Type 052C/052D Class Destroyers


Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
055: GT25000 X 4
052D: GT25000 X 2

Cost of the two ships isn't primarily with the engines but on the other systems. 052D still uses two diesel engines and a more complex gearbox to deal with two different kinds of engines.

The cost difference of the two lies in the electrronics and sensors of the two ships. AESAs are extremely expensive and the bigger they are, the more elements they have, the costlier they are. The one on the 055 looks bigger than the one on the 052D, which alone takes the cake of being the largest AESAs ever put into naval service until the 055. To add to that it has two sets of AESAs, smaller set is set on the integrated mast. The small set is also very costly, the elements and modules are smaller and denser, with the array set on the much smaller X-band while the large one is on the S-band. To add to this, the datalinks, the ECM and part of the ESM appear to be in a phase array. The 052D on the other hand, only has its main search radars as AESA and every other radar it has, are mechanical.

Then you have the cost of the extra VLS.

While it all adds up, I would think the biggest chunk of the price difference would fall on the electronics and sensors.

The problem of creating a mini 055, is that the smaller ship will still retain much of the cost of the 055 due to having a similar electronics and sensor set, even if we lets say, use the smaller array on the 052D. So the resulting ship will end up costing considerably more than the 052D. In terms of the ship cost per VLS, and cost of electronics, combat data systems and sensors to service per VLS, it may not be competitive.

If all these electronics is the fixed cost of the ship, your variable costs would be the number of VLS. It might even be more economical to go the other way around, making a bigger ship, with more VLS, while still retaining the same electronics package.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Cost of the two ships isn't primarily with the engines but on the other systems. 052D still uses two diesel engines and a more complex gearbox to deal with two different kinds of engines.

The cost difference of the two lies in the electrronics and sensors of the two ships. AESAs are extremely expensive and the bigger they are, the more elements they have, the costlier they are. The one on the 055 looks bigger than the one on the 052D, which alone takes the cake of being the largest AESAs ever put into naval service until the 055. To add to that it has two sets of AESAs, smaller set is set on the integrated mast. The small set is also very costly, the elements and modules are smaller and denser, with the array set on the much smaller X-band while the large one is on the S-band. To add to this, the datalinks, the ECM and part of the ESM appear to be in a phase array. The 052D on the other hand, only has its main search radars as AESA and every other radar it has, are mechanical.

Then you have the cost of the extra VLS.

While it all adds up, I would think the biggest chunk of the price difference would fall on the electronics and sensors.

The problem of creating a mini 055, is that the smaller ship will still retain much of the cost of the 055 due to having a similar electronics and sensor set, even if we lets say, use the smaller array on the 052D. So the resulting ship will end up costing considerably more than the 052D. In terms of the ship cost per VLS, and cost of electronics, combat data systems and sensors to service per VLS, it may not be competitive.

If all these electronics is the fixed cost of the ship, your variable costs would be the number of VLS. It might even be more economical to go the other way around, making a bigger ship, with more VLS, while still retaining the same electronics package.
What I mean is we probably won't see AB-sized destroyers for PLAN. Just think about the engine combination.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
What I mean is we probably won't see AB-sized destroyers for PLAN. Just think about the engine combination.

True.

Today, CODAG with two gas turbines and two diesel engines, like on the 052C/D, is a frigate powerplant: Navanta F100 series frigate, Admiral Gorshkov class, even Admiral Grigorovich class.

Actually 052C/D displacement class is now a frigate size, matched by the likes of the Type 26.

Burke sized 055 would still cost nearly as much as the 055 due the fixed costs of the electronics.

Instead of focusing on the cost of the ship, its better to focus on things like what is the cost to support each VLS and each missile behind it (cost of supporting electronic package / missile). Here, it likely goes to the bigger ships.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
True.

Today, CODAG with two gas turbines and two diesel engines, like on the 052C/D, is a frigate powerplant: Navanta F100 series frigate, Admiral Gorshkov class, even Admiral Grigorovich class.

Actually 052C/D displacement class is now a frigate size, matched by the likes of the Type 26.

Burke sized 055 would still cost nearly as much as the 055 due the fixed costs of the electronics.

Instead of focusing on the cost of the ship, its better to focus on things like what is the cost to support each VLS and each missile behind it (cost of supporting electronic package / missile). Here, it likely goes to the bigger ships.
agree
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
True.

Today, CODAG with two gas turbines and two diesel engines, like on the 052C/D, is a frigate powerplant: Navanta F100 series frigate, Admiral Gorshkov class, even Admiral Grigorovich class.

Actually 052C/D displacement class is now a frigate size, matched by the likes of the Type 26.

Burke sized 055 would still cost nearly as much as the 055 due the fixed costs of the electronics.

Instead of focusing on the cost of the ship, its better to focus on things like what is the cost to support each VLS and each missile behind it (cost of supporting electronic package / missile). Here, it likely goes to the bigger ships.

