052/052B Class Destroyers

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
But if they install the HQ-10 on top of the hangar by raising it a little bit, they could get 48 cells for the HHQ-16, right?

This is basically where I mean the VLS should go. One is behind the gun and the other is at the hanger and behind the radar as shown.

Since the raised part of the hanger has been removed from the right and moved to the center, we don't know if the mechanical ring and motor is retained for an HHQ-10 installation. It would be interesting if they choose to put two HQ-10 launchers instead, one at the front and one at the rear. But I get the feeling they would put a large SATCOM or two there instead on the top of the hanger and the front will get an HHQ-10 launcher. The SATCOMs seem very important for the PLAN and the back of the hanger has been a good spot for those as we have seen in other ships. One large SATCOM followed by a smaller SATCOM or datalink will be installed on the spine of the hanger like we have seen before on previous 052D.


052b-a.jpg
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is basically where I mean the VLS should go. One is behind the gun and the other is at the hanger and behind the radar as shown.

Since the raised part of the hanger has been removed from the right and moved to the center, we don't know if the mechanical ring and motor is retained for an HHQ-10 installation. It would be interesting if they choose to put two HQ-10 launchers instead, one at the front and one at the rear. But I get the feeling they would put a large SATCOM or two there instead on the top of the hanger and the front will get an HHQ-10 launcher. The SATCOMs seem very important for the PLAN and the back of the hanger has been a good spot for those as we have seen in other ships. One large SATCOM followed by a smaller SATCOM or datalink will be installed on the spine of the hanger like we have seen before on previous 052D.


View attachment 76510
I don't think it'll get two HQ-10 launchers. No precedent. I still prefer an aft-launcher for the HQ-10 so that they can easily install a 32-cell forward VLS with another 16-cell VLS in front of the hangar. Another possibility: maybe they don't really need the HQ-10 at all.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don't think it'll get two HQ-10 launchers. No precedent. I still prefer an aft-launcher for the HQ-10 so that they can easily install a 32-cell forward VLS with another 16-cell VLS in front of the hangar. Another possibility: maybe they don't really need the HQ-10 at all.

Not enough pictures to see what's going on. Would help if I knew the ship's Google Earth location to check out.

To get 32 VLS in the front, you have to chop away this platform where the Shtil launcher's ring is.

Then put 16 cells ahead of the hanger and behind the second mast.

Still enough space to put HQ-10 on the rear if you are able to find space for the relevant SATCOMs.


052B-b.jpg
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not enough pictures to see what's going on. Would help if I knew the ship's Google Earth location to check out.

To get 32 VLS in the front, you have to chop away this platform where the Shtil launcher's ring is.

Then put 16 cells ahead of the hanger and behind the second mast.

Still enough space to put HQ-10 on the rear if you are able to find space for the relevant SATCOMs.


View attachment 76532
It's not a problem to chop the platform. They did it to the 051B before. If they can put a HQ-10 launcher in the rear, that'll be a bonus. But it's more important to have an additional 16-cell VLS.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
It's not a problem to chop the platform. They did it to the 051B before. If they can put a HQ-10 launcher in the rear, that'll be a bonus. But it's more important to have an additional 16-cell VLS.

So far from pictures last year they already chopped part of the platform. We badly need new pictures of the ship to see what has happened since last year.

Whether or not it will have 32 or 48 cells that is the question. Do realize that in addition to the physical VLS limitation, there is also a soft or electronic limitation to the number of missiles you can support, as in each missile might have its own separate radio channel. It can be that the combat system is designed to support only up to 32 missiles.

One reason why I think it needs a VLS in the rear is to balance the ship. By removing the previous two missile systems, you took the weight both front and the rear, so in a VLS, putting everything in the front won't balance the ship as it lightens the rear further and puts more weight at the front. For this reason, if its a 32 VLS, they have to put 16 in front and 16 at the rear. If its a 48 VLS, then 24 in front and 24 in the rear but I don't see that happening because it requires three banks instead of two. If you need more weight to the rear then you put the HHQ-10 launcher there. If you need more weight in the front then that's where we put the HHQ-10 launcher.
 
Last edited:

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
So far from pictures last year they already chopped part of the platform. We badly need new pictures of the ship to see what has happened since last year.

Whether or not it will have 32 or 48 cells that is the question. Do realize that in addition to the physical VLS limitation, there is also a soft or electronic limitation to the number of missiles you can support, as in each missile might have its own separate radio channel. It can be that the combat system is designed to support only up to 32 missiles.

One reason why I think it needs a VLS in the rear is to balance the ship. By removing the previous two missile systems, you took the weight both front and the rear, so in a VLS, putting everything in the front won't balance the ship as it lightens the rear further and puts more weight at the front. For this reason, if its a 32 VLS, they have to put 16 in front and 16 at the rear. If its a 48 VLS, then 24 in front and 24 in the rear but I don't see that happening because it requires three banks instead of two. If you need more weight to the rear then you put the HHQ-10 launcher there. If you need more weight in the front then that's where we put the HHQ-10 launcher.
The 052B has been receiving a deep rebuild anyway, I guess they should have many ways to maintain its balance. Of course, if they could manage to add 48-cell AKJ-16s and an extra launcher for 24 HHQ-10s, that would be the best result.

Btw, I don't think they're going to replace the DA80s, what do you think of it?
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The 052B has been receiving a deep rebuild anyway, I guess they should have many ways to maintain its balance. Of course, if they could manage to add 48-cell AKJ-16s and an extra launcher for 24 HHQ-10s, that would be the best result.

Btw, I don't think they're going to replace the DA80s, what do you think of it?

They will replace the DA80s. That's one of the points of having a midlife update. Even if the part is not upgraded, it is replaced with the same part that is new, so you have a mechanically fresh and new part that's more reliable and have a long service life ahead. Gas turbines in particular, have a service life, a limited time between overhauls, followed by a limited time before its life ends. So out with the old and in with the new. My guess is that with the Type 052 refits, on the Harbin and Qingdao, both GE and Ukrainian engines have been removed and changed to the domestic GT25000/QC280. Same engines as the 052D. You also benefit from having standardization, good for maintenance and parts keeping.

In addition to this, the trust level on the DA80s are not exactly high. It already caused an embarrassment on the same ship, 168 Guangzhou, by breaking down in the middle of a Gulf of Aden deployment.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
They will replace the DA80s. That's one of the points of having a midlife update. Even if the part is not upgraded, it is replaced with the same part that is new, so you have a mechanically fresh and new part that's more reliable and have a long service life ahead. Gas turbines in particular, have a service life, a limited time between overhauls, followed by a limited time before its life ends. So out with the old and in with the new. My guess is that with the Type 052 refits, on the Harbin and Qingdao, both GE and Ukrainian engines have been removed and changed to the domestic GT25000/QC280. Same engines as the 052D. You also benefit from having standardization, good for maintenance and parts keeping.

In addition to this, the trust level on the DA80s are not exactly high. It already caused an embarrassment on the same ship, 168 Guangzhou, by breaking down in the middle of a Gulf of Aden deployment.
But I heard the two 052s still use LM2500s. That's pretty weird though.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
But I heard the two 052s still use LM2500s. That's pretty weird though.

I'm not sure. These turbines should have been replace by now. The refits happen to coincide at the time when China has mastered the production of the QC280, putting a check mark on the mass production of 052D and finishing the remaining four 052C. Plus only one 052 uses LM2500, the other uses DA80. At this point in time the lack of parts for the LM2500 means all remaining spares would have long been used up, and with the PLAN cut off from the supply, they should have replaced the imported gas turbines with the domestics.
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
I'm not sure. These turbines should have been replace by now. The refits happen to coincide at the time when China has mastered the production of the QC280, putting a check mark on the mass production of 052D and finishing the remaining four 052C. Plus only one 052 uses LM2500, the other uses DA80. At this point in time the lack of parts for the LM2500 means all remaining spares would have long been used up, and with the PLAN cut off from the supply, they should have replaced the imported gas turbines with the domestics.
self reliance is always the best solution, dependence on politically motivated suppliers is suicidal.
 
Top