052/052B Class Destroyers

IronsightSniper

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

How much does it cost though? That's always the big question. Oh right, about $400,000, unupgraded. Also, a large problem with large warheads is that they can really only deal with 1 target. 90 kg of HE delivered even with pin-point precision on my house is only going to destroy my house and probably severely damage or destroy the very houses next to mines. Thus, if you have a large number of targets that are in closely spaced spaces (a particular house in a neighborhood) whom are next to people you want to avoid killing, smaller warheads are superior to larger warheads.

Here's a video of a Maverick missile (don't know which variant, probably the blast-frag variant which has a 136 kg warhead):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It's a big boom, but it isn't going to destroy the houses next to mine. However, the 11 kg of HE on the LRLAP, would either severely damage or destroy my house, and probably inflict minor damage to the houses next to me. Remember, if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, where my entire neighborhood were insurgents and the enemy, whom had the AGS, knew of that, destroying more houses per shot is better. However, most of the time, they're only going to want to destroy one house in particular, thus, less damage to the houses next to me is favorable, as it would more minimize the civilian casualties.

Here's a video of the GBU-39 or the "Small Diameter Bomb", which carries a warhead of 23 kg, comparable to that of the LRLAP's.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Admittedly the explosions looked bigger than I thought, but it still shows my point.
 
Last edited:

Quickie

Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ok sounds reasonable. however most loading of 8-cell rocket in the picture are done when ships secure to dock or not moving. if the ship is in middile of the ocean or rough sea, whats diffculty to reload those rockets into lunchers, those missiles are large/heavy, and you load 8 at a time. i assume the ship won't be that big, so its going move up/down/tilt left/right alot, especially in bad weather. and judge from 2nd pic the 8-missile are basically lay on the loader, not really good idea when loading something that heavy with war head into the lunchers if the ship is moving alot. and in a rough sea, also its not ideal for sailor on top of deck helping the loading process during bad weather or rough sea.

It's not a big problem as you suggested.

The container/erector can quite easily be secured in position in relation to the launcher. One way is for the erector to go on top of the rails that extend from the base of the launcher. This or some other solution could already be a part of the erector mechanism designed with consideration of rough sea condition.
 
Last edited:

s002wjh

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

your argument don't make much sense.

The loader is mounted on same platform as the launcher.

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------



your argument don't carry water.


Yes those MRLS are very close to ballistic missile systems.

an 2x8 16 cell MK41 VLS system will carry 16 LASMs that will basically deliver the same amount of total HE to a target with the same amount of precision as a full up AGS system. WITH TWICE of the RANGE.
further more, those MK41 VLS slots can carry other types of munition and don't require extra power and maintaining requirements.
further more, the volume of 2x8 cell mk41 vs a AGS system interms of weight and flexibility of distuibuting along the ships hull. is , I believe, very competitiv.e

It is may be that the Marine Corp's requirement for Shore bombardment support stipulates sustained firepower opposed to total fire power, and that's wjy they go to a gun based solution. if that's the case, That's ok, I am not arguming against that.

To assume that Dod killed some program is always right, because DoD is always right, is , IMHO as a aerospace industry insider, supremely foolish.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

400 km is truly standoff. 150 km is not really.
in this day and age of 200 km shore based antishipping missiles.

we already went over this. US can't drag dozen mod ship with MLRS anytime they want goto middle east or other place, and they are not gonna put MLRS onto their DDG either. you can't target fast moving object with MLRS, and it has min range. AGS is versatile because its mount on DDG, take less space. so wherever DDG goes, the gun goes with it, its basically an upgrade to the existing battery on DDG. US is not gonna let a MLRS tag along when patrol other part of world. MLRS ship only function is bombardment, no air defense, no sub hunting, no helo, no anti-ship, if it goes further than taiwan, it will has issues. it need protections.

sometime bigger warhead is not better, depend on situation. you might want precision strike without make a big bang, or if targets are separated. if MLRS ship only purpose fis taiwan, then the money spend building,mod those ships, test, etc etc is almost similar to throw $$$ into trash can. since conflict between china & taiwan as low as it can get right now. china need AGS eventually to upgrade on their existance battery on DDG.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

an 2x8 16 cell MK41 VLS system will carry 16 LASMs that will basically deliver the same amount of total HE to a target with the same amount of precision as a full up AGS system. WITH TWICE of the RANGE.
further more, those MK41 VLS slots can carry other types of munition and don't require extra power and maintaining requirements.

