China's Type 052C Aegis-class Warships -- Ocean Dominance!

[Martian2]

Good illustration of various radars on Type 052C Destroyer

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

A good ship -yes.Ocean dominance - hardly.Much better ships out there in its class.You don't dominate ocean with HQ-9 sam of 80s vintage naval version of s-300 with angle limitation,lack of active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimmers,poor ASW ability.

 

[UKBengali]

A good ship -yes.Ocean dominance - hardly.Much better ships out there in its class.You don't dominate ocean with HQ-9 sam of 80s vintage naval version of s-300 with angle limitation,lack of active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimmers,poor ASW ability.

HQ-9 is not 80s vintage as it won the Turkish SAM competition in 2013.

I would put the most recent HQ-9 version comparable to S-400 SAM.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

HQ-9 is not 80s vintage as it won the Turkish SAM competition in 2013.

I would put the most recent HQ-9 version comparable to S-400 SAM.

The Kolkata class was intended to compete with the Type 052C.

Now the production for the Type 052C was already halted, whereas the Kolkata is still nowhere to be ready despite the official deployment.

 

[Beast]

A good ship -yes.Ocean dominance - hardly.Much better ships out there in its class.You don't dominate ocean with HQ-9 sam of 80s vintage naval version of s-300 with angle limitation,lack of active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimmers,poor ASW ability.

Another sougrape India trying to misled readers acting as they know Chinese HQ-9 missile. I pity you Indian still depend on foreign import. You can never get the best. Countries always sell you second rated stuff.

 

[UKBengali]

Another sougrape India trying to misled readers acting as they know Chinese HQ-9 missile. I pity you Indian still depend on foreign import. You can never get the best. Countries always sell you second rated stuff.

This is the same guy who thinks that the coming Type-95 SSN is noisier than Akula 2.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

HQ-9 is not 80s vintage as it won the Turkish SAM competition in 2013.

I would put the most recent HQ-9 version comparable to S-400 SAM.

Lolz,HQ-9 is the modification of navalized s-300 rif.Winning the turkish sam competition is totally different because it is a GOOD sam against aircraft with great range,but its poor against sea skimming cruise missiles.Its got angle restriction,no active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimming cruise missiles.
In modern naval ships what matters most in your SAM is ability against anti ship cruise missiles and having an active seeker.Like aster,barak-8 and the new standard models coming up for USN.

Another sougrape India trying to misled readers acting as they know Chinese HQ-9 missile. I pity you Indian still depend on foreign import. You can never get the best. Countries always sell you second rated stuff.

We already have the best.The kolkata class has better AESA radar,better sonar,better anti ship missile and better SAM.
If you think brahmos,barak-8,ACTAS sonar and MF-STAR are second rated stuff ,then i'm the one that pities you.

 

[Beast]

Lolz,HQ-9 is the modification of navalized s-300 rif.Winning the turkish sam competition is totally different because it is a GOOD sam against aircraft with great range,but its poor against sea skimming cruise missiles.Its got angle restriction,no active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimming cruise missiles.
In modern naval ships what matters most in your SAM is ability against anti ship cruise missiles and having an active seeker.Like aster,barak-8 and the new standard models coming up for USN.



We already have the best.The kolkata class has better AESA radar,better sonar,better anti ship missile and better SAM.
If you think brahmos,barak-8,ACTAS sonar and MF-STAR are second rated stuff ,then i'm the one that pities you.

Why would it need sea skimming abilities when ship itself is protected CIWS or RAM? You used a precious LR SAM to take out a cheap anti-ship missile. That is a bad strategy.

Barak 80 lack range to be a true LRSAM. The 70km range will allow most enemy fighter jet to have a easier time firing stand alone weapon or lacking adequate range to protect the ship fleet.

By the way, HQ-9 is capable of taking out sea skimming missile. There is no proof of your allegation that it lack the angle restriction. Angle of restriction only occurs when its very close range before launch but its so close and detected so late. CWIS and RAM will well taken care of it. But it will be a waste to be that unless really needed.

