052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
The 10th 052D at Changxing is almost ready for launch. Note the CIWS has been upgraded from Type 730 to Type 1130.
(2048 x 1152)
Very nice -- this is JN D9 (10th overall) in the process of being launched, so I expect within a few hours after this picture was taken, it would be in the water.
It might even already be in the water as I write this.
edit: a bit of a shame that the pics of DL cannot show DL D3 behind D2, but I suppose D3 is still relatively early in construction and obstructed by the taller and more complete D2... though we can see some of the blue boxes sitting on top of the lower hull deck on D3, protruding slightly upwards behind D2, to demonstrate that it's definitely there. The middle three photos of the post show the blue boxes more obviously if anyone's interested in looking.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
That's fast progress and it looks like the 52D is the 54A of PLAN's DDG force. How many will they eventually build, two maybe three dozens?
@Ironman
Some time ago, we already had a discussion on a High/Medium/Low mix of ships (Type-55/52/54) and costings.
The Type-52D and Type-55 are in same the cost range, with the Type-54A being way cheaper.
Notional figures are as follows:
Type-54A = approx $300M
Type-52D = approx $600M-1000M
Type-55 = approx $800M-1200M ($200M extra cost for hull/propulsion/VLS/etc)
So with the Type-55 versus Type-52D, you end up with a 75% increase in VLS cells from 64 to 112, whilst the cost only increases 17%-33%.
===
Let's look at how China's Navy is likely to operate.
In 2025, we would likely see 3 carriers, each with a modest number of aircraft (24-36) on board.
Escort-wise, I imagine a CSG would comprise 4 anti-air destroyers (with one assigned as CSG AAW commander), 2 ASW frigates and 1 SSN. This is based on what we've seen in the USN previously.
With one Type-55 and three Type-52D, that is only 304 VLS cells, which is probably not enough for a decent anti-surface or land-attack cruise missile loadout, given the competing AAW requirement.
With the coming changes in weaponry, the Type-52D hull has already reached its limits to accommodate anything extra. So what will happen during the mid-life update in 15 years time?
So it just makes more sense to build on the Type-55 hull, which does have more VLS cells (for distributed lethality), hanger space for future UAV/UUVs, more gas turbines for future railguns/lasers, etc.
Also note that the Ticonderoga cruisers (which act as the CSG AAW commander) are actually the same size as the Arleigh Burke destroyers. And remember that the Type-55 is actually smaller than the Zumwalt.
Some time ago, we already had a discussion on a High/Medium/Low mix of ships (Type-55/52/54) and costings.
The Type-52D and Type-55 are in same the cost range, with the Type-54A being way cheaper.
Notional figures are as follows:
Type-54A = approx $300M
Type-52D = approx $600M-1000M
Type-55 = approx $800M-1200M ($200M extra cost for hull/propulsion/VLS/etc)
So with the Type-55 versus Type-52D, you end up with a 75% increase in VLS cells from 64 to 112, whilst the cost only increases 17%-33%.
===
Let's look at how China's Navy is likely to operate.
In 2025, we would likely see 3 carriers, each with a modest number of aircraft (24-36) on board.
Escort-wise, I imagine a CSG would comprise 4 anti-air destroyers (with one assigned as CSG AAW commander), 2 ASW frigates and 1 SSN. This is based on what we've seen in the USN previously.
With one Type-55 and three Type-52D, that is only 304 VLS cells, which is probably not enough for a decent anti-surface or land-attack cruise missile loadout, given the competing AAW requirement.
With the coming changes in weaponry, the Type-52D hull has already reached its limits to accommodate anything extra. So what will happen during the mid-life update in 15 years time?
So it just makes more sense to build on the Type-55 hull, which does have more VLS cells (for distributed lethality), hanger space for future UAV/UUVs, more gas turbines for future railguns/lasers, etc.
Also note that the Ticonderoga cruisers (which act as the CSG AAW commander) are actually the same size as the Arleigh Burke destroyers. And remember that the Type-55 is actually smaller than the Zumwalt.
yeah, I think this is the 9th from JN. I think the previous photos should Dalians 3rd 052D pretty clearly. But it does seem to need a little more time.
I have posted Henri K say 400 mill € about 450 mill $.
Propulsion seems expensive in the price and especialy for ships which can move to 25+ kn and very for those able to 30+ kn.
Russain Lider also.
In fact are cruisers, designated DDG only for politic or budget reason... and very possible as LCS FF/FFG now this change later, reclassified.
Considering 055 have a better sensor set and higher VLS count it's likely more cost efficient than 052D and also likely provide capability not available with 052D.
I agree that 054A is still a necessary element in a SAG, as you said, doing the dirty work. However 052D has the same mission coverage as 055 and 055 is better and likely more cost-efficient in those missions. The only exception might be ASW but that's why we keep 054A in the fleet right?
That also depends on whether the 055 is more survivable under attack than the 052D or 054A, or its equivalent of multiple 052Ds or 054As, and by how much.
My guess is the number of 052Ds and 055s will be limited until China can deploy the next wave of catch-up-to-cutting-edge technologies. Then the 055 will be upgraded and either take on the role of 052D successor as well or a new design will succeed the 052D.