052C/052D Class Destroyers

Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
Jeff, I think you misunderstand Iron Man's meaning.

He is saying that if HHQ-9 variants can be "dual packed" in the manner that he is proposing (which is indeed a just an idea) -- then it means his 052D loadout of having 72 HHQ-9 variants in only 36 cells will allow 28 cells to be used for other things.

Of course, the direct comparison to Burke or Tico in this case, is the prerequisite that a Burke or Tico must have 72 HHQ-9 equivalents in their cells -- aka SM-2 variants or SM-6s -- in 72 cells, because the Mk-41 VLS is not big enough to hypothetically dual pack SM-2 or SM-6 sized missiles.


In other words, what is being compared is not whatever mixed load of missiles that Burkes or Ticos can yield, but rather it is looking at the number of free VLS cells that Burkes or Ticos will have after 72 of their VLS cells are already used to fill up with SM-2s or SM-6s.

In the case of Burkes, it is 96 - 72 = 24 free cells
In the case of Tico, it is 122 - 72 = 50 free cells
In the case of 052D, it is 64 - (72/2) = 28 free cells

And add in the various non VLS cell missiles if one wishes.


This is all operating off the idea that the Chinese Navy's universal VLS could notionally dual pack HHQ-9 class missiles, and the idea that HHQ-9 class missiles are equivalent munitions to be compared with the likes of SM-2/SM-6 variants.
Click to expand...
It is not a pre-requisite or an absolute. They are set up to be able to be modified according to need.

I do understood Iron Man's statement and implications, and they are strong implications...but when you start adding the ESSMs there with their specs, and then consider the modularity available to both the AEGIS vessels, you quickly (at least IMHO) can offset the overall implications.

Heck, if the pLAN can dual pack the HH-Q9s, as I say, it is a very strong implication/impact. I am not doubting that...but no one knows if it is even on the table or reality.

Anyhow, in either case, all four ships (Burke DDG, Tio CG, 052D and 055 are all modern, very capable ships.
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
That's 152 missiles and a heck of a load out.

But, when you start adding Quad Packled ESSMs into Burkes or Tico you can very quickly exceed those numbers.

Imagine this Tico:

26 x 4 ESSM = 104 ESSMs
48 x SM (whatever) = 48 SMs
24 x LRSAM = 24 LRSAMs
32 x Tomohawk whatever= 36 Tomahawks
08 X Harpoons

220 missiles ready to go with 32 antishipping, 36 Land attack, 152 antiair

Or, a Burke with

30 x SM (whatever) - 30 SMs
30 x Tomahawk = 30 Tomahawk
20 x 4 ESSM = 80 ESSM
16 x LRSAM = 30 LRSAM

That's 156 missiles with 110 Antiair, 30 land attack, and 16 antishipping.

Either of those load outs, which as you know can vary significantly, will make either the Burke or Tico just as tough a nut to crack as what you showed above, particularly when you consider their proven technologies, electronics, and particularly their proven counter electronic capabilities.

I am not discounting the Type 055 or the Type 052d, they are both significant achievements by the PRC and will also be very tough nuts to crack...but
Click to expand...
I read years ago that despite its mediumish range the USN considers the ESSM to be more or less a self-defense missile, which is the reason many CIWS were deleted from later flights of the Burkes after they started loading ESSM into them. I read a paper more recently (posted on SDF?) that urged the USN to reconsider this position and pack in more ESSM, but at least as of now the default is likely no more than an 8-cell pack of ESSM for both the Ticos and Burkes, essentially for self-defense in more or less the same fashion that RAM or HHQ-10 is being used, except with more range. The range of SM-2 and SM-6 means it can be used offensively and no doubt the USN is loathe to trade away one SM-2/6 space, even for 4 ESSM.

Also note that we could keep artificially inflating the missile numbers on both ships by removing LRSAMs and stuffing them with quad-packed missiles. An even comparison would involve both navies envisioning the same types of roles for their MRSAMs and not packing their ships to the gills with MRSAMs for the sake of inflating numbers. As such it seems to me that 32 such missiles for each ship is about right. We should also compare ships by envisioning them fitted out for the same roles, as a Burke fitted out to attack targets in Libya will not even remotely be the same Burke fitted for AAW in the East China Sea, and so we should also even out the anti-surface/land attack capabilities, say 16 antishipping missiles only, as a standard loadout for both. Same with ASW, say 8 missiles each.

Fitted out in this manner, a Flight IIA Burke would look like this:
64 SM-2/6 in 64 cells
32 ESSM in 8 cells
16 LRASM in 16 cells
8 VLA in 8 cells
 
Rachmaninov

Rachmaninov

Junior Member
Registered Member
A.Man said:
052D 118

230152adpcedpdtvjj4edd.jpg


232207vne8xkgeu4rvegxe.jpg
Click to expand...

