052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Totoro said:

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)

Click to expand...

I originally thought it would be fairly easy to fit four PL 12 size in a quad pack also. But looking at the picture of allegedly SD10 based SAM model, the launch tube size look kind of big, much to my surprise. It would take some significant redesign to the misssile such as folding fins to make this idea work, if they are planning such a design. I still like the idea, though.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

PL12 will not fit the 3.3m cell, that's for HQ17 size small SRSAMs. The only SAM version of PL12, the SD10A/PL9C combo based Hunter II mobile SAM system is quoted to be able to engage targets range from 15 to 21000m altitude. So a beefed up PL12 based SAM fit in the medium module will easily achieve more than 20km of range.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, at this point I'd still say that a 8 cell CCL module is not that much bigger than an 8 cell Mk 41, comparing the CCL VLS aboard 052D's aft position, with Mk 41 aboard ticos arranged in a similar way, and comparing the forward CCL VLS with the PJ38 gun and what is probably similarly sized Mk 45 5 inch gun with Mk 41 VLS aboard various US ships. for the latter, one find pictures of the forward VLS stations of burkes, which have a 32 cell VLS similar to 052D, only they're arranged longitudinally instead of transverse. but regardless, comparing the size of the gun and the 32 cell VLS using eyeballs, their ratio appears similar to PJ 38 and CCL VLS. I'd like to wait for good birds eye pics of 052D before making final judgement, but at the moment I do not think this CCL VLS is that much bigger than Mk 41.


(imagine the VLS and guns are arranged in same orientation on both ships -- i think they are of similar size)





Compare how much space there is either side of tico's Mk 41


With the space either side of 052D's aft VLS (remembering that only the aft position is 052D's "true" beam of some 16.5m, while ticos' forward VLS occupies a space where its true beam of 16.8 m is already present)


I'd say the spare space either side of both VLS (which are placed in the same longitudinal orientation) are similar. Given both have similar beams (actually, tico is some 30cm wider supposedly), I'd say the CCL VLS isn't that much bigger.

Whether a future destroyer or cruiser has enough space for 96 or 128 cells will of course depend on what the PLAN want, and the speculative discussions in coming years over this 055 ship will be interesting as it could represent the first "clean" sheet large surface combatant built by chinese shipyards in a long time.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

That's assuming the guns are of similar size, which is a big assumption right now imho. I think it would be best to try to use something with a known dimension as a means of comparing the size of the VLS blocks.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

J-XX said:

Mysterre is a troll. Just read his posts.

Click to expand...

He is no troll, but he just cannot seem to help himself from being rude sometimes, especially if he feels provoked.

He does seem very knowledgeable and has good instincts, and can present a very good argument when he puts his mind to it, and no doubt would make a very valuable member of this forum if he can learn to control, or better yet, tame that temper of his and learn a little more patience and courtesy.

I only hope he can do this before he gets himself banned over some silly little pointless argument that could have easily been avoided if he wasn't so needlessly abrasive at times.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:

That's assuming the guns are of similar size, which is a big assumption right now imho. I think it would be best to try to use something with a known dimension as a means of comparing the size of the VLS blocks.

Click to expand...

Yep, the gun comparison would be second choice, first, and more reliable, would be comparing the aft 052D VLS with the ticos VLS placement and seeing whether the space either side of the VLS are similar, and if they are (keeping in mind tico and 052D have very similar beams), I'd say the size of the two VLS would be similar.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

By the way, along with the photos showing the front and aft vls installations, a photo here is also shown of the same that exists between the funnel and aft mast. Looks like enough space there to put 2 quad launchers of YJ-83. Or at least I think that was the point of the person that posted the picture.

Also, that 130 mm gun (PJ-38) is truly humongous. I wonder how much deck space is used by this massive gun.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Yep, the gun comparison would be second choice, first, and more reliable, would be comparing the aft 052D VLS with the ticos VLS placement and seeing whether the space either side of the VLS are similar, and if they are (keeping in mind tico and 052D have very similar beams), I'd say the size of the two VLS would be similar.

Click to expand...

Ah, you must have added that bit as (or after) I wrote that reply. Using the beams of the ships as known qualities is a far superior means of comparison and what you are suggesting seems like a sound solution.

I look forward to some good quality and angled shots so we can start putting your theories into practice.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

tphuang said:

By the way, along with the photos showing the front and aft vls installations, a photo here is also shown of the same that exists between the funnel and aft mast. Looks like enough space there to put 2 quad launchers of YJ-83. Or at least I think that was the point of the person that posted the picture.

Also, that 130 mm gun (PJ-38) is truly humongous. I wonder how much deck space is used by this massive gun.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the YJ-83 launchers. That space looks big enough for one launcher only, I really doubt they would be able to get two in there. I can see maybe them getting two dual launchers in there, but do the PLAN even do dual YJ-83 launchers? It all sees rather unnecessary when the new CCL VLS is supposed to be able to handle the YJ-83 anyways.

Does anyone have any WIP shots of 054As in a similar level of completion to see when they installed the missiles racks and blast deflectors?

Something else interesting about that shot is that there does not seem to be the raised solid walls to the far side of the ship, with only railings visible. Maybe the walls have been lowered?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:

Ah, you must have added that bit as (or after) I wrote that reply. Using the beams of the ships as known qualities is a far superior means of comparison and what you are suggesting seems like a sound solution.

I look forward to some good quality and angled shots so we can start putting your theories into practice.

Click to expand...

Cheers, yeah it took a few minutes to find some good similar shots of tico's vls.

--

pictorial evidence aside, I find it difficult to believe the chinese VLS designers would've been so daft to make their new generation VLS that much bigger than Mk 41 (such as fitting 6x8 in space of 8x8 mk 41 as mysterre proposed), considering they had experience with 054A's VLS and literature and information on various other world VLS have been easily accessible for years.
Fortunately, I think the pictures do indicate the CCL VLS is only slightly larger than Mk 41. On board a 10k ton sized hull, a few centimeters here and there shouldn't matter too much, and depending if they go for a sejong sized or tico length hull I think they can fit a 128 cells in a similar, longitudinal fashion.