052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

PanAsian said:

Does anyone see conversions of 052Cs to 052Ds? I don't know if the designs are similar and modular enough to make this possible and more cost-effective than building additional ships. Assuming the 052D package proves significantly more capable of course. I know the 052Cs are still new, just wondering out loud.

Click to expand...

Not possible.

joshuatree said:

If the challenges of propulsion have been worked out for a larger displacement hull, I rather see 052D be limited to 4 and just start rolling out the next model. 052D really ain't that much different from 052C except for a move in hangar location, new VLS, and new APAR, all features that can be transferred over to the next gen destroyer.

Click to expand...

Those are huge changes. That's the point, you test them out on 052D and then move on to 055 with them.

xiyanz said:

Yes, that's my point earlier. 052c/d's pad at 3575 sq. ft > Burke's pad at 3360 sq. ft. Therefore, 052c/d's hangar is not small as some people perceived it to be.

Click to expand...

a huge difference between helipad and hangar. Remember, Type 730 and 2 VLS installations is right on top of the center of the hangar.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

duncanidaho said:

I don't want critisized you, but I think you make a mistake in your equotion. The correct formular for two small triangles should be 70 ft x 8 ft = 560 sq. ft. , because you have to divide the the difference of the width 56 ft - 40 ft = 16 ft by two.

Therefore the Landing Pad of the Burke = 3360 sq. ft.

Click to expand...

No need to not be critical in a respectful way as you have done. You are exactly right. The two triangles make a small ractangle but the overall width is eight feet and so therefore it is 70 x 8 = 56 ft sq for the small triangle.

My own bad and a simple...actually stupid...math error.

This does mean that the Burke class flight pad is therefore the 40 x 70 = 2800 ft sq plus the 70 x 8 - 560 ft sq, or a total of 3360 ft. sq. Sorry to take the other calc to task when it in fact was correct and I think you for being so politie about my mistake.

Thanks.

quickie said:

As to the calculation, I think the other posters have already explained why the figures in my earlier post are correct.

Click to expand...

jobjed said:

...just tells you how easily humans can make silly mistakes.

Click to expand...

Yep. Thanks to both of you for your patience.

I simply forgot to divide by two and as I said above, it was my bad and I will go back and correct the figures and note the reasons. That's why in engineering we always, always have a checker go through calc sheets, drawings, etc and sign off, and a supervisor then sign off on both the Author, the Checker, and the overall documentation.

Even then sometimes all three miss foolish simple errors and mistakes just like these...not to mention the harder ones.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

xiyanz said:

Yes, that's my point earlier. 052c/d's pad at 3575 sq. ft > Burke's pad at 3360 sq. ft. Therefore, 052c/d's hangar is not small as some people perceived it to be.

Click to expand...

Well, we have not really talked about the hangar...just the dimensions for the landing pad. In fact the Type 052C and D pads are larger than the Burkes.

But, the Type 052C and Type 052D hangers are a different matter. They are much smaller and can only house one helo. You can see this on the C and D designs, they do not take up the entire width of the pad, only about half, whereas the Burke cuts across the entire width of the vessel there and holds two helicopters.

But that is by design on both counts. The PLAN did not intend to have two helos on their vessel and the US did.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Some nice CGs of what 055 could look like, via hongjian at CDF

Looks about right for a ship of 11,800 tons, although I don't think there will be a need for dedicated AShM/LACM canisters, and the stealthy AK630 type ciws looks out of place too. The aft/hangar section is messy compared to burkes and sejong, and I'm sure they could squeeze in another hangar.

Although the size looks about right, and the mast/APAR placement is also commendable.

Also, should mention, this thing lacks lasers hehe.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

tphuang said:

Those are huge changes. That's the point, you test them out on 052D and then move on to 055 with them.

Click to expand...

Well, I would have figured the test trialing of those new systems on the dedicated test ships have already qualified them at a certain level of acceptance. Considering the shipyards have already built several 052D hulls, it seems they are satisfied with those systems. If propulsion bottleneck has been resolved, starting build of the new 055 hull now would fit the timeline just fine.

Bltizo said:

Some nice CGs of what 055 could look like, via hongjian at CDF

Looks about right for a ship of 11,800 tons, although I don't think there will be a need for dedicated AShM/LACM canisters, and the stealthy AK630 type ciws looks out of place too. The aft/hangar section is messy compared to burkes and sejong, and I'm sure they could squeeze in another hangar.

Although the size looks about right, and the mast/APAR placement is also commendable.

Also, should mention, this thing lacks lasers hehe.

Click to expand...

While only fan art, it looks reasonable and pretty sharp. Concur the aft/hangar section looks cluttered and could be made into a dual hanger.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:

Well, I would have figured the test trialing of those new systems on the dedicated test ships have already qualified them at a certain level of acceptance. Considering the shipyards have already built several 052D hulls, it seems they are satisfied with those systems. If propulsion bottleneck has been resolved, starting build of the new 055 hull now would fit the timeline just fine.

