Great video. Also for the second consecutive year, French Frigate FREMM won the us navy medals of best ASW capacity. Since French have island in pacific and they operate with USA, could you do a video on French FREMM?
Thanks for your support. I'll just be honest and say upfront I dont plan to make a video on French ships at this stage (not opposed, just don't plan to). I'm sure there's lots of analysis available from elsewhere. Sorry if that sounds negative, just being upfront. Thanks
As of the sinking of the Moskva there is now a clear shift in power on the seas between ships that can effectively protect against missiles, and those that cannot. Seeing how the PLA hosts by far the most advanced ships in considerable numbers and has the most integrated approach towards naval combat I can only imagine these ships eventually being used for their intended purpose.
@@geopoliticsjunkie4114She was an old blue water missile cruiser meant to engage surface combattants at long range with Granit missiles. Her use as a landing support ship couldn't turn the old cruiser at a worse disadvantage.
Again, GREAT video.... and Excellent info, I'm glad you show your 'References' in your 'Description'.👍👍👍 I Can't WAIT ( but I have too ), to build model(s) of this ship to go with my PLAN A/C (aircraft carriers)!! If ANYthing...I'll have a Type 052C with my Liaoning carrier, and a Type 052D with my Shandong.........what about the Type 055 vessel...............we'll see.....🤨🤫
Do most PLA Navy DDG and FFG also carry 30mm AA guns (H/PJ-14/17 designs) in addition to the Type 730/1130 CIWS guns? I know that the Type 056 carry 2 x 30mm mounts, but the Type 056A variant has 2 x 14.5mm HMG/LAAG instead. I have seen various mounts for 14.5mm/25mm/30mm/37mm/57mm AA guns fitted to different PLA vessels as we as CCG coastguard and MSA maritime safety agency patrol ships, and I've read some sources that state both 30mm CIWS and 30mm DP guns are carried on some Type 054A, Type 052C and other classes.
My understanding is that most do not, although without doing a search I cannot say that regular AA guns are not used on all destroyers and frigates. I know that the old Type 051 variants of DDGs (built on Soviet hull designs) used naval anti-aircraft guns of varying calibre - 37 mm & 25 mm - but they have been decommissioned already, and to be honest were never serious fighting ships.
So just a couple small things, ( awesome video well done way above typical you tube crap thanks) one you list that the 052c has 48 HQ9 sam 6X8 , it has two additional vls at the edge of the hangar aft next to rear 7-30 CIWS. Giving the ship an additional 16 rounds of HQ9. 64 SAMs. Not the 48 you have listed. In addition you list the revolver style VLS canisters as being less effective than a grid VLS, requiring more room? There is a great image (sorry did not link it) of 052c moored next to 052d in it you can see the BOW vls of each ship. What you see is that the VLS inserted is the same sized squared shape into the hull. Same dimensions. The 052c has 48 vls while the 052D has only 32 in the same sized area. Granted the VLS of the 052d is superior in that it can take varying missiles. Not just the hq9a , however if you were to equip them with just hq9a the revolver VLS is superior as it holds more missiles in the same amount of space. 48 versus 32. ( granted this is top view under deck not sure what supporting equipment is required, wiring etc cooling etc.) Question did you read anything in regards to the ability to use HQ9a as a ASM? I have read that the S300f can be used to target ships not sure if the PLA built in same into HQ9a? If so Mach 4 missiles with a 150KG war head and 120 naut miles range changes this ships anti surface abilities greatly. Many Sub sonic ASM war heads come in around 200kg to 250kg subsonic. So if possible the 052c is carrying 64 mach 4 anti ship missiles with 250km range.
