Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China Gets Third Sovremenny Destroyer
Strategy Page ^ | 2005 Dec 30

Posted on 12/31/2005 7:29:43 AM PST by Wiz

December 30, 2005: China has received a third Sovremenny class destroyer from Russia. The first two were taken out of Russian navy service and sold to China. These next two are newly built, and improved versions. These ships, displacing about 8,800 tons each, are equipped to defend itself with anti-aircraft missiles, and attack enemy ships with eight large ("Shipwreck"), supersonic anti-ship missiles. Each ship has an anti-submarine helicopter, 48 anti-aircraft missiles, four torpedo tube, mines, depth charges, sonar, two 130mm (5 inch) guns and a modern electronic warfare system. These ships cost $700 million each, about half what their American counterparts, the latest Aegis destroyers, go for.

(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armsbuildup; china; chinesemilitary; destroyer; sovremenny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 12/31/2005 7:29:45 AM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wiz

only for peaceful purposes I suppose


2 posted on 12/31/2005 7:31:53 AM PST by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

3 posted on 12/31/2005 7:32:55 AM PST by keithtoo (Leftists/Democrats - Traitors, Haters and Vacillators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Youngman442002
Oh how ever will we survive???? The Chinese are buying 25 year old Russian ships!!!
4 posted on 12/31/2005 7:33:15 AM PST by MNJohnnie (We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them.--GWBush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wiz
China Gets Third Sovremenny Destroyer Floating Target
5 posted on 12/31/2005 7:34:21 AM PST by CaptRon (Pedecaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

They'll end up as target practice if and when China decides to assert itself in the Taiwan Straights or in disputed Japanese waters.


6 posted on 12/31/2005 7:34:55 AM PST by TCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

The United States provides the money, Russia provides the hardware, the Chinese have an intent on using both. That is a good admixture.


7 posted on 12/31/2005 7:35:08 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

Sovremenny = Collins bait.


8 posted on 12/31/2005 7:37:09 AM PST by Dundee (They gave up all their tomorrows for our today’s.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo

Looks like a lot of old and new technology crammed into very little space.


9 posted on 12/31/2005 7:38:36 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CaptRon

Yes, it looks like it has an execellent radar cross sestion (RCS).


10 posted on 12/31/2005 7:39:27 AM PST by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
I don't dismiss the danger of these purchases so easily. If you find a way to empty the magazines of a Tico or similar, it then is a sitting target.

The Chinese would not be deliberately wasting their money. This purchase means something.
11 posted on 12/31/2005 7:39:38 AM PST by Loud Mime (Build the Border Wall - Enforce the Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CaptRon

You beat me to it!

Looks like one of Saddam's Soviet T-80s, that also can float (for a while anyway).


12 posted on 12/31/2005 7:39:38 AM PST by Agent Smith (Fallujah delenda est. (I wish))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Travis McGee
Happy New Year, gents.
13 posted on 12/31/2005 7:41:48 AM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

The Chinese are buying 25 year old Russian ships...equipped with nuclear technology that was given to them during then Clinton years.


14 posted on 12/31/2005 7:44:09 AM PST by NEPAConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Same to you my friend...a Happy and blessed New Year to you and yours!

As regards this article, the ChiComms will be getting a fourth one of these this year too.

15 posted on 12/31/2005 7:45:00 AM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; TigerLikesRooster; Tailgunner Joe; DTogo

ping


16 posted on 12/31/2005 7:47:57 AM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Youngman442002; Wiz
For a COMPLETE run down of the ChiComm nval buildup, go to the following link:


THE RISING SEA DRAGON IN ASIA

17 posted on 12/31/2005 7:48:23 AM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

Thank you for shopping at Wal-Mart.


18 posted on 12/31/2005 7:49:04 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

One Harpoon amidships; game over!


19 posted on 12/31/2005 7:53:24 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEPAConservative

No technology "given to China by Clinton" has much to do with the Sovremmeny. I know people would like to believe the Chinese military would be equipped with nothing but pointed sticks and clubs and rubber dinghies were it not for Clinton, but it's simply not the case.

To be honest the Israelis likely gave more useful technology to the Chinese than Clinton, but people just sort of don't know what to do with that information because it doesn't serve the axes they want to grind.


20 posted on 12/31/2005 7:54:08 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Harpoon?

One Mk 48 more like it. You need at least 4-6 Harpoon for a Sov.


