Type 052C/052D Class Destroyers


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.
 

sndef888

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
Even 40 VLS could dramatically change the potency of the 054E if (big if though): it's using the UVLS and quadpacked SAM finishes development

It could have up to 8x antiship, 8x asroc, 32 quadpacked sam and still have room for 16 more SM-2 equivalents, making it quite close to what the 052C/D is currently in terms of missile load
 

nemo

Junior Member
What I mean is we probably won't see AB-sized destroyers for PLAN. Just think about the engine combination.
Not really. Number of engines issues only really applies to mechanical gearbox. With IEP (integrated electrical propulsion), the problem goes away. With the sample power plants and IEP, CODOG 052x can be even larger without losing speed because they can now use both set of power plants simultaneously.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not really. Number of engines issues only really applies to mechanical gearbox. With IEP (integrated electrical propulsion), the problem goes away. With the sample power plants and IEP, CODOG 052x can be even larger without losing speed because they can now use both set of power plants simultaneously.

Then you plan to use two diesels for cruising and power supply simultaneously? Don't forget: the 052D has a fairly high aspect ratio that will likely be reduced a little bit for the next generation destroyer. And the power consumption will certainly go up significantly. Even right now, the cruising speed of the 052D is already around the lower end. So, you'll need new engines anyway.
 

nemo

Junior Member
Then you plan to use two diesels for cruising and power supply simultaneously? Don't forget: the 052D has a fairly high aspect ratio that will likely be reduced a little bit for the next generation destroyer. And the power consumption will certainly go up significantly. Even right now, the cruising speed of the 052D is already around the lower end. So, you'll need new engines anyway.
The points is you can handle transient power need by diverting power to that, hence you don't need extra generators to handle those just in case needs. In case of 052D changed to IEP, then all those idled diesel power can be used for propulsion -- hence higher max speed. In case of need, just divert power from propulsion. And note no ship cruise around with flank speed continuously (due to fuel usage, noise generation, etc) hence it's likely that there will be enough reserve power to service the needs.

And IEP flexibility applies to ship design also. Twin screwed ship engines are numbers in multiple of 2 due to the fact that this simplifies the gear box design. With IEP, who cares? You can have a ship with 3 gas turbine driving two screws. So if you really need a ship that comes half way between 055 and 052D, you can do so without developing a new engine.
 
Last edited:

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
The points is you can handle transient power need by diverting power to that, hence you don't need extra generators to handle those just in case needs. In case of 052D changed to IEP, then all those idled diesel power can be used for propulsion -- hence higher max speed. In case of need, just divert power from propulsion. And note no ship cruise around with flank speed continuously (due to fuel usage, noise generation, etc) hence it's likely that there will be enough reserve power to service the needs.

And IEP flexibility applies to ship design also. Twin screwed ship engines are numbers in multiple of 2 due to the fact that this simplifies the gear box design. With IEP, who cares? You can have a ship with 3 gas turbine driving two screws. So if you really need a ship that comes half way between 055 and 052D, you can do so without developing a new engine.
You do know the 052D uses the two diesels for cruising, right? That's why its max range is achieved at 15 knots, which is fairly slow already. For an AB-sized destroyer, with or without IEP, it definitely needs more power for cruising. You either use more powerful but even bulkier diesels, or gas turbines significantly smaller than the GT25000. Or maybe you can have 3 GT25000s while adding some small diesel generators. To be honesty, I don't know whether the last option viable or not.
 

nemo

Junior Member
You do know the 052D uses the two diesels for cruising, right? That's why its max range is achieved at 15 knots, which is fairly slow already. For an AB-sized destroyer, with or without IEP, it definitely needs more power for cruising. You either use more powerful but even bulkier diesels, or gas turbines significantly smaller than the GT25000. Or maybe you can have 3 GT25000s while adding some small diesel generators. To be honesty, I don't know whether the last option viable or not.
Look. With IEP, you can turn on only one turbine instead of both, for example -- gas turbine at near full power is as efficient as diesel if not more so. Or any other engine combination that will achieve needed power -- use turbine engine at max efficiency/bulk of the need and use diesel engines to do finer adjustment.
 

Top