052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Oh right, well I agree that comparison is clearly not very accurate, different photo angles and everything, it's even worse than comparing two planes using landing gear as a common basis.
As for hard evidence, 052C numbers probably have popped up somewhere before. But for the purposes of discussion we use those numbers.
Oh right, well I agree that comparison is clearly not very accurate, different photo angles and everything, it's even worse than comparing two planes using landing gear as a common basis.
As for hard evidence, 052C numbers probably have popped up somewhere before. But for the purposes of discussion we use those numbers.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I see a round hole at the forward end of the hangar structure. I believe this is where the CIWS will be, probably because it requires deck penetration. This makes me doubly wonder how there can be a VLS just forward of that, given any ascending missile will cook the CIWS with its exhaust. OTOH they moved the rear mast forward, which may suggest an attempt to move stuff away from potential exhaust streams. Cutting some additional deck away in the back and you may have some space to work with:
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Im just a novice although I spent many years in the USMC. My observation is that most who post on this website are haters pretending to care about the growth of the PLAN, but who honestly are only USA lovers. This is crazy the PLAN is going to grow regardless of ur objections. lol good for a mulitpolar world!
Im just a novice although I spent many years in the USMC. My observation is that most who post on this website are haters pretending to care about the growth of the PLAN, but who honestly are only USA lovers. This is crazy the PLAN is going to grow regardless of ur objections. lol good for a mulitpolar world!
plawolf
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I am really quite puzzled with the new design of the 052D. The suggested place for the rear VLS seems odd to say the least. It seems very counter-initiative to put VLS there at the expense of displacing existing internal structures by going deep into the hull and running the risk of launching missiles from between two superstructures when it would have been safer and required far less internal space rearrangement to just raise that section of the hull to the same height as the hanger and use much of the added space for the VLS.
Alternatively, the revised RHIB hangers on either side of the helo hanger would have seemed a perfect place to put two banks of 2x8 VLS cells, with the RHIBs put where the speculated VLS is now. Obviously the chaff launchers would also need to find new homes, but given their small size and limited deck penetration, that should not be that hard.
The only good reason I could think off to justify not extending the superstructure upwards and placing the VLS higher up in the hull might be top weight concerns. That would also explain the apparent removal of the rear VLS from the front of the hanger and the cut down on the superstructure of the hanger. Considering the added size (and likely weight) of the new PARs, it would not be unreasonable for the design to need to cut down top weight to maintain the balance of the 052C.
Something to consider with the rear (and also front) VLS is that firstly, the VLS document discloses that there are three different length VLS', and it is entirely possible that the rear VLS block might be a mixture of 3 meter and 6/9 meter cells to minimise dispution. A 3 meter cell could just take up one deck if they raised the top deck of that section a little. They could keep the shallow cell VLS at the outer positions to allow crew movement through the area under the shallow cells but beside the deep ones, and also to minimise any stability concerns by keeping most of the additional weight centered.
With CCL, VLS placement does not need to be limited to 4 cell blocks. So at the front, they could quite feasibly have a standard 32 cell square with another 2 or 3 collumns of cells in front of that block of 32 running as close to the main gun as possible. That means that for every extra column of 4 cells at the front, the rear VLS can afford to loose 4 cells to maintain the rumoured 64 cell total, and a 24 or 20 VLS cell block at the back would seem a lot more reasonable and believable.
In addition, if there are 36 or 40 strike depth cells in the front, it would be a lot more reasonable to make most or even all of the rear VLS the shallow 3 meter length ones for quad packing a ESSM class SAM and even if they opted for a mix of 3 and 6 meter cells, there shoud also be enough space for passages across that section on every level and take a lot less internal room than if they were all 9 meter deep cells. That makes the whole arrangement a lot more readable in my view. The big questions would be whether the bow section has room for so many cells and also whether they opted to go for such an arrangement if they can.
Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to find out.
I am really quite puzzled with the new design of the 052D. The suggested place for the rear VLS seems odd to say the least. It seems very counter-initiative to put VLS there at the expense of displacing existing internal structures by going deep into the hull and running the risk of launching missiles from between two superstructures when it would have been safer and required far less internal space rearrangement to just raise that section of the hull to the same height as the hanger and use much of the added space for the VLS.
Alternatively, the revised RHIB hangers on either side of the helo hanger would have seemed a perfect place to put two banks of 2x8 VLS cells, with the RHIBs put where the speculated VLS is now. Obviously the chaff launchers would also need to find new homes, but given their small size and limited deck penetration, that should not be that hard.
The only good reason I could think off to justify not extending the superstructure upwards and placing the VLS higher up in the hull might be top weight concerns. That would also explain the apparent removal of the rear VLS from the front of the hanger and the cut down on the superstructure of the hanger. Considering the added size (and likely weight) of the new PARs, it would not be unreasonable for the design to need to cut down top weight to maintain the balance of the 052C.
Something to consider with the rear (and also front) VLS is that firstly, the VLS document discloses that there are three different length VLS', and it is entirely possible that the rear VLS block might be a mixture of 3 meter and 6/9 meter cells to minimise dispution. A 3 meter cell could just take up one deck if they raised the top deck of that section a little. They could keep the shallow cell VLS at the outer positions to allow crew movement through the area under the shallow cells but beside the deep ones, and also to minimise any stability concerns by keeping most of the additional weight centered.
With CCL, VLS placement does not need to be limited to 4 cell blocks. So at the front, they could quite feasibly have a standard 32 cell square with another 2 or 3 collumns of cells in front of that block of 32 running as close to the main gun as possible. That means that for every extra column of 4 cells at the front, the rear VLS can afford to loose 4 cells to maintain the rumoured 64 cell total, and a 24 or 20 VLS cell block at the back would seem a lot more reasonable and believable.
In addition, if there are 36 or 40 strike depth cells in the front, it would be a lot more reasonable to make most or even all of the rear VLS the shallow 3 meter length ones for quad packing a ESSM class SAM and even if they opted for a mix of 3 and 6 meter cells, there shoud also be enough space for passages across that section on every level and take a lot less internal room than if they were all 9 meter deep cells. That makes the whole arrangement a lot more readable in my view. The big questions would be whether the bow section has room for so many cells and also whether they opted to go for such an arrangement if they can.
Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to find out.
Last edited:
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
That is not the vibe I'm getting, at least not 'most' of them. Real Haters won't care about progresses of the PLAN, they will outright talk down anything they regard as inferior instead of trying to learn and make sense of them, not to mention being genuinely interest/excited about new developments.
That is not the vibe I'm getting, at least not 'most' of them. Real Haters won't care about progresses of the PLAN, they will outright talk down anything they regard as inferior instead of trying to learn and make sense of them, not to mention being genuinely interest/excited about new developments.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
This is the most likely reason IMO. Raising the rear VLS section even one deck (to be even with the middle superstructure) would have restored an entire deck below. Raising it another deck (to be even with the top of the hangar section) would have meant penetration of only a single deck into the hull. OTOH, that's possibly up to 32 missiles and their support structures sitting very high on the ship
Roll stability would actually be enhanced by keeping weight as far to the sides as possible.
Even assuming CCL is the new standard, we do not yet know if the PLAN intends on manufacturing VLS modules of different cell sizes and configurations. Each cell is not totally divorced from its surrounding environment; it will definitely still need support structures and electronics/power connections. The least expensive and most space/weight-conserving would be to group the cells into modules and run power and electronics cables to those instead of to each one separately. We'll just have to see what they intend to do.
