055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[lllchairmanlll]

Yes, in the sense that the real ship could be 2-3 meters wider. However, I doubted that the Aft VLS section is out of scale since it is not that difficult to put in several more pieces of steel plates to show the approximate length of the aft VLS section.

Anyway if it isn't propulsion problems of spaces for more fuel, I cannot understand the rational behind arming the 055 with only 96 VLS. Given a ship the size of a battlecruiser, I at least would prefer arming it with a sustainable load of munition (96 will run out in less than 3 days of battle). Also, for CIWS, a ship size of 055 would need at least two sets of HQ-10 and two sets of Type-1130. It is not another 052D, and yet, it only has the self-defense armament of that of 052D.

My guess is that one set of HQ10 plus 1130 CIWS is enough for modern day destroyer. Plus you have more VLS than 052D.

 

[Jeff Head]

... do you see the 055 being manufactured in large scale like the Arleigh Burke?

I believe the PLAN may six or more or Type 055s, but certainly nothing like the Burke numbers.

They will definitely have 6 Type 052Cs, probably 12 Type 052Ds, and perhaps 6 Type 055s. That would be a total of 24 very modern and capable DDGs.

The Type 052D numbers could go as high as 18 I suppose...and the Type 055s could go to nine or twelve. That would make the high end 36 modern units.

It just depends on what duties the PLAN has for them in terms of escorting high value units, and in terms of SLOC security, allied agreements/exercises, their maintenance needs, etc. that the PLAN deems necessary world-wide.

 

[lllchairmanlll]

Yes, 96 VLS seems to be a little conservative amount for such a giant ship which can be even considered a cruiser. But, there is essentially no difference between 112 and 128 VLS in modern naval conflict. The problem is not about how many missile you can carry per ship, it is about how effectively can you identify decoy and real threats at longer distance. Plus, destroyers like 052D or 055 will unlikely to fight by itself, even in the PLAN excise these days.

 

[lllchairmanlll]

I believe the PLAN may six or more or Type 055s, but certainly nothing like the Burke numbers.

They will definitely have 6 Type 052Cs, probably 12 Type 052Ds, and perhaps 6 Type 055s. That would be a total of 24 very modern and capable DDGs.

The Type 052D numbers could go as high as 18 I suppose...and the Type 055s could go to nine or twelve. That would make the high end 36 modern units.

It just depends on what duties the PLAN has for them in terms of escorting high value units, and in terms of SLOC security, allied agreements/exercises, their maintenance needs, etc. that the PLAN deems necessary world-wide.

Those are some good and educated guess, similar to what most of PLAN expert think. Type 055 destroyer will be built in smaller quantity than 052D. Because 052D is a mature, excise proven (of course not combat proven) and more affordable DDG for PLAN in the next couple of decades and will maintain a high mass production rate until 2020 (according to a report by a PLAN expert on Huanqiu Military). 055 will be a more comprehensive DDG than 052D with greater upgrade potential to fit the need in the next 20-30 years. According to the report, once past 2020, 055 DDG will be improved with new subsystem and weapon and those newer 055 will be named for 055A.

 

[SpicySichuan]

I believe the PLAN may six or more or Type 055s, but certainly nothing like the Burke numbers.

They will definitely have 6 Type 052Cs, probably 12 Type 052Ds, and perhaps 6 Type 055s. That would be a total of 24 very modern and capable DDGs.

The Type 052D numbers could go as high as 18 I suppose...and the Type 055s could go to nine or twelve. That would make the high end 36 modern units.

It just depends on what duties the PLAN has for them in terms of escorting high value units, and in terms of SLOC security, allied agreements/exercises, their maintenance needs, etc. that the PLAN deems necessary world-wide.

But will 24-36 Sino-Aegis vessels be enough to solve the "Malacca Dilemma"?

 

[Jeff Head]

But will 24-36 Sino-Aegis vessels be enough to solve the "Malacca Dilemma"?

That's for the planners and leadership at the PLAN to decide.

With up to 36 modern and very capable DDGs, and then add what is sure to be at least 24 modern FFGs...not to mention what will probably be 40-50 light FFGs in the Type 056 vessels... the PLAN will have more such vessels than any other nation on earth outside of the US Navy.

Think of it...

36 DDGs (052C/Ds, 055s)
66 FFGs ( 054s and 056s)

That's over 100 major surface combatants right there and they will all be new, modern vessels. It is really quite an amazing and impressive number.

 

[kwaigonegin]

But will 24-36 Sino-Aegis vessels be enough to solve the "Malacca "?

what "Malacca Dilemma"?

 

[Jeff Head]

what "Malacca Dilemma"?

I believe he is referring to the natural bottle neck/choke point that the Stratis of Malaca are.

That narrow, 500 mile long stretch of water has a LOT of China's energy and goods passing through it and would have to be kept open in the event of any major problems for China.

The dilemma referred to by many internet "Admirals," and watchers is how would the PLAN be able to do so in the face of significant OPFOR efforts to close it.

But since such "us vs them" scenarios are not what SD is about...any answers have to be given with that in mind, avoiding violating those rules.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I believe he is referring to the natural bottle neck/choke point that the Stratis of Malaca are.

That narrow, 500 mile long stretch of water has a LOT of China's energy and goods passing through it and would have to be kept open in the event of any major problems for China.

The dilemma referred to by many internet "Admirals," and watchers is how would the PLAN be able to do so in the face of significant OPFOR efforts to close it.

But since such "us vs them" scenarios are not what SD is about...any answers have to be given with that in mind, avoiding violating those rules.

gotcha, yes I am familiar with the Malacca straits. yes it's a natural bottle neck.. long and narrow between Malaysia and Indonesia.

It all depends on which 'sides' Malaysia and Indonesia allied themselves to. Even if they remain neutral, PLAN would still be able to do nothing nevermind taking the side oppose to the PRC

In the event of a serious crisis and an actual shooting war PRC would NOT be using that SLOC and will find alternative albeit longer trade routes.

Keep in mind that Singapore is also close ally of the US not to mentioned the Changi Naval Base and AFB there located at the southern tip or the entry point to the Straights.

The entire convoy would be massacred regardless of surface escorts.

PLAN has to totally disable the naval and AFB there in Singapore and have enough sub surface assets to keep the waters underneath clear which would be a monumental task.

If Malaysia and Indonesia decides to take the opposing side than PLAAF has to have complete air superiority over that entire region to prevent ASMs and coastal launches.

In short there will be no "Malacca dielemma" because PLAN is not stupid and will find alternate routes that are way more survivable!

Now of course if Malayysia and Indonesia sides with PRC and Singapore with the US then we'll have a very different ballgame and I'm going waayy off topic LOL

 

[Brumby]

In short there will be no "Malacca dielemma" because PLAN is not stupid and will find alternate routes that are way more survivable!

If there is a blockade, it would not just be the "Malacca Dilemma". I went back and check the Rand document and the blockade map. I don't think there is any viable alternate route. That map got me a warning the last time I posted it on this forum. Lol. Any force structure requirement and scenario planning would be more than just about Malacca.