This is still so elegant to look at...

Has anyone been able to figure out what the 'missing bar' under the APAR really does?
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Iron Man said:
I read years ago that despite its mediumish range the USN considers the ESSM to be more or less a self-defense missile, which is the reason many CIWS were deleted from later flights of the Burkes after they started loading ESSM into them. I read a paper more recently (posted on SDF?) that urged the USN to reconsider this position and pack in more ESSM, but at least as of now the default is likely no more than an 8-cell pack of ESSM for both the Ticos and Burkes, essentially for self-defense in more or less the same fashion that RAM or HHQ-10 is being used, except with more range. The range of SM-2 and SM-6 means it can be used offensively and no doubt the USN is loathe to trade away one SM-2/6 space, even for 4 ESSM.

Also note that we could keep artificially inflating the missile numbers on both ships by removing LRSAMs and stuffing them with quad-packed missiles. An even comparison would involve both navies envisioning the same types of roles for their MRSAMs and not packing their ships to the gills with MRSAMs for the sake of inflating numbers. As such it seems to me that 32 such missiles for each ship is about right. We should also compare ships by envisioning them fitted out for the same roles, as a Burke fitted out to attack targets in Libya will not even remotely be the same Burke fitted for AAW in the East China Sea, and so we should also even out the anti-surface/land attack capabilities, say 16 antishipping missiles only, as a standard loadout for both. Same with ASW, say 8 missiles each.

Fitted out in this manner, a Flight IIA Burke would look like this:
64 SM-2/6 in 64 cells
32 ESSM in 8 cells
16 LRASM in 16 cells
8 VLA in 8 cells
Click to expand...

DK-10 exist in service now ?

For HQ-9 i see almost everywhere 70 cm diameter 1st stage mentionned ... but a little less long than S-300PMU2 considering he have especialy HHQ-9B same range, 200 km confirm the rest.
In more the size we see is rather for a HQ-9 or HHQ-9 1st variant with a 125 km range to 200 can be only more big.
In addition early version of the S-300 do 60 cm but more long than HQ-9 so for volume same.
So one by cellule and the VLS is sized for that also CJ-10.
For me your idea is not reasonnable and in more so difficult.
 
Last edited:
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
FORBIN said:
DK-10 exist in service now ?

For HQ-9 i see almost everywhere 70 cm diameter 1st stage mentionned ... but a little less long than S-300PMU2 considering he have especialy HHQ-9B same range, 200 km confirm the rest.
In more the size we see is rather for a HQ-9 or HHQ-9 1st variant with a 125 km range to 200 can be only more big.
In addition early version of the S-300 do 60 cm but more long than HQ-9 so for volume same.
So one by cellule and the VLS is sized for that also CJ-10.
For me your idea is not reasonnable and in more so difficult.
Click to expand...
No, your quoted diameter includes the fins. It is not the diameter of the missile body. The missile body determines whether a missile can be dual- or quad-packed, not the fins, which can be designed to fold.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
FORBIN said:
DK-10 exist in service now ?

For HQ-9 i see almost everywhere 70 cm diameter 1st stage mentionned ... but a little less long than S-300PMU2 considering he have especialy HHQ-9B same range, 200 km confirm the rest.
In more the size we see is rather for a HQ-9 or HHQ-9 1st variant with a 125 km range to 200 can be only more big.
In addition early version of the S-300 do 60 cm but more long than HQ-9 so for volume same.
So one by cellule and the VLS is sized for that also CJ-10.
For me your idea is not reasonnable and in more so difficult.
Click to expand...
Increased range doesn’t always come with increased diameter.
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Iron Man said:
No, your quoted diameter includes the fins. It is not the diameter of the missile body. The missile body determines whether a missile can be dual- or quad-packed, not the fins, which can be designed to fold.
Click to expand...
Not agree :)​
Diameter for canister and fins in general are not retractable

Look very good missile for S-400 48N6M range 200 - 240 km as last HQ-9 or HHQ-9B diameter 52 cm do the canister but he do 7.5 m long and the HQ-9 only 6.8 m ( - 10 % ) and for volume so logicaly can be only more big ( + 10 % do 57 cm ) and Almaz Antey build the best SAMs since 50 years.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



latenlazy said:
Increased range doesn’t always come with increased diameter.
Click to expand...
Warhead can be more small for do room for fuel not for SAMs and can dépends speed for supersonic missiles can be different of subsonic which consumes much more less and are clearly less big in general.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top