Thank you for comments. First thing I need to say: there is in fact 48 VLS, because each rotary system contains only 6, not the usual 8 in a grid system. So 6x8 makes 48 in total. 6 systems at the front, and 2 more systems aft. Secondly, the US Navy considers that the Russian system is less space efficient. If you account for the new info that each rotary system holds just 6 missiles, hopefully you can see that it is true. Lastly, I have indeed read the S-300 can be used as an anti-ship weapon, and honestly this is true of most long range surface-to-air missiles given their high speed and large (for a SAM) size of warheads. They are not true ASCMs though, because their range and sea skimming trajectory are generally lacking compared to purpose-designed anti-ship weapons. In any case, the Type 52C does not use the S-300, unlike the Type 51C, so I did not feel it was necessary to the S-300 as an example to demonstrate what is a general practical use of long-range SAMs.
@@EurasiaNaval Yes I stand corrected. I can clearly see each is six rounds. Not 8. I was wrong. I simply did not see it was six. Even in the side by side the grid VLS showing its 4x8 (32) and the 052c 6x6 (36) I did not catch the six. I was still curious about HQ9 as a anti surface weapon? I know its not s300 like 051c. ( which is eight rounds each. trying to save a little face! but I was simply wrong) I read of an engagement of the USN in the Persian gulf 1988 I believe last time a USN ship fought another ship. In that fight Iranians fired harpoon at USN and missed they(USN) used SM2 to destroy Iranian ship. Trajectory and targeting would clearly not be ideal but the ability to throw 48 mach 4 missiles at another ship would be something else. At the very least it would deplete a lot of sams on both sides. So I will keep looking, I would assume its possible since the USN uses SM2 in this manner Russia as noted s300f and even the Shtil can be used as anti surface missile. cool video, thanks for setting me straight.
@@TP-ie3hj No worries, your comments made me think how I should discuss long-range SAMs in future vids. I think their potential as anti-ship weapons should be considered more, because in practice that is how they are used in a secondary role. The SM-2 you mentioned is the best-known example in the west. I can't see a good reason why the HHQ-9 cannot be used in the same way, although not much actual info is available. They should be able to reach that low altitude in the terminal stage though, since it is already needed to target certain cruise missiles.
This video is actually genuinely underated and this is actually the actual real China that the actual American and British BBC propaganda mainstream media actually don't show you is actually really like and actually capable of actually doing
@@EurasiaNaval You are right. 16 YJ-12 replaced the 16 YJ-83. Makes you wonder why they don't replace the YJ-83 on the 054A frigates with the YJ-12 also. The YJ-18 seem to be slower than the YJ-12 in terms of terminal MACH speed but have a deadlier maneuverable CIWS avoidance flight profile. That's my impression. Not to mention they are bigger and can only be launched from VLS of 052D and 055.
Great points. Outside of hypersonics, the YJ-18 is arguably the perfect anti-ship weapon, for it combines the low flight trajectory of a subsonic missile, and the terminal flight of a Mach 3 missile, as well as mechanisms to confuse fire control radars close to impact.
@@EurasiaNaval Also, one would think the 054A displacement could support 2 x 4 YJ-12 if the Shenzhen would support 16. BTW, that pic of that new small SSK "leaked" I think is to tie down US SSNs at time of hostility as a dozen or so spaced 20km apart in the Bashi Strait covering vast areas of the ocean would ensure US SSNs be frantically trying to protect US surface assets rather than going on the attack.
Just to correct the title of the video, the Chinese government, the Chinese People's Liberation Army and the Chinese people have never sought any “Primacy”, be it sea, air or land. Because the Chinese believe in "peace is the most important thing". We don't cause trouble, but we are not afraid of trouble! As for other countries, we don't want to judge too much. Because that's their business. But please remember a Chinese saying: when friends come, there is good wine! The wolf is coming and I have a gun!
I heard that the HHQ-9A carried by the Type 052C only has a range more than 100km instead of HHQ-9B with a range of 200km installed on the 052D and 055 and later, not 250km. Furthermore it has a speed of Mach 4.2 not 4, I don't know where you get the 250km source. I searched on Baidu and Weibo and didn't have any information about this range, if possible please cite your source for me.
