052/052B Class Destroyers

Mysterre

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Totoro said:
I agree that 052c doesnt have larger front deck area than Tico. Perhaps it even has slightly smaller deck area, but if so - not by much. But all that is not so important. What i do want to point out is the area of VLS well. It has larger vls well area than Tico uses. I will try to be more clear: 64 cells on Tico occupy less area than 6 revolvers on 052c with hypothetic purely vertical cells would have occupied. (right now the area is even more larger due to slant missiles but even without that extra area, remaining area is noticably larger.) My previous posts gave the more exact measurements in square meters.

We will see the real situation come out in the coming weeks. depending on the actual size of cells and modules, i am speculating that we will see 3 by 4 arrangement in the front for 4-cell modules and a total of 48 cells. Before i argued there could be 64 cells, but that was before i took into account the extra area slant missiles were taking up. When i corrected that i was left with 48. Still, because of possible errors and not known variables, if the cells/modules end up smaller than i tried to deduce from the images, the area of vls well will still be enough for a 64 missile count in either 4 or 8 cell modules. But right now my best guess would be 48.
Click to expand...
The VLS area of the 052C is IMO smaller, not bigger. I did my own calculations years ago and estimated each revolver to have a slightly smaller length and a slightly bigger width than a Mk 41 module, making a 2x3 bank of revolvers (including the reloading arm) somewhat smaller overall than a bank of 2x4 Mk 41 modules. Regardless, I do not believe there is enough room for six 2x4 CCL modules. Also, we have not ever seen any evidence of 1x4 CCL module arrangements on the test ship or the 052D, going just by the fuzzy photos. Four 2x4 modules is my guess for the front, and either two or four 2x4 modules in the back, for a total of 48 to 64 tubes.

However, I do think the front does have enough room for a total of 5x8 = 40 CCL tubes in the front, if in the future the PLAN starts manufacturing 1x4 module arrangements. I do not believe it has enough room for 6x8 = 48 tubes. If I am wrong and there is room, we will certainly see it on this ship. If I am right we will not see it, because having enough room for six modules and not putting six in would be stupid. OTOH based on all the fuzzy images we have seen of the front so far, it looks like only 4 CCL modules in the front in a 4x8 arrangement.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:
As I was saying before, a VLS cell, even a CCL cell, is not independent of its surrounding environment. In reality you will not see single or probably even double celled modules. Maybe not even triple-celled modules. It's absurdly retarded to have a self-sufficient all-up VLS round complete with structural support as well as power and electronics cables running to a single cell. This is far too wasteful in terms of space and expense. They will come in modules of 8 (2x4), maybe modules of 4 (1x4, 2x2) or 6 (1x6, 2x3) at minimum. If the front VLS is comprised of four 2x4 VLS modules, that will be the sign the PLAN intends to manufacture them in minimum sizes of 2x4, at least for the time being. Otherwise they would have fit more.

To be perfectly honest, CCL is not a great solution to anything at all. Being able to cold-launch means what, exactly? Nothing except being able to launch HQ-9; and not only that, but vertically ejecting an HQ-9 which fails to ignite WILL result in that round falling onto the VLS modules, since it will not be launched at an angle like from the revolvers. This is far more dangerous than the arrangement on the 052C. And let's face it, is HQ-9 all that special? 120km range is not all that much these days. And what price are you paying for being able to mix cold launch and hot launch? Larger cell requirements +/- reduced internal volume, as well as different VLS module types for different vessels (ala 054A). Hot launch VLS with a shared venting system is by far the most efficient use of space, does not involve ejecting rounds right on top of the VLS (i.e. if the motor doesn't fire it doesn't get ejected), and if designed properly can withstand fully-restrained full-motor burns, and can also be flooded for fire suppression. It does not surprise me that the USN for example chose to go with the Mark 57 hot launch VLS on its DDX series over CCL's even though the CCL is far more modular than the Mark 57.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't see why a hot launch version of HQ-9 cannot be made, since land-based version of HQ-16 is cold launch. If they don't want to modify HQ-9, they could have added a boost stage. Even if that can't happen, I don't see why a cold launch cell with integrated launch system cannot be fitted into Mk41 type VLS.

One of the goals of VLS is to achieve commonality in design among all warships, thus facilitating logistical support. Yet, this new type of CCL seems to go counter to that. It will be the forth type of VLS that PLAN has in service, nullifying previous VLS development and complicating logistical support.

From the specification, the whole point of this new VLS seems to be maximizing space wastage. The vent for a cell has to be sized to accommodate the exhaust from a missile, so instead of one unit area to place a vent for eight cells, you now need 8x the area. A 4x1 arrangement with a common vent would have been better if they want more flexibility. They also used the term "launch cylinder" instead of "launch box" suggesting the innards of each cell is a cylinder, wasting more space because the diameter must be greater than the combined diameter of a missile and fins. I feel like certain people purposely pushed a bunch of retard requirements to the specification due to private interests.
 
C

ChinaGuy

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Engineer said:
It will be the forth type of VLS that PLAN has in service, nullifying previous VLS development and complicating logistical support.
Click to expand...

