052C/052D Class Destroyers

sndef888 said:

Tbh I don't think they would upgrade the 052C that extensively, maybe change the YJ-82 to YJ-12 and upgrade the radar a bit
It already has 48 HQ-9s which is basically the same as 052Ds. Heck even the older 051C with the 48 S300s are pretty fine
Not worth cutting the ship up just to replace it with equivalent missiles

The 052Bs are much better candidates for MLU

Click to expand...

The issue might be that the newer HHQ-9s use a different and square shaped canister which is incompatible with the circular VLS that uses the round ringed canister that the land based HQ-9s used. The HHQ-9s used with the 052C are likely an older version from the ones used with the 052D.

Another is that the circular VLS might also be more mechanically complicated as it comes with its own crane that is used to load the canisters into the VLS. Yet another reason is that the circular design isn't by space wise, efficient.

The best reason for fitting the U-VLS is that it allows you to use the YJ-18 missiles. This is better integrated with other ships that use the YJ-18, obviously the 052D and the 055. The problem I see with YJ-12s is that although they are no doubt impressive supersonic missiles, they are hard to coordinate for a mass attack with YJ-18s and YJ-83s. As YJ-12s are supersonic missiles, they will reach their targets far ahead of the others, and that may allow them to get picked off by the air defenses. Whereas with the subsonics, you maybe able to coordinate their flight so all of them arrive at the target fleet at the same time, and overwhelm the defenses in one massed attack.

The 052Bs are already in the process of being MLU'ed, at least for 168 Guangzhou. We have not seen anything done on 169 Wuhan yet and the destroyer is still active as of 2020-2021. The upgrade for this seems to be practically a 054A with gas turbines, just as the 051B refit was a 054A with steam turbines. I forgot to mention that we can logically expect the 052B refit to be fitted with YJ-12s.

For the 051C, the best recourse might be to contract the Russians to upgrade the RIF-M system with a refresh on the electronics, but the Top Plate and Mineral ME radars will have to be removed and replaced. The replacement of these two radars are essentially sidegrades but we have seen sidegrades of this scale done with the Project 956E refits where the Russian radars are replaced by Chinese ones even with no significant benefit other than the Chinese having full control of the radars and can modify and upgrade them as they please. In due course, I also expect the EW system on the 051C to be upgraded to the current standard as they clearly belong to the old generation as it stands now.

Tam said:

The issue might be that the newer HHQ-9s use a different and square shaped canister which is incompatible with the circular VLS that uses the round ringed canister that the land based HQ-9s used. The HHQ-9s used with the 052C are likely an older version from the ones used with the 052D.

Click to expand...

Do you have photos? IIRC all HQ-9/HHQ-9 containers are tube-shaped.
In this case, the problem is that a smaller upgrade can get 90% of the efficiency of the large one for a much lesser intrusion.
This isn't a capital ship, not sure if such a deep rebuild of a destroyer is even worth it w/o a good motivation.
Older units at least get much more capability in their upgrades.

Gloire_bb said:

Do you have photos? IIRC all HQ-9/HHQ-9 containers are tube-shaped.
In this case, the problem is that a smaller upgrade can get 90% of the efficiency of the large one for a much lesser intrusion.
This isn't a capital ship, not sure if such a deep rebuild of a destroyer is even worth it w/o a good motivation.
Older units at least get much more capability in their upgrades.

Click to expand...

You can find the later HHQ-9 canisters earlier in this thread, as they are previously posted by by78. The HHQ-9 canisters for the 052D are square shaped, not tube shaped. Weirdly enough ,the YJ-18 canisters are tube shaped.

I don't really think its a deep rebuild since you already have a VLS in the same area. The PLAN has put VLS into ships where there are none before, such as on the 051B and 956E, and those are deep rebuilds. The 052B whose MLU is already undergoing, is also going to be a deep rebuild if they are going to install HHQ-16 with AJK-16 VLS on them.

Of course its not a trouble to put new missiles into the tube canisters, but this makes your logistics more complex. Instead of a single pool or SKU of one missile that you can use with the 052D and 055, you have to use a separate inventory for the 052C alone, which is inconvenient. This is likely the situation you are facing with the 9th Destroyer Division, which has three 052Ds and two 055s along with two 052C (170 and 171 --- the two ships most likely to see an MLU in the coming years).