It's been a while, so no I cannot come up with the sources or my thinking process at the time. Happy to be called wrong by implication. Edit: there's plenty of ill-researched defence articles that talks about the HQ-9 with a 200 km+ range, without specifying the model. I probably just got confused - will be more careful from now on.
It's a shame that many people seem to want China and India to go to war, too much fake anti China news and complete lies are told by the media of some countries. If China went to war with India, I believe that China would win (or at least not be defeated by India) but it would be a disaster for Asia and the world. The 2 countries should be able to live peacefully.
@@suyashpandya540 vishakhapatnam stands no chance, the 052 is built to support a powerful integrated system of warfare in large naval battle groups, vishakhapatnam is a bunch of foreign tech glued together.
Its Western counterparts may have more established naval systems, the Type 052C destroyer is equipped with advanced radar, missile systems, and electronic warfare capabilities, making it a formidable platform in its own right. Underestimating it as a "paper tiger" overlooks its significant role in China's growing blue-water navy and its strategic impact in regional power projection.
Textbook overview, you’re a beast with this stuff, love it!
Totally agree I just watched his type 055 overview and it was best i have ever seen on that beast
謝謝！
Thanks man!
Great video.
Also for the second consecutive year, French Frigate FREMM won the us navy medals of best ASW capacity.
Since French have island in pacific and they operate with USA, could you do a video on French FREMM?
Thanks for your support. I'll just be honest and say upfront I dont plan to make a video on French ships at this stage (not opposed, just don't plan to). I'm sure there's lots of analysis available from elsewhere. Sorry if that sounds negative, just being upfront. Thanks
@@EurasiaNaval thanks You for a true honnest response
@Tycoon Lee only a fool would Like going to war. I suggest putting a diaper on your mouth because its full of shit.
Thanks
Thanks!
As of the sinking of the Moskva there is now a clear shift in power on the seas between ships that can effectively protect against missiles, and those that cannot. Seeing how the PLA hosts by far the most advanced ships in considerable numbers and has the most integrated approach towards naval combat I can only imagine these ships eventually being used for their intended purpose.
Good thoughts well worded
Is there a reliable Moskva combat/incident analysis available anywhere you are aware of ?
@@geopoliticsjunkie4114She was an old blue water missile cruiser meant to engage surface combattants at long range with Granit missiles. Her use as a landing support ship couldn't turn the old cruiser at a worse disadvantage.
nope all baised@@geopoliticsjunkie4114
I like your consistent format and thorough analysis.
Thanks!
Nice work thank you
Thank you too!
impressive content
Good Video, kerp going
Very interesting. Quite concise and very well explained.
Glad you think so!
The earlier Types 051B/051C/052B and the Sovremenny class have all been updated to be able to operate the HQ-16, apparently.
Again, GREAT video.... and Excellent info, I'm glad you show your 'References' in your 'Description'.👍👍👍
I Can't WAIT ( but I have too ), to build model(s) of this ship to go with my PLAN A/C (aircraft carriers)!!
If ANYthing...I'll have a Type 052C with my Liaoning carrier, and a Type 052D with my Shandong.........what about the Type 055 vessel...............we'll see.....🤨🤫
Amazing video. Make more videos about naval ships.
Do most PLA Navy DDG and FFG also carry 30mm AA guns (H/PJ-14/17 designs) in addition to the Type 730/1130 CIWS guns?
I know that the Type 056 carry 2 x 30mm mounts, but the Type 056A variant has 2 x 14.5mm HMG/LAAG instead.
I have seen various mounts for 14.5mm/25mm/30mm/37mm/57mm AA guns fitted to different PLA vessels as we as CCG coastguard and MSA maritime safety agency patrol ships, and I've read some sources that state both 30mm CIWS and 30mm DP guns are carried on some Type 054A, Type 052C and other classes.
