China might get Ukrainian Slava class cruiser

Having a 100submarines and more than 100 major combattants and building 4 major ones in 1.5 years isn’t making anyone scared is it? 😉

Tis the price of being a rising superpower I s’pose….

Maybe they want it as a flagship – it is a cruiser after all. Cruiser implies power and prestige though not as much as aircraft carrier (e.g. Thailand and Spain). Destroyer and frigate do not.

(I don’t have a clue about naval capabilties).

It could also scare the Japanese and the Koreans into an arms race, and help destabilize the region. That is why China strives to avoid “conspiciously threatening” weapons systems like aircraft carriers.

Maybe they want it as a flagship – it is a cruiser after all. Cruiser implies power and prestige though not as much as aircraft carrier (e.g. Thailand and Spain). Destroyer and frigate do not.

(I don’t have a clue about naval capabilties).

It’s a bit hard for me to find these now. I am the kind that reads things, but don;t keep them. But I was told by very well informed sources (the type that tells you everything 3 month before you see a pic of)on Chinese BBS that this is the case. The construction of the 052Bs were suspended and the entire superstructure was redesigned.

doesnt make sense.

if the HHQ9 was delayed, then all they would need to change is the missile. the superstruture and PAR could, and should have remained, as then u can easily upgrade the ships to their original specifications after the VLS problem has been resolved.

this would be far cheaper, far quicker, and give the ships far more potential for future upgrades then changing the design of the superstructure halfway through construction (if thats possible to start with, that is).

Sure they have commissioned it. Whether it is ready? Doesn’t have SSMs yet. We’ve seen two tubes mounted once, but that’s all.
Is there a chance that Slava has somewhat similar engines as Type 52B and C? The latter types are both equiped with Ukraine (-ian?) Gas Turbines. Slava too I think. And even if this is not the case, they can buy spares from Ukraine or manufactur their own parts. Our Navy operates ships with engines that have no spares anymore. Not in the entire world. They just produce their own parts onboard the ship if small and ashore if large. Warship engines are quite small compared to merchant ships hence the parts aren’t that large too. I’d agree if it were a 4m tall cilinder you have to make… But that’s not the case on warships.

Yes, the Chinese operate DN80 gas turbines. But the quality of the turbine blades are so wanting that the Chinese replaced them with their own. According to Kanwa, the Ukrainian engineers had some very positive things to say about the technology progress of Chinese blades.

I have to agree with Golden Dragon. Sometimes these so called “well informed sources” don’t really know something about engineering. When it comes to ships like these, there is no such thing as a rush job or a hash redesign. A warship is a very well calculated and thoroughly planned design. Plans are finalized long before the keel is laid.

I’ve followed the 052s since they came out. The two classes came out of the blue. No intelligence that either class existed when the 168-171 came out in photos.

There is nothing that said the original plans had 168 and 169 as PAR carriers. There is nothing that indicates that one class was a rush job over the other or all four were laid out to be the same.

All we know of the two classes are from pictures. The hulls are not exactly alike and the 052Cs has larger tonnage. If the original plan for all four is the 052C’s then the superstructure of the 052B would be the same. There is no way to install a 360 coverage PAR on the 052Bs as they are now.

China hasn’t built any more than two DDGs of the same variant since the Ludas. They build in small increments. The 052Bs are obviously optimized for anti-surface.

But if you do have literature that said the 052Bs should have PAR then it would major news indeed. Post it here. I would be extremely interested in looking at it. Thanks.

It’s a bit hard for me to find these now. I am the kind that reads things, but don;t keep them. But I was told by very well informed sources (the type that tells you everything 3 month before you see a pic of)on Chinese BBS that this is the case. The construction of the 052Bs were suspended and the entire superstructure was redesigned.

Y’know…China getting the Bazalt with Slava isn’t out of the realm of possibility. If you read the MTCR, in this case it wouldn’t be a problem.

No, GD, you are wrong here. The 052Bs are a rush job. When the HHQ-9 VLS development was delayed, the urgent need for new surface ships meant that hasty new plans drawn and original were modified to carry SA-N-12 and the 052Bs were born.

By the time the second pair started construction, HHQ-9 VLS trial was finally completed, and 170/171 are completed as to original plans.
If the delay was not there, all four ships would of been in the same class.

I’ve followed the 052s since they came out. The two classes came out of the blue. No intelligence that either class existed when the 168-171 came out in photos.

There is nothing that said the original plans had 168 and 169 as PAR carriers. There is nothing that indicates that one class was a rush job over the other or all four were laid out to be the same.

All we know of the two classes are from pictures. The hulls are not exactly alike and the 052Cs has larger tonnage. If the original plan for all four is the 052C’s then the superstructure of the 052B would be the same. There is no way to install a 360 coverage PAR on the 052Bs as they are now.

China hasn’t built any more than two DDGs of the same variant since the Ludas. They build in small increments. The 052Bs are obviously optimized for anti-surface.