Non-optimum systems must be abandoned as soon as possible. This is how you achieve rapid optimisation without being bogged down by the constraints of the old and obsolete systems. Rapid iteration of the VLS shows PLAN is making great progress. To support the obsolete systems, PLAN can always call on the massive man power available to them. But since they have very few ships, they can't really make use of that many people.
 
H

hmmwv

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:
As I was saying before, a VLS cell, even a CCL cell, is not independent of its surrounding environment. In reality you will not see single or probably even double celled modules. Maybe not even triple-celled modules. It's absurdly retarded to have a self-sufficient all-up VLS round complete with structural support as well as power and electronics cables running to a single cell. This is far too wasteful in terms of space and expense. They will come in modules of 8 (2x4), maybe modules of 4 (1x4, 2x2) or 6 (1x6, 2x3) at minimum. If the front VLS is comprised of four 2x4 VLS modules, that will be the sign the PLAN intends to manufacture them in minimum sizes of 2x4, at least for the time being. Otherwise they would have fit more.

To be perfectly honest, CCL is not a great solution to anything at all. Being able to cold-launch means what, exactly? Nothing except being able to launch HQ-9; and not only that, but vertically ejecting an HQ-9 which fails to ignite WILL result in that round falling onto the VLS modules, since it will not be launched at an angle like from the revolvers. This is far more dangerous than the arrangement on the 052C. And let's face it, is HQ-9 all that special? 120km range is not all that much these days. And what price are you paying for being able to mix cold launch and hot launch? Larger cell requirements +/- reduced internal volume, as well as different VLS module types for different vessels (ala 054A). Hot launch VLS with a shared venting system is by far the most efficient use of space, does not involve ejecting rounds right on top of the VLS (i.e. if the motor doesn't fire it doesn't get ejected), and if designed properly can withstand fully-restrained full-motor burns, and can also be flooded for fire suppression. It does not surprise me that the USN for example chose to go with the Mark 57 hot launch VLS on its DDX series over CCL's even though the CCL is far more modular than the Mark 57.
Click to expand...

The standard specified that the module will house 8 cells, so 2x4 will be the smallest unit to be installed on ships. Let me quote it "Launch structure should have 8 compartments, each housing 1 to 4 missile canisters." For some reason PLAN decided that the new system must be able to house both cold and hot launch canisters, maybe they are betting on the new 200km+ HHQ9A, otherwise personally I always prefer the boosted HQ16 solution. The article also said the system is designed for different ships with different weight classes, so I expect to see it on 054B as well.
 
R

RedMercury

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

A good reason to have the standard include 3 m deep cell is to allow them to be mounted in more places, e.g. closer to the edge of the forward group. One can imagine the cells near the centerline of the ship are the longer cells, while the cells near the edges are shorter ones, which solves the space problem previously resolved by slanting the rotary launchers.
 
Mysterre

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

hmmwv said:
The article also said the system is designed for different ships with different weight classes, so I expect to see it on 054B as well.
Click to expand...

Then I hope by the time 054B arrives, some quad-packable missiles are also ready to be deployed, because the front will certainly not fit more than two 2x4 CCL modules. OTOH that would make 64 quad-packed medium ranged SAM's, double the capability of the 054A. Quite respectable for a frigate. Though I would have preferred a long-range capability in addition so that there is some backup for the destroyers in the long range air defense layer. Perhaps the middle of the ship will be deep enough to accommodate 9mm length cells. That would allow 8 cells for long range air defense missiles and/or CY-X VLA, while the 8 outer cells could be shorter and would be devoted to 32 MR missiles.

I also agree with engineer that there is no reason a new version of the HQ-9 could not be hot-launched. It's mainly a matter of software. The way I see it, the only reason to demand this capability is to be able to launch current generation HQ-9's.
 
N

no_name

Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Is it a good idea to have smaller 'unit panel' that can be group'n'linked to form PARs of different sizes, so that smaller ship can also have them installed, or would advantages of using PAR be insignificant below a unit number limit?
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

RedMercury said:
A good reason to have the standard include 3 m deep cell is to allow them to be mounted in more places, e.g. closer to the edge of the forward group. One can imagine the cells near the centerline of the ship are the longer cells, while the cells near the edges are shorter ones, which solves the space problem previously resolved by slanting the rotary launchers.
Click to expand...

Maybe it would also permit VLS in smaller vessels?
 
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:
Maybe it would also permit VLS in smaller vessels?
Click to expand...

You mean a smaller model that can fit on smaller vessels? The specifications calls for a rig that can handle munition modules that's length from 3.3m to 9m, install on the smaller vessels would not just the problem of different cell arrangement but to the core problem of whether the hull can take them...sure it'd be fine for future boats that can be designed around this specifications, but highly doubt the older - yet still have considerable service life - vessels can take them.

Besides, the meat of this specification is the capability to carry LACM, expanding the mission profiles, so I'm not so sure if it'd worth to retrofit those older vessels with this new VLS, unless for those actually have VLS potential option designed into it in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top