Again another cheap shot of you trying once again to misled readers. Thinking Type052C is lacking in dimension of defence against sea skimming missile.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Why would it need sea skimming abilities when ship itself is protected CIWS or RAM? You used a precious LR SAM to take out a cheap anti-ship missile. That is a bad strategy.

View attachment 254085

View attachment 254086

Barak 80 lack range to be a true LRSAM. The 70km range will allow most enemy fighter jet to have a easier thing firing stand alone weapon or lacking adequate range to protect the ship fleet.

By the way, HQ-9 is capable of taking out sea skimming missile. There is no proof of your allegation that it lack the angle restriction. But it will be a waste to be that unless really needed.

If you think CIWS or RAM has much chance against supersonic sea skimmers at mach 3 like klub or brahmos ur not aware of the odds.On top of that type 52c doesn't even have RAM.As for CIWS here's a good explanation -
''CIWS are virtually useless against the BrahMos due to its high speed. The Phalanx, with an effective firing range of 1.5 km (0.93 mi) and a rate of fire of 50 rounds per second, but requiring 0.5 seconds to spool up so only 40 rounds would be fired, would need to destroy the missile beyond 500 meters (1 second engagement time) or high-speed fragments will have enough velocity to hit and damage the ship. Since the BrahMos performs an S-maneuver in the final few kilometers on approach, the Phalanx would have difficulty locking on to a Mach 3 maneuvering target in less than two seconds''
Barak-8 is optimized for defence against anti ship missiles and sea skimmers.Sea skimming cruise missiles are far more of a threat in modern day scenario for surface ships than aircraft .Intercepting aircraft is for Carrier aviation in any case.Most of the enmey aircraft u talking about these days won't even come close..they are just airborne carriers for the same cruise missiles that will be launched.So by countering cruise missiles u actually counter both the aircarft's munitions and ship/sub launched sea skimmers.

Second of all hq-9 doesn't have active seeker.Only aster and barak-8 have it atm.They are true fire and forget missiles and can handle saturation attacks way better.
The minimum operating altitude of rif-m and its chinese derivative the hhq-9 is around 0.025 kms.This comes around to 25 metres.Good enough for taking out high flight profile cruise missiles,but poor against sea skimmers.Something like brahmos can sea skim at altitudes as low as 3-4 metres.How are u going to engage such sea skimmers with ur huge unwieldy missile?Main problem with these missiles are they are large and heavy,for example hq-9 weighs over a 1000 kgs and a warhead weight of 180 kg.The barak-8 in comparison weighs just 265 kgs and has a warhead just 60 kgs.
Take aster,it weighs 300-400 kgs -they are much more agile and effective at low altitudes.You see the difference,these 2 missiles were developed from the start to kill sea skimmer cruise missiles,particularly supersonic ones.Hq-9 is a version of a land based missile ,modified for naval use..its not a specialist.Its main job is to attack aircraft at long ranges,and at that it excels due to long range and heavy missile.But against nimble sea skimmers..nope.

The new chinese ly-90 is more suited for intercepting sea skimmers,and recognizing this PLAN put it on the newer type 052D.But even then its minimum engagement altitude is 15 m which is very touch and go.In contrast altitude envelope of barak -8 is 0-16 km meaning it can hit targets at any altitude upto 16 km.For aster its 0-13kms for aster 15 and 0-20 kms for aster 30.
Hope i made my point clearer.

 

[Beast]

If you think CIWS or RAM has much chance against supersonic sea skimmers at mach 3 like klub or brahmos ur not aware of the odds.On top of that type 52c doesn't even have RAM.As for CIWS here's a good explanation -
''CIWS are virtually useless against the BrahMos due to its high speed. The Phalanx, with an effective firing range of 1.5 km (0.93 mi) and a rate of fire of 50 rounds per second, but requiring 0.5 seconds to spool up so only 40 rounds would be fired, would need to destroy the missile beyond 500 meters (1 second engagement time) or high-speed fragments will have enough velocity to hit and damage the ship. Since the BrahMos performs an S-maneuver in the final few kilometers on approach, the Phalanx would have difficulty locking on to a Mach 3 maneuvering target in less than two seconds''
Barak-8 is optimized for defence against anti ship missiles and sea skimmers.Sea skimming cruise missiles are far more of a threat in modern day scenario for surface ships than aircraft .Intercepting aircraft is for Carrier aviation in any case.Most of the enmey aircraft u talking about these days won't even come close..they are just airborne carriers for the same cruise missiles that will be launched.So by countering cruise missiles u actually counter both the aircarft's munitions and ship/sub launched sea skimmers.

Second of all hq-9 doesn't have active seeker.Only aster and barak-8 have it atm.They are true fire and forget missiles and can handle saturation attacks way better.
The minimum operating altitude of rif-m and its chinese derivative the hhq-9 is around 0.025 kms.This comes around to 25 metres.Good enough for taking out high flight profile cruise missiles,but poor against sea skimmers.Something like brahmos can sea skim at altitudes as low as 3-4 metres.How are u going to engage such sea skimmers with ur huge unwieldy missile?Main problem with these missiles are they are large and heavy,for example hq-9 weighs over a 1000 kgs and a warhead weight of 180 kg.The barak-8 in comparison weighs just 265 kgs and has a warhead just 60 kgs.
Take aster,it weighs 300-400 kgs -they are much more agile and effective at low altitudes.You see the difference,these 2 missiles were developed from the start to kill sea skimmer cruise missiles,particularly supersonic ones.Hq-9 is a version of a land based missile ,modified for naval use..its not a specialist.Its main job is to attack aircraft at long ranges,and at that it excels due to long range and heavy missile.But against nimble sea skimmers..nope.

The new chinese ly-90 is more suited for intercepting sea skimmers,and recognizing this PLAN put it on the newer type 052D.But even then its minimum engagement altitude is 15 m which is very touch and go.In contrast altitude envelope of barak -8 is 0-16 km meaning it can hit targets at any altitude upto 16 km.For aster its 0-13kms for aster 15 and 0-20 kms for aster 30.
Hope i made my point clearer.

You seriously do not know how CIWS works. They dont shoot straight at sea skimming missile and expect a pin point head on with 30mm rounds. CIWS make a big swirl and project a wall of rds against incoming missile. And you need to ask why CIWS need such high rate of fire(6000 to 9000 rds per min)? It is to ensure the density of wall of bullets and maximo destruction of missile. It will take not just one 30mm rounds to destruct your brahmos but at least 30-40 rds of 30mm projectile at smack at your brahmos and you can imagine the destruction even its a Abram tank when smashing at the same place that will ensure your brahmos shed to zero fragment and pieces. Not to mention, very likely it will ignite the warhead and ensure complete destruction. And to disappoint you, the engagement range is most likely at 1.5 to 2.5km which is very safe and no fragment can touch our destroyer. And since China do not need to rely on import like India. If Top brass people think CIWS is not enough, they can easily order retrofit the aft CWIS of Type052C with RAM just like the configuration of Type052D.

Another good example of top brass having faith on CIWS engaging High speed sea skimming missile is the installation of H/PJ-14 (Type 1130) next generation CIWS onboard CV-16 liaoning , Type 052D and more recent Type 054A frigate

Chinese Navy Liaoning Aircraft Carrier's H/PJ-14 (Type 1130) new generation CIWS

A recent Chinese TV report on Liaoning reported that following studies and testing, H/PJ-14 is able to intercept incoming anti-ship missiles up to a speed of Mach 4 with a 96% success rate.

It is well document in a Chinese write up about this new CIWS tested against a mach 3 supersonic sea skimming missile. Before you claim Chinese is braggin again. I shall remind you China possess CX-1 super sonic and very likely tested the missile against our CIWS which proves the system intercepting of high speed sea skimming missile.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

You seriously do not know how CIWS works. They dont shoot straight at sea skimming missile and expect a pin point head on with 30mm rounds. CIWS make a big swirl and project a wall of rds against incoming missile. And you need to ask why CIWS need such high rate of fire(6000 to 9000 rds per min)? It is to ensure the density of wall of bullets and maximo destruction of missile. It will take not just one 30mm rounds to destruct your brahmos but at least 30-40 rds of 30mm projectile at smack at your brahmos and you can imagine the destruction even its a Abram tank when smashing at the same place that will ensure your brahmos shed to zero fragment and pieces. Not to mention, very likely it will ignite the warhead and ensure complete destruction. And to disappoint you, the engagement range is most likely at 1.5 to 2.5km which is very safe and no fragment can touch our destroyer. And since China do not need to rely on import like India. If Top brass people think CIWS is not enough, they can easily order retrofit the aft CWIS of Type052C with RAM just like the configuration of Type052D.

