052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Hmm the 3.3 cell is indeed confusing. It will be slightly too short to accomodate an ESSM ranged missile but quite a deal larger than what's needed for crotale or barak 1.

We may end up getting something like sea ceptor. Considering ESSM is only some forty centimeters longer than sea ceptor, differences in guidance, warhead, materials and most importantly propulsion could allow a sino quad packed missile have an upper limit range of some 30km.

That wouldn't be too bad, considering the latest update of HQ-16 is that it has a range of 70km max giving it a higher end MR AAW capability, while 30km would be the low end.
The 70km number, is against targets of unknown parameters of course, but absent other specificities with regards to all previous range quotes there is no reason to suspect otherwise at the moment. At the very least, a missile the size of HQ-16 having a range equivalent to the much smaller ESSM was indeed somewhat bewildering so 70km does make somewhat more sense. It certainly has the size for it.


---

with the VLS number and other core systems finally confirmed, I look forward to this ship being added to jeff's aegis ships of the world site

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Totoro said:

i would expect the most common load would be 48 hq9 and 32 short/medium range self defense missiles. then the leftover 8 cells would be filled depending on the campaign requirements. LACMs or AShMs (probably not rocket assisted torpedoes, there are other ships that could deal with that). Good deal of western countries, when operating with the carrier, chose not to carry ashms at all, anyway.

Personally, the most awaited piece of hardware now for me is that new missile which will fit into 3,3 meter long containers. But i have a feeling it may be years until we get a word on that.

Click to expand...

MR SAM's with ranges of 30-50 KM are still considered area defense missiles, since they can protect less armed ships in the convoy. I would venture to guess an ESSM type missile based on PL12 would be the most likely (Sky Dragon was the name mentioned?) The lack of illuminators on this ship suggests this MR missile must be active homing.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

So that's 64 cells in total, once we can see there's no external racks for AShMs then it's confirmed that all missiles will be stored and launched via VLS. Using the now-familiar 48+8 loadout there're 8 vacant cells available for LACM or ASROC, or simply boaster the SAM firepower with 8 more HQ-9.

Though of course such loadout is still short of what the Kongo class or Atago class, but in terms of mission profiles it's a large leap for PLAN.

Now if they could just introduce a bigger hull in the new class of destroyer.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

like i've shown in one of the previous posts, using dimensions of sylver modules - 3,3 meter long container with exhaust chamber at the bottom should allow for 3,1 meter long missiles. That is, coincidentally, length of VL mica and also future sea ceptor. While sea ceptor is credited with 25 km range, VL Mica is usually cited to have 20 km range. (MBDA's site actually says over 20 km for large planes, 20 km for helicopters, 15-20 for fighters, 15 km for subsonic missiles and 10 km for supersonic missiles.)

That of course assumes incoming missiles or aircraft manouver a lot. One could also fire several antimissile rounds covering one area, so at least some of them would have to manouver less when intercepting and thus reach bigger distances. Still, we are obviously not talking about ESSM class range/endurange performance which could probably intercept any sort of target out to the horizon. Even in the best case scenario, against a wildly manouvering target, i don't expect even Sea Ceptor (or future chinese missile) to do over 20 km.

And like I mentioned on CDF, i don't believe 052d will ever carry hq16 in its current form, without a new, active, seeker. Actually, even if such a variant is developed, and there is the small missile available for quad packing - there is little sense to put hq16 in the mix as well. only in case there is no small missile developed/ready, i could imagine some active seeking hq16 variant be a part of 052d's armament.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

MwRYum said:

So that's 64 cells in total, once we can see there's no external racks for AShMs then it's confirmed that all missiles will be stored and launched via VLS. Using the now-familiar 48+8 loadout there're 8 vacant cells available for LACM or ASROC, or simply boaster the SAM firepower with 8 more HQ-9.

Though of course such loadout is still short of what the Kongo class or Atago class, but in terms of mission profiles it's a large leap for PLAN.

Now if they could just introduce a bigger hull in the new class of destroyer.

Click to expand...

Eyeballing the aft VLS placed longitudinally, and considering 052C (and thus D) has a similar if, slightly smaller beam than ticos, and eyeing ticos as well, I'd say the new VLS is not that much bigger than Mk 41.

