052C/052D Class Destroyers

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Okay, here's three comparison pictures between the Burke IIa DDGs (of which 34 have been built) which displace over 9,000 tons each and have 96 VLS cells, and the Type 052D class DDGs (of which 4 have been launched ) and displace over 7,2000 tons and have 64 VLS cells.


This is a better comparison. The US vessels have all of their major vertical surfaces at angles precisely calculated (as I am sure the PLAN vessels are) to minimize radar reflection. Compared to earlier classes, and even to the BUrk Flight I and Flight II vessels, there is less clutter on deck for the Flight IIAs.

Anyhow, the Flight IIA Burkes continue to be built at a rate of about two vessels a year and will have another ten or so vessels built before flowing into the Flight III vessels which will have at least 12 built and perhaps 18 or more.

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Burke looks a bit more busy, but I would say externally they looks about the same interns of relative antiquity. Note that the second portion of the super structure on Burkes is significantly taller then that of 52 also note the 52's older style "Grill" radar antennas vs the smaller phased and rounded of the Burke2a. wish we had gone to Zimwalt or a variant of her but Burke is a fine ship,

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

burkes were built two per year up to octobeer 2012. there is a hiatus now and next one will be comissioned late this year or early nwext year. the one after that is scheduled sometime in 2016. there is one more contracted after that, and sevareal more planned but not yet contracted. whether the pace will return to two per year is debatable, as always.

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Seeing this:

Jeff Head said:

Click to expand...

makes me ask the same, unanswered, question again: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/plan-type-052-class-destroyer-269-5571.html#post275773

I mean why not to cover the smoke stacks ... please

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jura said:

Seeing this:



makes me ask the same, unanswered, question again: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/plan-type-052-class-destroyer-269-5571.html#post275773

I mean why not to cover the smoke stacks ... please

Click to expand...

Good question and definitely one on my wishlist too. I'm only guessing they figured aside from the cosmetic look, it doesn't do a whole lot to reduce RCS or heat signature so it wasn't justifiable. But still hoping they change their minds and go back for a quick mod, they did that with the 056s easily.

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:

Good question and definitely one on my wishlist too. I'm only guessing they figured aside from the cosmetic look, it doesn't do a whole lot to reduce RCS or heat signature so it wasn't justifiable. But still hoping they change their minds and go back for a quick mod, they did that with the 056s easily.

Click to expand...

056s are diesel ships. 052s are gas turbine ships with much more and much hotter exhaust gas. just increasing the superstructure to cover the funnels would decrease the RCS somewhat but do little to decrease IR signature. a lot more efforts are needed to seriously reduce IR signature. one some MEKO design the exhaust is vented horizontally after been cooled by water spray. is it worth the trouble? most MEKO customers didn't pick that design. for Type 45 Daring, a waste heat recovery system cools the exhaust and increase propulsion efficiency. That's a more elegant solution, but that's not something you can add in a simple upgrade or in the case of 052D where the propulsion system is inherited from earlier classes. late batches of Burke class has enclosed funnels, but USN never bothered to modify the earlier batches.

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

And you may also have to increase the height of the yagi antennas to clear the funnels if you raise the enclosure height, especially since the funnels are arranged port-starboard instead of forward-aft like on the Burkes, so it may be more inhibiting to a clear view for both the yagi and the AESA panels. Not to mention added topside weight. Not saying it could not be done, but it's not just the simple matter of more panels, right?

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Solaris said:

And you may also have to increase the height of the yagi antennas to clear the funnels if you raise the enclosure height, especially since the funnels are arranged port-starboard instead of forward-aft like on the Burkes, so it may be more inhibiting to a clear view for both the yagi and the AESA panels. Not to mention added topside weight. Not saying it could not be done, but it's not just the simple matter of more panels, right?

Click to expand...

If it's merely a cosmetic move, a few panels should do it. But again, that's just all cosmetic so they probably found it unjustified.

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Jeff Head said:

Okay, here's three comparison pictures between the Burke IIa DDGs (of which 34 have been built) which displace over 9,000 tons each and have 96 VLS cells, and the Type 052D class DDGs (of which 4 have been launched ) and displace over 7,2000 tons and have 64 VLS cells.

...

Click to expand...

And you may also look here:
and start imagining a DDG 51 Flight III with the AMDR joining the bunch

Re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Interesting, so I assume that is an official model of what the initial flight iii burkes will look like...

It looks like the initial flight iii burkes will start construction about when the first 055s are meant to begin.


If 055 really ends up being as big as it's rumoured to be, I wonder if that may end up causing a controversy and spark a level of doubt among the USN the same way the unveiling of J-20 did in regards to the USAF, psychologically speaking.

I.e.: "oh no, China has a large stealth fighter and might build lots of them!" is similar to "oh no, China is building a large and modern destroyer bigger than our planned flight iii burkes and they might build lots of them!"