055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[no_name]

IEP should be something that can be validated separately and on land if necessary, similar to how an aircraft engine can be validated without the aircraft itself.

 

[Blitzo]

We know China has been fairly conservative in the past when it comes to integrating new technologies, and this brings me to the subject of IEP. If China remains true to practice, it will want to validate IEP on 054B before integrating it on 055. This in turn suggests that 055 is quite some time away, i.e. early 2020s, or that we will see something like the 054/054A transition, i.e. only a couple of units before switching to an improved variant, itself occasioning significant delay. The third possibility is that they will proceed with IEP on 055 without prior validation on 054B.

Any thoughts?

We'll probably see a few (probably more than two) 055s without IEP first, and then progress to an IEP equipped 055.

 

[latenlazy]

We'll probably see a few (probably more than two) 055s without IEP first, and then progress to an IEP equipped 055.

Unless they compress their schedule as they grow more confident with their technology.

 

[joshuatree]

We know China has been fairly conservative in the past when it comes to integrating new technologies, and this brings me to the subject of IEP. If China remains true to practice, it will want to validate IEP on 054B before integrating it on 055. This in turn suggests that 055 is quite some time away, i.e. early 2020s, or that we will see something like the 054/054A transition, i.e. only a couple of units before switching to an improved variant, itself occasioning significant delay. The third possibility is that they will proceed with IEP on 055 without prior validation on 054B.

Any thoughts?

I thought some of the CG vessels being commissioned are using IEP? So wouldn't that already be validation in progress? While usually not as detrimental to a CG vessel vs a naval vessel if IEP fails, I think a CG vessel's readiness rate still requires a very robust and proven IEP design so anything learned here will transfer over to the naval side.

In the past, there were few blue water CG assets so that didn't factor in China's naval development. I think it's a different equation now.

 

[Blitzo]

displacement does not equate performance though. i would still give burke III the edge, but with some upgrades later on 055 may find its affluence of space to be of great value.

Yes, displacement definitely doesn't equate to performance.

At this stage it's hard to say how two ships that have yet to even be launched will fare with one another, but from what we know, 055 and burke III will both have an S band and X band AESA, 055 may also have a L band radar integrated as well. Burke III from what I know will still use 96 VLS whereas 055 should feature somewhere over 100 (although missile capability is also a question in itself).
055 and burke III will both probably have combat systems derived from existing mature systems (052Cs combat system versus aegis, respectively).
We also have relatively credible rumours that 055 will feature two Z-18 ASW helicopters, heavier than seahawk weight helicopters.
Of course, Burke III will have ABM capabilities, but I doubt that will be a mission for 055 anyway, so do we include it in any comparison

At the end of the day, the capability of an individual 055 or burke III isn't important considering both will be operating with the support of other ships nearby.

What can't be denied is that technology gap between PLAN and USN has rapidly closed and I would say is almost nonexistent in most areas of surface combatant tech. The degree of implementation and the maturity of different systems is another matter. Take the effect of that on "X vs Y" as you want.

 

[Zool]

We'll probably see a few (probably more than two) 055s without IEP first, and then progress to an IEP equipped 055.

My thoughts exactly. With a new hull design in particular, we are likely to see an initial batch of 2 or 4 ships as 055 and then the fleshed out 055A a few years down the road after sea trials and new technologies have been fully integrated.

 

[antiterror13]

this PS work looks really amateurish, but pretty good for an old guy like you. good job!!

as for how close you are to the real design, i have no idea lol

hmmm, good enough to me, Jeff is excellent extremely respected guy ... it has got anything to do with age.

A simple question ... show your work, let's see how good yours compared to his!

 

[shen]

Yes, displacement definitely doesn't equate to performance.

At this stage it's hard to say how two ships that have yet to even be launched will fare with one another, but from what we know, 055 and burke III will both have an S band and X band AESA, 055 may also have a L band radar integrated as well.

Burke III won't get dual band radar, at least not in the first batch. have to settle for the rotating AN/SPQ-9B for horizon search.

 

[Jeff Head]

this PS work looks really amateurish, but pretty good for an old guy like you.

Well, I do not believe I ever represented it as anything professional. Since I am not a professional design artist, or renderer, or anything like that...it would, by definition, be the work of an ametuer.

good job!!