My understanding is that most do not, although without doing a search I cannot say that regular AA guns are not used on all destroyers and frigates. I know that the old Type 051 variants of DDGs (built on Soviet hull designs) used naval anti-aircraft guns of varying calibre - 37 mm & 25 mm - but they have been decommissioned already, and to be honest were never serious fighting ships.
So just a couple small things, ( awesome video well done way above typical you tube crap thanks) one you list that the 052c has 48 HQ9 sam 6X8 , it has two additional vls at the edge of the hangar aft next to rear 7-30 CIWS. Giving the ship an additional 16 rounds of HQ9. 64 SAMs. Not the 48 you have listed.
In addition you list the revolver style VLS canisters as being less effective than a grid VLS, requiring more room? There is a great image (sorry did not link it) of 052c moored next to 052d in it you can see the BOW vls of each ship. What you see is that the VLS inserted is the same sized squared shape into the hull. Same dimensions. The 052c has 48 vls while the 052D has only 32 in the same sized area. Granted the VLS of the 052d is superior in that it can take varying missiles. Not just the hq9a , however if you were to equip them with just hq9a the revolver VLS is superior as it holds more missiles in the same amount of space. 48 versus 32. ( granted this is top view under deck not sure what supporting equipment is required, wiring etc cooling etc.)
Question did you read anything in regards to the ability to use HQ9a as a ASM? I have read that the S300f can be used to target ships not sure if the PLA built in same into HQ9a? If so Mach 4 missiles with a 150KG war head and 120 naut miles range changes this ships anti surface abilities greatly. Many Sub sonic ASM war heads come in around 200kg to 250kg subsonic. So if possible the 052c is carrying 64 mach 4 anti ship missiles with 250km range.
Thank you for comments. First thing I need to say: there is in fact 48 VLS, because each rotary system contains only 6, not the usual 8 in a grid system. So 6x8 makes 48 in total. 6 systems at the front, and 2 more systems aft.
Secondly, the US Navy considers that the Russian system is less space efficient. If you account for the new info that each rotary system holds just 6 missiles, hopefully you can see that it is true.
Lastly, I have indeed read the S-300 can be used as an anti-ship weapon, and honestly this is true of most long range surface-to-air missiles given their high speed and large (for a SAM) size of warheads. They are not true ASCMs though, because their range and sea skimming trajectory are generally lacking compared to purpose-designed anti-ship weapons. In any case, the Type 52C does not use the S-300, unlike the Type 51C, so I did not feel it was necessary to the S-300 as an example to demonstrate what is a general practical use of long-range SAMs.
@@EurasiaNaval Yes I stand corrected. I can clearly see each is six rounds. Not 8. I was wrong. I simply did not see it was six. Even in the side by side the grid VLS showing its 4x8 (32) and the 052c 6x6 (36) I did not catch the six. I was still curious about HQ9 as a anti surface weapon? I know its not s300 like 051c. ( which is eight rounds each. trying to save a little face! but I was simply wrong)
I read of an engagement of the USN in the Persian gulf 1988 I believe last time a USN ship fought another ship. In that fight Iranians fired harpoon at USN and missed they(USN) used SM2 to destroy Iranian ship. Trajectory and targeting would clearly not be ideal but the ability to throw 48 mach 4 missiles at another ship would be something else. At the very least it would deplete a lot of sams on both sides. So I will keep looking, I would assume its possible since the USN uses SM2 in this manner Russia as noted s300f and even the Shtil can be used as anti surface missile. cool video, thanks for setting me straight.
@@TP-ie3hj No worries, your comments made me think how I should discuss long-range SAMs in future vids. I think their potential as anti-ship weapons should be considered more, because in practice that is how they are used in a secondary role. The SM-2 you mentioned is the best-known example in the west. I can't see a good reason why the HHQ-9 cannot be used in the same way, although not much actual info is available. They should be able to reach that low altitude in the terminal stage though, since it is already needed to target certain cruise missiles.
This video is actually genuinely underated and this is actually the actual real China that the actual American and British BBC propaganda mainstream media actually don't show you is actually really like and actually capable of actually doing
Thank you
I just hope that the crew are capable
This was a major first step.
