Go away.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
There is no indication that China will just stop at 2 carriers, in fact there is every reason to believe that China will have 3, then 4 to 6 depending on whether it wants its carrier fleet to be full blown catapults. So diving up 8 055s among 3 carriers in the near future means that there will be 2 for each CBG and 1 for training and another in maintenance. And this is not counting the 055s in a DESOFLOT group or at the head of a amphibious unit. So 8 055s is actually spread pretty thin.
We cannot say with certainty that the 052D's total number will be lower than that of the Burkes. The most optimistic numbers put the total number of 052Ds in service, fitting out and construction to be no less then 21 in a span of 8 years. A rate of construction that is just as fast as that of the Burkes, which is even more impressive when one factors in the other number of ships that are being built at any given time as well. In turn, no new class of surface combatant had entered service with the USN since the Perry class frigate was decommissioned in any reasonable number. Add the fact that within the next decade the first of the Burkes will be seeing it's retirement age at 35 and the numbers are more evenly stacked between these 2 classes.
And a CBG vs CBG is a lot more complicated that just pitting a set number of surface ships against each other to duke it out. As history shown, it is the CBG's fighters that will deal the actual strike, with the surface escorts defending the carriers. In this regard the 052D is perfectly capable, each 052D can be backed up by an additional 054A that deals with close range AAW while the 052Ds handles the long range aspect. With a total of 96 VLS combined they do not fall behind a single Burke in this regard.
Last edited by a moderator:
Frigates in general have 16 to 32 VLS. The 052D has 64, double the number.
Not only are the 052D VLS double than number, but are also much bigger.
A FREMM, taking the French ones, has 32 VLS, 16 of them either A43 or A50 VLS. Their designation is an indicator of their depth. A43 means 4.3 meters and A50 means 5.0 meters. These are for Aster 15 and Aster 30 SAMs. Another 16 are A70 which means 7 meter ones. These are for SCALP missiles.
The 052D has VLS that is around .85 meters in diameter, which is much bigger than a MK. 41. Due to their CCL design, these tubes are capable of both hot and cold launch. The 052D uses a mix of 7 meter and 9 meter long tubes, the ratio is unknown. That is 9 freaking meters. All these tubes can either house SAMs or offensive weapons, such as cruise missiles and supersonic antiship missiles, with YJ-18s specifically for the 9 meter tubes.
There is no equivalent in firepower here.
If you take China's Type 054A frigate, they have 32 VLS, and with the HQ-16 about just over 5 meters long, the VLS would have to be slightly longer than that.
If you like a 'destroyer' that is more like a frigate, take the Daring. 48 VLS --- all A50s with Aster 30s. Same kind of VLS as the FREMMs use, but more of them. However, none of them are 7 meter long ones, and the ship lack the offensive capability the A70 VLS can bring.
European "frigates" displace on the higher end of that range, and really aren't frigates at all. The nomenclature of "frigate" vs "destroyer" vs "cruiser" has been more or less totally upended for non-military, i.e. political/public perception/financial, reasons. A perfect example is the Alvaro de Bazan, one of my favorite European designs. The original Spanish designers call them "frigates", while the Australians who will be purchasing an essentially identical version are going to call them "destroyers".
Wrong. European "frigates" are frequently the only major surface combatants of their navies, and are designed to do everything, including ASW, ASuW, and AAW, and sometimes even serve as C^3 nodes like cruisers.
The cost of a 052D is almost certainly less than half that of a Burke, which itself comes in at ~$1.9 billion each. I will pit 2 052Ds against one Burke any day of the week. Even if their cost is 2/3 that of a Burke, I will take 3 052Ds vs 2 Arleigh Burkes any day of the week. Not only do you get less eggs in one basket but you also have greater area coverage for the purposes of AAW and ASW.
Wrong again. China will probably have 6-7 carriers in the long run, and already has put 6 LPDs in the water, and is planning on building a whole new class of LHDs. So yeah, the 055 will be a flagship type of surface combatant. And actually, it would be such even if China had 0 carriers and 0 amphibious ships, because that's what it's designed to do.
Nope. Boy have you got this one wrong. Not only are frigates frequently multirole (see the European "frigates"), but the 052D is actually primarily AAW, as destroyers typically are, with secondary ASW and ASuW roles. Not only that, to confuse you even more the British Daring class "destroyer" has only 48 VLS cells, but I don't see you having problems with this ship being called a destroyer despite its having even less VLS cells than the 052D. It also has no VDS/TAS that is vital for ASW work and at least half the ships in the class don't have any ASuW capability at all.