Another good example of top brass having faith on CIWS engaging High speed sea skimming missile is the installation of H/PJ-14 (Type 1130) next generation CIWS onboard CV-16 liaoning , Type 052D and more recent Type 054A frigate

Chinese Navy Liaoning Aircraft Carrier's H/PJ-14 (Type 1130) new generation CIWS

View attachment 254185

A recent Chinese TV report on Liaoning reported that following studies and testing, H/PJ-14 is able to intercept incoming anti-ship missiles up to a speed of Mach 4 with a 96% success rate.

It is well document in a Chinese write up about this new CIWS tested against a mach 3 supersonic sea skimming missile. Before you claim Chinese is braggin again. I shall remind you China possess CX-1 super sonic and very likely tested the missile against our CIWS which proves the system intercepting of high speed sea skimming missile.

View attachment 254184

The point is can you even properly lock on to a manuevering brahmos in 1-2 seconds time before it hits ship.Because brahmos travels a kilometre in a second.
Almost every navy in the world agrees CIWS systems are just a desperate last defense hope against such missiles,not a real form of protection.And you can add RAM ,u see even your latest LY-90 still has minimum engagement altitude of 15 m.Which is still very risky against modern sea skimmers that can go at altitudes of 3-4 metres.
China can add 200 SAMs in its type 055 cruiser,but as long as they don't fix these inherent problems with sea skimmers -it won't matter.What china needs to do is design a active seeker sleek agile naval sam from scratch to deal with sea skimming cruise missiles like aster or barak.(I understand why PLAN focused on anti-aircraft oriented HQ-9,because they thought american carrier borne aircraft as being biggest threat to PLAN surface ships.)
The problem with that is china is still dependant on russian AGAT company for active seekers in missiles(which it uses on its most modern AAM PL-12)

As for your claim type 1130 shooting down 90% hypersonic missile.
No, China Can NOT Shoot Down 90% of Hypersonic Missiles | The National Interest Blog


Here's an explanation of CIWS vs supersonic missile.
''Guns are extremely popular in modern day air defense systems due to their quick reaction times and the ability to shoot down targets at very short ranges. Most modern navies use Close in Weapon Systems (CIWS) which consists of a high rate of fire gun acting on its own or combined with short range SAM systems. Currently, the US Navy deploys Phalanx CIWS on all its destroyers. It is a closed loop system, with the search-tracking radar and the 20 mm Gatling gun and ammunition combined into a self-sustained system. It has a max range of 3 km and an effective range of 1.5 km when dealing with low flying cruise missiles. If it faces a single Yakhont which has bypassed other missile defense layers, the radar of the Phalanx locks on to the Yakhont and unleashes a torrent of 20 mm depleted uranium projectiles which should shred the Yakhont easily. But, that’s not going to happen. The Phalanx fires at 3000 rounds per minute which translates into 50 rounds per second. Since the yakhont flies at 1 km per sec and the effective range of Phalanx is 1.5 km, it has just 1.5 seconds to shoot down the Yakhont when the Yakhont is 1.5 km away from the ship. And since Yakhont is travelling so fast, if you shoot it less than 500 m away from your ship, its fragments will still strike your ship at high speeds and cause damage. So Yakhont has to be engaged between 500 m and 1.5 km by the Phalanx. This gives it a total firing time of 1 second. And since it needs half a second to reach full rate of fire, only around 40 rounds can be fired in that time.
BrahMos performs an S-manoeuver in its final few km of flight. This makes it extremely difficult for Phalanx to get a lock on BrahMos. It will have less than 2 seconds to lock on to a maneuvering target flying at 3 times the speed of sound. It is practically impossible for the Phalanx to shoot down BrahMos.

