052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

franco-russe said:

...pretends that the three 14,500-ton ZUMWALT class are DDG destroyers. To add to the confusion, they seem to have forgotten that DDG's are numbered (so far) DDG 1 - 118, and have given them DD numbers 1000-1002 (feeding much speculation as to who DD 998 and DD 999 were).

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the Spruance Class were numbered from 963-997, and although their official designation was "DD", initially they still carried 24 guided missiles (Eight ASROC, 8 Sea Sparrow, and Eight Harpoons), and then later some got ABL Tomohawks in addtion, and then finally 24 of the 31 vessels were fitted with a 61 cell VLS and so they were truly DDGs as well.

The Zumwalt Class, back when they were going to build a large number of them, were labeledthe DDG 1000 Class to set them apart from the Spruance class, from which they are different in almost every way. Clearly, they would be and should be designated as Cruisers IMHO. DDG-1000, DDG-1001 and DDG-1002. There is still the possibility that more of them will be built...but with the decision to build up to 24 Burke IIIs (which also should be considered crusiers in my opinion...they are in fact considered to be the stop gap for the CGX program), it is more and more unlikely.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Well, to be fair, the Spruance Class were numbered from 963-997, and although their official designation was "DD", initially they still carried 24 guided missiles (Eight ASROC, 8 Sea Sparrow, and Eight Harpoons), and then later some got ABL Tomohawks in addtion, and then finally 24 of the 31 vessels were fitted with a 61 cell VLS and so they were truly DDGs as well.

Click to expand...

My son's first ship , USS Paul F Foster DD-964, was in actuality a DDG. She was equipped with VLS cells up forward. What a fine vessel the beloved "Spru-can" was.. yes indeed!

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Actually 052D does appear to have a slightly greater beam than 052C does;

Combined with the larger radar, increased VLS number, larger gun, I would be surprised if there isn't a substantial increase in displacement over 052C.

---

How is the rear hangar smaller, which pictures illustrate this?

Click to expand...

I don't see any evidence of increased beam in that photo, and in fact I'm willing to bet you real money there is no beam increase at all. That kind of change would be monumentally expensive as it would require redesign along the entire length of the ship whereas a lengthwise extension, the typical method of enlarging an existing design, is far less expensive. I don't see any evidence of that, either.

The larger radar, more VLS cells, and larger gun would add a few dozen tons in total, certainly not enough to make any difference in a 7,000 ton ship.

As for the rear hangar, I don't mean just the rear hangar itself but rather the entire rear hangar area and the fact that there are now 'stepoffs' like the ones on the 054A that are 2 decks high on either side of the hangar instead of the 3 decks of the 052C. Any picture of it will illustrate this. In fact it's quite difficult to miss this dramatic change. Also, I think the front part of the rear hangar rear has been shaved off to accommodate the rear VLS section, reducing more topside weight, and more weight overall. In general I see little reason to upgrade the weight estimate of the 052D from the 052C just because it is a newer iteration.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

I think the 052D's displacement is being oversold. There is no reason to believe it is any larger than the 052C. In fact the rear hangar area is smaller than on the 052C. IMO the 052D should still be around 7,000t.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't sporting 64 VLS cells vs 48 on the 052C increase the displacement? I know the 8 boxed launched anti-ship missiles are gone in the 052D but let's subtract that from 64, you still get 56 vs 48 and the new VLS can quad pack so I think there is a slight increase in tonnage even though hull dimensions could be the same.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:

Wouldn't sporting 64 VLS cells vs 48 on the 052C increase the displacement? I know the 8 boxed launched anti-ship missiles are gone in the 052D but let's subtract that from 64, you still get 56 vs 48 and the new VLS can quad pack so I think there is a slight increase in tonnage even though hull dimensions could be the same.

Click to expand...

Horrendous oversimplification.

First off, not all missiles weigh the same as do missile launchers. Second, the newer radars are also different thus warranting a new weight. New radars also need new electronics etc which also warrants a different weight. The space hollowed out by the removal of the 12 cold launchers in the hangar also has found a new use, which again, warrants a new weight. Thus, at the end of the day, no one can be sure how much heavier or lighter the 052D is over the 052C is until we see some photos of their waterline or the PLAN releases official specs.

Missiles are not the only measure of a ship's tonnage.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

for the rear hangar, I don't mean just the rear hangar itself but rather the entire rear hangar area and the fact that there are now 'stepoffs' like the ones on the 054A that are 2 decks high on either side of the hangar instead of the 3 decks of the 052C. Any picture of it will illustrate this.

Click to expand...

These are the best pics I have found to date, both of the actual vessel and decent artist renderings based on the same.

People can make excellent comparisons from these pictures:











My own observations would indcate:

Overall vessel length the same.

Size of helo landing deck the same.

Height above the waterline of the helo landing deck the same.

Helo hangar...moved to the center with the larger portion of the hangar only in the center wher the hangar resides. Looks about the same as the Type 054A hangers actually.

