Posted on 07/25/2016 3:30:16 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Based on pictures that have been just released by Chinese spotters, it appears that the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN or Chinese Navy) next in-line Type 052D Destroyers (NATO reporting name Luyang III class) will be fitted with the H/PJ-11 close-in weapon system (CIWS) instead of the smaller H/PJ-12 currently fitted on existing vessels of the class.
The H/PJ-12 seven-barreled 30mm CIWS (sometimes referred as Type 730 which is the export designation.) is present on the first four destroyers in the series already commissioned (as well as on a few other hulls currently at various stages of completion). It is estimated that the H/PJ-12 is getting replaced by the much larger H/PJ-11 eleven-barreled 30mm CIWS (export designation Type 1130) starting with the ninth hull under construction at Changxing Jiangnan naval shipyard (near Shanghai) and the third hull currently being built at Dalian shipyard (Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company member of CSIC - China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation).
The new H/PJ-11 appears to be an evolution of H/PJ-12. It has an increased rate of fire (local media have reported a 10,000 rounds per minute firing rate). This type of CIWS was so far exclusively fitted on the Liaoning aircraft carrier and the latest few Type 054A Frigates. Chinese TV reported that following studies and testing, H/PJ-11 is able to intercept incoming anti-ship missiles up to a speed of Mach 4 with a 96% success rate.
There may be other modifications or upgrade on the latest Type 052D Destroyers (or this may even indicate a new batch or mod.) but this is impossible to confirm at this time. The installation of the larger CIWS shows that there are plenty of growth margin (in terms or weight, space and power supply) on this type of destroyers.
PLAN Type 052D Destroyer firing with the H/PJ-12 30mm CIWS
Type 052D Destroyer Kunming (172), first ship of the class, underway (note the H/PJ-12 CIWS behind the H/PJ-38 130mm main gun)
At least 12 Type 052D Destroyers are expected to be built for the PLAN, most of them (80%) by Changxing Jiangnan naval shipyard near Shanghai (the rest at Dalian shipyard in North East China). The PLAN recently commissioned the fourth unit with the South Sea Fleet.
The Type 052D Kunming class (Nato designation: Luyang III) is the latest generation of guided-missile destroyer (DDG) of the Chinese Navy. It is based on its predecessor, the Type 052C DDG and likely shares the same hull. However the Type 052D incorporates many improvements in terms of design as well as sensors and weapons fit. This new class of vessel is considered as the Chinese equivalent to the American AEGIS destroyers.
Meanwhile, until recently we’ve been deleting CIWS from our ships; our new build ships mostly don’t have CIWS.
It’s not because new technology has really superceded CIWS either.
“It’s not because new technology has really superceded CIWS either. “
While my company was being briefed on the then new Future Combat Vehicles I was concerned about the lack of armor and slab sides. These were necessary features to meet the air-lift capability and the amount of fighting capability and communications requirements. They were the definition of too much stuff in too small a bag. At a break I asked the Army officer about my concerns. Armor needs to be sloped and thick enough to resist or deflect anti-armor rounds. This all happened before the second Iraq war.
He looked a bit smug as he said these vehicles would never have to face a direct threat because the Army would have complete control of the air and the vehicles would be able to kill of potential threats from a safe distance. They would always be behind the advancing battle front.
It was a dizzying set of assumptions for a vehicle that might serve for fifty or sixty years in any number of theaters and under any number of undetermined threats. Already, the Middle East was a place where military elephants were being picked apart by military ants. The Israelis had lost a still classified number of Mirkava tanks to individual teams with shoulder launched rockets during an incursion into Lebanon. When you pass them on the road they are civilians, non-combatants. Then when they are behind you they are soldiers with the means to kill you. There already was no battle front. The idea of a battle front seems Napoleonic.
My point is that sometimes for reasons unconnected with the actual or predicted threat model the military gets a wild hair up its posterior that it wants something and that something is worth sacrificing something else. They make wild assumptions that fit their scenario and then point to them as proof.
Everything involves trade-offs.
If you want a more mobile army, your vehicles have to be lighter - so there is less armor.
Same for ships - only so much deck room and below-decks space for weapons, ammo, and fire control. They might have decided that a Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launcher was more important than a CIWS. Dunno if their priorities are straight, though.
“Dunno if their priorities are straight, though.”
I agree with the trade-offs statement. But when the trade-offs are made for political or economic reasons or have to do with getting that awesome retirement job with a contractor instead of performing the mission, the loser is the soldier. I would have hated fighting a battle from inside an FCS vehicle. The trade-offs really were mostly more capability versus more battlefield loses. I don’t think the rosy battlefield scenario that allowed for the vehicle concept was realistic even at the time. All the former Army guys I worked with didn’t think so. The engineers who had real world experience didn’t think so. The only ones who thought so had something to personally gain by thinking rosy thoughts.
Then why?
And that is the REAL problem with modern military hardware acquisition.
I suspect the F-35 would already be fully operational if it weren’t such a political football.
10,000 rounds per minute? That is rock and roll.
Hope they carry plenty of ammo.
If they did not have the Aeigis to copy, what would their ships look like? Old Russian designs were not acceptable obviously and they could not conceive of a design on their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.