052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Daft isn't the word I would use. It's a matter of priorities. Do you want a concentric cell or don't you? If you want a concentric cell that doesn't have to share a common exhaust system, you have to deal with the exhaust inside each and every one of your cells. There is no way to get around physics. You cannot have a cell without an exhaust system, and you cannot have a cell with an internal exhaust system without an increase in overall size or a decrease in usable volume. If a CCL module is similar in size to a Mk 41 module, this means available payload volume must be sacrificed. I do agree that those last two photos comparing the two VLS modules seem to indicate there is not a significant overall size difference, but what this means is that available volume had to give way to make room for the exhaust system. Can you think of any other alternative?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

Daft isn't the word I would use. It's a matter of priorities. Do you want a concentric cell or don't you? If you want a concentric cell that doesn't have to share a common exhaust system, you have to deal with the exhaust inside each and every one of your cells. There is no way to get around physics. You cannot have a cell without an exhaust system, and you cannot have a cell with an internal exhaust system without an increase in overall size or a decrease in usable volume. If a CCL module is similar in size to a Mk 41 module, this means available payload volume must be sacrificed. I do agree that those last two photos comparing the two VLS modules seem to indicate there is not a significant overall size difference, but what this means is that available volume had to give way to make room for the exhaust system. Can you think of any other alternative?

Click to expand...

Well I do believe the CCL VLS is slightly larger (a decimeter or so at most) in each direction than Mk 41.

As for the relatively similar size, deleting the common exhaust should allow more room for each individual canister having some room for their individual exhausts while retaining similar payload volume.
Conceding that the CCL is slightly larger than Mk 41, and that it also lacks a central exhaust, I think could account for the space each individual cell needs for their independent exhausts vents.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Well I do believe the CCL VLS is slightly larger (a decimeter or so at most) in each direction than Mk 41.

As for the relatively similar size, deleting the common exhaust should allow more room for each individual canister having some room for their individual exhausts while retaining similar payload volume.
Conceding that the CCL is slightly larger than Mk 41, and that it also lacks a central exhaust, I think could account for the space each individual cell needs for their independent exhausts vents.

Click to expand...

This reasoning would not be able to account for the necessary increase in the longer dimension of the module where no exhaust space can be used to soak up an expansion of the cell size.

That said, it seems more and more reasonable to conclude that each CCL module is 'almost' the same size as a Mk 41 module, perhaps the same width and maybe half a meter longer length. This leaves the quandary of exhaust plumbing in a cell of similar size. A cold-launch missile of course has no such problem, though it definitely needs the vertical length to accommodate a gas ejection system on the bottom. It seems that a hot-launch missile will have to be smaller than a similar cold-launch missile. Perhaps the combination of maximizing the internal volume of the cell by utilizing the corners for exhausting plus a slightly larger cell would be enough to give you the same or almost internal volume.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

This reasoning would not be able to account for the necessary increase in the longer dimension of the module where no exhaust space can be used to soak up an expansion of the cell size.

That said, it seems more and more reasonable to conclude that each CCL module is 'almost' the same size as a Mk 41 module, perhaps the same width and maybe half a meter longer length. This leaves the quandary of exhaust plumbing in a cell of similar size. A cold-launch missile of course has no such problem, though it definitely needs the vertical length to accommodate a gas ejection system on the bottom. It seems that a hot-launch missile will have to be smaller than a similar cold-launch missile. Perhaps the combination of maximizing the internal volume of the cell by utilizing the corners for exhausting plus a slightly larger cell would be enough to give you the same or almost internal volume.

Click to expand...

Hmm an 8 cell Mk 41 is 2.08 m "wide", 3.17 m "long".

We know from the MIL STD that the CCL VLS that each cell is 0.85 m wide. A Mk 41 canister is 0.64 m wide. If they went the route of having a "square within a square" type CCL, they could have the space for a Mk 41 cell with a 10 cm wide exhaust all around the actual missile canister (give or take, as you'll need to subtract a little for the actual physical canister walls, etc).

the CCL VLS can fit into an 8 cell Mk 41's "width" of 2.08 m quite easily (2 x 0.85m < 2.08 m), but it will be more difficult to fit it in lengthways (4 x 0.85m > 3.17 m). So you'll definitely need at least 3.4 m length ways...

So basically an 8 cell CCL VLS will end up with a width of "W" > 1.7 m and a length of "L" > 3.4 m.