Certainly it won't be out of chinese shipyard's ability to build a wider, larger hull ala burke or sejong to allow accommodation of 100+ VLS cells (I imagine 128 with 2x 64 cell complexes, placed longitudinally like ticos aft and forward) along with more comprehensive C&C facilities and the always needed space for future growth. Such a ship will be a while off yet and 052D will remain one of more heavily armed PAR equipped ships in service around the world and will suit the PLAN's plans (hahaha) for this coming decade and into early 2020s very well, but I do look forward to what the next large surface combatnt they produce will look like.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Great to see that there is a rear VLS and even better to see that it packs a maximum possible 32 cells. In light of this, I strongly suspect the hull has been stretched compared to the 052C.

Wrt quad packing, something to consider is the fact that these VLS cells are so much 'fatter' than western VLS, even if take into account the extra space needed to individual venting for the cells, so long as they take a reasonable approach like the one Bltizo suggested, there is every chance the sino-ESSM will have a fair bit more girth than the ESSM or VL Mica/Sea Ceptor. As such, it might well be able to achieve ESSM like ranges even with a shorter body.

Considering that the Chinese had a clean slate with this new VLS, the well documented range and dimensions of ESSM and China's propensity to try to match if not emulate the US, it would be a very unusual decision to limit the range of any quad packed sino-ESSM to well below that of the ESSM by setting too small a limit for the smallest depth for the cells.

If you think about it, the ESSM is based off of the Sparrow missile, China's PL11 is itself a direct descendent of the Sparrow missile having been based on the Italian version of the Sparrow, the easier option would have been to just pretty much follow the exact same path as the ESSM and develop a quad packed SAM from the PL11 to achieve very similar performance. The fact that they deviated from this easy option would suggest that they have something else in mind, and it would be hard to imagine that this something else would be so markedly inferior (in range at least) to the ESSM.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

AssassinsMace said:

This close? I hope whoever took this shot has more than just this.

Click to expand...

Of course they did. You should remember these.

AssassinsMace said:

I guess it's saying there's another 32 cell VLS in there.

Click to expand...

It is pretty clear that these 'new' pictures are just unedited versions of the originals posted before, that means there should be a HQ shot of the rear.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Ok so Type 052D had 32 VLS forward and 32 VLS aft so that's 64

New phased array radar panels

A new 130mm gun

More stealth features to reduce heat signature

But have a question, could they not have stuck to the 48 VLS forward and put in 32 VLS in the back to make 80 missiles? Or is that just not possible Because now no need for the YJ-62 launchers could that space alone hold a 32 VLS?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:

Ok so Type 052D had 32 VLS forward and 32 VLS aft so that's 64

New phased array radar panels

A new 130mm gun

More stealth features to reduce heat signature

But have a question, could they not have stuck to the 48 VLS forward and put in 32 VLS in the back to make 80 missiles? Or is that just not possible Because now no need for the YJ-62 launchers could that space alone hold a 32 VLS?

Click to expand...

Just look at the picture, where would they put the extra 16 VLS cells at the front? The only way so many cells will fit in the bow is if you took out the main gun.

I also don't understand what you are saying, the rear VLS already takes up the space the YJ62s took up on the 052C.

At 64 cells (and significantly bigger than western standard cells), the 052D is already punching way above it's weight in terms of armaments.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

the front vls is certianly not using the entire area that the front vls on 052c was using. it leaves some 2,5-3 meters in length and 2-2,5 meters in width unoccupied. (accounting for slanted launch of hq9, actual below deck width remaining is probably closer to 1,5 meters) Sadly, with the new vls 8-cell modules being so huge that they are, there simply isnt room to fit more.

In theory, it might have been possible to fit one more module oriented the other way around, but i know no such practice on any ship, plus it would be a tight squeeze.

also, and this seems like a much better solution and is in my opinion a big opportunity wasted, they should've made and used 4 cell modules. That way one could've fit 40 cells in the front easely.

Still, this is certainly an improvement over 052c, so all discussions are really not so important. Now it remains to be seen when the proper platform for this new VLS is going to come out. This VLS on 052d is a tight fit, almost as if it was really designed for some other, bigger ship. And I am sure we will see such a bigger combatant in the next 5 to 10 years.