But if you do have literature that said the 052Bs should have PAR then it would major news indeed. Post it here. I would be extremely interested in looking at it. Thanks.

No, GD, you are wrong here. The 052Bs are a rush job. When the HHQ-9 VLS development was delayed, the urgent need for new surface ships meant that hasty new plans drawn and original were modified to carry SA-N-12 and the 052Bs were born.
By the time the second pair started construction, HHQ-9 VLS trial was finally completed, and 170/171 are completed as to original plans.
If the delay was not there, all four ships would of been in the same class.

The only reason for China to buy the Ukrayina would be the same reason why it bought the Minsk. And that would be for a theme park.(1)

The 052B were lay down as anti-surface warfare ship with 16 AShMs while the 052C is an area defense ship with a PAR but with only 8 AShMs. These are classes that occupy two different roles but sharing a common tonnage and similar hulls. There is only so much space to optimize for either role.

So nothing could more silly than extrapolating that because a surface warfare vessel (052B) is using a medium-range SAM (SA-N-12) then the long-range SAM system of area defense ship (052C) must not be working.

Different missions, different vessels, different SAM classes.

—————————————————————-

Notes:
(1) Read about Minsk World here: http://www.shenzhenwindow.net/Travel/minsk.html

The Russians have a corvette design thats mounting an S300 VLS and TOMB STONE array so I can imagine little issue with the Chinese mounting the system on a 7000 ton 052 hull. TOMB STONE would be an easier fit than a TOP DOME on that sized hull but it would be a great deal easier to modify the superstructure of the existing 052C design than design a new hull from scratch or try and adapt a thumping great hull like a Slava then build a run of them.

thats the Rif-M which is still very much under devolopment it fields improved Tombstone (less power consumption?) and pure VLS system.

The only reason to even look at the Slava would seem, to me, to be some systemic failure of the new Area-AAW system aboard the 052C’s. I’d agree that that doesnt seem likely as, afaik, the 170 vessel has already been commissioned into the PLAN and is operational?. Hard to see why they would commission a vessel who’s primary combat system was marginal!.

169,170s were in pipeline well b4 russia opened its cooperation with PLAN. HHQ-9 on 52Cs probably have their share of drawback (inability to intercept sea skimming missiles etc), if they were so great china would fitted them on 52Bs wont they have not?

And even if this is not the case, they can buy spares from Ukraine or manufactur their own parts.

A unique spares chain, for those systems already in the 95% built hull, is an expense that smart navies avoid. Be that relying on the manufacturing country to be able to maintain low-volume spares fabrication facilities at a sensible price or setting up the same facilities yourself. Either way its an expensive solution and an unreliable one.

Our Navy operates ships with engines that have no spares anymore. Not in the entire world. They just produce their own parts onboard the ship if small and ashore if large.

The RN do their own manufacturing too, and take a pride in churning-out higher quality parts than the factory made items. This tends to just be for make-and-mends when deployed though. As an illustration Invincible once shed a cog in one of its main gearboxes at quite an innopportune moment. Fortunately, as three hulls were built/building, decent spares holdings were assembled and a new gearbox could be shipped and installed (a major job required cutting through three decks to get the old unit out and the new one in). If the ship had had to wait while a new gearbox was fabricated it may well have missed the Falklands War with the consequences of that potentially being extreme!.

Generator sets and osmosis water plants are all changeable if you want to do that. It’s not even military, they can order them from a commercial company with the next overhaul or refit.

Again thats a very expensive solution Roel. Especially for the capabilty you get from this hull. If there was no other AAW solution in the PLAN there would be a reasonable case for accepting the extra costs just to get the capability, in part the Indian ‘defence’ for Gorshkov goes along these lines, the PLAN though do have AAW ships, embarking SAMs if not AShM’s, so the Slava looks more like the ‘luxury’ item and less like an operationally required unit to me!.

Sure they have commissioned it. Whether it is ready? Doesn’t have SSMs yet. We’ve seen two tubes mounted once, but that’s all.
Is there a chance that Slava has somewhat similar engines as Type 52B and C? The latter types are both equiped with Ukraine (-ian?) Gas Turbines. Slava too I think. And even if this is not the case, they can buy spares from Ukraine or manufactur their own parts. Our Navy operates ships with engines that have no spares anymore. Not in the entire world. They just produce their own parts onboard the ship if small and ashore if large. Warship engines are quite small compared to merchant ships hence the parts aren’t that large too. I’d agree if it were a 4m tall cilinder you have to make… But that’s not the case on warships.
Generator sets and osmosis water plants are all changeable if you want to do that. It’s not even military, they can order them from a commercial company with the next overhaul or refit.
Although, I agree with Jonesy and Crobato, China won’t buy it. It’s too much effort to change its role and it’s too useless if you just take off the Bazalt missiles.

Sev,

Its not really the weapons themselves I’m thinking of here as, naturally, you’re quite right about the naval artillery and S-300’s etc. What I was more thinking of was generator sets, osmosis plants and all those sorts of systems. A big ship means lots of ancilliary systems and it will be a little late in the day for the Chinese to try and introduce their own systems in the vessel!.