Add in a few decimeters each way for clearance between the canisters themselves, and I think you can end up with a Mk 41 sized 8 cell module which is slightly less, or similarly "wide" but definitely slightly more "long" (we're talking a decimeter or two I think).


So my opinion is that an 8 cell CCL VLS will be similarly sized to Mk 41 (probably slightly "longer"), similar to your own conclusion





Whether a single 0.85m wide CCL canister can fit a Mk 41 sized 0.64 m wide, and whether vent width "V" < 10cm all around the actual missile canister itself is enough (in a "square within a square" configuration) is another matter altogether, however.

of course there is a way around that, where it's a "circle within a square", which will allow for greater venting area, with the vents in the corners like you said. For each individual type of missile there could be scalable sizes of CCL, and for quad packed missiles each individual missile has its own launch canister rather than having to share a single fixed and inefficient circular launch canister.
Actually, that would likely be the most logical way to go about implementing their CCL design while retaining the same space for missiles, and to fit within the dimensions of an 8 cell module that has been determined.
EDIT: although a circular CCL within the square cell will not allow for missiles with unfoldable fins, unless the circle VLS ends up being a circle CCL with an "X" overlapped for the fins... That could actually work as well.
I think there are definitely quite a few ways the designers could've gone about making this work.

Sources for Mk 41 dimensions (they're in inches) (note, they call my width, length, and my length, width.)

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Hmm an 8 cell Mk 41 is 2.08 m "wide", 3.17 m "long".

We know from the MIL STD that the CCL VLS that each cell is 0.85 m wide. A Mk 41 canister is 0.64 m wide. If they went the route of having a "square within a square" type CCL, they could have the space for a Mk 41 cell with a 10 cm wide exhaust all around the actual missile canister (give or take, as you'll need to subtract a little for the actual physical canister walls, etc).

the CCL VLS can fit into an 8 cell Mk 41's "width" of 2.08 m quite easily (2 x 0.85m < 2.08 m), but it will be more difficult to fit it in lengthways (4 x 0.85m > 3.17 m). So you'll definitely need at least 3.4 m length ways...

So basically an 8 cell CCL VLS will end up with a width of "W" > 1.7 m and a length of "L" > 3.4 m.

Add in a few decimeters each way for clearance between the canisters themselves, and I think you can end up with a Mk 41 sized 8 cell module which is slightly less, or similarly "wide" but definitely slightly more "long" (we're talking a decimeter or two I think).


So my opinion is that an 8 cell CCL VLS will be similarly sized to Mk 41 (probably slightly "longer"), similar to your own conclusion

Whether a single 0.85m wide CCL canister can fit a Mk 41 sized 0.64 m wide, and whether vent width "V" < 10cm all around the actual missile canister itself is enough (in a "square within a square" configuration) is another matter altogether, however.

of course there is a way around that, where it's a "circle within a square", which will allow for greater venting area, with the vents in the corners like you said. For each individual type of missile there could be scalable sizes of CCL, and for quad packed missiles each individual missile has its own launch canister rather than having to share a single fixed and inefficient circular launch canister.
Actually, that would likely be the most logical way to go about implementing their CCL design while retaining the same space for missiles, and to fit within the dimensions of an 8 cell module that has been determined.


Sources for Mk 41 dimensions (they're in inches) (note, they call my width, length, and my length, width.)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Of the 124.8 inch width of a Mk 41 module, it seems that 124.8 - (4*25.12) = 24.32 inches = ~620mm (or 155mm/cell) is non-canister structural support/spacing. If we assume the CCL module needs a roughly similar amount of structural support, that's about 2.01m x 4.02m. Add the necessary extra space for the lid hinges (maybe 25cm wide), and we arrive at CCL module dimensions of about 2.5m x 4m, so about 30-35cm (12-14 inches) longer and about 75-80cm (30-32 inches) wider.

It's already clear from the rear VLS photos of the 052D that it can easily accommodate the ~8m width of 2 modules. How many the front B position can take will depend on whether a future destroyer design either eliminates the front CIWS position, extends forward the full beam of the ship, incorporates a wider beam design, or a combination of the three options. I think the front of the 052D just barely doesn't have enough space for 6 modules (arranged in a 2 module wide pattern, like the rear VLS), but it's almost there. If the front CIWS station were not present it would certainly have had the space. It may actually even have had enough space if the designers were willing to sacrifice the firing arc of the CIWS and push that thing back against the front hull in order to have a narrower platform to sit on in order to make more room for the VLS in front and below, which can then take more advantage of the fuller beam going towards the back. That would have made for an 80-cell 052D.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:

He does seem very knowledgeable and has good instincts

Click to expand...

