052C/052D Class Destroyers

Rachmaninov said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353245639442722816

Google translate:

“On a Type 052D destroyer, the 8 silos near the superstructure are for hot launch anti-ship missiles, the ones in front for cold launch anti-aircraft missiles for example. The VLS is of CCL type which supports two different types of launch.”


Any idea why the PLAN would make the choice of hot launch being closer to the superstructure?

Click to expand...

In addition to what Tam mentioned above, this arrangement (cold launchers further away from the superstructure than hot launchers) may be related to the possibility that an HHQ-9 missile fails to ignite in the air. In that case, it is better to fall into the water than on the deck (or at least as far away from the superstructure as possible). In the picture, the HHQ-9 launcher is placed closer to the ship's side and its narrower bow. The 052D destroyer just needs to make a slight left turn while launching the missile for the potential "dud" to fall across the starboard bulwark. This would be much more difficult if the HHQ-9 missile was launched from the position where the YJ-18 missile was launched (also considering the position's smaller turning radius away from the stern).

dankris said:

Probably so that if the cold launched missile failed to ignite after launch and happen to fall back on deck, it's less likely to blow up just in front of the superstructure. Remember, HHQ-9 is like twice the weight of Harpoon AShM, and more importantly they have the same warhead weight (~200 kg). You don't want that to blow up anywhere near.

Click to expand...

Good point (sorry that I missed it when I wrote the above post). The only addition is that this arrangement plus the ship's turning at the time of HHQ-9 launching will almost guarantee that the potential "dud" will not fall back to the deck.

xyqq said:

Good point (sorry that I missed it when I wrote the above post). The only addition is that this arrangement plus the ship's turning at the time of HHQ-9 launching will almost guarantee that the potential "dud" will not fall back to the deck.

Click to expand...

Turning when launching HHQ-9? Interesting... is that a confirmed protocol? I thought would they have some sort of weird trickery to prevent a dud from falling back on deck because there doesn't seem to be any slant on the VLS unlike the one on Type 052C.

dankris said:

Turning when launching HHQ-9? Interesting... is that a confirmed protocol? I thought would they have some sort of weird trickery to prevent a dud from falling back on deck because there doesn't seem to be any slant on the VLS unlike the one on Type 052C.

Click to expand...

A closer look at the picture suggests that the wind helped push the missile away from the ship. The wind effect can greatly be strengthened by the ship's turning.

I do not agree with the initial turn of the hypothesis. This configuration can also come from a constraint rather than a choice. The first half of the front VLS modules is said to be made of 9m lenght cells. These cells are said to be also hot launch. One can imagine that the PLAN simply did not conceived a 9 meters cold launch canister but only a 7 meters cold launch canister.

This doesn't account that the HQ-9s are also launched from the back. That for me is a problem with the turn hypothesis.

3M-54E alone is around 8.9 meters long, and if the YJ-18 is cloned from that, the length should be similar and at best, slightly shorter. Absolutely no way it would fit 7 meters with a cold launch.

For me it makes better sense the U-VLS are all 9 meters long, with a hot launched option up to 9 meters long and a cold launch option of 7 meters long, the cold launch has to account for the gas bottle beneath missile. The bottle for the land based HQ-9 should be about 1 meter long but the naval based one might be longer or more powerful for greater launching clearances.

I remember long time ago, reading that for the Russians, the incidence of cold launched failures is so low, about practically zero, that there is no point engineering that extra caution to get around a near non existing problem. The RIF-M for the S-300 and the launchers on the 052C are all tilted. Its probably for this reason why the naval HQ-16 is hot launched instead of cold launched like their land based counterparts. But with the failure incidence so low, the Russians went with untilted cold launches for the VLS in their Redut and Shtil complexes for their modern frigates. With that, also paved the way for the U-VLS.

Tam said:

This doesn't account that the HQ-9s are also launched from the back. That for me is a problem with the turn hypothesis.

3M-54E alone is around 8.9 meters long, and if the YJ-18 is cloned from that, the length should be similar and at best, slightly shorter. Absolutely no way it would fit 7 meters with a cold launch.

For me it makes better sense the U-VLS are all 9 meters long, with a hot launched option up to 9 meters long and a cold launch option of 7 meters long, the cold launch has to account for the gas bottle beneath missile. The bottle for the land based HQ-9 should be about 1 meter long but the naval based one might be longer or more powerful for greater launching clearances.

I remember long time ago, reading that for the Russians, the incidence of cold launched failures is so low, about practically zero, that there is no point engineering that extra caution to get around a near non existing problem. The RIF-M for the S-300 and the launchers on the 052C are all tilted. Its probably for this reason why the naval HQ-16 is hot launched instead of cold launched like their land based counterparts. But with the failure incidence so low, the Russians went with untilted cold launches for the VLS in their Redut and Shtil complexes for their modern frigates. With that, also paved the way for the U-VLS.

Click to expand...

On a 052D destroyer, the VLS in the back is several meters higher than that in the front, magnifying the tangential velocity caused by the ship's roll motion. A well-timed HHQ-9 launch can utilize the velocity to "sling" the missile away and prevent a dud from falling back to the deck below.



The worst scenario is that the dud does not clear the ship's side when it falls back. In this case, the deck wind will blow the missile back to the helicopter hanger behind the VLS. It is likely to land on the terrace below the HHQ-10 launcher, and won't cause too much damage compared to the bridge (where the expensive AESA panels and CIWS are located).

xyqq said:

On a 052D destroyer, the VLS in the back is several meters higher than that in the front, magnifying the tangential velocity caused by the ship's roll motion. A well-timed HHQ-9 launch can utilize the velocity to "sling" the missile away and prevent a dud from falling back to the deck below.

View attachment 67983

The worst scenario is that the dud does not clear the ship's side when it falls back. In this case, the deck wind will blow the missile back to the helicopter hanger behind the VLS. It is likely to land on the terrace below the HHQ-10 launcher, and won't cause too much damage compared to the bridge (where the expensive AESA panels and CIWS are located).

Click to expand...

Missile will clear past the bridge height before igniting its boosters. I don't think it would fall on the CIWS or the AESA panels. Besides there can be pre-first base measures such as an extra diagnostics layer that should pre-emptively detect duds before you will even attempt to launch them. That makes it practically impossible to launch a dud. In all the 052D VLS launch videos I have yet to see the ship rock back and forth or do any pitching motions. I never seen anything like that on cold launches of other ships either. They simply sail straight and pop their missiles out.

Start at 0:20 to see a Shtil 9M317 cold launch.


Hot launches are much more violent despite being closer to the bridge. Here is UKSK launch of a Kalibr. Both VLS are on the same ship, with the VLS for the Shtil on the front and the UKSK VLS for the Kalibr behind it and ahead of the bridge.


Accidents can happen too with hot launches.

I wonder what is being hoisted. It looks like a generator/electrical equipment of some kind.

by78 said:

I wonder what is being hoisted. It looks like a generator/electrical equipment of some kind.

Click to expand...

Almost certainly some kind of loud machinery (engines, motor, compressor). Those are vibration isolating pads.