Click to expand...

Look at how long it took for 052C's technology to become mature. PLAN's approach is very pragmatic. It won't move to 055 until propulsion for that is ready and the technology of the new VLS and air defense system becomes mature. Then, the cost per unit comes down and the projects are less likely to experience delays.

They have a mature platform with completely immature systems. Let's have them build up some numbers first before moving to the next platform. They could've stopped 054A production at 8 or 12, but due to the need of having something that's pretty modern and cost effective, they are building 18 or 20 of them. They are going to do the same with 052C/D. If they do end up building 8 052Ds, they will have 14 true air defense ships out there. You need that number to replace all the 051s that are about to retire..

Could things be mature after 4 units and could the propulsion and other technology needed for 055 be ready by then? Sure. But it took 7 years between the launching of first and third units of 052C. PLAN didn't get a new destroyer for a long time. So, you do the math.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

tphuang said:

Look at how long it took for 052C's technology to become mature. PLAN's approach is very pragmatic. It won't move to 055 until propulsion for that is ready and the technology of the new VLS and air defense system becomes mature. Then, the cost per unit comes down and the projects are less likely to experience delays.

They have a mature platform with completely immature systems. Let's have them build up some numbers first before moving to the next platform. They could've stopped 054A production at 8 or 12, but due to the need of having something that's pretty modern and cost effective, they are building 18 or 20 of them. They are going to do the same with 052C/D. If they do end up building 8 052Ds, they will have 14 true air defense ships out there. You need that number to replace all the 051s that are about to retire..

Could things be mature after 4 units and could the propulsion and other technology needed for 055 be ready by then? Sure. But it took 7 years between the launching of first and third units of 052C. PLAN didn't get a new destroyer for a long time. So, you do the math.

Click to expand...

I agree there was a period where certain platforms took a while to mature but at the same time, I notice the CN doesn't serial build vessels unless they are confident the major hurdles have been passed. 052C was only a pair for years. But in the case of 052D, we're already seeing more than that being built without the first one even commissioned. Not discounting the complexity of 052D's VLS or APAR system but there's underlying experience from the 052C's APAR and both 052C's / 054's VLS supporting 052D's development. Building a 055 hull to iron out a new propulsion system in parallel isn't such a bad idea imho.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:

I agree there was a period where certain platforms took a while to mature but at the same time, I notice the CN doesn't serial build vessels unless they are confident the major hurdles have been passed. 052C was only a pair for years. But in the case of 052D, we're already seeing more than that being built without the first one even commissioned. Not discounting the complexity of 052D's VLS or APAR system but there's underlying experience from the 052C's APAR and both 052C's / 054's VLS supporting 052D's development. Building a 055 hull to iron out a new propulsion system in parallel isn't such a bad idea imho.

Click to expand...

I think you are discounting the changes on 052D. More importantly, you are discounting the technology difficult in a new shipping class like 055. I can see them doing something in parallel to 052D, but they will continue to 052D until 055 is ready for mass production because they have a need to replace existing ships. Either way, I'm not too clear why you have so much problem with continuing to build 052D when there is clearly a need for this ship?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Well, we have not really talked about the hangar...just the dimensions for the landing pad. In fact the Type 052C and D pads are larger than the Burkes.

But, the Type 052C and Type 052D hangers are a different matter. They are much smaller and can only house one helo. You can see this on the C and D designs, they do not take up the entire width of the pad, only about half, whereas the Burke cuts across the entire width of the vessel there and holds two helicopters.

But that is by design on both counts. The PLAN did not intend to have two helos on their vessel and the US did.

Click to expand...

Sorry, hangar was a typo. I meant helipad.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

tphuang said:

I think you are discounting the changes on 052D. More importantly, you are discounting the technology difficult in a new shipping class like 055. I can see them doing something in parallel to 052D, but they will continue to 052D until 055 is ready for mass production because they have a need to replace existing ships. Either way, I'm not too clear why you have so much problem with continuing to build 052D when there is clearly a need for this ship?

Click to expand...

The problem you perceive is non-existent. I only said I rather see production of 052D be limited if certain stars lined up, the crucial one being if they have made their breakthrough with propulsion for a higher tonnage vessel. Shipyards having extra capacity due to the shipping demand slump is another star lining up. Even then, since 052D is still in the build phase, it would be a parallel project so it's not really shutting the 052D production line either. There's also no discount of the new systems in 052D. Both the new VLS and APAR are modular components so whether they get mounted onto a 052D hull or a new 055 hull, they can be tested and refined in the same manner. All I'm saying is, if they already have a new propulsion system that they consider satisfactory, they should keep pushing the envelope by putting that system in a hull to work things out. You can't have a 055 ready for mass production if you're not even building one and I fully concur that development will take quite some time, which is why I rather see it start sooner rather than later to reduce that time transitioning from 052D to 055. Why the wish for such a transition? Because I think given the vision the Chinese Navy is pursuing, they will need higher tonnage ships.