemy escort, or two, rather than potentially allow the entire enemy fleet to all engage.
 

joshuatree

Captain
Some additional pics. Seems like a new paint job is the last step before placing back into service?

34xrdzr.jpg


241pf0j.jpg


2132amw.jpg
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Some additional pics. Seems like a new paint job is the last step before placing back into service?


2132amw.jpg
You have to give the PLAN credit.

This vessel, which was outdated sensor and particularly weapons-wise, has now been refitted and made very, very applicable for their modern fleet.

The are doing the same with the Sovs...and did sort of a mini-job on the Type 052s too...112 and 113.. Just no VLS on those vessels.
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
By "these vessels" I think he is referring to 112 and 113, the two 052 class DDGs.

their refit did not include VLS, yes
Of course the 112/113 refits did not include VLS; they had their refits 5 years ago. I thought he was referring to the Sovs currently under refit.
 
Top