052C/052D Class Destroyers

Inque said:

64 VLS may be relatively few for a destroyer of this displacement, but the 052D's true advantage is its cheaper price tag. China can build 2 for less than an Arleigh-Burke and get 128 VLS to the AB's 96. Still, maybe the PLAN should look into building 96 VLS destroyers in case they're needed.

Click to expand...

It has less VLS but the VLS are significantly bigger, UVLS has 2x the volume of Mark 41

Inque said:

64 VLS may be relatively few for a destroyer of this displacement, but the 052D's true advantage is its cheaper price tag. China can build 2 for less than an Arleigh-Burke and get 128 VLS to the AB's 96. Still, maybe the PLAN should look into building 96 VLS destroyers in case they're needed.

Click to expand...

Arleigh-Burke actually costs about 5 times that of the 052D. 052D's estimated cost is ~ while the .

Its virtually impossible to make cost comparisons between different warship designs of different countries, and any figure rotated in the public debate in this regard is 90% meaningless. Yes, the Chinese ships would cost less, because of course they do. But the dynamics and rabbitholes on investment, production cost vs comparative affordability remain somewhat more intricate.

doggydogdo said:

It has less VLS but the VLS are significantly bigger, UVLS has 2x the volume of Mark 41

Click to expand...

Actually closer to 3x volume .. 2.7X

Chinese UVLS cell volume: 0.85 m × 0.85 m × 9.0 m ≈ 6.5 m³
Mk 41 cell volume: 0.56 m × 0.56 m × 7.7 m ≈ 2.41 m³

antiterror13 said:

Actually closer to 3x volume .. 2.7X

Chinese UVLS cell volume: 0.85 m × 0.85 m × 9.0 m ≈ 6.5 m³
Mk 41 cell volume: 0.56 m × 0.56 m × 7.7 m ≈ 2.41 m³

Click to expand...

Mark 41 are 0.64m not 0.56m