052C/052D Class Destroyers

[Inque]

052D does seem a little light on VLS compared to many other modern destroyer classes like Zumwalt (80), Sejong the Great (128 or 88), Maya/Atago/Kongo (96/96/90), etc. However PLA VLS is larger and it's not like 64 is majorly inadequate plus 052D has HHQ-10 which most of those do not (they're retrofitting Burkes with an 11 cell launcher for the US equivalent apparently) and so some of those VLS will probably be quad packed RIM-162s which are essentially baseline on 052D.

PLA VLS can't be that much bigger to make a significant difference in war. Quantity can beat quality.

It could be the case that in a high intensity war having 6 destroyers with 60 VLS is better than 4 destroyers with 90 VLS even though both sets of destroyers have 360 total VLS. It's hard to know but maybe more network nodes and sensors to distribute over a larger area is better as long as those destroyers have at least a reasonable number of VLS.

Yes, more radar and CIWS on more hulls will help even though the overall number of missiles is the same.

Also there's geographical considerations where for USN which more frequently operates far from their home bases might prefer less warships with more VLS each. PLAN might focus their mission closer to home and not be too concerned about deploying to the other side of the Pacific so might prefer more warships with less VLS each.

Reloading VLS is inconvenient, but the PLAN should be able to do it easier since they're close.

 

[antiterror13]

PLA VLS can't be that much bigger to make a significant difference in war. Quantity can beat quality.

Yes, more radar and CIWS on more hulls will help even though the overall number of missiles is the same.

Reloading VLS is inconvenient, but the PLAN should be able to do it easier since they're close.

Chinese UVLS is significantly larger than MK-41 (0.85m diameter vs 0.635m) or 80% larger area/volume wise

Chinese UVLS also capable of launching missiles in a cold launch and hot launch method, while US MK-41 only hot launch

 

[AndrewS]

It's relatively affordable and comes with a decent number of VLS. I'm surprised the PLAN doesn't have an equivalent of the Arleigh Burke, though. They jump straight from 64 with the 052D to 112 with the 055 with no in-between like the AB's 90/96.

Think about how many Type-055 they will build. They're only doing 8 every 5 years.
Then consider if you have an intermediate class of destroyer between the Type-052D and Type-055.
So you'd end up supporting 2 classes of destroyer with small production runs (4? each, every 5 years)

---

From what I can see of different navies, you would need 30 ships in order to justify an entirely new platform.

 

[Andy1974]

Think about how many Type-055 they will build. They're only doing 8 every 5 years.
Then consider if you have an intermediate class of destroyer between the Type-052D and Type-055.
So you'd end up supporting 2 classes of destroyer with small production runs (4? each, every 5 years)

---

From what I can see of different navies, you would need 30 ships in order to justify an entirely new platform.

After all the effort to make the gas turbines I think 30+ new medium sized destroyers is guaranteed over the production run of the 052D replacement.

Personally, I think they will also have 80 UVLS each.

 

[AndrewS]

After all the effort to make the gas turbines I think 30+ new medium sized destroyers is guaranteed over the production run of the 052D replacement.

Personally, I think they will also have 80 UVLS each.

For military equipment, you want everything to be domestically produced anyway.

As for the Type-052D successor, my guess is a minimum of 60 over the course of 25+ years.

 

[lcloo]

I don't expect seeing the successor of type 052D appearing in a dry dock before 2030 because the first credible rumour of a new design, the first rumour of steel cutting etc usually starts around 5 years before the module blocks of the lead ship can be identified via a photo.

So far todate, there is no credible rumour to such event. However netizens's expectation, mainly personal wishes, are rather high.

38 type 052D (all variants) have been identified in various states (commissioned, launched, assembled module blocks etc), 50 ships of the class is not impossible. There might be a slow down in construction towards 2030 if political/military tension are reduced, otherwise we might see more than 50 ships of type 052D class.

 

[AndrewS]

052D does seem a little light on VLS compared to many other modern destroyer classes like Zumwalt (80), Sejong the Great (128 or 88), Maya/Atago/Kongo (96/96/90), etc. However PLA VLS is larger and it's not like 64 is majorly inadequate plus 052D has HHQ-10 which most of those do not (they're retrofitting Burkes with an 11 cell launcher for the US equivalent apparently) and so some of those VLS will probably be quad packed RIM-162s which are essentially baseline on 052D.

It could be the case that in a high intensity war having 6 destroyers with 60 VLS is better than 4 destroyers with 90 VLS even though both sets of destroyers have 360 total VLS. It's hard to know but maybe more network nodes and sensors to distribute over a larger area is better as long as those destroyers have at least a reasonable number of VLS. Also there's geographical considerations where for USN which more frequently operates far from their home bases might prefer less warships with more VLS each. PLAN might focus their mission closer to home and not be too concerned about deploying to the other side of the Pacific so might prefer more warships with less VLS each.

It's better to match the VLS count to the requirements and look at what happened historically:

---

1. The Ticonderoga-class had 4 target illuminators and 128 cells (32 per target illuminator). But I recall writings that said it had too many VLS cells to be used effectively.