Not when it comes to walls, paints, and decks. For instance he couldn't explain why the wall next to the missiles launchers would be damaged by missile exhaust, but the deck itself, that is subject to direct missile exhaust blast, wouldn't. It's almost as if the Chinese can build magical decks, but seemingly unable to build magical walls. How come, batman ?

BTW, I don't understand why people believe the missile is self powered during launch rather than powered by the missile cell. It is not logical to make missiles this way since an on board (on board the missile that is) launching capability adds no value to the missile but increases weight and complexity. I don't know how other countries make their missiles, but I believe a VLS missile made with Chinese characteristics would have the launching mechanism installed at the bottom of the missiles cell, and the missile engine does not kick in until it attains a certain altitude. This improves safety, and eliminates any effect of the launch on the ship - in other words the Chinese need neither magical deck nor magical walls to handle a missile launch because it would just be expanding gas that ordinary steel and paint can withstand.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:

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?

Click to expand...

dual YJ-83s? As in the ones on 056? by having external launchers, you save space for more other types of missiles in the VLS. Of course, it remains to be seen what kind of load 052D will use.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ChinaGuy said:

BTW, I don't understand why people believe the missile is self powered during launch rather than powered by the missile cell. It is not logical to make missiles this way since an on board (on board the missile that is) launching capability adds no value to the missile but increases weight and complexity. I don't know how other countries make their missiles, but I believe a VLS missile made with Chinese characteristics would have the launching mechanism installed at the bottom of the missiles cell, and the missile engine does not kick in until it attains a certain altitude. This improves safety, and eliminates any effect of the launch on the ship - in other words the Chinese need neither magical deck nor magical walls to handle a missile launch because it would just be expanding gas that ordinary steel and paint can withstand.

Click to expand...

Umm... I'm not sure you've been following the posts.... It has been established that these cells are hot launched and most likely CCL, I'm quite sure the 'Chinese characteristics' is just the cold-launch method which they employed in the 052C. That is the general belief anyway, who knows, maybe the Chinese designed these cells to be cold launched but then why don't they just use the VLS on the 052C? According to the leaked Chinese MIL STD, assuming it's not a hoax, the cells are hot launched CCL, meaning the missile DOES power itself out of the cell, which you seem to dislike for some reason. It certainly adds complexity and weight to the missile but adding a booster to the missile is easier than adding an entire module into the cell that is responsible for pushing a few tons of dead weight a dozen metres off the ground.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

ChinaGuy said:

Not when it comes to walls, paints, and decks. For instance he couldn't explain why the wall next to the missiles launchers would be damaged by missile exhaust, but the deck itself, that is subject to direct missile exhaust blast, wouldn't. It's almost as if the Chinese can build magical decks, but seemingly unable to build magical walls. How come, batman ?

Click to expand...

The deck doesn't actually get the brunt of the exhaust, the launchers and their surrounding support structures do, and their materials are certainly built to withstand the heat. That metal on the rear wall also looks like the same stuff used in construction elsewhere on the ship.

ChinaGuy said:

BTW, I don't understand why people believe the missile is self powered during launch rather than powered by the missile cell. It is not logical to make missiles this way since an on board (on board the missile that is) launching capability adds no value to the missile but increases weight and complexity. I don't know how other countries make their missiles, but I believe a VLS missile made with Chinese characteristics would have the launching mechanism installed at the bottom of the missiles cell, and the missile engine does not kick in until it attains a certain altitude. This improves safety, and eliminates any effect of the launch on the ship - in other words the Chinese need neither magical deck nor magical walls to handle a missile launch because it would just be expanding gas that ordinary steel and paint can withstand.

Click to expand...

BTW you are using "Chinese characteristics" way too much, as if anything odd can be justified away or any personal fantasy can be inserted in, by simply using the words "Chinese characteristics". You should review the difference between hot and cold launch. Hot launch means the missile itself provides the power to lift the missile out of the cell. Cold launch means a gas ejection system is used to punch the missile out of the cell, after which the missile motor ignites. You are probably trying to describe a cold launch system, which already exists in the real world. Supposedly this CCL launcher is capable of both hot and cold launch.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

No systems can support both simultaneously, it will be too complexed. Cold launch platforms require complexed gas reserves for ejection and hot launch require pipings for ventilating the exhaust flame.