If these two 052Cs are still using Ukrainian DA80 gas turbines, I expect those to be uprooted and replaced by the proper domestic gas turbine QC280 or GT25000. For this reason the two 052B might still be using DA80, and replacing them should be part of the MLU package.

sndef888 said:

What's wrong with its hangar?

Click to expand...

Weird...hangar on the left with the VLS still along the midline. And if they relocate the hangar as they're doing to the 052B, maybe making the flight deck a little bit longer too, it'll be able to operate the Z-20. The problem will be the aft-VLS. Maybe they'll have to upgrade it with the U-VLS as Tam suggests. I don't know whether that's worthy of doing at all...

Tam said:

You can find the later HHQ-9 canisters earlier in this thread, as they are previously posted by by78. The HHQ-9 canisters for the 052D are square shaped, not tube shaped. Weirdly enough ,the YJ-18 canisters are tube shaped.

I don't really think its a deep rebuild since you already have a VLS in the same area. The PLAN has put VLS into ships where there are none before, such as on the 051B and 956E, and those are deep rebuilds. The 052B whose MLU is already undergoing, is also going to be a deep rebuild if they are going to install HHQ-16 with AJK-16 VLS on them.

Of course its not a trouble to put new missiles into the tube canisters, but this makes your logistics more complex. Instead of a single pool or SKU of one missile that you can use with the 052D and 055, you have to use a separate inventory for the 052C alone, which is inconvenient. This is likely the situation you are facing with the 9th Destroyer Division, which has three 052Ds and two 055s along with two 052C (170 and 171 --- the two ships most likely to see an MLU in the coming years).

If these two 052Cs are still using Ukrainian DA80 gas turbines, I expect those to be uprooted and replaced by the proper domestic gas turbine QC280 or GT25000. For this reason the two 052B might still be using DA80, and replacing them should be part of the MLU package.

Click to expand...

The forward VLS will not be a problem. But it'll still need a deep rebuild for the aft.

blindsight said:

The forward VLS will not be a problem. But it'll still need a deep rebuild for the aft.

Click to expand...

The aft is already on a deep rebuild with the spine moved from the offset to the center. Putting a VLS through the back of the hanger isn't a problem. That's already done on the 051C. The question is whether they want the space for something else.

Tam said:

The aft is already on a deep rebuild with the spine moved from the offset to the center. Putting a VLS through the back of the hanger isn't a problem. That's already done on the 051C. The question is whether they want the space for something else.

View attachment 76533

Click to expand...

But the 051C has no hangar at all.

Tam said:

You can find the later HHQ-9 canisters earlier in this thread, as they are previously posted by by78. The HHQ-9 canisters for the 052D are square shaped, not tube shaped. Weirdly enough ,the YJ-18 canisters are tube shaped.

Click to expand...

Found it. It's more interesting than that(but more logical, tbh)

The transport container is angular, but the launch container is circular, and may very well be old one inside a new outer shell. Which is logical,because no one is going to change hundreds of land TELs without a good reason. This way they gain both conveniences of storage&fitting and compatibility,
Overall - I don't think retaining old launchers will be a big problem.

Tam said:

I don't really think its a deep rebuild since you already have a VLS in the same area. The PLAN has put VLS into ships where there are none before, such as on the 051B and 956E, and those are deep rebuilds. The 052B whose MLU is already undergoing, is also going to be a deep rebuild if they are going to install HHQ-16 with AJK-16 VLS on them.

Click to expand...

Previous refits were actually lighter (automatic magazines for rail launchers were complex and heavy). Here we're either adding weight(if trying to fit 48 forward), or cutting inside the ship with unknown complexity - it may very well be undoable.
Basically - if it's possible to achieve the necessary level of tactical compatibility (radars, ECM, coms, and new missiles) - I don't personally think 052Cs even need such a deep refit. They're quite modern ships as they're right now.

blindsight said:

But the 051C has no hangar at all.

Click to expand...

For the 052B, you only need to use 1/3rd of the enormous hanger to install the VLS. Remember, in the 052C/D, this part behind the second mast is where their VLS lies. In other words, on the 052C/D, the hanger does not extend all the way to the back of second mast where the second radar is.

IMO, the ship is balanced to have a VLS on the back. If all the VLS is at the front, and the back only has the hanger, the ship maybe bow heavy. That is probably why on the 052B, they did not put all 48 missiles in front but divided them into two caches of 24 missiles one at the front and one at the rear.

After all the experimentation with weird missile layouts and types on the 051C, 052B, 052C, they must be glad they finally found a more or less perfect design in the 052D/HQ9/YJ18