2. The follow-on Arleigh Burke class has 3 target illuminators and 96 cells (32 per target illuminator)

3. Lots of old and current Frigate designs have 32 cells

4. Historically, SAMs were semi-active , so there was a practical limit to how many could be guided by a single target illuminator. But these days, I think we can expect at least some active-guided SAMs on the Type-052D and definitely on the Type-055, so there isn't that limitation anymore.

---

If we're just looking at long-range air defence, what role do the Type-055 and Type-052D play?

In both the US Navy and Chinese Navy, we ideally see 2 "cruisers" as close air-defence escorts to an aircraft carrier. Then multiple destroyers on possible threat axes to shoot down incoming aircraft and missiles.

So it's better to have [more destroyers with fewer VLS cells] to cover more directions. The destroyers will be more likely to engage the *few* incoming aircraft and also provide more advance warning of incoming missiles.

A smaller destroyer is also less valuable and more expendable.

---

As for VLS cells used for anti-ship and land-attack within the First Island Chain, I think the preferred option is Chinese land-based missiles which are far cheaper from a total cost perspective than ones launched from a ship or aircraft.

---

Geographically, yes, there is a big difference in the time required to return to port and reload the VLS cells. It'll be like 12 days round-trip from Guam to Hawaii whereas it'll be like 5 days for China to Guam

 

[Heresy]

Given modern trends in naval warship designs, I firmly believe that the successor to the Type-052D isn't some sort of new medium destroyer. The successor to the Type-052D will simply be more Type-055s. Much like in Star Trek, today's high end prestige heavy destroyer/cruiser will be tomorrow's workhouse escort, with a newer, bigger, more capable design taking over the role as the new prestige heavy warship.

Put another way, today's Hi will be tomorrow's Lo, with a navy perpetually inducting new classes of "Hi" ships and repurposing old "Hi" ships as the new "Lo's". Now, you can make an argument that it might make sense to have a new class of disposable frigates that can act as more disposable escorts or patrol lower-intensity combat zones so as to not overly run your capital classes into the ground from overuse, as the USN has with its fleet of Arleigh Burkes. But even so, that still precludes the need for a Type-052E or anything of that nature.

 

[ENTED64]

Given modern trends in naval warship designs, I firmly believe that the successor to the Type-052D isn't some sort of new medium destroyer. The successor to the Type-052D will simply be more Type-055s. Much like in Star Trek, today's high end prestige heavy destroyer/cruiser will be tomorrow's workhouse escort, with a newer, bigger, more capable design taking over the role as the new prestige heavy warship.

Put another way, today's Hi will be tomorrow's Lo, with a navy perpetually inducting new classes of "Hi" ships and repurposing old "Hi" ships as the new "Lo's". Now, you can make an argument that it might make sense to have a new class of disposable frigates that can act as more disposable escorts or patrol lower-intensity combat zones so as to not overly run your capital classes into the ground from overuse, as the USN has with its fleet of Arleigh Burkes. But even so, that still precludes the need for a Type-052E or anything of that nature.

It's hard to predict how technology will develop over the next 5-10 years which is probably when we will see the successor of 052D. However I am personally pretty skeptical that we will see PLAN just ditch the 8000ish ton bracket completely and basically only have 4000ish ton frigates, 12000ish ton destroyers, and some even heavier super destroyer. As stated above there are some advantages to having more destroyers including more distributed sensor platforms, better ASW sensor coverage, each individual destroyer is more expendable, etc.

USN's DDGX program does seem to be headed toward a larger 055 sized or bigger platform. However it isn't finalized yet and we don't really know how things will shake out. USN tried something like this before with Zumwalt being much larger than Burke and look how that turned out. So USN doesn't always make the right moves, sometimes they or US MIC just kinda flops. I wouldn't be too hasty to conclude that in 20 years everybody will be building destroyers much larger than today's destroyers with 055 size being low end.

Besides even if what you say is true and there is no 052E or anything like that, the current 052D that are in production are brand new. These are not old flight 1 Burkes. Barring massive changes in naval technology it's unlikely PLAN will decommission brand new 052D for 20+ years. So these destroyers will be with us for some time regardless of what happens in upcoming designs. The same is true for various recent production destroyers in other navies.

 

[obj 705A]

Given modern trends in naval warship designs, I firmly believe that the successor to the Type-052D isn't some sort of new medium destroyer. The successor to the Type-052D will simply be more Type-055s. Much like in Star Trek, today's high end prestige heavy destroyer/cruiser will be tomorrow's workhouse escort, with a newer, bigger, more capable design taking over the role as the new prestige heavy warship.

IMO a successor to the Type 052D will likely have the same number of VLS as the type 052D. the type 055 is much more expensive than the 052D. so building smaller in addition to larger DDGs will help save money. money which can be used to aquire more SSNs.
not every DDG needs to be a fortress with 100+ VLS. just because the US does it doesn't mean China should do it too.