052C/052D Class Destroyers

Lethe said:

Deleting some of the ASW capabilities that are currently present on 052D would create a clearer conceptual distinction between the medium destroyer and both the large frigate and Type 055/A. Essentially, both the medium destroyer/larger frigate would offer a subset of the capabilities of 055. Or to put it another way, 055/A offers the capabilities of both new types in a single, significantly larger and more expensive ship. So that is the conceptual case, but whether or not a greater level of specialisation between types is actually sensible depends on the finer details. The savings from building each unit of each type would have to outweigh both any degradation in capability and flexibility from 055. I grant that it is not clear that it would. Although on the subject of VDS as an example of something that could hypothetically be cut from a future medium AAW destroyer, it is not merely about how much the system costs and how much volume it occupies, but the crew required to operate and maintain the system and their accommodation, dietary, exercise requirements.

I'm not convinced there needs to be a future medium destroyer rather than just running off 055s and large frigates. But if there is to be such a destroyer, the burden is on adequately distinguishing it from 055 while simultaneously generating significant cost savings and therefore greater numbers. Honestly, I would even consider eliminating the helo from such a vessel entirely, akin to Flight I Burke as a cheaper complement to Tico and alongside Spruance as the large ASW frigate with two helos.



That all sounds very sensible and I have previously advocated for a vessel of this nature to succeed 056. Though I would consider using UVLS instead and allocating a few cells for the quad-pack 5-5-5 SAM.



There is no doubt that 052D offers more "bang per ton" than most vessels of similar size and that has to come from somewhere. I would not be at all surprised if it comes out of both endurance and accommodations. And that's one of the reasons I don't see increasing the magazine size as a significant priority: the design is already densely packed as is, and if you make it much larger you undermine the rationale for its existence as a smaller/more affordable complement to 055.

Click to expand...

I would think that the PLAN is freaked about enemy submarine capabilities that they would throw a large effort on it in the last decade. At the time when the 052D was introduced, there aren't a lot of warships in the world that has a VDS. They made an effort to switch the 054A production line to VDS, and did the same on the 056. In fact one of the primary changes between the 054A and 056A blocks have been the VDS. The VDS itself isn't something that's expensive, huge and inconvenient to add on --- all it needs is a port on the back with a long reel. Comparative to the previous world standard of hull sonar and TAS, VDS allows you to penetrate and listen through different thermal layers. Hull sonar and TAS can be beaten by a submarine who knows how to use thermal and salinity layers which can deflect sound. Helicopters with dipping sonars have a disadvantage because of their limited endurance. TAS is dependent on how quiet and noisy a submarine as TAS are passive sonars. But a ship with a VDS can probe any depth any layer for any length of time, and because its active -- ping ping ping --- it does not matter how quiet you are --- the sub is going to echo back those pings. Kudos for the PLAN for decisively quick fitting its ships with VDS, when other navies are dragging their feet on this issue for budgetary and bureaucratic reasons.

With regards to the 056A followup - 2500 ton ASW light frigate, I can choose a U-VLS as long as U-VLS has an ASROC option. I am not referring to the YU-8 fitting on the U-VLS, the YU-8 is well undersized for it and its quite a waste of space. The U-VLS should have an ASROC that makes better use of its space, and that means a missile-torpedo that's going to be larger than the YU-8, which means greater range or so on, like a YU-7 torpedo attached to the YJ-18's cruise body.

Given the size of the vessel, an 8 cell U-VLS is the option with 8 ASROCs. Using the 3-5 missile with it would likely mean a change in missile configuration, reducing the ASROCs for the air defense, but most importantly a change in the vessel's radar setup which in turn raises the cost of the vessel. At the minimum, the 3-5 missile, which I expect to be active guided, would need supplementary midphase updates from the radar and needs a radar capable of accurate updates. The HQ-10 on the other hand is a passive/IR missile ---- it locks to the target's heat and is a heat seeking missile. Against other aircraft, it would have to be protected by another vessel like the heavy frigate or light destroyer but at least it should be able to protect itself at close ranges.

Going back to the short list of ASW specialized modern warships, like the Type 22, Type 23 frigates and the Udaloy class destroyers, they are equipped with mainly short range missiles. The Udaloy is equipped with Kinzhals in rotary VLS, which amounts to a naval Tor-M1 or HQ-17. The primary weapon of the Udaloy is a huge ASROC that's code named Silex, which is like a cruise missile with a torpedo attached to it, and that's what fills up those large missile canisters the type is visually known for.

Fresh magazine scans.

