052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Re: DDG 052C Thread
At some point, in their productron rotation, I am pretty sure we will see more DDGs being built. The ten very modern vessels the PLAN now has (two Type 052Bs, two Type 052Cs, two type 051Cs (which are not in the same class as the others IMHO), and four Sovs) will not be enough IMHO.
I guess you could count the 167, but I would want to see a stronger AAW missile defense on it.
Oh well, we shalll see. As I said, the Type 052C has very nice lines.
Whatever else might be said, those vessels certainly have nice lines. Good looking ships, and with good armament. I am really kind of surprised that more have not been built...or a follow on class that addresses whatever difficiencies.
At some point, in their productron rotation, I am pretty sure we will see more DDGs being built. The ten very modern vessels the PLAN now has (two Type 052Bs, two Type 052Cs, two type 051Cs (which are not in the same class as the others IMHO), and four Sovs) will not be enough IMHO.
I guess you could count the 167, but I would want to see a stronger AAW missile defense on it.
Oh well, we shalll see. As I said, the Type 052C has very nice lines.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Type 052C also broke the bank if those arrays were indeed AESA. Wasn't surprised they stopped on the 052C at least temporarily, whle they resolve budgetary matters. The PLAN is upgrading across the field, but despite the double digit increases of the PLA's budget (much of it eaten away by salary increases alone) the PLAN still gets the smallest share of the budget pie.
The 052C appears to be an experimental class. The results of its evaluation will no doubt influence its successor.
There is also the question of HHQ-9 vs. HHQ-16. The former is more long ranged, but the latter are smaller, more agile missiles that do better when it comes to antimissile interception. Will the next Chinese destroyer stay with the HHQ-9 or move to the HHQ-16?
The next 052D may incorporate the VLS cell structure seen in the 054A. It will also probably be a bigger ship. Whether it will have HHQ-9 or HHQ-16 is another thing.
Some extrapolated designs
Destroyer A
Based on the 052C, this destroyer now has squared wet type VLS used on the 054A with a revised, smaller HHQ-9 missile with active seekers.
Destroyer B.
Similar to Destroyer A, HHQ-9 is replaced by HHQ-16s, supported with 4 to 6 Orekh style illuminators.
Destroyer C
Actually based on the 052B rather than 052C, the Shtil-1 double rail launchers are replaced by HHQ-16 VLS.
Destroyer D
Actually based on the 051C, the forward RIF-M VLS is replaced by HHQ-16 VLS cells. The rear hanger has removed all VLS and has returned to helicopter support function, where it can support two helicopters for ASW roles. Four to six Orekh illuminators supporting.
Type 052C also broke the bank if those arrays were indeed AESA. Wasn't surprised they stopped on the 052C at least temporarily, whle they resolve budgetary matters. The PLAN is upgrading across the field, but despite the double digit increases of the PLA's budget (much of it eaten away by salary increases alone) the PLAN still gets the smallest share of the budget pie.
The 052C appears to be an experimental class. The results of its evaluation will no doubt influence its successor.
There is also the question of HHQ-9 vs. HHQ-16. The former is more long ranged, but the latter are smaller, more agile missiles that do better when it comes to antimissile interception. Will the next Chinese destroyer stay with the HHQ-9 or move to the HHQ-16?
The next 052D may incorporate the VLS cell structure seen in the 054A. It will also probably be a bigger ship. Whether it will have HHQ-9 or HHQ-16 is another thing.
Some extrapolated designs
Destroyer A
Based on the 052C, this destroyer now has squared wet type VLS used on the 054A with a revised, smaller HHQ-9 missile with active seekers.
Destroyer B.
Similar to Destroyer A, HHQ-9 is replaced by HHQ-16s, supported with 4 to 6 Orekh style illuminators.
Destroyer C
Actually based on the 052B rather than 052C, the Shtil-1 double rail launchers are replaced by HHQ-16 VLS.
Destroyer D
Actually based on the 051C, the forward RIF-M VLS is replaced by HHQ-16 VLS cells. The rear hanger has removed all VLS and has returned to helicopter support function, where it can support two helicopters for ASW roles. Four to six Orekh illuminators supporting.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Wouldn't they need to sort out better propulsion before the vessels get any bigger?
Wouldn't they need to sort out better propulsion before the vessels get any bigger?