21 posted on 12/31/2005 7:55:08 AM PST by Dundee (They gave up all their tomorrows for our today’s.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Don't be so quick to dismiss them. If one of these destroyers gets within 120 miles of an American ship, they have a better than even chance of ripping it apart with its SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles. With a speed somewhere between mach 2-3 and a warhead that weighs 320 kilograms (about 700 pounds), these waveskimmers will be extremely difficult to shoot down, even with AEGIS.

Yes, this would likely be a suicide mission for the ChiCom destroyer, but they would give up a pretty bloody nose first.

22 posted on 12/31/2005 7:58:13 AM PST by Stonewall Jackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Probably capable of matching the KIdd class rubbish the US is supplying to Taiwan
23 posted on 12/31/2005 8:00:19 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Free Speech is not for everyone, If you don't like it, then don't use it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo

?China Gets Third Sovremenny Destroyer
for the forthcoming Chinese 'Cuban' Fleet for South American Empire?


24 posted on 12/31/2005 8:03:38 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TCats
They'll end up as target practice if and when China decides to assert itself in the Taiwan Straights or in disputed Japanese waters.

I'm worried that we may not fight for Taiwan if China invades.

25 posted on 12/31/2005 8:05:31 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TCats
Like minds! I was just wondering
how far you can see them glow once
they get blown to smithereens!!
26 posted on 12/31/2005 8:13:23 AM PST by rodguy911 (Support Able Danger and Lt.Col Shaffer,Condi Rice/VP in 08--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

True True


27 posted on 12/31/2005 8:14:10 AM PST by NEPAConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NEPAConservative

The Sovremenny is a pig. It is the final design of those 60s Soviet vessels that tried to jam as much ordnance into a frame as possible. Some of these vessels were so unstable that they'd threaten to go over 90 degrees in moderate seas.
On the other hand if the Russans start selling Udaloys then our sub forces have more of a problem. The Udaloy is a Spruance style vessel. Good seakeeping, and excellent ASW suite.


28 posted on 12/31/2005 8:16:38 AM PST by xkaydet65 (Peace, Love, Brotherhood, and Firepower. And the greatest of these is Firepower!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

"These next two are newly built, and improved versions."


29 posted on 12/31/2005 8:17:26 AM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

I suspect that congress would be reluctant to go to war again after Iraq considering the Liberal content.


30 posted on 12/31/2005 8:19:26 AM PST by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
You might be right but, if that happens, it will be Munich/Chamberlain all over again. Would buy a little time but would not prevent the ultimate showdown.
31 posted on 12/31/2005 8:33:01 AM PST by TCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Thi Kidds are far superior to a Sovremenny. The MK26 launcher is more effective than VLS for a sea skimming threat. The sov is the same era, but built to attack U.S. carrier battle groups.


32 posted on 12/31/2005 8:34:19 AM PST by neodad (Rule Number 1: Be Armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dundee

Roger that. A single Harpoon would cause damage but certainly not sink this vessel. Unless you managed some spectacular secondaries and fires.

A Mk48 under the keel would do the trick nicely.

One of the best counters to this ship in the Straits of Taiwan is the Taiwanese diesel-electric boats and other unnamed undersea assets.


33 posted on 12/31/2005 8:38:53 AM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wiz
Meanwhile 3 light years ahead of the Russians/Chinese we have the; DD(X) Demonstrator Specifications: Type: Technology Demonstrator Power Plant: Unknown Prime Contractor: Dakota Creek Industries Length: 133 ft. Beam: Unknown Crew: Unknown The US Navy has revealed an "Advanced Electric Ship Demonstrator" named Sea Jet. The $16 million, 133-foot-long steel vessel was built by Dakota Creek Industries of Anacortes, Washington. It's a one-quarter scale model similar to the Navy's new D-D-X class of destroyers. With angled sides, knife-blade bow and rudderless underside, the Sea Jet will allow the Navy to test hull and bow designs, as well as new technologies in propulsion, fuels, stealth and materials. Tests aboard the Sea Jet will be conducted by scientists from the Navy's Acoustic Research Detachment at Lake Pend Oreille near Bayview, Idaho.
34 posted on 12/31/2005 8:39:37 AM PST by oxcart (Remember Bush lied.......People DYED... THEIR FINGERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion; MNJohnnie
"These next two are newly built, and improved versions."

