052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I have a question, why is the wall at base of the CIWS by the forward VLS rusty red like the rest of the superstructure, but the wall of the back superstructure of the aft VLS is in a different colour and there is a white stripline. Is it made of different material or does it have special coating?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

hmmwv said:

Well, just take a look at this pic of the Tico, they have similar beam but that 64 cell MK41 is only a little larger than the 32 cell VLS on the 052D, so I do believe the cells are large, and as the GJB indicated it will quad pack missiles. Which missile is another questions, not anything in HQ16's class that's for sure, a sino-ESSM derived from PL12 is the most likely option. The range will have to be greater than 15km otherwise they might as well just put a few 24 round HQ10 launchers around the ship.

Click to expand...

Oh I do not think the 64 cell Mk 41 is only slightly bigger than the 32 cell VLS on 052D.

It's not really fair to judge using the 052D's bow VLS compared with tico's bow VLS because 052D's VLS is not positioned in an area of its actual maximum beam whereas both of ticos bow and aft VLS are.
It would be fairer to compare the positioning of 052D's aft VLS, which, not only is it emplaced in an area of maximum beam, it is also placed longitudinally like the Mk41's aboard tico. In that regard, we can see that 052D does have maybe two meters of clearance either side of the VLS. Factoring in that 052C/D is some 0.3m less wide than tico, makes me think the new chinese VLS is not that much bigger than Mk 41.

Another way of roughly comparing is see how big the 130mm gun is in relation to the 32 cell VLS and the 127mm gun aboard ticos are with 64 cell VLS (not as accurate obviously, it assumes the PJ38 and mk 45 are similar in size, but assuming they were...)

I'd argue that the sino VLS is only slightly larger.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

since pl12 is almost four meters long, even without any hypothetical booster that would turn it into an almost five meter missile - it would surely have to go into the seven meter long containers. (plus it would need folding fins for quad packing) Which is why i believe we won't see it anytime soon. Better candidate would be the new mystery pl-10, assuming it is similar to asraam, which it might be. British used the asraam as a starting point for their sea ceptor missile, and in theory so could the chinese. Put a smaller, newer version of pl-12's seeker into it and so on. And its size, length, weight and everything would fit just nicely into the smallest container. Interstingly enough, sea ceptor is also going to be cold launched from a quad packed container. If chinese go the same route, i believe they could pull off not even having to fold the control surfaces. four such missiles could easely fit into a 850mm wide container for cold launch.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

dingyibvs said:

Yeah seriously, do they think all these professional engineers are morons or something?

Click to expand...

I like the way they gradually leaked the photos as if to bait some fanboys.
Seeing some reduced to such 'astute' observations as 'the cells are too close to the wall' is priceless.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

antiterror13 said:

you are so rude and no respect to others. What's wrong with you ?. I enjoy reading your analysis but I don't like your attitude

Click to expand...

Mysterre is a troll. Just read his posts.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

lcloo said:

Take it this way, the rear wall is acting as heat shield instead of ordinary steel compartment wall. Just coated it with some heat shielding material isn't a technological challenge.

Click to expand...

Of course!

I was just joking around

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

antiterror13 said:

you are so rude and no respect to others. What's wrong with you ?. I enjoy reading your analysis but I don't like your attitude

Click to expand...

Maybe you should read schumacher's initial and followup trolling flamebait posts to me and rethink your statement. Clearly your biases are showing.

Schumacher said:

I like the way they gradually leaked the photos as if to bait some fanboys.
Seeing some reduced to such 'astute' observations as 'the cells are too close to the wall' is priceless.

Click to expand...

I like how you are unable to respond rationally to my response to you. Troll away, troll.

Totoro said:

since pl12 is almost four meters long, even without any hypothetical booster that would turn it into an almost five meter missile - it would surely have to go into the seven meter long containers. (plus it would need folding fins for quad packing) Which is why i believe we won't see it anytime soon. Better candidate would be the new mystery pl-10, assuming it is similar to asraam, which it might be. British used the asraam as a starting point for their sea ceptor missile, and in theory so could the chinese. Put a smaller, newer version of pl-12's seeker into it and so on. And its size, length, weight and everything would fit just nicely into the smallest container. Interstingly enough, sea ceptor is also going to be cold launched from a quad packed container. If chinese go the same route, i believe they could pull off not even having to fold the control surfaces. four such missiles could easely fit into a 850mm wide container for cold launch.

Click to expand...

The PL-10 is smaller but I think the PL-12 would barely be able to fit in a quad-pack using corner vents, assuming its fins were foldable. They could even eliminate the front fins and change them into strakes for a more compact fit like they did with the ESSM. The range of the PL-10 will also be less and it would probably be more expensive to modify the SD-10 to adapt it to a smaller missile than to simplify modify the PL-12.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre: You should stop personal attacks on other members, that includes name calling and implied name calling. If you think others are trolling you, then ignore it and report it. Trolling them back is not the right course of action!

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

I would be a little dissappointed if the next large surface combatant, 055 or whatever it is called, does not feature 100+ VLS cells and displace over 10k t.

Although that does depend on how many 052D and the follow on class they intend to produce, and whether the larger vessel will be acting in the "cruiser" role.

Click to expand...

I think a block of 6x8 CCL cells will take up as much or more volume as a block of 8x8 Mk 41 cells. A future destroyer with enough room in the B position will be able to fit a 6x8 block of CCL cells. Based on the rear VLS block photo of the 052D, it looks to me like the beam of the 052C/D is already wide enough, at least at the thickest part of the ship, to accommodate a block that is 3 modules wide (stacked lengthwise) rather than 2. Two such blocks would make for 96 CCL cells total, not a bad number at all for a destroyer considering they are larger than hot launch VLS cells.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

pl-12 could fit quad packed, for sure. In the medium sized container. Not in the smallest one, if it is true it is just 3,3 meters long. That leaves less than 3,3 meters for the missile itself, should be around 3,1 meters, if similar to sylver a35. Using the medium container, the 7 meter one, the length of pl-12 would not be a problem whatsoever. Width of a quad pack wouldn't be a problem neither, directly. Indirectly, though, if one chose to use a booster as well, since larger mass requires more rocket power which in turn requires more exhaust room - there just might be a problem. With folded fins we might be looking at between 0,5 by 0,5 and 0,6 by 0,6 meter quad pack. That may or may not be enough room for exhaust of one such booster lifting off. But even if that is not enough, thankfully the seven meter container is long enough so it can have a dedicated cold launch mechanism underneath the quad-packed cells. That way, without the need for exhaust area, the missiles might even be able to be squeezed without folded fins, with just a little bit of redesign. (similar to amraam c when compared to amraam a/b)