Beam the same. (The larger PARS was accomodated by changing the size of the main deck house to accomodate, making the central portion thinner and the angled sides where the PARS are located larger to accomodate them).

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

jobjed said:

Horrendous oversimplification.

First off, not all missiles weigh the same as do missile launchers. Second, the newer radars are also different thus warranting a new weight. New radars also need new electronics etc which also warrants a different weight. The space hollowed out by the removal of the 12 cold launchers in the hangar also has found a new use, which again, warrants a new weight. Thus, at the end of the day, no one can be sure how much heavier or lighter the 052D is over the 052C is until we see some photos of their waterline or the PLAN releases official specs.

Missiles are not the only measure of a ship's tonnage.

Click to expand...

I never said missiles are the only measure of a ship's tonnage but the basic premise is this - the hull looks to be the same. And if we assume that is true, what we are seeing is shuffling around of equipment on the hull. Yes, the radar and electronics are new. There may be some weight savings. But we also have a larger caliber main gun now which means the shells themselves will be larger and heavier to offset. So I see the increase in VLS cells as being a significant contributor to any weight increase. Yes, there will be varying missiles with varying weights but the increase in number simply tends to add more weight. I don't think there will be a substantial increase in tonnage but a slight one.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Helo hangar...moved to the center with the larger portion of the hangar only in the center wher the hangar resides. Looks about the same as the Type 054A hangers actually.

Click to expand...

The top of the 054A hangar is actually only about 2.5 decks, whereas the 052C/D has 3 decks height.

joshuatree said:

I never said missiles are the only measure of a ship's tonnage but the basic premise is this - the hull looks to be the same. And if we assume that is true, what we are seeing is shuffling around of equipment on the hull. Yes, the radar and electronics are new. There may be some weight savings. But we also have a larger caliber main gun now which means the shells themselves will be larger and heavier to offset. So I see the increase in VLS cells as being a significant contributor to any weight increase. Yes, there will be varying missiles with varying weights but the increase in number simply tends to add more weight. I don't think there will be a substantial increase in tonnage but a slight one.

Click to expand...

An 8-cell strike length Mk 41 module fully loaded with 8 SM-2's weighs in at a hefty..... 30.3 tons. A single cell including missile and support structures is therefore about 3.79 tons. All this takes into account the missile, the container, and one-eighth of the metal skeleton, venting structures, and hardware needed to support the module. Let's be generous and say that the Chinese CCL is a little heavier, 4 tons. That means an increase from 56 to 64 missiles causes the 052D to be heavier than the 052C by OMG OMG.... 32 tons. Out of a total weight of 7,000 tons, that sure does seem like a "significant contributor" indeed.

Regarding the main gun, the Creusot-Loire copy on the 052C weighs in at 13.5 tons. Let's be generous and say the new gun is twice as heavy: 28 tons. That's about 14 tons more.

Regarding bigger heavier shells, well you know what that means? Nothing more than that you will be able to store less shells in the magazine. Weight difference? A few tons +/-? Neglible IMO.

Regarding the PAR panels, nobody knows what they weigh, but we have weights for SPY-1: 6.52 tons per face and belowdecks weight of 65.8 tons (this is all the supporting electronics, cooling, wiring, manned workstations, etc.) per Naval Institute Guide. Let's be generous and say the 052C panels each weigh 8 tons and each 052D panel is 50% larger, weighing 12 tons. That's a total of 16 tons more.

In total, that's about 60-odd tons more, and this is obtained by being generous in all calculations. Now you have to factor in the smaller rear hangar area of the 052D. How do you do that? I haven't the first clue. But I know this will make the weight of the 052D less than 60 tons more than 052C. Who still wants to claim the 052D is 500 to 1,000 tons more than the 052C? If you do, go ahead and justify your belief.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

I don't see any evidence of increased beam in that photo, and in fact I'm willing to bet you real money there is no beam increase at all. That kind of change would be monumentally expensive as it would require redesign along the entire length of the ship whereas a lengthwise extension, the typical method of enlarging an existing design, is far less expensive. I don't see any evidence of that, either.

The larger radar, more VLS cells, and larger gun would add a few dozen tons in total, certainly not enough to make any difference in a 7,000 ton ship.

As for the rear hangar, I don't mean just the rear hangar itself but rather the entire rear hangar area and the fact that there are now 'stepoffs' like the ones on the 054A that are 2 decks high on either side of the hangar instead of the 3 decks of the 052C. Any picture of it will illustrate this. In fact it's quite difficult to miss this dramatic change. Also, I think the front part of the rear hangar rear has been shaved off to accommodate the rear VLS section, reducing more topside weight, and more weight overall. In general I see little reason to upgrade the weight estimate of the 052D from the 052C just because it is a newer iteration.

Click to expand...

I think they came up with beam being slightly increased based on satellite photo measurement. But what do I know, unless you are down in the ground, it's hard to be exact on this.

And why are we discussing such old photos?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

... If you do, go ahead and justify your belief.

Click to expand...

I did say only a slight increase in tonnage. But I do appreciate the plethora of info you've shared on VLS weight.