Tam said:

I would think that the PLAN is freaked about enemy submarine capabilities that they would throw a large effort on it in the last decade. At the time when the 052D was introduced, there aren't a lot of warships in the world that has a VDS. They made an effort to switch the 054A production line to VDS, and did the same on the 056. In fact one of the primary changes between the 054A and 056A blocks have been the VDS. The VDS itself isn't something that's expensive, huge and inconvenient to add on --- all it needs is a port on the back with a long reel. Comparative to the previous world standard of hull sonar and TAS, VDS allows you to penetrate and listen through different thermal layers. Hull sonar and TAS can be beaten by a submarine who knows how to use thermal and salinity layers which can deflect sound. Helicopters with dipping sonars have a disadvantage because of their limited endurance. TAS is dependent on how quiet and noisy a submarine as TAS are passive sonars. But a ship with a VDS can probe any depth any layer for any length of time, and because its active -- ping ping ping --- it does not matter how quiet you are --- the sub is going to echo back those pings. Kudos for the PLAN for decisively

Click to expand...

If you do not narrow the mission set and instead simply produce a scaled-down 055 then I doubt such a design can be made cost-effective as a complement to 055. You are likely to end up with a ship that costs almost as much as 055 to build and run but offers significantly less capability, and that case you would simply build more 055s.

Lethe said:

If you do not narrow the mission set and instead simply produce a scaled-down 055 then I doubt such a design can be made cost-effective as a complement to 055. You are likely to end up with a ship that costs almost as much as 055 to build and run but offers significantly less capability, and that case you would simply build more 055s.

Click to expand...

That's a valid point, but the aim is not as much as the ship cost per se vs. the 055, but its operating costs. One that requires less crew and uses less fuel to operate. That's why two GT with two induction motors instead of four gas turbines. A ship that uses significantly less personnel to operate, lets say just over 200 instead of over 300. Versus the 052D, the new ship can be cheaper to operate in the longer run due to the replacement of mechanical sensors, no more things that swivel or turn around. Everything is a fixed phase array, with back access for easy module replacement within the ship, nothing that swings or turns around and requires periodic adjustment and replacement of worn components.

You can always scale down the cost with successive production. Initially the price per unit is high, but build more the price goes down.

We don't need the radars to be as big as the 055's, the 052D's size is enough. We advance the technology used on the modules and back end computers instead.

Components that are mass produced on the 055 will have by this time, already made cheaper for the new destroyer instead. Sharing components between the 055 and the new destroyer, as well as the new frigate, will reduce component costs further with volume production.

How fast and how many marine gas turbines can the factory pump out in a year is a factor. A 055 requires 4 gas turbines. My idea only requires two gas turbines like the 052D, and the next gen frigate using one gas turbine like the FREMM. I have a theory why 052Ds continue to be built alongside the 055 and that has to do with the quota of gas turbines of this class that can be built each year. That's probably one of the points of building the 054A, which uses no gas turbines, and why ships like the Type 075 and the Type 901 are diesels. The large gas turbines might be in a tight allocation. If you cannot build past this finite number of gas turbines per year, all the money in the world won't let you make the number of 055s you wanted.

Tam said:

That's a valid point, but the aim is not as much as the ship cost per se vs. the 055, but its operating costs. One that requires less crew and uses less fuel to operate. That's why two GT with two induction motors instead of four gas turbines. A ship that uses significantly less personnel to operate, lets say just over 200 instead of over 300. Versus the 052D, the new ship can be cheaper to operate in the longer run due to the replacement of mechanical sensors, no more things that swivel or turn around. Everything is a fixed phase array, with back access for easy module replacement within the ship, nothing that swings or turns around and requires periodic adjustment and replacement of worn componentsYou can always scale down the cost with successive production. Initially the price per unit is high, but build more the price goes down.

We don't need the radars to be as big as the 055's, the 052D's size is enough. We advance the technology used on the modules and back end computers instead.

Components that are mass produced on the 055 will have by this time, already made cheaper for the new destroyer instead. Sharing components between the 055 and the new destroyer, as well as the new frigate, will reduce component costs further with volume production.

Click to expand...

Advanced solid state systems may have reduced maintenance costs, but I don't see how that is relevant to making the case for a next-generation medium destroyer to complement 055. We are talking of two "all solid state" designs, after all. If you can deliver an "052E" that offers, say, two-thirds of the capability of 055 with two-thirds the crew, that would indeed be worthy of consideration even if the acquisition cost was more like 75% of 055. But I'm not sure how realistic that prospect is.

You point to various factors that can reduce cost, such as sharing components or at least development paths with systems for 055. But here is the counter-argument: if you make a radar using the same technology as 055 but with half the radiated power and capability, it will come in at more than half the cost. Only certain components of this smaller radar will scale down linearly (or near enough) in cost, namely the front-end panel itself, the power requirements to feed it, and perhaps the cooling requirements. Other elements that feed into the total cost of the system such as back-end processing, display consoles, training to operate the system, labour to install and maintain it, etc. will not decrease in line with the reduction in size and capability.

Tam said:

How fast and how many marine gas turbines can the factory pump out in a year is a factor. A 055 requires 4 gas turbines. My idea only requires two gas turbines like the 052D, and the next gen frigate using one gas turbine like the FREMM. I have a theory why 052Ds continue to be built alongside the 055 and that has to do with the quota of gas turbines of this class that can be built each year. That's probably one of the points of building the 054A, which uses no gas turbines, and why ships like the Type 075 and the Type 901 are diesels. The large gas turbines might be in a tight allocation. If you cannot build past this finite number of gas turbines per year, all the money in the world won't let you make the number of 055s you wanted.