The same problems apply for all CIWS against supersonic sea skimmer.Now phalanx will never face brahmos because of political alignments,but PLAN CIWS well may if it becomes aggressive in IOR in future.

 

[Beast]

The point is can you even properly lock on to a manuevering brahmos in 1-2 seconds time before it hits ship.Because brahmos travels a kilometre in a second.
Almost every navy in the world agrees CIWS systems are just a desperate last defense hope against such missiles,not a real form of protection.And you can add RAM ,u see even your latest LY-90 still has minimum engagement altitude of 15 m.Which is still very risky against modern sea skimmers that can go at altitudes of 3-4 metres.
China can add 200 SAMs in its type 055 cruiser,but as long as they don't fix these inherent problems with sea skimmers -it won't matter.What china needs to do is design a active seeker sleek agile naval sam from scratch to deal with sea skimming cruise missiles like aster or barak.(I understand why PLAN focused on anti-aircraft oriented HQ-9,because they thought american carrier borne aircraft as being biggest threat to PLAN surface ships.)
The problem with that is china is still dependant on russian AGAT company for active seekers in missiles(which it uses on its most modern AAM PL-12)

Once again, you are using a decade old news to claim modern China in 2015 still rely on Russian AGAT for seeker for our PL-12? Please wake up and stop your smearing for active seeker. Just becos you Indian are impotent and rely on import , please do not drag us down to your level. PL-12 seeker are all Chinese made and no import. Do we even need request from Russia to sell PL-12 to PAF just like RD-93 engine? YOu see the Russian never even claim a issue of PL-12 missile sold by CHina to any countries becos non has any Russian component inside.

Once again, I have stated very clearly test against high speed sea skimming has carry out like against CX-1 missile and result is favorable. I do not see any issue and you just want to find fault and try heap praise on your own system with no logic. CIWS wall of rds will ensure very high kill rate even your missile make a big turn or angle which hard to avoid walls of bullet.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Once again, you are using a decade old news to claim modern China in 2015 still rely on Russian AGAT for seeker for our PL-12? Please wake up and stop your smearing for active seeker. Just becos you Indian are impotent and rely on import , please do not drag us down to your level. PL-12 seeker are all Chinese made and no import. Do we even need request from Russia to sell PL-12 to PAF just like RD-93 engine? YOu see the Russian never even claim a issue of PL-12 missile sold by CHina to any countries becos non has any Russian component inside.

Once again, I have stated very clearly test against high speed sea skimming has carry out like against CX-1 missile and result is favorable. I do not see any issue and you just want to find fault and try heap praise on your own system with no logic. CIWS wall of rds will ensure very high kill rate even your missile make a big turn or angle which hard to avoid walls of bullet.

Show me then,where is your active seeker aster/barak like missile?I mean ur bragging ,but even hq-9 is just a souped up s-300 rif naval.
And keep continuing in your belief in CIWS against modern ASCMs.Hopefully PLAN top brass doesn't have the same philosophy,because if they go in with that.I t won't even take USN,we will see a a repeat of 1895 sino-japanese war where japanese cruiser and torpedo boats annihilated huge chinese fleet of steel battleships,the loss was so hard that the admirality board in beijing ceased to exist.Hopefully we won't see a repeat,but if u think CIWS is fullproof assurance agiants supersonic cruise missiles..i fear we will.

 

[Beast]

Show me then,where is your active seeker aster/barak like missile?I mean ur bragging ,but even hq-9 is just a souped up s-300 rif naval.
And keep continuing in your belief in CIWS against modern ASCMs.Hopefully PLAN top brass doesn't have the same philosophy,because if they go in with that.I t won't even take USN,we will see a a repeat of 1895 sino-japanese war where japanese cruiser and torpedo boats annihilated huge chinese fleet of steel battleships,the loss was so hard that the admirality board in beijing ceased to exist.Hopefully we won't see a repeat,but if u think CIWS is fullproof assurance agiants supersonic cruise missiles..i fear we will.

