052C/052D Class Destroyers

T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
blindsight said:
I don't like the idea to mix different types of VLS together, calling for logistics troubles. It shouldn't be too difficult to port the 9B to the old VLS.
Click to expand...
That's why you need to eliminate the old VLS. 9B will be exclusive to the U-VLS and requires an upgraded Type 346. PLAN will not continue to produce 9A for the sheer benefit of only 6 ships, no sirree. Ditto with the YJ-62 which only six ships use.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tiberium said:
Quite a while ago I heard from some one who have insider source that 052C would definitely swap to UVLS, as the old HQ9s are running out. For 346 AESA radar, it is quite natural to replace the old SiC T/R modules to the new GaN or at least GaAs module. However it might not be able to be differentiated from the look.
Click to expand...

The upgraded radars will lose the curved dome look which is meant for air circulation. The new radomes will be flat, which will reflect a 100% water cooled system. The upgraded arrays will also lose the external calibration field probe, so calibration will be internal only.

Up in the air is the question if the legacy Type 364 surface search radars on top of the mast will be replaced by dual sided AESA Type 368 surface search radars.
 
B

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
That's why you need to eliminate the old VLS. 9B will be exclusive to the U-VLS and requires an upgraded Type 346. PLAN will not continue to produce 9A for the sheer benefit of only 6 ships, no sirree. Ditto with the YJ-62 which only six ships use.
Click to expand...
But you suggested keeping the old VLS at the back. Does that mean you have to keep the old HHQ-9 available just for the six 052Cs?
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
blindsight said:
But you suggested keeping the old VLS at the back. Does that mean you have to keep the old HHQ-9 available just for the six 052Cs?
Click to expand...

I think what he meant is that the old VLS will be removed and it will not be replaced by anything.

The only VLS farm on such refitted 052Cs would be 32 bow UVLS.

That said, I wonder the feasibility of replacing the rear VLS with maybe a single 8 cell module of UVLS.
Either way it doesn't change things too much.
 
2handedswordsman

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
I think what he meant is that the old VLS will be removed and it will not be replaced by anything.

The only VLS farm on such refitted 052Cs would be 32 bow UVLS.

That said, I wonder the feasibility of replacing the rear VLS with maybe a single 8 cell module of UVLS.
Either way it doesn't change things too much.
Click to expand...
A 4x4 set of YJ-12 canisters at the rear fits ideally there. Is there a possibility for HHQ-9B to fire revolver style without problems?
 
B

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
I think what he meant is that the old VLS will be removed and it will not be replaced by anything.

The only VLS farm on such refitted 052Cs would be 32 bow UVLS.

That said, I wonder the feasibility of replacing the rear VLS with maybe a single 8 cell module of UVLS.
Either way it doesn't change things too much.
Click to expand...
So, it ends up with the significantly reduced fire power, with all the troubles you may have for swapping the VLS...
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
blindsight said:
But you suggested keeping the old VLS at the back. Does that mean you have to keep the old HHQ-9 available just for the six 052Cs?
Click to expand...

There is no back vls on the refit 052c. It's only 2x4 antiship missile launchers.

The circular aft vls will just be one large hanger. But it's possible to fit two x 8 cell U-VLS for the loss of hanger space.
 
Last edited:
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
blindsight said:
So, it ends up with the significantly reduced fire power, with all the troubles you may have for swapping the VLS...
Click to expand...

You do get the ability to use quad pack missiles so your total missile count will greatly increase. 32 U-VLS cells we can configure to 24 HHQ-9 and 32 quad pack SAM for example.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
blindsight said:
So, it ends up with the significantly reduced fire power, with all the troubles you may have for swapping the VLS...
Click to expand...

Considering the additional flexibility of the UVLS and considering how many 052Ds and 055s the PLAN has, I don't think losing 8 or 16 HHQ-9 revolver VLS cells per ship for a class of six ships is a big deal.

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here.


Also, at this stage we don't know what the actual MLU will entail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top