Click to expand...

I could buy this as a short-term limitation, extending for 3-5 or even 7 years. But ultimately I would expect the CCP to address such a significant bottle-neck at the source, i.e. by increasing GT production, rather than contorting multiple generations of fleet inventory around the limitation. Even the disruptions Russia has suffered in GT supply haven't derailed their plans for the Gorshkov-class.

Lethe said:

Advanced solid state systems may have reduced maintenance costs, but I don't see how that is relevant to making the case for a next-generation medium destroyer to complement 055. We are talking of two "all solid state" designs, after all. If you can deliver an "052E" that offers, say, two-thirds of the capability of 055 with two-thirds the crew, that would indeed be worthy of consideration even if the acquisition cost was more like 75% of 055. But I'm not sure how realistic that prospect is.

You point to various factors that can reduce cost, such as sharing components or at least development paths with systems for 055. But here is the counter-argument: if you make a radar using the same technology as 055 but with half the radiated power and capability, it will come in at more than half the cost. Only certain components of this smaller radar will scale down linearly (or near enough) in cost, namely the front-end panel itself, the power requirements to feed it, and perhaps the cooling requirements. Other elements that feed into the total cost of the system such as back-end processing, display consoles, training to operate the system, labour to install and maintain it, etc. will not decrease in line with the reduction in size and capability.



I could buy this as a short-term limitation, extending for 3-5 or even 7 years. But ultimately I would expect the CCP to address such a significant bottle-neck at the source, i.e. by increasing GT production, rather than contorting multiple generations of fleet inventory around the limitation. Even the disruptions Russia has suffered in GT supply haven't derailed their plans for the Gorshkov-class.

Click to expand...

The key point is power consumption.

A larger panel means more power to feed it and greater heat generated. This means increasing the power infrastructure to feed it, generators and cables, and the greater heat generated means you need more refrigeration systems, which in turn means more power needed for them. This in turn increases weight, and then you have to add the floors and decks to support these, that also adds weight. The ship becomes heavier and the fuel consumption rises as a result. Your operating costs go higher.

Another key point is how much "radar" do you need? The more powerful your radar is, the more detectable you are from a longer range because the enemy ESM can detect it, target you instead and turn your expensive asset into a liability. In many situations the most useful mode the radar would use is to be in LPI or Low Probability Intercept mode, which works in a very low power mode and negates having a more powerful radar. Not only will this force you to work at lower power but only with sub arrays and not the full array itself. No matter how powerful your radar, there are also the limits to your radar horizon means aircraft and sea skimming missiles can still sneak up at near sea level height, taking advantage of the Earth's curvature to remain undetectable until they are at your doorstep. You need to rely on communicating with allied ships or planes to see below the radar horizon. At this point its better to have more ships then which points to not just light destroyers with CEC, but also with new generation frigates with CEC. And when you actually need the full capabilities of your humongous radars, because of CEC, the frigate or small destroyer next to you can use that asset.

So at some point you will get an increasingly expensive ship with diminishing returns, and build fewer ships to patrol the seas, or build more ships of a less capable hull, but at least it has more of the capabilities that you need and less of what you don't need. You can cover a much larger area with more ships distributed across that larger area all networked together to share their sensor information, than rely on the sheer sensor coverage of a few ships.

You also have the political front where you need precisely measured responses and deployments. Does it make sense to send a cruiser sized ship to lead an anti piracy mission?

Now with regards to GT supply, the lack of it greatly delayed plans for both the Gorshkov and the Grigorovich class, although the Russians can shift their naval budget to submarines in the interim. But it does delay. As for China, scaling the GT production will depend on technical matters, the most important being the yield rate of the turbine blades. This is like semiconductor fabbing, how many blades will pass the QC requirements and how many will not. Then how much of this competes with the aircraft turbine industry and the power generation industry.

Live-fire of YJ-18A anti ship missiles.

siegecrossbow said:

Live-fire of YJ-18A anti ship missiles.

Click to expand...

Why are the news broadcaster wearing military attire? Does PLA have their own dedicated news network?

Kich said:

Why are the news broadcaster wearing military attire? Does PLA have their own dedicated news network?

Click to expand...

Yes. CCTV 7. Amusingly they used to broadcast farming related news on the same channel pre Xi’s military reform. Urban legend has it that one Taiwanese military official who hoped to gain OSINT by watching CCTV 7 ended up quitting his job and started a very successful business in catfish aquaculture.

siegecrossbow said:

Yes. CCTV 7. Amusingly they used to broadcast farming related news on the same channel pre Xi’s military reform. Urban legend has it that one Taiwanese military official who hoped to gain OSINT by watching CCTV 7 ended up quitting his job and started a very successful business in catfish aquaculture.

Click to expand...

CCTV 7 is the military / agriculture channel before. Not enough military or agriculture news I guess.