This is a nonsensical comparison. If we are comparing using cost basis, this comparison is even more nonsensical. And of course to top it all off you have utterly failed to account for the tyranny of distance. Only 60% of the USN is deployed to the Pacific Command (oh my bad, the "Indo-Pacific" Command), and most of those ships are deployed to Hawaii or the West Coast of the CONUS. Only a fraction of a fraction of the USN is actually in the Western Pacific theater. This is the price you have to pay to be the world's policeman.
Jura The idiot
General
a classification of modern warships has been one of the SDF evergreens;
now mainly for the new guy ... Biscuits (LOL)
one major group of people says it should be displacement-based,
another major group of people says it should be role-based,
and it's easy to give counter-examples to both groups #1 and #2;
I also heard people saying it should be kept as officially announced by the respective Navy of the World (sometimes colliding with both #1 and #2, then)
then there's a group saying it's meaningless
me? I tend to think like
'Surface Combatant of 5k displacement, ASW and local AA defense role' instead of 'Frigate' (just an example!) and so on
LOL let's see from how many sides I'll be taking fire now
now mainly for the new guy ... Biscuits (LOL)
:
one major group of people says it should be displacement-based,
another major group of people says it should be role-based,
and it's easy to give counter-examples to both groups #1 and #2;
I also heard people saying it should be kept as officially announced by the respective Navy of the World (sometimes colliding with both #1 and #2, then)
then there's a group saying it's meaningless
me? I tend to think like
'Surface Combatant of 5k displacement, ASW and local AA defense role' instead of 'Frigate' (just an example!) and so on
LOL let's see from how many sides I'll be taking fire now
A Type-52D Universal VLS cell has almost THREE times the internal volume of a Burke Mk41 Cell.
That comes is useful particularly for large long-range SAMs and ASMs
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Does it?
I think 052Ds are fairly well equipped for their size for the ASW mission.
They obviously have a bow sonar, and VLS that will likely accommodate VL ASROC type weapons in the future at some point (whether it's Yu-8 or a variant).
But the key ASW sensors they have which even most mainline workhorse ships of other navies don't have, is a dual TASS and VDS system that comes as standard for every ship. Apart from having two hangars for two ASW helicopters on 052D I can't see what else they can really add to it to make it better at ASW
I suppose that's a legit argument. After all, China itself calls them destroyers, and maybe that's what we should take into account.
And the whole point of frigates is being able to get more for a lesser cost. In fact, if the 052D's cost is about half of a Burke's, it conveniently costs about as much as a FREMM frigate... Though I think your argument that European frigates aren't really frigates makes sense.
Here is where I think we disagree.
8 055s are the first production batch. And there are 6 ones in various stages of build right now, while there is 1 carrier fitting out in Dalian and one brewing in Jiangnan. I strongly doubt that production would end with 8 models, especially since that shipborne railgun was tested. There will be a B variant after these 8.
I don't believe the 002 will be finished before the eighth 055 arrives. That leaves us 8 055s and 2 carriers. By the time China gets a 6-7 carrier fleet, they will also have built new 055 variants. Your scenario of 8 055s shared between 6 carriers assumes that China only builds carriers for the next decade.
Could you clarify on the 052D being primarily anti air? The HHQ-9 variants might be impressive but they are hard pressed compared to SM-2As. While they might not have a disadvantage, they definitely don't have a clear lead.
The YJ-18 on the other hand is top tier when it comes to anti ship firepower. Especially when a 052D can carry dozens of them in the UVLS.
The Darings simply doesn't seem like much of an asset at all. A 054A receiving linked information from a bigger ship could probably do similarly. Both have too few missiles to ward off determined attacks.
Except if the US attacks, they're not gonna play nice and send them over piecemeal
We do not yet know what the final ratio of surface combatants to carriers and large decks amphibs will be yet.
You should consider some of the loadouts of other destroyers in the world first. For example, Type 45 has 48 VLS, Hobart DDG has 48 VLS, both of which have their primary purpose as AAW.
Furthermore, modern "frigates" that are in excess of 7000 tons are essentially near destroyers themselves. The distinction between destroyers and frigates is losing what little relevance it once had.
Heck even Australia's new Hunter class frigates that they plan on receiving in the 2020s will be at least the size of their current Hobart class destroyers.
Flight III Burkes will displace as much as Ticonderoga class cruisers.
In other words, don't take class categories too seriously.
The problem with direct comparisons of surface combatants in the escort role is that comparing their "effectiveness" cannot be done by comparing one escort with an opposing escort, because the mission of each side's escort isn't meant to target the other side's escort.
Rather, the effectiveness of each side's escort must be compared with the kind of anti ship capabilities that the opponent can be expected to field. Comparing the role of escorts in a "slugging match" on a one to one manner simply doesn't make sense. Rather, comparing the overall composition of each task force as a whole vs the opponent as a whole is a way which makes more sense.
Then there are things to consider like overall fleet structure, and to optimize both quality and quantity for one's own technology and financial situations, and