052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

escobar said:

Click to expand...

I hope slanted launcher will still be fitted. 72 missiles will be very respectable number of missile carried by a modern destroyer.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Lion said:

I hope slanted launcher will still be fitted. 72 missiles will be very respectable number of missile carried by a modern destroyer.

Click to expand...

You will get no such luck. Maybe you could fit two 2-cell slanted launchers in that space just aft of the stacks like what you see on the Type 056, but the presence of (what I presume to be) the satcoms right at the forward edges of the deck structure after that suggests to me that this is unlikely. Besides, I would much prefer a VL ASCM anyway.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Lion said:

I hope slanted launcher will still be fitted. 72 missiles will be very respectable number of missile carried by a modern destroyer.

Click to expand...

Well, they will actually have 82 missiles. The 64 VLS, and then the 18 from the FL-3000N launcher on the top of the hanger, if indeed they place one there.

That's a good loadout for this vessel and will represent a very powerful multi-mission combatant capable of being an excellent escort for the Liaoning, or any of the Yuzhao class LPDs...or as the leader of a SAG in its own right.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I've just have an interesting thought on what the first quad pack missiles for the 052D might be - a naval version of the SA15 Tor/HQ17.

The Chinese are already making their own version called the HQ17; they have a lot of experience with the missile and it would have been readily available during the development of the new CCL VLS, and is pretty much the only suitable candidate for a quad packed VLS missile if you rule out some super-secret new missile no one has seen, or even heard rumours about; the missile is already VLS launched with square self-contained cold launch cells making the mod to a naval version pretty straight forward and almost risk free, and at 2.9m long and 0.235m in diameter, it will easily fit in the new CCL VLS as a quad pack, and is a very good match for the rumoured 3.3m shallow cell.

Some might be unimpressed at the 12-15km range of the Tor, but I do have to wonder if the HQ17 will also be so short ranged. Considering they manages to achieve a 10km max range for the 2m long and 0.12m diameter FL3000, it would be really surprising if they cannot do better than 15km for a missile of the HQ17's size.

The HQ17 isn't going to match the ESSM, but it should be perfectly feasible to achieve a 20-25km range with a naval HQ17mod, which would put it nicely in the range category you would want for a quad packed medium range missile.

Even if the PLAN ultimately wants something with ESSM range and capabilities, a naval HQ17 would make for a decent stand-in that could be ready for deployment already and would provide PLAN ships with a low cost medium range quad packed missile option while an ESSM like missile is developed.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Just to add to the above.

I was too obsessed with the notion of quad packing I didn't even think of a far more interesting alternative - nonuple pack.

At 0.235m diameter, and with the CCL VLS a 0.85m square, if you pack 9 HQ17s in a 3x3 square, that square will only be 0.705m, leaving you nearly 0.15 meters, which is roughly 5cm for each missile for casing and extra room for folding fins. It's going to be a tight squeeze, but looking at SA15 missiles and where the folds are on the fins, it just about looks doable. With the Tor being cold launched, there is not need to leave any room for venting so the whole cell could be used to store missiles.

Would be very interesting if there is enough room to fit 9 HQ17s in each CCL cell as that will massively boost the number of missiles an 052D can carry. But before we get too ahead of ourselves, does anyone have dimensions for Tor cold launch cells?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:

Just to add to the above.

I was too obsessed with the notion of quad packing I didn't even think of a far more interesting alternative - nonuple pack.

At 0.235m diameter, and with the CCL VLS a 0.85m square, if you pack 9 HQ17s in a 3x3 square, that square will only be 0.705m, leaving you nearly 0.15 meters, which is roughly 5cm for each missile for casing and extra room for folding fins. It's going to be a tight squeeze, but looking at SA15 missiles and where the folds are on the fins, it just about looks doable. With the Tor being cold launched, there is not need to leave any room for venting so the whole cell could be used to store missiles.

Would be very interesting if there is enough room to fit 9 HQ17s in each CCL cell as that will massively boost the number of missiles an 052D can carry. But before we get too ahead of ourselves, does anyone have dimensions for Tor cold launch cells?