I was aware that Bazalt wouldnt be transferrable, in this case though, I dont think that its a serious issue. PLAN doesnt posses the ISR assets to support P-500 targetting anyway!.

The fact that they do have the S300F, is probably an indication that they will build a ship for it. Couldn’t it be based on Slava? I think that’s what JonS meant, they need a hullshape to fit this system in. It’s not just tonnage that allows a certain system.

The Russians have a corvette design thats mounting an S300 VLS and TOMB STONE array so I can imagine little issue with the Chinese mounting the system on a 7000 ton 052 hull. TOMB STONE would be an easier fit than a TOP DOME on that sized hull but it would be a great deal easier to modify the superstructure of the existing 052C design than design a new hull from scratch or try and adapt a thumping great hull like a Slava then build a run of them.

Hydropod,

Deploy the RIF system? There is no indication what so ever that RIF will be used on PLAN ships to this date. The rumoured 051C is just that, a rumour. Seems PLA is very happy with HQ-9 at least, PLAN’s view on HHQ-9 as of yet is to be seen.

The only reason to even look at the Slava would seem, to me, to be some systemic failure of the new Area-AAW system aboard the 052C’s. I’d agree that that doesnt seem likely as, afaik, the 170 vessel has already been commissioned into the PLAN and is operational?. Hard to see why they would commission a vessel who’s primary combat system was marginal!.

Steve, the Bazalt system would be gone, since that’s not allowed for sale (I’m against this ban though… UK and now Netherlands recieve Tomahawks too), the S300F they have already purchased, so they’d have the spares and missiles already. Probably their own production of them too. The AK-630 and AK-130 they have already on the Sovremennies and AK630 on Type 54 too. As for Engines etc. they might put their own stuff into it. Other spare parts, I don’t know whether they’ll need too many of them. Personally haven’t seen any ship getting new plating etc. These things are built for 40 years of service if necessary.
But, I agree that it would still be a pain in the ass, since the crews will have trouble swapping one ship for another etc.

The fact that they do have the S300F, is probably an indication that they will build a ship for it. Couldn’t it be based on Slava? I think that’s what JonS meant, they need a hullshape to fit this system in. It’s not just tonnage that allows a certain system.

The Ukraine cruiser looked and was said to be 95% complete. Won’t take that long if China would provide money to finish it. The problems for Ukraine were the cost of the crew. They wanted to reduce the crew, otherwise they would take out some systems and the third option was selling it. It seems that they have decided to sell it. It would be most logical that Russia bought it. Yet I don’t think they will do so. Russia itself has declared two or three days ago that it would not add any ships to its fleet, only making effort in upgrading and maintaining their current fleet.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/slava-DNSC9400153.JPG http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1164-pics.htm

Deploy the RIF system? There is no indication what so ever that RIF will be used on PLAN ships to this date. The rumoured 051C is just that, a rumour. Seems PLA is very happy with HQ-9 at least, PLAN’s view on HHQ-9 as of yet is to be seen.
And of China moving away from indeginous SAM? Perhap you will change your mind once HHQ-16 also comes online along with HHQ-9. The only ships using russian SAMs are the Sovs and the two 052Bs after all.

Sev,

For Jonesy, China has bought two Rif modules, it won’t be so much extra. The Bazalt they won’t get that anyway so that won’t be a new maintenance burden either. But of course it will be “some” extra burden to get all parts for the ship ready. And Russia will of course not sell any of theirs.
For the Type 52B and C, I think they might have quite some parts in common with each other, hence a reduced effort too. Also, why do they build only two of each? Still testing? The Slava is a proven ship, with proven systems, hence would give them some extra punch directly when they receive it.

Its an 11000 ton blue-water cruiser. They’re not real likely to get any more of them so you have a one-off maintenance requirement. You know full well how many systems that could mean holding spares, and trained personnel, for that have no other use in their fleet!. Madness. The idea is always to develop a capability across multiple uniform hulls to maximise the efficiency of your support infrastructure – that is simply one of the basic principles of naval operations.

Extra punch directly when they receive it?. They’re going to have their AAW vessels through sea trials well before Ukraines’ Slava could be completed and commissioned!. Surely if the 052 AAW ship performs poorly in its trials it would make a much greater amount of sense to fix the problems with those ships, swapping in the S-300 weapons system if necessary, so that a full class of vessels can be deployed. One Slava is no solution to anything on its own.

JonS

all signs point to china moving away from its indigenous SAM systems to procuring more russian based ones.

Irrelevant. You dont have to buy a whole ship to get the SAMs. China, as you’ve both stated, has purchased two full Ryf weapons systems so, providing these havent been stripped down to component level for the HHQ-9 development program, it knows the shipboard requirements for deploying the system.

So purchasing slava will help out china in design and operation of vessels fielding the RIF sam system.

In what way?.