Previously, I came up with a 16%-25% difference in cost from a Type-052D versus the same systems on a Type-055 sized hull.

The current Type-055 has a different systems fitout and costs 6 Billion RMB
If you extrapolate the 16%-25% cost differential, then a smaller Type-052 sized version will come in at 4.8-5.2 Billion RMB

With that sort of cost differential, it doesn't seem worth producing a smaller version.

So my guess is that future production will move the Type-055 and Type-054B as the hi-low mix for blue-water surface combatants.

Plus there's still 31 Type-052C/Ds available.
That is more than enough to provide a balanced fleet structure for the next 15 years.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
True.

Today, CODAG with two gas turbines and two diesel engines, like on the 052C/D, is a frigate powerplant: Navanta F100 series frigate, Admiral Gorshkov class, even Admiral Grigorovich class.

On the topic of complex gearboxes...

052C/D should be CODOG, which is simpler than CODAG which requires a more complex gearbox.

055's propulsion arrangement is of course, COGAG, but it isn't COGAG in the same way that Burkes or Ticos are -- it uses Cross Connection Gear (CCG) arrangement, which is somewhat more complex.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Previously, I came up with a 16%-25% difference in cost from a Type-052D versus the same systems on a Type-055 sized hull.

The current Type-055 has a different systems fitout and costs 6 Billion RMB
If you extrapolate the 16%-25% cost differential, then a smaller Type-052 sized version will come in at 4.8-5.2 Billion RMB

With that sort of cost differential, it doesn't seem worth producing a smaller version.

So my guess is that future production will move the Type-055 and Type-054B as the hi-low mix for blue-water surface combatants.

Plus there's still 31 Type-052C/Ds available.
That is more than enough to provide a balanced fleet structure for the next 15 years.


Cost differential likely to do with AESA vs. mechanical radars. AESAs can be very expensive. Just to give you some context, the Zumwalt canceled its S-band and X-band dual band radar set up, removed the set of S-band radars and kept only the X-band radars, because of cost. Yet that's exactly what the 055 did absorb and made eight of them. The bigger they are the bigger the bill, as you can see with Flight III Burke's enormous price jump over Flight IIA. The reason why SPY-6 is paired with a SPQ-9B, which is an X-band PESA, could be due to budgetary reasons. Originally it was meant to pair this radar with an X-band AESA (SPY-5?). There was also rumors that the 054B would use mechanical radars for gunnery and antiship fire control, hence why some are fan speculated illustrated with such. The 055's X-band AESA happen to be for gunnery and antiship fire control. In terms of radar setup, the 055 went full Rolls Royce here.

A hypothetical 052E which has a dual band AESA set up would cost more than 052D with its single band AESA and supporting mechanical radars, making the cost somewhere between the 052D and the 055.

But PLAN is willing to spend for it because it is claimed, a 055 is 3X to 4X more combat effective or has greater combat potential over a 052D. I would attribute these combat multipliers due to not just the 055's radar set up, but it has a more advanced CEC, IFF, and the next generation electronic warfare kit. Having this too, will give the hypothetical 052E a combat multiplier advantage over the 052D, especially when the CEC of the 052E and the 055 is networked together.

For this reason too, a 054E heavy in AESA, with the more advanced CEC, IFF and EW kit, would have multiplier advantages over the 054A, and it would work better with ships using the more advanced CEC (right now 055, Shandong, Liaoning, 075, 003). The more members the network has, the better. But its also going to be much more expensive than the 054A, with the bill that could creep it closer to the 052D.


Already posted here, this presentation illustrates what the PLAN plans in going forward as their standards. It shows a dual S-X band radar setup, the L-band here for IFF, the 6 Ghz small rectangle for high speed digital communications which you would expect for CEC. From here on, it will become less and less of a cost issue but rather ships trying to meet the new standards and expectations for the sensors, EW and communications. A future ship does not need to take the exact form below, but it will have the same panels.

EC1A2930-61B6-455D-A6BA-2CE0C23D5341.jpeg
 
Last edited:

sndef888

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another potential force mix I think could be considered would be 055s + a heavier 054E, maybe closer to 48-56 VLS compared to just 32 now

It could simply use mast mounted radars like SR2410C. That would make up for numbers of ships with some air defence while also being cheap.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Another potential force mix I think could be considered would be 055s + a heavier 054E, maybe closer to 48-56 VLS compared to just 32 now

It could simply use mast mounted radars like SR2410C. That would make up for numbers of ships with some air defence while also being cheap.

I think the next frigate might go 40 VLS, but that's 32 for SAMs and 8 for antiship missiles. Not really any different from the 054A which is 32 VLS, plus 8 antiship missiles which are on slanted canisters. For the same reason the 052C is really a 56 missile ship, only eight shy of the 052D.
 

Top