Click to expand...

Man! You are a true believer of " the more, the merrier", aren't you? You forgot that this ship's primary function is fleet AAW, so it needs to provide cover for the entire group. The Tor M1 is great for own ship defence but doesn't have the legs to cover the group. Don't forget the max ranges cited are usually against aircrafts, and that range is much shorter (i think just 5km for Tor M1) against missiles.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Yorkie said:

Man! You are a true believer of " the more, the merrier", aren't you? You forgot that this ship's primary function is fleet AAW, so it needs to provide cover for the entire group. The Tor M1 is great for own ship defence but doesn't have the legs to cover the group. Don't forget the max ranges cited are usually against aircrafts, and that range is much shorter (i think just 5km for Tor M1) against missiles.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the thing is, if they are somehow able to fit in 9 cold launched HQ-17 in a single cell... Imagine what that will mean for small ships or carriers/amphibious ships which require a short/medium self defense missile system?

An eight cell 3.3m deep CCL VLS loaded with nonuple packed missiles. That's 72 missiles!! Considering better guidance, materials, propulsion, an HQ-17/Tor mod could definitely increase its range a respectable amount retaining the same or even smaller physical dimensions.
If each missile has an individual cold launch piston then (like the ground based tor), it's definitely feasible.

But I think we're getting ahead of ourselves a little -- I think this may be a future possibility for the designers to look into. But as of yet the MIL STD only mentions quad packing missiles.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Ah, but the thing is, if they are somehow able to fit in 9 cold launched HQ-17 in a single cell... Imagine what that will mean for small ships or carriers/amphibious ships which require a short/medium self defense.

Click to expand...

They already have a simpler solution for short self defense in FL3000N. I still think what this DDG needs is a 25-50km MR SAM to provide a second layer behind its HQ9, hopefully in quad pack to have enough number without taking up too many available cell. A ship has to fire off salvos against each incoming missiles based just mathematically on intercept probability against missiles (60-80% is considered very good).

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

9 SR SAM's per cell would be a stretch IMO. If we end up seeing an HQ-10 launcher just foward of the hangar, this idea will be dead in the water. Along the same lines, 4 SR SAM's per cell would be even more dead in the water. These missiles protect nothing but the launching ship itself. 20km range missiles would still protect nothing but the launching ship itself since escorts would be at least this far away from the carrier or from another escort when in formation. MR SAM's that can be used in any fleet defense role would need to have ~40-50+ km ranges. Remember that the range vs a crossing target is much less than the range vs a directly incoming target.

MR SAM's can only justify their own existence in a carrier group escort's VLS cells via one of four reasons: the launching ship cannot load any larger SAM (e.g. 054A), the launching ship can quad-pack MR SAM's that have enough range to provide fleet defense (e.g. ESSM), the launching ship's LR SAM's have a significant minimum range due to flight profile (e.g. SM-2 and Aster-30), the launching ship has no other means of point-blank or short range antimissile defense.

SR SAM's in an escort's VLS cells cannot justify their existence there IMO. The 052C/D literally screams "fleet air defense", and devoting even a single cell to SR SAM's constitutes a decrease in capability, especially when it already has 2 self-defense weapons installed.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Yorkie said:

They already have a simpler solution for short self defense in FL3000N. I still think what this DDG needs is a 25-50km MR SAM to provide a second layer behind its HQ9, hopefully in quad pack to have enough number without taking up too many available cell. A ship has to fire off salvos against each incoming missiles based just mathematically on intercept probability against missiles (60-80% is considered very good).

Click to expand...

A "second layer" of defense does not need to exist for the sole purpose of providing another layer of defense. After all, why load a MR SAM when you can load a LR SAM in its place? The reasons which I mention above for having a MR SAM have nothing to do with having an extra layer of defense. This "second" or "medium range" layer does not actually have to exist in real life for its own sake; it only exists because of other considerations. I'm sure that if ESSM were not quad-packable or that the SM-2 didn't have a significant minimum range, there would be no ESSM's in any Mk 41 cell.