052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

So, it appears like two 32 cell hot launch missiles on this new baby for a total of 64 hot launch cells.

That's an improvement right there if the missiles are as capable, and particularly if it ultimately allows the PLAN to launch various types of missiles/weapons from those tubes, ie. the normal AAW (and maybe some quad pack short range missiles too), but also ASMs, SLCMs, VLASW, etc.

Click to expand...

Yep, over on CDF hmmvw posted a military standard of the new universal VLS. It's CCL, in 8 cell modules and comes in 3.3m, 7m and 9m deep variants. Each cell width/diameter is 0.85m. And at the time (2007), the VLS was meant to be capable of firing SAMs, LACMs, AShMs, ASW and both hot and cold launched missiles as well as quad packing smaller SAMs. (for reference, Mk-57 has a cell depth of 7.19m, cell width/diameter of 0.711 m -- so this new VLS is actually even larger than the Mk-57)

Of course it'll take a few weeks or so before we know how many VLS cells 052D actually have, but all indications are it is at least equipped with a new VLS which in all likelihood is this new universal CCL VLS.
The presence of a new universal VLS will make our assessments of 052D and any other ships equipped with this system much more difficult

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Yep, over on CDF hmmvw posted a military standard of the new universal VLS. It's CCL, in 8 cell modules and comes in 3.3m, 7m and 9m deep variants. Each cell width/diameter is 0.85m. And at the time (2007), the VLS was meant to be capable of firing SAMs, LACMs, AShMs, ASW and both hot and cold launched missiles as well as quad packing smaller SAMs. (for reference, Mk-57 has a cell depth of 7.19m, cell width/diameter of 0.711 m -- so this new VLS is actually even larger than the Mk-57)

Of course it'll take a few weeks or so before we know how many VLS cells 052D actually have, but all indications are it is at least equipped with a new VLS which in all likelihood is this new universal CCL VLS.
The presence of a new universal VLS will make our assessments of 052D and any other ships equipped with this system much more difficult

Click to expand...

But much more exciting! With so many new systems bunched into this variant (if everything so far proves true) I'd say this variant constitute a qualitative leap for PLAN on the same magnitude 052c was in its time.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

that document about new vls is a bit weird though. why standardize width to 850mm? that seems terribly wasteful, as not even hq9 requires so much width, and hq9 is pretty much the fattest missile they will be carrying anyway. I don't know precise measurement of hq9 container, but i did find that sealed s300 container is 0.76 meters by 7 meters. When looking at hatches on 052c, i get numbers ranging from 71 to 75cm in width. long ranged cruise missiles can also quite easely be fit into any space that hq9 can be fit in.

so why maintain 850mm of width? If indeed the new VLS is that large then its going to be mighty hard to fit 64 such cells on this new ship, perhaps even impossible. Also, 9 meters seems too much even if it is total length of the module and not just length of a cell. On the other hand, using the same measuring standard, if nine meters is length overall then the smallest variant, 3,3 meters long, is also total length. Which means cell length is perhaps 3 meters if not less. That is barely enough for Tor/Klinok sized missiles but frankly - that would be a bad decision for antimissileprotection. We have the likes of sea sparrow, essm, aster30, CAMM, VL Mica and so on - all missiles for that purpose and all missiles of at least 20 km in range, some doubling that.

12-15 km of range Tor missiles would give overlaps too much with hq10 and leaves too much leeway for the attacker. why not engage its missiles right after they cross the horizon, at around 25 or so km away from the ship?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Totoro said:

that document about new vls is a bit weird though. why standardize width to 850mm? that seems terribly wasteful, as not even hq9 requires so much width, and hq9 is pretty much the fattest missile they will be carrying anyway. I don't know precise measurement of hq9 container, but i did find that sealed s300 container is 0.76 meters by 7 meters. When looking at hatches on 052c, i get numbers ranging from 71 to 75cm in width. long ranged cruise missiles can also quite easely be fit into any space that hq9 can be fit in.

so why maintain 850mm of width? If indeed the new VLS is that large then its going to be mighty hard to fit 64 such cells on this new ship, perhaps even impossible. Also, 9 meters seems too much even if it is total length of the module and not just length of a cell. On the other hand, using the same measuring standard, if nine meters is length overall then the smallest variant, 3,3 meters long, is also total length. Which means cell length is perhaps 3 meters if not less. That is barely enough for Tor/Klinok sized missiles but frankly - that would be a bad decision for antimissileprotection. We have the likes of sea sparrow, essm, aster30, CAMM, VL Mica and so on - all missiles for that purpose and all missiles of at least 20 km in range, some doubling that.

12-15 km of range Tor missiles would give overlaps too much with hq10 and leaves too much leeway for the attacker. why not engage its missiles right after they cross the horizon, at around 25 or so km away from the ship?

Click to expand...

CCL seems to be a bad idea IMO. It represents a massive waste of space, especially if the estimate of 0.85m/cell is correct. Also, comparing it to a Mark 57 is entirely misleading because pretty much all of a Mark 57's container is used for missile loading whereas a CCL by necessity needs to make some compromises for venting. This is the difference between sharing a common venting system and incorporating a complete venting system for each and every missile. If CCL is the new PLAN standard, it is an utter disappointment to me, and I sincerely hope this is wrong. TBH its selection would betray a continued distrust of missile manufacturing reliability on the part of the PLAN.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

The AESA radars on 052D look huge, at least 2x the area of on 052C. Wondering whether it would need more power to operate those or even less due to much more advanced technology (imagine computer in 2001 and now )

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

CCL seems to be a bad idea IMO. It represents a massive waste of space, especially if the estimate of 0.85m/cell is correct. Also, comparing it to a Mark 57 is entirely misleading because pretty much all of a Mark 57's container is used for missile loading whereas a CCL by necessity needs to make some compromises for venting. This is the difference between sharing a common venting system and incorporating a complete venting system for each and every missile. If CCL is the new PLAN standard, it is an utter disappointment to me, and I sincerely hope this is wrong. TBH its selection would betray a continued distrust of missile manufacturing reliability on the part of the PLAN.

Click to expand...

It's a hard requirement to have independent exhaust because the system will be able to mix cold and hot launch cells, yes CCL is not as compact as a traditional cell but the overall module size isn't that much bigger because the removal of a centralized exhaust system.

I'm puzzled by the extremely large canister diameter limit too, the only thing I can think of is that they are planning on quad pack a future variant of HQ16, probably a skinnier one with 30km effective engagement range to fill the gap between HQ10 and HHQ9.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Totoro said:

that document about new vls is a bit weird though. why standardize width to 850mm? that seems terribly wasteful, as not even hq9 requires so much width, and hq9 is pretty much the fattest missile they will be carrying anyway. I don't know precise measurement of hq9 container, but i did find that sealed s300 container is 0.76 meters by 7 meters. When looking at hatches on 052c, i get numbers ranging from 71 to 75cm in width. long ranged cruise missiles can also quite easely be fit into any space that hq9 can be fit in.

so why maintain 850mm of width? If indeed the new VLS is that large then its going to be mighty hard to fit 64 such cells on this new ship, perhaps even impossible. Also, 9 meters seems too much even if it is total length of the module and not just length of a cell. On the other hand, using the same measuring standard, if nine meters is length overall then the smallest variant, 3,3 meters long, is also total length. Which means cell length is perhaps 3 meters if not less. That is barely enough for Tor/Klinok sized missiles but frankly - that would be a bad decision for antimissileprotection. We have the likes of sea sparrow, essm, aster30, CAMM, VL Mica and so on - all missiles for that purpose and all missiles of at least 20 km in range, some doubling that.

12-15 km of range Tor missiles would give overlaps too much with hq10 and leaves too much leeway for the attacker. why not engage its missiles right after they cross the horizon, at around 25 or so km away from the ship?

Click to expand...

Well we should take the numbers as cell length rather than overall, I think (as described in the paper). If we accept that, then 3.3m for cell length is enough for an ESSM or maybe sea ceptor class missile to be quad packed.

The relatively large width could be due to provision for larger missiles in future (everything from stealthy and supersonic/hypersonic cruise missiles to ABM/ASAT)? The way the paper describes this VLS system it looks like they've thought of everything -- keeping it relatively spacious for future growth and backwards compatible so they can fit cold launched HQ-9 as well.

Who knows, maybe they need a larger width and dimensions in general because the chinese weapons are just a little bit larger? (doubtful, I know).

I think they will be able to fit 64 cells aboard 052D, the lack of a central exhaust will compensate the otherwise larger increase in individual tube size I think. Compared to traidtional central exhaust VLS, CCL will have its own benefits I think in that they can fit tube modules of different numbers to various ships instead of being constrained to the 8 cell minimum of Mk-41. (Theoretically I imagine you can fit one, two, three up to eight or more tubes in their own respective modules so long as you have the space for it. That may be very beneficial for small sized surface ships. Imagine a corvette sized ship equipped with two 3.3 CCL tubes, each quad packed with ESSM/Sea ceptor class SAMs).

--

@mysterre, I do not see how adopting a CCL VLS results in PLAN having low confidence of its missile manufacturing reliability?


---

Looking at the patents for CCL, it seems the main benefits are reduction in weight from the absence of a deluge and drain system incase of restrained firings, and that common exhaust VLSs decreases the overall life of the exhaust requiring more maintenance -- CCL allows for longer exhaust life by having each tube have its own exhaust? The latter makes sense, an eight cell VLS module's central exhaust will be subject to the firings of all eight tubes, if you need to maintain or replace an exhaust you'll need to put the whole 8 cell module out of action. But for CCL, if a single tube needs maintenance you can just put that single tube out of action while the other cells all fire. So for a traditional 8 cell VLS you have a single "point" of "failure" while for an 8 cell CCL VLS you have 8 points (correct me if my logic is incorrect).
I do not quite understand the drain-deluge, restrained firing part.

And the use of a CCL like hmmvw said, is necessary to allow for cold launched missiles to be used as well.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer



mk57 four-cell module is pretty large, though. Certainly not the best way to maximize deck space if one wants to cram as many such modules in a large, central VLS bay. But mk57 was designed for other purposes anyway.

As for the chinese VLS document - perhaps it is something that has nothing/little to do with the VLS installed on 052d. In any case, we should be able to resolve that mystery within days/weeks, i hope.

If the only reason to have 850mm wide cell is to quad pack hq16 class missile - then that is silly. Missiles of such class would be too expensive to be carried on ship in such numbers. quad packing smaller missiles purely for antimissile defense - that makes sense.

Why not have different widths then? 700mm width for pretty much everything there is and 850mm for quadpacking (perhaps pl12 without folding fins) and future proofing for some new huge missile.

But here is another possibility: if the CCL thing is true and every cell has its exhaust - is that 850mm includes the exhaust. So pretty much everything (save for some interface requirements) is included in that 850mm. Overall width of a hypothetical square 4-cell module thus may be a bit more, but shouldn't be much more, certainly not over 2 by 2 meters, probably less.

Now imagine this: larger missiles which would require larger exhaust, like hq9 or perhaps even some large cruise missile with booster - are actually cold launched. Thus they dont even use the exhaust. Smaller missiles like hq16 or rocket assisted torpedos are hot launched but the relatively small exhaust is enough for them, as well as for quadpacked small antimissile missiles.

and that could actually explain the 9 meter long version. such huge length could be required for the hq9/lacm that are long themselves and on top of that they need the gas machinery beneath for powering the cold launch. 7 meter long version could be for hq16 (even with a booster), antiship missiles and such - which dont need the extra machinery for cold launch.

That being said - using separate exhaust for each cell is still more wasteful than using common exhaust, but in theory it doesnt have to be a huge system, it could certainly be small enough to fit 64 such cells in 7.5*11 meter vls bay footprint of 052d.

I just dont know if 052d can handle 9 meter long containers. How long are Fort/Rif modules?

edit: if we are certain 3.3, 7 and 9 meters are cell lengths, that that would suggest the 9 meter one is purely for future proofing as to date there isnt a missile nearly that long in use in western navies. only use of such size i can think of is hypothetical chinese intension to make a brahmos class missile of its own.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Totoro said:

and that could actually explain the 9 meter long version. such huge length could be required for the hq9/lacm that are long themselves and on top of that they need the gas machinery beneath for powering the cold launch. 7 meter long version could be for hq16 (even with a booster), antiship missiles and such - which dont need the extra machinery for cold launch.

That being said - using separate exhaust for each cell is still more wasteful than using common exhaust, but in theory it doesnt have to be a huge system, it could certainly be small enough to fit 64 such cells in 7.5*11 meter vls bay footprint of 052d.

I just dont know if 052d can handle 9 meter long containers. How long are Fort/Rif modules?

Click to expand...

If the place where they used to put the anti-ship launchers is changed to VLS, it might be deep enough for 9m. While the front VLS maybe could be the 7m variant?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

They will have lined up 10 x DDGs of the class Type 052D, now JN is going to do the number on the Type 052D, they are going to hit the launches fast and hard, I bet they will get them sailing much faster than the current 4 x Type 052C because they have streamline the production

Click to expand...

Hi Asif. With all the speculations of 052D, what do you think this baby compared to British Type 45, it seems both will have no conventional layout of AshM (angle). If let's say Type 45 is 100%, how would you rank this 052D. remember it seems the AESA radars on 052D look much bigger than on Type 45, does it tell you a lot ?