052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Hyperwarp said:

I doubt the 052D VLS can quad pack HQ-16 let alone HQ-9. Maybe it'll be a PL-12 or the new PL-ASR (PL-10) variant?

For the Mk.41 it is the RIM-162 ESSM that can be quad packed :

Sylver VLS can only Quad-pack the Crotale NG (VT-1) :

PS: the LM ExLS systems -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone suggested HQ-16 as it is can be quadpacked, and certainly not HQ-9.

All suggestion of quad packing is in relation to the MIL STD of the new VLS saying it should be able to quad pack missiles. Most people think it would be some missile we have not seen yet.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Woooo babe~





I think this is the ship's bow.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

I think my main point is that based on what (little) we know about this new VLS, there are still a few ways they can make the space work.

Click to expand...

Correct, plus there is nothing says the quad packed missile has to be hot launched, Tor-M1 is a good example of a compact cold launched missile.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

no_name said:

Woooo babe~

I think this is the ship's bow.

Click to expand...

Yeah, looking at those DDG 171 pics I took I draw the same conclusion, as the hatch lead inside the main superstructure is at the same place.

Also, I reckon this module is at least longer - not sure if wider - than the HQ-9 module; from a pure numerical standpoint the front modules holds 4 missiles less than the 052C design, but it remains to be seen how the aft VLS modules would make up for it, if not bump up the total payload.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

If the aft module holds 16 then it is less than the type 052c once you factor in the same number of anti-ship/land attack missiles (8). If 32 it would be a bit more, not considering quad packing possibilities.

I don't think the back section is long enough to fit 32 VLS like shown in front. And it seems that it may be too wide to fit orthogonally to the layout in front too. Maybe they will have 3 2*4 modules side by side. Then it will have the same launch points as the current 052c's air and ship munitions combined.

IF the 052d is not enlarged compared to 052c I think it is still reasonable that they carried the same amount of armament, at least there has been some advancements.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

The whole point of the new VLS is not about adding more cells, it is about adding flexibility and enhanced multi-lay air defense capabilities.

Even if there are no aft VLS cells, an 052D with 32 CCL cells would still be a more capable and useful warship than the 052C with it's 48 cold launch revolvers. But if all one cares about is purely the number of cells/missiles that can be carried, we should also consider that there is a good chance that the 052D will have a FL3000 launcher with reloads on top of the hanger. That's several dozen more missiles right there.

In that case, an 052C might carry more HQ9s, but it will need an 054A to tag along to help provide it with a medium ranged SAM cover, whereas a single 052D would be able to carry HQ9s, HQ16s, a future ESSM-class quad packed weapon (probably based on the PL11 or PL12) and FL3000 missiles. If we consider quad packing and also count the FL3000s, the 052D will have a lot more missiles than the 052C even if it only has 32 cells, what more, those missiles would be able to provide overlapping cover for the ship from 100+miles out right down to one mile, where the '730 would take over.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that the 052D would be able to fit things like cruise missiles and ASROC rounds into it's VLS to add capabilities that the 052C outright lacks.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

The 052D even as a 'multirole' destroyer will have long range air defense as its primary mission. Every other mission, including land attack, strike and ASW is secondary. While a CCL-equipped 052D could potentially fire (quad-packed) MR SAM's, as far as we know the 054A cannot fire LR SAM's, leaving the 052C/D as the only platform capable of long range air defense. In that respect 32 cells is wholly inadequate IMO, especially if you have to share these cells with VLA, LACM's, ASCM's or MR SAM's. Even 48 cells is bottom of the barrel of world standards.

Just counting VLS cells:
Type 45 destroyer: 48
Udaloy destroyer: 64
Slava cruiser: 64
Atago destroyer: 96
Kongo destroyer: 96
AB destroyer: 96
Sejong destroyer: 128
Tico cruiser: 128
Kirov cruiser: 208

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

The 052D even as a 'multirole' destroyer will have long range air defense as its primary mission. Every other mission, including land attack, strike and ASW is secondary. While a CCL-equipped 052D could potentially fire (quad-packed) MR SAM's, as far as we know the 054A cannot fire LR SAM's, leaving the 052C/D as the only platform capable of long range air defense. In that respect 32 cells is wholly inadequate IMO, especially if you have to share these cells with VLA, LACM's, ASCM's or MR SAM's. Even 48 cells is bottom of the barrel of world standards.

Just counting VLS cells:
Type 45 destroyer: 48
Udaloy destroyer: 64
Slava cruiser: 64
Atago destroyer: 96
Kongo destroyer: 96
AB destroyer: 96
Sejong destroyer: 128
Tico cruiser: 128
Kirov cruiser: 208

Click to expand...

Well we should judge by weight class in truth, and 48 LR AAW missiles for 052C for a 7500 ton ship is respectable.

All the other ships listed apart from daring are 9000 tons and over.

Of course, 32 cells for 052D, if it has to share its payload with AAW, LACM, VLA, is less than optimal, but if they can quad pack an ESSM ranged weapon it may work out as a LR and MR AAW asset instead of purely LR. Instead, the 052Cs in the battlegroup will act as primary LR AAW ship. In fact, with extensive CeC, it won't really matter which ship is carrying which missile as much if they can share the same data.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Well we should judge by weight class in truth, and 48 LR AAW missiles for 052C for a 7500 ton ship is respectable.

All the other ships listed apart from daring are 9000 tons and over.

Of course, 32 cells for 052D, if it has to share its payload with AAW, LACM, VLA, is less than optimal, but if they can quad pack an ESSM ranged weapon it may work out as a LR and MR AAW asset instead of purely LR. Instead, the 052Cs in the battlegroup will act as primary LR AAW ship. In fact, with extensive CeC, it won't really matter which ship is carrying which missile as much if they can share the same data.

Click to expand...

IMO that's way too much specialization. Ideally you want ships that can take over other ships' roles if they get destroyed. That's why it is ideal to have the 054A be able to launch at least some LR SAM's. In any case, I seriously doubt that the 052D has less cells than the 052C. If it does, someone needs to be fired.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

The 052D even as a 'multirole' destroyer will have long range air defense as its primary mission. Every other mission, including land attack, strike and ASW is secondary. While a CCL-equipped 052D could potentially fire (quad-packed) MR SAM's, as far as we know the 054A cannot fire LR SAM's, leaving the 052C/D as the only platform capable of long range air defense. In that respect 32 cells is wholly inadequate IMO, especially if you have to share these cells with VLA, LACM's, ASCM's or MR SAM's. Even 48 cells is bottom of the barrel of world standards.

Just counting VLS cells:
Type 45 destroyer: 48
Udaloy destroyer: 64
Slava cruiser: 64
Atago destroyer: 96
Kongo destroyer: 96
AB destroyer: 96
Sejong destroyer: 128
Tico cruiser: 128
Kirov cruiser: 208

Click to expand...

32 cells is just the bow section, you forgot to count the aft VLS cell, let it be 16, 24 or 32. Fot the sake of argument, if the front 32 are loaded with 24 LR, 32 MR in 8x4 quad pack SAM's, leaving the aft cells for AShM, LACM and ASWM. That packing quite a punch for a ship of this size!