052/052B Class Destroyers

Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

xiyanz said:
That's not true. The deck size of 052D/C is actually pretty good. It has larger deck size than Arleigh Burk. Just use GE to do the measurement. Flight deck of 052D/C is roughly a rectangular shape of 20mX17.5m. Alreigh Burk is a trapezoid shape of h=21m size= 12.5m and 17m. Just do the math. 052D flight deck is actually larger in area.
Click to expand...
I have done a study on the helo pad size of the US Navy Burke IIA vs the Royal Navy Daring vs the PLAN Lanzhou (Type 52C) class DDGs. Here is a picture of it:

DDG-Pad-Compare.jpg

In the full sized picture, every two pixels is equal to precisely one foot. The dimensions of usable space for the pads are shown. What it means is that the three different classes have the following square feet of helo pad space:

Burke IIA = 3,360 sq. ft.
Daring = 5,400 sq. ft.
Lanzhou = 3,575 sq. ft

For all intents and purposes the Lanzhou and the Burke IIa have very similar landing capabilities, even though the Burke is 215 sq. ft. smaller. The Daring's pad is somewhat larger still than either of them, being a total of 825 sq ft larger than the Lanzhou.

Now, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class, and both US LCS class vessels, particularly the trimaren USS Independence class, have significantly larger landing pads than any of these DDGs
 
Last edited:
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:
I have done a study on the helo pad size of the US Navy Burke IIA vs the Royal Navy Daring vs the PLAN Lanzhou (Type 52C) class DDGs. Here is a picture of it:

DDG-Pad-Compare.jpg

In the full sized picture, every two pixels is equal to precisely one foot. The dimensions of usable space for the pads are shown. What it means is that the three different classes have the following square feet of helo pad space:

Burke IIA = 3,920 sq. ft.
Daring = 5,400 sq. ft.
Lanzhou = 3,575 sq. ft

Because of the trapizoidal nature of the Burke IIA's pad, though there are some advantages, for all intents and purposes the Lanzhou and the Burke IIa have very similar landing capabilities, even though the Burke is almost 350 sq. ft. larger. The Daring's pad is somewhat larger still than either of them, being a total of 825 sq ft larger than the Lanzhou.

Now, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class, and both US LCS class vessels, particularly the trimaren USS Independence class, have significantly larger landing pads than any of these DDGs
Click to expand...

Does that mean the 052C will have difficulty if to operate helicopters larger than the current Z-9 or Ka-31?
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

MwRYum said:
Does that mean the 052C will have difficulty if to operate helicopters larger than the current Z-9 or Ka-31?
Click to expand...

That's assuming the 052C's helipad is big enough to only operate Z-9/Ka-31 safely.

I think Jeff used his scaled models a while back to show that 054A could operate seahawks safely and store them inside the hangar. 052C should be similar.
Anything beyond that will be difficult... But then again Z-9/Ka-31/seahawk are all in the relatively same size range. Obviously you won't be operating a Z-8 off an 052C. But then you won't be operating a sea stallion off a burke either.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

MwRYum said:
Does that mean the 052C will have difficulty if to operate helicopters larger than the current Z-9 or Ka-31?
Click to expand...
Yes. The 052C/D and the Burkes were not designed to opertate large helos, a medium sized ASW or ASuW helo is what they are meant to operate. In the Burke's case...two of them at the same time, but only one landing or taking off at a time.

The Z-9 to me is a light duty helo, the KA-27s & KA-31s are, like the Sea Haw, medium lift helos. The Merlin is like an SH-3 Sea King, and about the size of a Z-8 too and is a bigger, medium-to-heavy lift...and then you have the MH-53 Sea Dragon or CH-53E Sea Stallion large, heavy lift helos.

Now, the LCS, particularly the Independence class, is made to operate the very large MH-53 Sea Dragon helos in the mine hunting/clearing role...and I believe the Zumwalt will be big enough for the larger helos too...but I will have to double check that.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

MwRYum said:
Does that mean the 052C will have difficulty if to operate helicopters larger than the current Z-9 or Ka-31?
Click to expand...
Yes. The 052C/D and the Burkes were not designed to opertate large helos, a medium sized ASW or ASuW helo is what they are meant to operate. In the Burke's case...two of them at the same time, but only one landing or taking off at a time.

The Z-9 to me is a light duty helo, the KA-227, KA-31s are, like the Sea Hawk medium lift helos. The Merlin is like an SH-3 Sea King, and about the size of a Z-8 too and is a bigger, medium-to-heavy...and then you have the MH-53 Sea Dragon or CH-53E Sea Stallion large heavy lift helos.

Now, the LCS, particularly the Independence class, is made to operate the very large MH-53 Sea Dragon helos in the mine hunting/clearing role...and I believe the Zumwalt will be big enough for the larger helos too...but I will have to double check that.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Continuing, by way of comparison, here are the Zumwalt and Independence class pad sizes;

Zumwalt: 8,600 Sq. Ft.
Independence: 11,200 sq. ft.


zumwalt-pad.jpg


Independence-pad.jpg

​

As you can see, both have much larger pads...but particularly the Independence Class.
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

By way of the trapezoid formula calculation based on the values provided above, the figures come out as follows.

Burke: 3360 m2 (The area should be slightly larger if the 2 sides are slightly curved but this is not as obvious as the Daring.)

Daring: 4950 m2 (The actual area should be larger than this slightly because of the 2 sides bulging out slightly.)

Lanzhou: 3575 m2
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Quickie said:
By way of the trapezoid formula calculation based on the values provided above, the figures come out as follows.

Burke: 3360 m2 (The area should be slightly larger if the 2 sides are slightly curved but this is not as obvious as the Daring.)

Daring: 4950 m2 (The actual area should be larger than this slightly because of the 2 sides bulging out slightly.)

Lanzhou: 3575 m2
Click to expand...
The values are in feet, not meters. And your values for the Burke are precisely correct!

For the Lanzhou, the formula is simple : 65 x 55 = 3,575 sq ft.

For the Burke, you break the trapizoid down into two simple equations to give you the area.

For the straight portion, from the aft forward to the hangar you have one rectangle which is 40 ft x 70 ft which equals 2,800 sq ft.

Now on each side of that you have two small triangles, but since there are two of them, if you put them together you have a another rectangle whose dimensions would be 70 ft x 8 ft, which equals 560 ft sq.

Add the two for the total area of the trapizoid. 2,800 + 560 = 3,360 ft. sq.

As you said.

the Burke pad is slightly smaller than the Lanzhou.
 
Last edited:
asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

great work Jeff, im glad the question has been answered in a scientfic and reassuring manner! those numbers were nice

Type 052C/D deck is certainly limited, and in times of emergencys at sea cross decking becomes a priority and thats where the danger lies

really the Type 052D should have had a extended deck, they even fitted a new VLS system to the rear would not have been that difficult
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

asif iqbal said:
great work Jeff, im glad the question has been answered in a scientfic and reassuring manner! those numbers were nice

Type 052C/D deck is certainly limited, and in times of emergencys at sea cross decking becomes a priority and thats where the danger lies

really the Type 052D should have had a extended deck, they even fitted a new VLS system to the rear would not have been that difficult
Click to expand...

we will have to wait for 055. Due to propulsion limitations, you can only get something of this size without sacrificing the air defense system. They crammed about as much as they can cram into 052D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top