052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 052C Thread

The Chinese destroyers are still pretty behind the U.S technologically. It might need two technological leaps to surpass or maintain the same level as the most advanced burke class destroyer. The next futuristic model will definitely not going to surpass the burke. more like a variant of 052C--extra VLMs, larger displacement etc.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Well I was hoping for something around 90 multifunctional VLS with a PAR like the 052C.
As well as 2 chopper hangers with maybe a bit more stealth shaping.
Basically a Chinese Arleigh Burke Flight II with not as good sensors.

I'm not sure if that's too unrealistic.

But I'm sure the PLAN has made careful decisions on building the new destroyers though.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

There is no need to surpass the Burke, like in creating a bigger vessel with more VLS. Development should come organically. Satisfy your own requirements, and accomplish your goals within a desired price/performance ratio. Making bigger arsenal like ships with more and more VLS isn't the answer. Naval warship design is no longer the male organ contest it was before the World Wars.

I won't say the 052C is "behind" the Burke. I would say that radar set on the 052C is on the leading edge being AESA and all, although the AEGIS definitely has much more experience getting its software debugged, refined and feature added in all those decades and sheer number of ships. The fact that HHQ-9 missiles is likely to be active guided gives it an edge over semi active guided missiles which makes the majority of what is used to day. With their size, they got a much longer ranged potential. The various radar sets on the 052C allows quite a bit of flexible scanning across many bands. with the UHF with the Yagi to C-band with the SR64 for tight tracking to the X-band with the Mineral ME like radar which has OTH capabilities. And it has some nasty long range antiship missiles, the range of the YJ-62 gives it a lot of flexibility and a spread spectrum seeker that gives little warning.

But in terms of flexibility and overall features, the 052C is behind the Burke like in lacking cruise missiles, quad pack missiles, and ASROCs, plus a few other things, so the Lanzhou still has ways to go as a complete weapons system. A long way in fact.

The biggest problem of the Lanzhou class is that the PLAN probably trapped itself conceptually with having two non interchangeable VLS systems, one of the HHQ-9 with the round VLS and the other with the squared hot launched VLS with the HHQ-16 as used on the 054A. The latter has similar sizes to the Standard, and is much more likely and easier to adapt to various other missiles like ASROCs and quad pack missiles. If the PLAN developed ASROCs for the 054A to launch on the VLS or the YJ-83 launchers, these ASROCs won't be compatible with the 052C, which carries neither.

It would be interesting to see if the new rumored ships with 64 vls turns out to keep using the HHQ-9 or shift to the HHQ-16.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Could the HHQ-9 be fitted into the HHQ-16?
Or to compensate, a longer range, better performance HHQ-16 could also be developed, no?

Re: DDG 052C Thread

No, the HHQ-9 cannot be fitted to the HHQ-16 VLS due to its size.

Better to just keep improving the HHQ-16. Like developing an active seeker for the HHQ-16 and make it compatible with the 052C radar. Put a 32 VLS in the front and another for the rear to make a 64 VLS ship.

For its displacement vs. number and size of missiles, the 052C is actually quite impressive, that is assuming they didn't under report the actual displacement number, which in my opinion should be over 7000mt not over 6000mt. 9000 tons though, sounds to me more like they're keeping the HHQ-9, and sounds more realistic if the 64 VLS arrangement added another 16 cells to the rear.

Funny no one mentions the 051C in all this. I think that is a dead end. Although I think its possible you can take the ship, add the 052C PARs and HHQ-9 launcher to make a 051D.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Is the range of a missile dependent on it's fuel or seeker?
Like... does the HHQ-9 have more range than HHQ-16 cause of it's larger size therefore able to carry more fuel?

Also, the 64 VLS cells; would they all be HHQ-9 cells or a mixture of HHQ-9 + specialised multifunctional VLS?
Or a whole new series of multifunctional VLS?

PS: Argh; I have so many questions.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Interesting how nobody saw the post when I originally put it out there.

Bltizo said:

I'm wondering why the 3 destroyers would need 64 VLS...
Either their multifunctional VLS, or different VLS OR 64 SAM's. The latter of which I think is unlikely.

If the VLS's are multifunctional, I am kind of dissapointed it's only 64. I was hoping weapons loads would rival the Arleigh Burke class... But beggers can't be choosers I suppose.

Click to expand...

AB uses has 96 VLS cells, which it uses for LACM, SAM and ASuW. If 052D does end up have 64 cells, it would only be used for SAM imo, which would be more than Type 45 and horizon class.
I don't see what the problem with being 64 is.

Delbert said:

Wow three ships at the same time. I just wonder when I will see 12 ships built at the same time with 9,000 tonne displacement?

Click to expand...

please stop posting junk like this.

Jeff Head said:

It will be interesting and exciting to see pics of that once they reach a point where they can be seen and identified.

Three at once? 9000 ton displacement? That is a significant undertaking in and of itself.

Click to expand...

these are rumours from a pretty good source. We will see in a bit how many they are actually building, but it is harder to get picture now that it's over on Changxin island.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Bltizo said:

Is the range of a missile dependent on it's fuel or seeker?
Like... does the HHQ-9 have more range than HHQ-16 cause of it's larger size therefore able to carry more fuel?

Also, the 64 VLS cells; would they all be HHQ-9 cells or a mixture of HHQ-9 + specialised multifunctional VLS?
Or a whole new series of multifunctional VLS?

PS: Argh; I have so many questions.

Click to expand...

if you have this many basic newbie questions, you really should ask in this thread
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/military-faq-thread-2053.html
You have so many basic questions that can simply be figured out by google search and common sense.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

tphuang said:

if you have this many basic newbie questions, you really should ask in this thread
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/military-faq-thread-2053.html
You have so many basic questions that can simply be figured out by google search and common sense.

Click to expand...

Ah ok thanks.

I suppose I will use google and that then..

Re: DDG 052C Thread

Bltizo said:

Is the range of a missile dependent on it's fuel or seeker?
Like... does the HHQ-9 have more range than HHQ-16 cause of it's larger size therefore able to carry more fuel?

Also, the 64 VLS cells; would they all be HHQ-9 cells or a mixture of HHQ-9 + specialised multifunctional VLS?
Or a whole new series of multifunctional VLS?

PS: Argh; I have so many questions.

Click to expand...

Yes, very much so. Dependent on size due to the fuel carried. Aerodynamics factor too, but most missiles are very streamlined anyway. Less wings, less drag, and you can see the HHQ-9 has less wings than the HHQ-16. There is also the flight profile involved but that's through command and software. That's adjustable. What can't be adjusted is the size the missile is born with.

The problem I see with the HHQ-9 is that the current VLS system may not be multifunctional. Well it can be multifunctional if you build missiles and cartridges to fit those tubes, but it won't fit on the HHQ-16 VLS.

They have to make a new VLS system, preferably hot launched and squared, which can be used to fit HHQ-16 (with a spacer), and so that anything developed for the HHQ-16 launcher can be used on this.