Thanks. It was meant to be a simple representation of what the Type 055 might look like based on the full-scale mockup the PLAN has built. I am very proficient with CAD and 3-D modeling, but did not want to take the time (or have the time) to develop a full blown model. There are plenty of other people doing a very good job of that as we have seen.

as for how close you are to the real design, i have no idea lol

Time will tell. I expect there will be differences, but since it is based on their own mockup, and on the equipment and arrangement we see on the Type 052D, I expect it will not be terribly off.

 

[Jeff Head]

I meant this as 2 questions

1) how would the 2 compare. eg capibilities. I know the Burkes have been out since the early 90's, so the orginal equipment is older but don' know if they've been updated with newer tech.

The Burkes were built with the idea that they would be ugraded over time. And they have been.

Existing vessels receive the latest upgrades to sensors, weapons upgrades, etc as they go through their yard time. While there, they are refitted as needed.

In addition, the design itself has been updated to account for new technologies and capabilities.

Flight I ships: Constitute DDG-51 through DDG-71 commissioned between 1991 and 1997. That's 21 ships in six years. Heck of a build and commissioning rate. Six were commissioned in 1996 alone.

Flight II ships: Constitute DDG-72 thrpough DDG-78. Eight ships commisioned between 1998 and 1999...in two years.

Flight IIA ships: Constitute DDG-79 thrpough DDG-123. They are a very major upgrade to the Flight II ships, which added the two hangers for Seahawk helicopters. DDG-112 is already commissioned. That was 33 more commisioned between 2000 and 2012. Eleven more ar funded and going to build for a total of 44 Flight IIA ships.

Flight IIA ships: They will constitute DDG-124 through DDG-145 and will start building in 2016. They are adding the new radars. That will be 22 more Burkes, ending in the 2025 time frame. That will make for a total of 96 Burke class DDGs in their various "Flights," in about 33-34 years. Phenominal run and rate over that full time period.

They are a very good design. The Flight I Burkes are still considered very modern, very lethal and very capable ships.

Comparing all of the Burkes to the Type 055? Well, in terms specifications, you have to following:

VLS missiles:
Burke I & II - 90 cells
Burke IIA & III - 96 cells
Type 055 - 112 Cells

Note: All Burke VLS are Mk-41 launchers which allow for Standard anti-air missiles, quad-pack ESSM anti-air missiles, Tomoahawk Cruise missiles, LRASM anti-surface missiles, and Nallistic Missile Defense missiles.
The Type 055 reportedy will allow its new VLS cells to launch anti-air missiles, quad pack short range anti-air missils, land attack curise missiles (CJ), anti-shipping missiles (YJ), or anti-submarine missiles (CY).

Anti-ship missiles:
Burke I & II - 8 x Harppon in two quad cannister launchers.
Burke IIA & III: - LRASM missiles from Mk-41 launchers
Type 055 - Anti-shipping (YJ) missiles from VLS launcher

Main Gun:
Burke I & II - 127mm 54 caliber gun (24km range, 20 rounds/min, planned LRAP PGM w/double range)
Burke IIA a& III - 127mm 62 caliber gun (37km range, 30 rounds/min, planned LRAP PGM w/double range)
Type 055 - 130mm gun (30km range, 40 rounds/min, can fire multiple munitions including PGM)

CIWS:
Burke I & II : 2 x 20mm Phalanx. 6 barrels
Burke IIA & III 1 x 20mm Phalanx. 6 barrels
Type 055
- 1 x 30mm Type 1130, 11 barrels
- 1 x 24 cell FL-3000N missile launcher

Secondary Guns:
Bukes (All) - 2 x 25mm Bushmaster auto cannons
Type 055 - (Unknown - None listed yet, but perhaps 2 x 30mm autocannons like Type 052D))

Torpedos:
Burke (All) 2 x triple torpedo launchers
Type 055 - (Unknown - None listed yet, but perhaps 2 x 3 tubes like Type 052D)

Helo Capabilities:
Burke I & II - No hanger, but landing pad w/refueling for ASW helo
Burke IIA & II: Hanger and fuull facilities for two MH-60R Seahawks
Type 055 - Not settled. It will be one or two medium ASW helicopters.

The Type 055 will be larger, and marginally stronger armed than the Burkes in terms of VLS missiles and CIWS.

However, the Burkes are in MUCH greater numbers, carry two ASW helos and are probably the stronger ASW pplatform, in addition to their BMD capability. The newer Burke's 62 caliber main gun has greater range, but a slower figher rate.

Finally, it is likely that later Burkes will be fitted with the naval Rail-Gun that is currently being developed, the first of which will be installed on a US Navy vessel for complete testing in 2015. That will be game changer technology.

Hope all of that helps.