They need to replace those subsonic YJ-62 ASCM with YJ-18 like on DDG Shenzhen.
Sounds like a sensible idea. Btw I thought the DDG Shenzhen is armed with the Yj-12? I could well be wrong.
@@EurasiaNaval You are right. 16 YJ-12 replaced the 16 YJ-83. Makes you wonder why they don't replace the YJ-83 on the 054A frigates with the YJ-12 also. The YJ-18 seem to be slower than the YJ-12 in terms of terminal MACH speed but have a deadlier maneuverable CIWS avoidance flight profile. That's my impression. Not to mention they are bigger and can only be launched from VLS of 052D and 055.
Great points. Outside of hypersonics, the YJ-18 is arguably the perfect anti-ship weapon, for it combines the low flight trajectory of a subsonic missile, and the terminal flight of a Mach 3 missile, as well as mechanisms to confuse fire control radars close to impact.
@@EurasiaNaval Also, one would think the 054A displacement could support 2 x 4 YJ-12 if the Shenzhen would support 16. BTW, that pic of that new small SSK "leaked" I think is to tie down US SSNs at time of hostility as a dozen or so spaced 20km apart in the Bashi Strait covering vast areas of the ocean would ensure US SSNs be frantically trying to protect US surface assets rather than going on the attack.
Just to correct the title of the video, the Chinese government, the Chinese People's Liberation Army and the Chinese people have never sought any “Primacy”, be it sea, air or land. Because the Chinese believe in "peace is the most important thing". We don't cause trouble, but we are not afraid of trouble! As for other countries, we don't want to judge too much. Because that's their business. But please remember a Chinese saying: when friends come, there is good wine! The wolf is coming and I have a gun!
What about the wolf warriors 🤣
Yeah Yeah! A peaceful nation that wants to steal other neighbor's territorial waters 😆
I heard that the HHQ-9A carried by the Type 052C only has a range more than 100km instead of HHQ-9B with a range of 200km installed on the 052D and 055 and later, not 250km. Furthermore it has a speed of Mach 4.2 not 4, I don't know where you get the 250km source. I searched on Baidu and Weibo and didn't have any information about this range, if possible please cite your source for me.
It's been a while, so no I cannot come up with the sources or my thinking process at the time. Happy to be called wrong by implication.
Edit: there's plenty of ill-researched defence articles that talks about the HQ-9 with a 200 km+ range, without specifying the model. I probably just got confused - will be more careful from now on.
those are Indian and western lies.
@@edwardtang1977 Have I ever asked you?
Charger naj ab u context atfacts am I doing
Make a comparison video between type 52c vs ins kolkata
52C is obsolete. They are building type 52D and 055.
@@lktan224 ok then make a video type 52d vs Vishakhapatnam class destroyer
It's a shame that many people seem to want China and India to go to war, too much fake anti China news and complete lies are told by the media of some countries.
If China went to war with India, I believe that China would win (or at least not be defeated by India) but it would be a disaster for Asia and the world.
The 2 countries should be able to live peacefully.
@@suyashpandya540 vishakhapatnam stands no chance, the 052 is built to support a powerful integrated system of warfare in large naval battle groups, vishakhapatnam is a bunch of foreign tech glued together.
@@jasonshen7600 where you from
梦开始的地方～！
Just pla NON combat go bomb somewhere where in allows why ??? To test some wpons not a lot tho
exc.
The first two had Ukrainian engines .... back when they were friends.
Maybe state of the art in china but it's western counter-parts make it look like a paper Tiger
🤨 seriously
Its Western counterparts may have more established naval systems, the Type 052C destroyer is equipped with advanced radar, missile systems, and electronic warfare capabilities, making it a formidable platform in its own right. Underestimating it as a "paper tiger" overlooks its significant role in China's growing blue-water navy and its strategic impact in regional power projection.