052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

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.

Click to expand...

I posted a pic a few pages back showing possible arrangements of 64 cells, aft and bow.

Besides, like you said a few posts back we have no idea how compact the VLS cells actually are.


The comparison to 051C is not fair, as that ship lacks one of its top dome radars altogether and compromised everything from hangar to AShMs. But so long as 052D can hold the VLs cells of speculated number (which we will know in a few days or weeks time) what exactly does it compromise?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because clearly you know I just posted those numbers from Wikipedia without trying to look at other sources?

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 sea level, 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.

Click to expand...

My CG?

I still do not see a reason for why you think 052C cannot have a beam of <= 17m, you're basically saying it must be wrong because it is slightly greater than or around the beam of ticonderoga's.

The problem with common numbers especially wrt pla, is that they are usually initially substantiated by such analyses or associated news reports, but they're not cited very often, whether on Wikipedia or other sites.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

The common CCL VLS means that the type 052D don't only have to fit anti-air role, but payload can be customized for other mission types. This allows for more flexibility to the PLAN.

Will this mean that they decided not to bother with a hot-launched version of HQ-9, since the new VLS can fit both types?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Here's a pic from FYJ that says is the 052D VLS. Maybe someone with a better eye can tell. I find the brush suspicious since it doesn't look there is any at the shipyard.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

I posted a pic a few pages back showing possible arrangements of 64 cells, aft and bow.

Besides, like you said a few posts back we have no idea how compact the VLS cells actually are.


The comparison to 051C is not fair, as that ship lacks one of its top dome radars altogether and compromised everything from hangar to AShMs. But so long as 052D can hold the VLs cells of speculated number (which we will know in a few days or weeks time) what exactly does it compromise?

Click to expand...

The compromise with the 052D is internal volume. If there is an aft VLS section, it massively displaces volume that was previously used for something else. I'm not willing to say it can't be done, but this is a large sacrifice given how big 32 VLS cells are, especially 32 CCL VLS cells. Another compromise is the loss of the ASCM slant launchers. Another compromise is the tight packing next to ship walls and electronics. I would be more comfortable with 2 2x4 launchers in the back. This would be a more appropriate fit for that area of the ship, and it would mean no less tubes than the 052C, but also no more.

Bltizo said:

Because clearly you know I just posted those numbers from Wikipedia without trying to look at other sources?

Click to expand...

So you have other sources? Okay, guess what my next question is.

Bltizo said:

My CG?

I still do not see a reason for why you think 052C cannot have a beam of <= 17m, you're basically saying it must be wrong because it is slightly greater than or around the beam of ticonderoga's.

Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much that. Besides, going by those horizontal red lines the 052C in that CG is about 20% larger than it should be, even if the beam of the 052C is 17m.

AssassinsMace said:

Here's a pic from FYJ that says is the 052D VLS. Maybe someone with a better eye can tell. I find the brush suspicious since it doesn't look there is any at the shipyard.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's a photo of the test ship.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

The compromise with the 052D is internal volume. If there is an aft VLS section, it massively displaces volume that was previously used for something else. I'm not willing to say it can't be done, but this is a large sacrifice given how big 32 VLS cells are, especially 32 CCL VLS cells. Another compromise is the loss of the ASCM slant launchers. Another compromise is the tight packing next to ship walls and electronics. I would be more comfortable with 2 2x4 launchers in the back. This would be a more appropriate fit for that area of the ship, and it would mean no less tubes than the 052C, but also no more.

Click to expand...

Well we'll see I suppose.

So you have other sources? Okay, guess what my next question is.

Click to expand...

Google is everyone's friend. The likes of global security, naval tech, give similar numbers (16.5m, you can forgive Wikipedia for rounding up,vthough even the bottom list on the page gives 16.5)

Yeah, pretty much that. Besides, going by those horizontal red lines the 052C in that CG is about 20% larger than it should be, even if the beam of the 052C is 17m.

Click to expand...

Okay let's revise the comparison, if 052C were 16.5 m beam instead, would that seem more realistic? A difference of 30 cm between 052c and Tico
Because it sounds like your belief of 052Cs beam is basically it cannot be greater than Ticonderoga.

What CG are you talking about, I've lost track

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

General Characteristics, Ticonderoga Class
Builder: Ingalls Shipbuilding: CG 47-50, CG 52-57, 59, 62, 65-66, 68-69, 71-73
Bath Iron Works: CG 51, 58, 60-61, 63-64, 67, 70.
Date Deployed: 22 January 1983 (USS Ticonderoga)
Unit Cost: About $1 billion each.
Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines; 2 shafts, 80,000 shaft horsepower total.
Length: 567 feet.
Beam: 55 feet.

source U.S.Navy

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

General Characteristics, Ticonderoga Class
Builder: Ingalls Shipbuilding: CG 47-50, CG 52-57, 59, 62, 65-66, 68-69, 71-73
Bath Iron Works: CG 51, 58, 60-61, 63-64, 67, 70.
Date Deployed: 22 January 1983 (USS Ticonderoga)
Unit Cost: About $1 billion each.
Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines; 2 shafts, 80,000 shaft horsepower total.
Length: 567 feet.
Beam: 55 feet.
...
source U.S.Navy

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Well we'll see I suppose.




Google is everyone's friend. The likes of global security, naval tech, give similar numbers (16.5m, you can forgive Wikipedia for rounding up,vthough even the bottom list on the page gives 16.5)

Okay let's revise the comparison, if 052C were 16.5 m beam instead, would that seem more realistic? A difference of 30 cm between 052c and Tico
Because it sounds like your belief of 052Cs beam is basically it cannot be greater than Ticonderoga.

What CG are you talking about, I've lost track

Click to expand...

The CG showing the Tico and the 052C. As I said before, the Spruance hull upon which both the Tico and AB is based, is known for being wide, the AB even more so. PLAN ships are known for being narrow. I'm not saying it's impossible for the 052C to be wider than the Ticoderoga, but I want to see something more than Google searches, which could easily come straight back to us fanboys as being the underlying "primary" source for places like Global Security, especially when it comes to PLAN topics. Even Janes is horrible at being accurate about the PLAN and I personally feel we here have more knowledge of the PLAN than they do.

anticom said:

General Characteristics, Ticonderoga Class
.....
Beam: 55 feet.

source U.S.Navy

Click to expand...

I don't know why you're posting this, let alone twice.....

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Please help me to find the space for the second 32 cell VLS