Re: DDG 052C Thread
I don't think propulsion is the biggest issue right now, the domestic gas turbine projects seem to be progressing pretty well.
I actually only think 052C is modern from conceptual and armament point of view.
I think it will have both. Sort of like SM-2/ESSM combination
Re: DDG 052C Thread
We agree on the armament, and if you mean the physical lines of the vessel when you say concept, then we agree on that too.
Well, you may have more info about the sensors and electronics than I do...but given what we can see, unless they are just empty structures, I would guess that the elctronics must be fairly modern by PLAN standrds, and perhaps by many other nations standards as well. Just do not know enough about the actual capabilities of the electronics to make a firm statement.
We agree on the armament, and if you mean the physical lines of the vessel when you say concept, then we agree on that too.
That would be a smart move. The PLAN vessels need a more balanced and layered coverage in air defense.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
As a "modern" concept, I have a nagging feeling that this slap-huge-arrays-into-superstructure concept has a dead end. The height you can put the arrays limit their ability to peer down the horizon, and you cannot put arrays further up without affecting the ship's roll balance.
I thought what I see in the 054A maybe a better way to go. The tracking radar is smaller but fitted much higher on a second mast in the ship. Though the Type 364 radar now is a mechanically steering one, its not hard to see if you can put a SAMPSON style ESA radar on top of the second mast, which then can be physically rotated and steered to different directions.
You probably do not have the sheer power and range of the large arrays, but you get better peer down the horizon ability needed to counter antiship missiles and low flying aircraft.
As a "modern" concept, I have a nagging feeling that this slap-huge-arrays-into-superstructure concept has a dead end. The height you can put the arrays limit their ability to peer down the horizon, and you cannot put arrays further up without affecting the ship's roll balance.
I thought what I see in the 054A maybe a better way to go. The tracking radar is smaller but fitted much higher on a second mast in the ship. Though the Type 364 radar now is a mechanically steering one, its not hard to see if you can put a SAMPSON style ESA radar on top of the second mast, which then can be physically rotated and steered to different directions.
You probably do not have the sheer power and range of the large arrays, but you get better peer down the horizon ability needed to counter antiship missiles and low flying aircraft.
Re: DDG 052C Thread
Hi tphuang,
Can you elaborate? My take below
The current PLAN vessels seem to have either steam, CODOG or CODAD plants. I don't think CODAD is on the cards.
To stick with the CODOG arrangement of the 52C and signifacantly upscale the tonnage the ship will need more powerful GT and Diesels to maintain peak and cruise speeds. The current GTs are rated at ~22300shp each and the Diesels ~4400shp each. Don't think the diesels will be a problem but the GTs will need to be in the ~30000shp region, otherwise it won't be a much bigger ship unless its going to be a lot slower than the current vessels.
They could go COGAG with 4 smaller (at least 16000shp) GTs but that will need significant infrastructure and layout changes for the extra pair of GT exhausts and reduction gearboxes plus more tankerage for the more thirsty GTs (cf the diesels) to maintain cruise range.
So for a bigger ship a GT in the latest LM2500 or RR MT30 power class is needed to stay with CODOG or a significant re-design with at least RR spey sized Marine GT for a COGAG arrangement.
Can you shed some light on what the domestic gas turbine projects are aiming to produce?
Thanks
Hi tphuang,
Can you elaborate? My take below
The current PLAN vessels seem to have either steam, CODOG or CODAD plants. I don't think CODAD is on the cards.
To stick with the CODOG arrangement of the 52C and signifacantly upscale the tonnage the ship will need more powerful GT and Diesels to maintain peak and cruise speeds. The current GTs are rated at ~22300shp each and the Diesels ~4400shp each. Don't think the diesels will be a problem but the GTs will need to be in the ~30000shp region, otherwise it won't be a much bigger ship unless its going to be a lot slower than the current vessels.
They could go COGAG with 4 smaller (at least 16000shp) GTs but that will need significant infrastructure and layout changes for the extra pair of GT exhausts and reduction gearboxes plus more tankerage for the more thirsty GTs (cf the diesels) to maintain cruise range.
So for a bigger ship a GT in the latest LM2500 or RR MT30 power class is needed to stay with CODOG or a significant re-design with at least RR spey sized Marine GT for a COGAG arrangement.
Can you shed some light on what the domestic gas turbine projects are aiming to produce?
Thanks