Type 052 (Luhu Class)

Originally Posted by steve_rolfe

If 052D does appear with rear VLS......that is seriously going to be one well armed destroyer!

The Chinese do seem to have a very good PLAN (get it..plan...oh never mind) at the moment of rapidly updating their naval forces during the world recession, while other nations ie the US are dithering whether to cut their Navy soon by losing 7 Ticonderoga cruisers.

Chinese military enthusiasts on the web, are enthusing there's even better to come in a few years time after the type 052D ie the type 055 which if realised to be true, is going to be larger, and built on a new hull design.

Goes to show you what a country can do when it has a shed load of money, doesnt it?

'Asif' do you think our goverment will ever get around to fully kitting out our type 45 destroyers with Harpoons and Tomahawks.....so far only a couple of Phalanx's have been added to the original kit?

I think the Cruiser you are referring to is the Type 058 which is the 10,000+ ton class

Type 45 DDG is one of the worlds best air defence destroyers, a true dedicated surface Vessal which can provide air defence to itself, it's escorting ships and a landmark all at the same time, it does have a severe handicap in that it doesn't have any offensive capability but looking at the systems on the Type 26 FFGS and it's tonnage it clear that Type 45 will not operate on its own, it will provide the defence and the FFGs will provide he offensive none will operate on their own, so in that aspect it's hard to see if they will fit any offensive capabilitys to the Type 45 when Astute Class SSNs will provide the Tomahawk

But if the situation changes and it becomes a requirement then Type 45 can be refitted to carry offensive weapons which is good foresight on part of the Royal Navy, but I don't see hat happening anytime soon, just hope they don't cut the 13 x Type 26 FFGs orders

Originally Posted by Bltizo

And I think we all expect a somewhat modified ciws configuration. .

FL-2000, 1130 gun. etc are not in that CG.

Originally Posted by Engineer

I wonder if this latest version has the hull stretched wider as people on Chinese forums claimed, or it is just based on the 052C's hull. If they really wanted to work with a well established hull design, they should be going with the latter.

Well I am doubtful that they would widen the hull because they would pretty much force a redesign of the entire ship, and as I said before, if you are doing that, it would probably be easier and more efficient to just start from scratch.

I suspect that the rumors for widened hull stem largely from wishful thinking, whereby fans think that if they make the hull wider, they might be able to squeeze in an extra row of VLS cells at the front of the ship.

I do, however, see a possibility that they might lengthen the hull, as that would be a far more simple redesign because of the ship's existing modular design. In the most crudest sense, all they would need to do is add in another small module or make a few existing ones longer and redistribute internal spaces and layouts accordingly.

Now, looking at the 052C design, there are a few obvious areas they can stretch the ship to maximize VLS cell carrying potential. The most obvious would be the bow section, and that's pretty self explanatory. They can also stretch the design amidships, either just after the smoke stack to open enough room to place the AShM launchers there, thus freeing up the area immediately in front of the hanger for more VLS cells there, or they could move the rear VLS from partway in the hanger to where the YJ62s are on the 052C to both fit in more VLS and free up the hanger for two helos (in which case, they might as well replace the rear Type 730 with a FL3000 launcher as that will reduce the deck penetration as well as structural buttressing needed to withstand the recoil from the '730 firing. Alternatively, they could stretch the design just in front of the hanger, keep the existing VLS positioning and add more VLS cells in front of hanger to form a 'T' shaped VLS battery.

Internally, stretching the design amidships (either configuration) could allow for bigger, or just more engines to be installed to maintain or even improve the ship's power and speed over the 052C, it could also allow more fuel and provisions to be carried or just give the crews bigger quarters etc.

Stretching the design would obviously yield a lot of benefits, but it would make the ship more expensive and could require some additional testing and slow production a little, so there is a good chance the PLAN would just opt to keep the existing hull and just add new stuff into them.

There are merits and drawbacks to either choice, so I think we will just have to be patient to see which the PLAN has opted for.

I do hope some of the 052C+s will still be there when the 052D is launched, as that will give us instant answers to the question of whether they have widened or lengthened the hull.

I also think that the reduced number of frontal windows from 7 to 5 to compensate for the larger APAR indicates there is no stretch width wise. If no change is made to the hull, this may actually be the 052C+ that was talked about rather than a 052D.

Originally Posted by Engineer

I also think that the reduced number of frontal windows from 7 to 5 to compensate for the larger APAR indicates there is no stretch width wise. If no change is made to the hull, this may actually be the 052C+ that was talked about rather than a 052D.

even without a widened or stretched hull, the change in APAR, main gun, and likely VLS and ciws should constitute it as 052D

Hulls 3-6 would have been "052C+"

Originally Posted by Totoro

Also - why move the boats to the side of hangar? what will come in their place??? ciws that have been rearranged? Illuminators for hq16a? If the hull is larger than larger/rearanged exhaust might come there but i doubt that...

Simply to be more stealthy maybe?

And can't modern fixed PARs since SPY-1 act as illuminators themselves, wasnt that one of their major selling points? There shouldn't be a need for HQ-16 illuminators.

Originally Posted by hmmwv

This is why I stated that there must have been only two ships left at JN now. We know 151 already has its pennant number painted and delivered to ESF, and 150 was spotted without number at Dinghai on the 18th, which means there is almost no chance for those two ships to be at JN when HSH took the D pictures a few days ago. Then we can compare with the older aerial photos, which showed three ships, one berthed next to the launch dock, two berthed to the right. The latest pictures showing two are now berth next to each other to the left. Obviously this is based on the assumption that the 151 picture is genuine, if not then that could be just 150 driving around and we still have three ships at JN.

btw, I'm saying this as someone who wishes they can go faster, but it seems like the evidence is counter to it. Here are the latest photos from yesterday.

From what I can tell, this is the third one yet to be painted 150.

This is the 5th one by itself

Here are 4 and 6 next to each other.

I'd expect any increases in width to be no more than 2 meters (1 meter left and right), with concurrent length stretching to maintain the L:W ratio of the 052C.

maybe there are 5 052c destroyers being made. It seems to me the pic of 151 is authentic but who knows

Originally Posted by Bltizo

And can't modern fixed PARs since SPY-1 act as illuminators themselves, wasnt that one of their major selling points? There shouldn't be a need for HQ-16 illuminators.

as far as i know, spy-1 radar cant illuminate for standard and sparrow missiles. they work in S band, too imprecise for targeting. that is why Ticos/burkes/kongos/sejong etc have dedicated x band illuminators.

There are then ships like De Zeven class and similar, which instead of S band Spy radars and apg62 x band illuminators use a combination of x band APARs for targeting and illumination and L band long range EW radar.

Originally Posted by Engineer

I also think that the reduced number of frontal windows from 7 to 5 to compensate for the larger APAR indicates there is no stretch width wise. If no change is made to the hull, this may actually be the 052C+ that was talked about rather than a 052D.

I fail to see why this is called an 052C+ when 052D suffices. Even if the hull doesn't change, if it gets square VLS, 130mm gun, new APAR, new bridge, that's plenty to make it a new subclass within the 052 family. When you need to start adding "+", it's getting convoluted. By the time there's an actual completely new hull, would it still be considered within the 052 family any more or a new number all together? I've see people toss 055 around?

Originally Posted by joshuatree

I fail to see why this is called an 052C+ when 052D suffices. Even if the hull doesn't change, if it gets square VLS, 130mm gun, new APAR, new bridge, that's plenty to make it a new subclass within the 052 family. When you need to start adding "+", it's getting convoluted. By the time there's an actual completely new hull, would it still be considered within the 052 family any more or a new number all together? I've see people toss 055 around?

I agree...one suffix designation is enough to distinguish between classes, you dont need to add another suffix ie + to further the cause.

Obviously the later 052C Destroyers, are more than likely to differ from the original 2 built, not so much externally, but in improved weapons upgrades, electronics etc.................but the seventh 052 ship as seen is noticeably different externally even from the limited images we have seen recently, hence i agree, this class could be designated 052D, but we will see.

As a comparison, in the RN, when warship classes are modified significantly ie Type 42 Destroyer & Type 22 Frigate, these vessels were still known by there original class type, even though the later ships were condiderably altered from the lead ship. The RN instead refers to difference in a ships class by the term 'Batch1, Batch2 ships etc.

Originally Posted by tphuang

btw, I'm saying this as someone who wishes they can go faster, but it seems like the evidence is counter to it. Here are the latest photos from yesterday.

From what I can tell, this is the third one yet to be painted 150.

This is the 5th one by itself

Here are 4 and 6 next to each other.

Edit, just got confirmation that 151 was PSed, so we have all four 052C from this new batch gathered at JNCX now. With #7's launch next week HSH predicts that they probably will hold the launch ceremony coincide with 150's commissioning ceremony, and use the occasion to show off the carrier mockup to the delegation as well.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

Simply to be more stealthy maybe?

Possible, but here's another thought. The stern and bow seem like the most valuable deck space on entire ship. Propulsion and command bridge have to go center, so all that is left is the stern and the bow. Now at the bow we have to have helo pad, so only multipurpose place is really in front of it. But many systems compete for that space. Hangar, VLS, CIWS, possible rear radar array, etc. those are all systems that work better at the stern than positioned mid-ship. (yes, we have seen ciws midship, but best possible arrangement is one in front, one aft.)

So compromises have to be made. Now why move boats to that precious aft area when lifeboats are a system that can work pretty much from anywhere, and seems like the best use of deck space would be to leave them midship.

Are they not stealthy there? Certainly, but since we have seen the rear superstructure changed, command bridge superstructure changed - why not change the middle as well? Make it larger and basically enclose the ships within a structure hiding them. Doesn't seem any more complicated than doing what was done - moving them move to the stern.

All that makes me wonder if there is something actually important that is going to go in their place. Only guesses so far that i have are:
A) redesigned propulsion exhaust/intake, taking up that space, at least partially.
B) rearranged ciws around the ship, so now we have midship ciws instead of a pair front and aft. (the latest pic seems to refute that, though. but it is still not clear)
C) side VLS modules for smaller missiles? Lots of ships have such arrangement, though they all use smaller missiles for ship self-defence.


On a completely different note - on a dedicated AAW destroyer i would personally move the main gun someplace else. the bow deck space seems too precious for it. Instead move the ciws in its place, raise it a bit if needed. Then use all the area behind it for VLS. Perhaps lower the bridge as on type 45 so VLS has clearance over it. Possible APAR move on top, little behind the central point of the bridge. There are large ships which have the main gun even midship. 130mm seems like overkill anyway, 100mm should be enough.

Of course, if we're talking about multipurpose warships that is another thing.

edit: just had a brain fart. what if the boats were moved to make room for redesigned exhaust stack - in the manner that the whole stack is much wider because the central exhaust, once it comes to deck level is split into two separate exhausts, at an angle, so each stack is facing outwards. That layout is seen on many new ships (de Zeven, for example), especially ones with large radar arrays coming right after the exhaust. it seems to allow for less distance between exhaust and radar, as the outward blowing smoke makes a bit less interference for the electronics behind it. And all that would allow the radar to be placed a bit closer to the exhaust while at the same time being moved away from the hangar area and rear vls area. That also allows for proper aft vls module placement.