Yes, HQ-9 is just a copy of S-300 and you shall just claim Turkish are just bunch of idiot who decided to choose an inferior copy as their choice. Why shall HQ-9 needs active seeker? We are not even talking abt fighter who just needs to fire and dodge quicly. Warship are slow compare to fighter jet, and there is no need for active seeker and to dodge. The US aegis SM-2 system to uses semi-active system and seems like no one will claim it being inferior and need active seeker system? Same as China AESA system onboard Type052C which is powerful enough to engage multiple missiles and handle multiple targets.

As for PL-12 active seeker, I do not know Russian R-77 seeker deploy such feature of dual active seeker mode which is the world first for BVRAAM from Chinese 607 institute. So how can one be a copy or made by Russian when Russian themselves dont even have such system?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Yes, HQ-9 is just a copy of S-300 and you shall just claim Turkish are just bunch of idiot who decided to choose an inferior copy as their choice. Why shall HQ-9 needs active seeker? We are not even talking abt fighter who just needs to fire and dodge quicly. Warship are slow compare to fighter jet, and there is no need for active seeker and to dodge. The US aegis SM-2 system to uses semi-active system and seems like no one will claim it being inferior and need active seeker system? Same as China AESA system onboard Type052C which is powerful enough to engage multiple missiles and handle multiple targets.

As for PL-12 active seeker, I do not know Russian R-77 seeker deploy such feature of dual active seeker mode which is the world first for BVRAAM from Chinese 607 institute. So how can one be a copy or made by Russian when Russian themselves dont even have such system?

HHQ-9 is a derivative of russian s-300 rif-m with some modifications.Adding a smiley doesn't change this fact.In fact Rif-m is installed in the type 051 destroyers itself.Now as to the turkish competition,again you people compare a land based sam system to a navalized sam?As a land based SAM against aircraft HQ-9 is a great system with good range and power.But its agianst AIRCRAFT.Its going to be good vs high flight profile cruise missiles too.But,its a poor choice against sea skimmers due to weight,altitude limit.

The fact that you are asking why it would need an active seeker proves how little you actually know about Naval ship defenses.
1.Active seeker missiles have a huge advantage in that a ship doesn't have to guide them to the target,they are true fire and forget weapons.This makes them far more useful in saturation attack situations.'The dependency on illumination radars and the difficulty in timing its use on multiple targets may be solved in theory by math and computers. It helps that modern SARH (semi-active radar homing)missiles need the illumination only during the terminal phase. Nevertheless - a ship with 60 ARH SAMs can engage 30 targets at once with 2 SAMs each if its radar and fire control can handle that. It wouldn't be able to defend against 30 well-timed threats with SARH SAMs.'

2.'An ARH (active radar homing)missile can be fired from a ship even without using the ship's radars. It needs merely a data link to a platform that has a line-of-sight to the target and provides the target information. An AEW (airborne early warning) aircraft, or another ship, for example'.

3.'An ARH missile can be fired from a ship at a target over land that's hidden behind hills, a city skyline or simply flying extremely low. The Royal Navy was unable to fire at the Argentinian jets that attacked it from land (Falklands War). An aerial radar + ARH SAM combination would have protected the fleet.'

4.An active seeker missile can engage targets over the horizon easily and independently on its own,whereas semi-active missile will require mid-course guidance from ship or airborne support platform.The USN in case you didn't know has stopped production and is withdrawing slowly the SARH SM-2,it has been superseded in production by the new SM-6 which is the latest missile with an ACTIVE SEEKER.Just like barak-8 and Aster.So USN has dumped SARH missiles,for active seeker ones.Unfortunately you again seem to have no knowledge of this fact.Just blabbering.

5.'Anti-radar missiles (ARM) can suppress a ship's or battery's radar, thus turning SARH-guided SAMs temporarily useless. It requires a missile with autonomous homing (like ARH or passive infrared seeker) or a ECM-proof laser beam rider guidance (short-ranged) to keep defending without an active radar.'

Thus an active seeker missile like sm-6/barak-8/aster is FAR superior in terms of naval air defence than say hhq-9.

Whether you like it or not fact is pl-12 is using radar and datalink from the russian r-77.Deny that if you want.