You shouldn't disturb Johnnie with irrelevant details, Frank.
Afterall, the Chicoms are our "friends"...
they loan us money so we can outsource our industrial technology to them...
nothing to worry about at all...
</sarcasm>

35 posted on 12/31/2005 8:43:58 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: oxcart

Think also of how vessels like this WON'T be crewed. Think armed Global-Hawk or armed Predator on a sea-going basis.

When you don't have to have to have a crew, crew-served weapons or protect a crew, a vessel can pack an incredible punch.

While THIS prototype is visually represented to have a crew ... think UAVs made for surfleet ops.


36 posted on 12/31/2005 8:44:01 AM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neodad

Russia makes pretty decent Military Equipment and needs the money.

China needs all the encouragment we can give it if it is going to attack Tiawan.

We have a bunch of frustrated Naval Officers who have yet to really get into the War on Terrorism.

Russia gets the money,
China gets something decent to fight with.
Our Naval Officers get something worth sinking and a little combat experience

Now that is Just Win Win Win all around in my book.


37 posted on 12/31/2005 8:44:35 AM PST by WLR ("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson
Mind you, we already HAVE Aleigh Burke-class destroyers with substantially-reduced detectability, which means the DDG-51 class destroyers can get close to the Chinese-owned Sovremmeny-class destroyer and seriously damage it with multiple Harpoon attacks.
38 posted on 12/31/2005 8:58:58 AM PST by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
The Chinese are buying 25 year old Russian ships!!!

Well done! How long have you been a red chinese agent?

"These next two are newly built "

39 posted on 12/31/2005 9:15:13 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Funny, they look like the ships that were afloat when I was in the navy twenty years ago.


40 posted on 12/31/2005 9:34:06 AM PST by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
"These next two are newly built "

Oh please. They look like newly built junk to me. Not to mention that we are almost a hundred years ahead of the Chi Coms in naval tactics. If they want to come out and play, let them have at it.They'll get their clocks cleaned. Thats not to say that they don't bear close watching.

41 posted on 12/31/2005 9:42:56 AM PST by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dundee
One Mk 48 more like it. You need at least 4-6 Harpoon for a Sov.

You're probably right; only 215 lbs. of high explosive in the warhead.

42 posted on 12/31/2005 9:46:09 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Desron13

Bear??? sorry I meant bare. Sorry, I cant even imagine what got into me.


43 posted on 12/31/2005 9:46:57 AM PST by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson

I'm glad to see that another person doesn't dismiss the Chinese threat so easily.

A few years ago I talked to a member of congress who was serious about the matter. His looks told me more than his measured words.


44 posted on 12/31/2005 9:49:40 AM PST by Loud Mime (Build the Border Wall - Enforce the Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
"One Mk 48 more like it. You need at least 4-6 Harpoon for a Sov."

You might be right but it only take one to keep them seriously busy just trying to stay alive.

45 posted on 12/31/2005 9:58:33 AM PST by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Desron13

Would you also say an 80 year old Ma Deuce and old old B-52 as piece of junk?


46 posted on 12/31/2005 10:15:33 AM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Desron13

In other words, don't determine by the age of weapon alone.


47 posted on 12/31/2005 10:16:06 AM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88; Loud Mime
Yes, the newer Burke-class ships would be a hard target. But the older members of that class, along with Perry-class frigates and Ticonderoga-class cruisers, to say nothing of the carriers, amphibs, and other support ships that we would be sending into harm's way have a considerably larger radar signature.

In a head-to-head fight against the Chinese fleet, the US Navy would get a bloody nose, but the Chinese would be annihilated. Unfortunately, you also have to consider that any fleet engagement would likely be fought with range of Chinese land-based bombers. I think we could take them, but it would get messy. A Guadalcanal-scale messy.

48 posted on 12/31/2005 10:31:39 AM PST by Stonewall Jackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Desron13
If they want to come out and play, let them have at it.They'll get their clocks cleaned.

Sure you aren't just quoting the majority opinion about the Japanese navy on December 6, 1941?

Have you recently looked at the numbers on the US Navy? There are presently 9 attack submarines on deployment - worldwide. There is presently 1 carrier at sea (Theodore Roosevelt - Persian Gulf). There are plans to shrink the carrier force by at least one ship. Total potentially deployable force - 281 and shrinking.

49 posted on 12/31/2005 10:37:27 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dundee
Sovremenny = Collins bait.

Have they fixed the Collins boats so that they can safely dive below 50 feet?

50 posted on 12/31/2005 11:12:50 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson