052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
is there any reason to do so?
sitting high helps sampson have longer radar horizon, but how does it height have to do with its range for higher targets?
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
If i talk about 8 cell module where each lid is a meter by meter (which is huge already) and i talk about 5 by 3.5 meter module - that is certainly taking into account spaces between cells and edge spaces? Otherwise i would have said the module is 4 by 2 meters.
Image above shows comparison of tico and 052c. i am sure there are some minor errors in measurements but roughly the dimensions of fore VLS bay are: 10.7 meters by 7.7 meters for Tico and 12.5 meters by 7.4 meters for 052c. Width for 052c is adjusted for the narrowest part, 3 decks below. width on top is actually 8.4 meters but that is not applicable for 052d's purely vertical cells.
82.4 square meters for tico and 92.5 square meters for 052c. If it was mk41 on 052d, 64 cells would have fit without a problem. Of course, we have larger modules and cells on 052d so the question is - how much larger they are and how compact the 8-cell modules are.
mk41 has cells which are wide 0.64 meters. 8-cell module takes up 3,34 meters by 2,61 meters, with a central exhaust. When looking at it longitudinally, each cell, with supporting structure, takes up length of 0,83 meters. When looked at from the side, due to the exhaust and the lid hinges, each cell takes up 1,3 meters. So, without the exhaust, each cell with supporting structure and hinges actually takes up on average something like 0,83 by 1,1 meters.
Even though the increase shouldn't be linear, let's calculate with such increase. 0.64 to 0.83 is 30% more. If we take the alleged 850mm wide cell, a 30% increase would give 1,1 meter. That is for longitudinal module dimension. For the side view we need to add the hinges, which if we use the ones on mk41, should add something like 0,2 meters. Since there is no separate exhaust, we don't add that.
So the new 8-cell module, with all the structural support, could be something like 2,5 meters by 4,4 meters. That is a huge module, keep in mind. it is 23% bigger in area than mk41 module.
That is still over the limit for a 8 module vls bay, 2 by 4, but is within reach of a 3 by 2 module layout. So i still don't see less than 48 cells in the whole bay. And since my calculations were really worst case scenario, it could be possible that dimensions of the new module are smaller and in that case even 8 modules are possible.
If i talk about 8 cell module where each lid is a meter by meter (which is huge already) and i talk about 5 by 3.5 meter module - that is certainly taking into account spaces between cells and edge spaces? Otherwise i would have said the module is 4 by 2 meters.
Image above shows comparison of tico and 052c. i am sure there are some minor errors in measurements but roughly the dimensions of fore VLS bay are: 10.7 meters by 7.7 meters for Tico and 12.5 meters by 7.4 meters for 052c. Width for 052c is adjusted for the narrowest part, 3 decks below. width on top is actually 8.4 meters but that is not applicable for 052d's purely vertical cells.
82.4 square meters for tico and 92.5 square meters for 052c. If it was mk41 on 052d, 64 cells would have fit without a problem. Of course, we have larger modules and cells on 052d so the question is - how much larger they are and how compact the 8-cell modules are.
mk41 has cells which are wide 0.64 meters. 8-cell module takes up 3,34 meters by 2,61 meters, with a central exhaust. When looking at it longitudinally, each cell, with supporting structure, takes up length of 0,83 meters. When looked at from the side, due to the exhaust and the lid hinges, each cell takes up 1,3 meters. So, without the exhaust, each cell with supporting structure and hinges actually takes up on average something like 0,83 by 1,1 meters.
Even though the increase shouldn't be linear, let's calculate with such increase. 0.64 to 0.83 is 30% more. If we take the alleged 850mm wide cell, a 30% increase would give 1,1 meter. That is for longitudinal module dimension. For the side view we need to add the hinges, which if we use the ones on mk41, should add something like 0,2 meters. Since there is no separate exhaust, we don't add that.
So the new 8-cell module, with all the structural support, could be something like 2,5 meters by 4,4 meters. That is a huge module, keep in mind. it is 23% bigger in area than mk41 module.
That is still over the limit for a 8 module vls bay, 2 by 4, but is within reach of a 3 by 2 module layout. So i still don't see less than 48 cells in the whole bay. And since my calculations were really worst case scenario, it could be possible that dimensions of the new module are smaller and in that case even 8 modules are possible.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
You are right about HHQ9, but the cold launch canister of this new system will be completely self contained per its design requirements, also required is the capability to quad pack missiles in there, so they must have already have a missile in the pipeline, HQ17, for example.
You are right about HHQ9, but the cold launch canister of this new system will be completely self contained per its design requirements, also required is the capability to quad pack missiles in there, so they must have already have a missile in the pipeline, HQ17, for example.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Actually he's right, ticonderogas have beams of 16.8 m, 052C, 17m. It is buries which have significantly greater beam than both.
Actually he's right, ticonderogas have beams of 16.8 m, 052C, 17m. It is buries which have significantly greater beam than both.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
That photo of the Tico/052C vastly overstates the size of the 052C. Alternatively, it vastly understates the size of the Tico. In that photo the 052C has an even wider beam than the Tico! Spruance class hulls are already known for being hugely wide, and PLAN vessels are already known for being narrower than usual, but in this photo the opposite has been portrayed.
Also, look at the height of the decks; the bridge level is a good reference for comparison. Clearly the bridge on the Tico is significantly shorter than the one on the 052C. This is not a legitimate comparison. The 052C here needs to be scaled down, or the Tico up. It is completely out of scale.
BTW, 8.69m L x 6.31m W x 7.67m H are the official dimensions for a 64-cell Mk 41 VLS.
That photo of the Tico/052C vastly overstates the size of the 052C. Alternatively, it vastly understates the size of the Tico. In that photo the 052C has an even wider beam than the Tico! Spruance class hulls are already known for being hugely wide, and PLAN vessels are already known for being narrower than usual, but in this photo the opposite has been portrayed.
Also, look at the height of the decks; the bridge level is a good reference for comparison. Clearly the bridge on the Tico is significantly shorter than the one on the 052C. This is not a legitimate comparison. The 052C here needs to be scaled down, or the Tico up. It is completely out of scale.
BTW, 8.69m L x 6.31m W x 7.67m H are the official dimensions for a 64-cell Mk 41 VLS.
Please do not believe Wikipedia just because it claims something.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Wait under what basis are we saying that this ship is a "stopgap"?
Assuming it is equipped with 64 universal VLS as heavily speculated, how is that considered a small number? Most destroyers in 052Ds weight range only (7k-8k tonnes) only field 48 VLS anyway.
It would be nice if they could dramatically stretch the hull for a Ticonderoga style length/beam ratio which would give the space needed for a larger number of cells, or even an entirely new, wider hull altogether. But let's be honest, with so many aging destroyers to be replaced, an advanced AAW destroyer with multi role VLS (64 cells, no small number) is already more than enough to replace them. You don't start producing 92 or 100+ cell behemoths unless you have a solid number of mid tier ships first.
For that reason, people are expecting a production run of anywhere up to 10 052Ds over the next few years, which I agree with.
I think people are forgetting this is the PLAN, and just how conservative they have been compared to now.
Wait under what basis are we saying that this ship is a "stopgap"?
Assuming it is equipped with 64 universal VLS as heavily speculated, how is that considered a small number? Most destroyers in 052Ds weight range only (7k-8k tonnes) only field 48 VLS anyway.
It would be nice if they could dramatically stretch the hull for a Ticonderoga style length/beam ratio which would give the space needed for a larger number of cells, or even an entirely new, wider hull altogether. But let's be honest, with so many aging destroyers to be replaced, an advanced AAW destroyer with multi role VLS (64 cells, no small number) is already more than enough to replace them. You don't start producing 92 or 100+ cell behemoths unless you have a solid number of mid tier ships first.
For that reason, people are expecting a production run of anywhere up to 10 052Ds over the next few years, which I agree with.
I think people are forgetting this is the PLAN, and just how conservative they have been compared to now.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Well multiple sources claim Ticonderoga is ~16.8 m... And despite all of wikipedia's shortcomings, dimensions are generally close to home... I'm sure there's some decently respectable source which gives similar numbers for 052C on the internet but I can't be bothered looking
But at least I showed ticos are 16.8 m, google them. Any website will give similar numbers. Do you have any reason to believe 052C's beam is significantly less than Ticonderoga (just look at pictures of both, eyeball their beams and widths and see if they correspond with common numbers found on the Internet)?
At the time ticos were built, such beams were common place for major surface combatants of that weight, it's the burkes which changed that.
And no need to sound so condescending as always.
Well multiple sources claim Ticonderoga is ~16.8 m... And despite all of wikipedia's shortcomings, dimensions are generally close to home... I'm sure there's some decently respectable source which gives similar numbers for 052C on the internet but I can't be bothered looking
But at least I showed ticos are 16.8 m, google them. Any website will give similar numbers. Do you have any reason to believe 052C's beam is significantly less than Ticonderoga (just look at pictures of both, eyeball their beams and widths and see if they correspond with common numbers found on the Internet)?
At the time ticos were built, such beams were common place for major surface combatants of that weight, it's the burkes which changed that.
And no need to sound so condescending as always.
Last edited:
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Common numbers for the 052C are MEANINGLESS unless they are backed up by Google Earth or official sources. Even Google Earth will only tell you beam measurements at main deck level rather than at the waterline, which is what we are really after. 17m is wrong for the very fact that it is wider than 16.8m. And that's all there is to it really. Also, your CG depicts a 052C with a beam of 20.4m, going by those red lines, much wider than the 'widely proclaimed' internet 'fact' of 17m.
It is obviously clear that this ship was not designed to house 64 CCL-type VLS cells, and people are wracking their brains trying to find reasonable arrangements of VLS modules given the volume and surface area requirements. Like I said, IMO (from preliminary indications) the CCL is to the 052D like the S-300 is to the 051C: they just weren't meant to be.
I have no beef with Tico measurements, so no need with the straw man stuff. And if me telling you need to not automatically believe Wikipedia is taken as a sign of condescension by you, I don't know what else to say except please grow up.
Common numbers for the 052C are MEANINGLESS unless they are backed up by Google Earth or official sources. Even Google Earth will only tell you beam measurements at main deck level rather than at the waterline, which is what we are really after. 17m is wrong for the very fact that it is wider than 16.8m. And that's all there is to it really. Also, your CG depicts a 052C with a beam of 20.4m, going by those red lines, much wider than the 'widely proclaimed' internet 'fact' of 17m.
Last edited: