PLAN Type 052 Destroyer Historical Analysis

WuWuLiu said:

Hi Jeff, lurking on and off, and newbie poster here...

Nice builds and analysis, and certainly simplify the explanation with all four ship models in one picture.

I understand about the Sovremenny story; but -- 52B(2004), 52C(2004), 51C(2006).

Anyone care to explain? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Well, IMHO, the 52B is straight forward. They are simply two more Sovs, but a Sino design. They are using the same weapons systems, outside of the 16 SSMs. The PLAN ended up really with 6 Sovs as a result.

As to the 51C and 52C, I personally believe that the 51Cs were a built as stop gap or safety net for the 52C.

The 52Cs were new, very much uncharted waters with the VLS and Battle management and PARs, etc. They came out in lAril and October of 2003. If they had real problems with those, I believe the PLAN was prepared to go with a build of Type 051Cs, which came out in Dec 2004.

The Type 051C would have provided an alternate long range, area anit-air coverage if they had needed it.

Type 052C
7,000 tons
510 ft long
56 ft beam
30 knots
48 HHQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missiles (Up to 200 km)
First two Ships:
170 Lanzhou Apr 2003 Jiangnan
171 Haikou Oct 2003 Jiangnan

Type 051C
7,100 tons
508.5 ft long
55.8 ft beam
30 knots
48 × S-300FM (SA-N-20) long range surface-to-air missiles (150 km)
First two Ships:
115 Shenyang Launched Dec 2004 Dalian
116 Shijiazhuang Launched July 2005 Dalian

Jeff, It's hard to see the similarity between the 052 series. What make them 052? It seems that even the hull itself are different to one and another. And then what is the different between 051 and 052 series? Is the 052 suppose to be AAW platform while the 051 do another role? Or they have another meaning? thanks

Brainsuker said:

Jeff, It's hard to see the similarity between the 052 series. What make them 052? It seems that even the hull itself are different to one and another. And then what is the different between 051 and 052 series? Is the 052 suppose to be AAW platform while the 051 do another role? Or they have another meaning? thanks

Click to expand...

It was previously thought that 052 vs 051 prefix was related to their type of propulsion (such as gas turbine vs steam turbine), however I think now we also consider the 052 and 051 prefix to also be indicative of hull type lineage.

For example, the original hull design of the two 052s were evolved to the 052B class, then that was in turn evolved to the 052C class, and most recently into the 052D class. Despite differing outwards appearances, they do actually all share a common hull design/lineage, as well as a common type of propulsion (gas turbines). However, their capabilities are also vastly different, despite using a similar propulsion type and despite having a similar hull lineage.

As for the 051 class, well the original 051 class DD was built mostly during the Cold War, and then there was the one off 051B class DDG, which used a new hull generally considered to be larger and different tothe 051 class (but still retained the same type of propulsion; steam turbines). The 051C class was also in turn derived from hull of the 051B class.

The numerical prefix of the ship classes have nothing to do with their role, it is instead generally considered to be a reflection both of the type of propulsion the ship uses, as well as the hull lineage.

Bltizo said:

It was previously thought that 052 vs 051 prefix was related to their type of propulsion (such as gas turbine vs steam turbine), however I think now we also consider the 052 and 051 prefix to also be indicative of hull type lineage.

For example, the original hull design of the two 052s were evolved to the 052B class, then that was in turn evolved to the 052C class...

As for the 051 class, well there was the one off 051B class DDG, which used a new hull generally considered to be larger and different to the 051 class. The 051C class was also in turn derived from hull of the 051B class.
.

Click to expand...

I have always felt that the 51C was the PLAN hedging its bets against the newer, better...but also more risky 52C Class.

Those two hull forms (51C and 52C) are, IMHO, much closer to the same in terms of size, displacement, and form.

As so:

I believe that if the PLAN had suffered severe, catastrophic design problems with the 52C, we would have seen the PLAN revert to the 51C and build more of them..

As it was, the 52C worked out, they used it, leaned from it...then built four more of them while at the same tie making improvements the had developed which they then moved on (simultaneously with the last Type 52Cs) to the 52D, which they are going to build a lot of. The Type 52D will be to the PLAN modern DDGs what the Type 054A has been to their modern FFGs.

Jeff Head said:

I have always felt that the 51C was the PLAN hedging its bets against the newer, better...but also more risky 52C Class.

Those two hull forms (51C and 52C) are, IMHO, much closer to the same in terms of size, displacement, and form.

As so:
View attachment 30235 View attachment 30236
I believe that if the PLAN ha suffered severe, catastophic design problems with the 52, we would have seen more 51C built.

As it was, the 52C worked out, they used it, leaned from it...then built four more of them while at the same tie making improvements the had developed which they then moved on (simultaneously with the last Type 52Cs) to the 52D, which they are going to build a lot of. The Type 52D will be to the PLAN modern DDGs what the Type 054A has been to their modern FFGs.

Click to expand...

Yes, I definitely think the 051C was meant to be a stopgap in case the 052C encountered problems.

However, I think there is much more commonality in hull and propulsion between 052 to 052B to 052C, than there is between 051C and 052C.

The similarities between 051C and 052C reside mostly in the slightly similar capability of their combat systems more than anything.

Bltizo said:

Yes, I definitely think the 051C was meant to be a stopgap in case the 052C encountered problems.

However, I think there is much more commonality in hull and propulsion between 052 to 052C, than there is between 051C and 052C.

The similarities between 051C and 052C reside mostly in the slightly similar capability of their combat systems more than anything.

Click to expand...

I think 52C is MUCH closer in hull form to 51C than it is to 52.

52B and 52C are built on precisely the same hull. 51C is very close to those hull forms.

-------------52 ------ 52C ----- 51C
Length: -472.4 ft. -508.5 ft. -508.5 ft.
Beam: ---52.5 ft. - 56.1 ft. - 55.8 ft.
Draft: --- 16.7 ft. - 20.0 ft - 19.8 ft.

Jeff Head said:

I think 52C is MUCH closer in hull fomr to 51C than it is to 52.

52B and 52C are built on precisely the same hull. 51C is very close to those hull forms.

-------------52 ------ 52C ----- 51C
Length: -472.4 ft. -508.5 ft. -508.5 ft.
Beam: ---52.5 ft. - 56.1 ft. - 55.8 ft.
Draft: --- 16.7 ft. - 20.0 ft - 19.8 ft.

Click to expand...

I think 052C and 051C are similar to the extent that they have similar dimensions, but 052C still bases its hull back to the 052B which should have in turn been derived from 052.

Whereas 051C's hull is derived from 051B instead.


I suppose it is possible that 051B's hull may have influenced all of the other hulls including 052B (and thus 052C/D), as well as serving as the template for 051C.... but I'm not sure.

Bltizo said:

I think 052C and 051C are similar to the extent that they have similar dimensions, but 052C still bases its hull back to the 052B which should have in turn been derived from 052.

Whereas 051C's hull is derived from 051B instead.


I suppose it is possible that 051B's hull may have influenced all of the other hulls including 052B (and thus 052C/D), as well as serving as the template for 051C.... but I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

Well, 52B, 52C, and 51C are much close rto 51B (167) than they are to 52 in terms of size (dimensions) and hull form.

I believe that this information and interpretation of what went on:

Bltizo said:

I suppose it is possible that 051B's hull may have influenced all of the other hulls including 052B (and thus 052C/D), as well as serving as the template for 051C

Click to expand...

...is probably close to the correct interpretation.

52 is considerably different than those other four (51B, 52B, 52C, and 51C). Much shorter and quite a bit thinner too.

Jeff Head said:

When you look at the similar progress in the guided-missile frigate (FFG) area, and in the lighter frigates (or littoral combatants) represented by the Type 056, and then compare that to the new high end Type 055 large destroyer (which in this author's opinion will be the Chinese equivalent of the Ticonderoga Cruiser), you see that the PLAN is making similar progress all across the board in terms of its surface combatants.

Click to expand...

Excellent summary and write-up. While we tend to look at individual platforms separately in this forum, it is very illuminating to examine successive platforms over a longer time period and it sheds light on how the Chinese approaches the planning and execution of their major naval programs and iterates over the development and incorporation of new technologies. Type 052 Destroyer is probably the best example for such a study.

In another 15 years, we may well look back and examine how the Chinese plans and executes and evolves their aircraft carrier program. That would offer an even more interesting case study, over a time span of 30 years (2000 ~ 2030), what with starting from an abandoned and then refurbished ex-Soviet carrier to likely nuclear-powered super-carriers. We're barely at the middle point of this process and there are still uncertainties down the road, but some patterns have already emerged...

weig2000 said:

Excellent summary and write-up. While we tend to look at individual platforms separately in this forum, it is very illuminating to examine successive platforms over a longer time period and it sheds light on how the Chinese approaches the planning and execution of their major naval programs and iterates over the development and incorporation of new technologies. Type 052 Destroyer is probably the best example for such a study.

In another 15 years, we may well look back and examine how the Chinese plans and executes and evolves their aircraft carrier program. That would offer an even more interesting case study, over a time span of 30 years (2000 ~ 2030), what with starting from an abandoned and then refurbished ex-Soviet carrier to likely nuclear-powered super-carriers. We're barely at the middle point of this process and there are still uncertainties down the road, but some patterns have already emerged...

Click to expand...

Thank you.

...and I think you are rght.

Some time in the late 2020s another write up with a similar analysis of the PLAN carrier program will show a similar planning and development that leads to the construction and service of their carriers as what we have now seen over the last 20 years with the Type 52 class overall.