PLAN Type 052C/052D Class Destroyers

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, Mar 14, 2014.

  1. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,246
    Likes Received:
    29,545
    It is not a pre-requisite or an absolute. They are set up to be able to be modified according to need.

    I do understood Iron Man's statement and implications, and they are strong implications...but when you start adding the ESSMs there with their specs, and then consider the modularity available to both the AEGIS vessels, you quickly (at least IMHO) can offset the overall implications.

    Heck, if the pLAN can dual pack the HH-Q9s, as I say, it is a very strong implication/impact. I am not doubting that...but no one knows if it is even on the table or reality.

    Anyhow, in either case, all four ships (Burke DDG, Tio CG, 052D and 055 are all modern, very capable ships.
     
  2. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,978
    I read years ago that despite its mediumish range the USN considers the ESSM to be more or less a self-defense missile, which is the reason many CIWS were deleted from later flights of the Burkes after they started loading ESSM into them. I read a paper more recently (posted on SDF?) that urged the USN to reconsider this position and pack in more ESSM, but at least as of now the default is likely no more than an 8-cell pack of ESSM for both the Ticos and Burkes, essentially for self-defense in more or less the same fashion that RAM or HHQ-10 is being used, except with more range. The range of SM-2 and SM-6 means it can be used offensively and no doubt the USN is loathe to trade away one SM-2/6 space, even for 4 ESSM.

    Also note that we could keep artificially inflating the missile numbers on both ships by removing LRSAMs and stuffing them with quad-packed missiles. An even comparison would involve both navies envisioning the same types of roles for their MRSAMs and not packing their ships to the gills with MRSAMs for the sake of inflating numbers. As such it seems to me that 32 such missiles for each ship is about right. We should also compare ships by envisioning them fitted out for the same roles, as a Burke fitted out to attack targets in Libya will not even remotely be the same Burke fitted for AAW in the East China Sea, and so we should also even out the anti-surface/land attack capabilities, say 16 antishipping missiles only, as a standard loadout for both. Same with ASW, say 8 missiles each.

    Fitted out in this manner, a Flight IIA Burke would look like this:
    64 SM-2/6 in 64 cells
    32 ESSM in 8 cells
    16 LRASM in 16 cells
    8 VLA in 8 cells
     
  3. Rachmaninov
    Offline

    Rachmaninov New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    20
    This is still so elegant to look at...

    Has anyone been able to figure out what the 'missing bar' under the APAR really does?
     
  4. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,978
    Supposedly a radar calibration device.
     
  5. asif iqbal
    Offline

    asif iqbal Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    6,651
    Likes Received:
    5,956
    Type 052D launches

    2012-2
    2013-1
    2014-3
    2015-3
    2016-3
    2017-1

    Type 055 work certainly slowed Type 052D
     
    antiterror13 and FORBIN like this.
  6. Josh Luo
    Offline

    Josh Luo Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    623
    Likes Received:
    1,372
  7. FORBIN
    Offline

    FORBIN Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    13,253
    Likes Received:
    22,452
    DK-10 exist in service now ?

    For HQ-9 i see almost everywhere 70 cm diameter 1st stage mentionned ... but a little less long than S-300PMU2 considering he have especialy HHQ-9B same range, 200 km confirm the rest.
    In more the size we see is rather for a HQ-9 or HHQ-9 1st variant with a 125 km range to 200 can be only more big.
    In addition early version of the S-300 do 60 cm but more long than HQ-9 so for volume same.
    So one by cellule and the VLS is sized for that also CJ-10.
    For me your idea is not reasonnable and in more so difficult.
     
    #2327 FORBIN, Dec 7, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  8. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,978
    No, your quoted diameter includes the fins. It is not the diameter of the missile body. The missile body determines whether a missile can be dual- or quad-packed, not the fins, which can be designed to fold.
     
    Jeff Head likes this.
  9. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Major

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,331
    Likes Received:
    1,752
    Increased range doesn’t always come with increased diameter.
     
  10. FORBIN
    Offline

    FORBIN Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    13,253
    Likes Received:
    22,452
    Not agree :)
    Diameter for canister and fins in general are not retractable

    Look very good missile for S-400 48N6M range 200 - 240 km as last HQ-9 or HHQ-9B diameter 52 cm do the canister but he do 7.5 m long and the HQ-9 only 6.8 m ( - 10 % ) and for volume so logicaly can be only more big ( + 10 % do 57 cm ) and Almaz Antey build the best SAMs since 50 years.
    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-593.html


    Warhead can be more small for do room for fuel not for SAMs and can dépends speed for supersonic missiles can be different of subsonic which consumes much more less and are clearly less big in general.
     
    #2330 FORBIN, Dec 8, 2017 at 6:02 PM
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017 at 6:15 PM
Loading...

Share This Page