400 km is truly standoff. 150 km is not really.
Those Tomohawk missiles are around a million dollars a pop. So the ammo cost is a huge issue for the type of fire support missions envisioned...and with 16 on the system you describe, you are done until a reload.

The AGS will carry hundreds of shells which allows a lof of flexability over the 16 tomohawks, at a fraction of the cost.

In addition, the 150+km is good for the mission that has been outlined for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and that is fire support for troops landing on hostile shores and then during their initial push inland. After they get that far in and have set up their landing area to safely bring in more and more troops and equipment, they will push forward from there with their own artillery support and air support to their objectives futher inland.

The AGS will allow these new DDGs to provide that level of support. Besides, with 80 PVLS cells, they will be able to carry ample Tomohawks themselves for any long ranget targets of value that warrant them. The Zumwalts will have both.

But, to be sure, the AGS is primarily a fire support weapon for supporting Marines landing and their initial push inland. They will also work in the anti-surface role if necessary...but it is much more likely that air support or longer ranged missiles will be used for those purposes before coming into range of the gun.
 

hmmwv

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ok sounds reasonable. however most loading of 8-cell rocket in the picture are done when ships secure to dock or not moving. if the ship is in middile of the ocean or rough sea, whats diffculty to reload those rockets into lunchers, those missiles are large/heavy, and you load 8 at a time. i assume the ship won't be that big, so its going move up/down/tilt left/right alot, especially in bad weather. and judge from 2nd pic the 8-missile are basically lay on the loader, not really good idea when loading something that heavy with war head into the lunchers if the ship is moving alot. and in a rough sea, also its not ideal for sailor on top of deck helping the loading process during bad weather or rough sea.

Well I don't get why do you think the ship can't reload the rockets at seas, both the launcher and the loader are secured on the same hull so if the ship rolls they roll together. FF516 fire support frigate with its 5 50 tube 122mm MLRs has built in autoloaders and that's on a platform with much worse seaworthiness.

Having said that, I don't think PLAN will ever use major surface combatants for fire support roles, they've got plenty auxiliary and civilian ships they can put MLRs on. But I do believe a future 052 will have some land attack capabilities, in the form of the new 130mm naval gun and VL capable rockets such as the SY400.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

isnt being close to the shore pretty dangerous business cus you will be in range of land based anti-ship missiles? especially if its hostile>
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Extended range/guided munitions can give you more stand off range.

But you're hardly going to send in fire support ships close to coast if you know there are AShM batteries close by. You'll have aircraft, cruise/ballistic missiles or even SOF to neutralize the threat as much as possible before sending in the amphibious assault ships and fire support vessels to grind with what shore based resistance remains.
 

A.Man

Major
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

This Is Hearsay Of The Day:

第3艘济南号是150,第四艘长春号是151,都服役于东海舰队。
第5艘,第6艘也将服役于东海舰队。
东海舰队将最先装备第二批前四艘052C+.

The third ship (052C of Jiangnan) will be named Jinan and No. 150. The fourth ship will be Changchun & No. 151. They are going to be served in the East China Sea Fleet. The 5th and 6th will also be served in the East China Sea Fleet. East China Sea Fleet will be the first equipped with the second batch of four 052C +.
 

Lion

Senior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

This Is Hearsay Of The Day:

第3艘济南号是150,第四艘长春号是151,都服役于东海舰队。
第5艘,第6艘也将服役于东海舰队。
东海舰队将最先装备第二批前四艘052C+.

The third ship (052C of Jiangnan) will be named Jinan and No. 150. The fourth ship will be Changchun & No. 151. They are going to be served in the East China Sea Fleet. The 5th and 6th will also be served in the East China Sea Fleet. East China Sea Fleet will be the first equipped with the second batch of four 052C +.


Anymore 052C chunking out? I think PLAN needs at least another 6 of this before moving on a new design. Unless they are coming out the 052D in few months time.
 

franco-russe

Senior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

If you go back to A. Man’s post # 1032 (p. 69), you will see that he quoted rumours (which I believe to be exact) that PLAN is now building six Type 052C destroyers (150-153, 172-173), to be followed by eight Type 052D (117-118, 154-157, 174-175).

Also thanks to A. Man for the names of 150 and 151 (strange names for ESF destroyers, since Jinan is the capital of Shandong province and Changchun of Jilin province, both in the NSF AOR).
 
Top