055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Insignius]

Yeah, "experience"

why dont you guys just mention the real nuclear bomb of an argument, as used in every PLAN related shitposting discussion existent: That China has no """""""Naval Traditions""""""""""? (or whatever it means)

The Type 055 will be, upon launch, a big psychological shock against any adversary, for China will have, for the first time in 400 years, a surface combattant that has more firepower than any Western equivalent around. A Type 055 with even 112 VLS can load up more than 60+ YJ-18s or similiar sized supersonic anti-ship missiles without compromising its AAW capability. Two Type 055 in a Chinese surface action group can unleash over 120 AShM against an enemy fleet. Add to that a few other ships, and the sheer size of the vampire swarm will cause heavy SAM attrition against an enemy fleet at worst, and heavy losses at best. There is absolutely no way that any haughty western-supplied navy will just walk away from an attack like that, citing that the lack of any mythical naval traditions and experience will save their ships.

A supersonic anti ship missile doesnt care for experience. When supplied with enough targeting data, it will perform as desired. It is the great equalizer.

The only thing that ever counts is VLS size and numbers. And the 055 will have plenty very large VLS cells with large anti ship missiles. If any Burke or Atago or whatever clone carries 96 interceptor missiles, they will still suffer losses when 97 AShM attacks them. At best - for the defender that is.
It is just mathematics. No magic or ideology involved.

 

[Blitzo]

Yeah, "experience"

why dont you guys just mention the real nuclear bomb of an argument, as used in every PLAN related shitposting discussion existent: That China has no """""""Naval Traditions""""""""""? (or whatever it means)

The Type 055 will be, upon launch, a big psychological shock against any adversary, for China will have, for the first time in 400 years, a surface combattant that has more firepower than any Western equivalent around. A Type 055 with even 112 VLS can load up more than 60+ YJ-18s or similiar sized supersonic anti-ship missiles without compromising its AAW capability. Two Type 055 in a Chinese surface action group can unleash over 120 AShM against an enemy fleet. Add to that a few other ships, and the sheer size of the vampire swarm will cause heavy SAM attrition against an enemy fleet at worst, and heavy losses at best. There is absolutely no way that any haughty western-supplied navy will just walk away from an attack like that, citing that the lack of any mythical naval traditions and experience will save their ships.

A supersonic anti ship missile doesnt care for experience. When supplied with enough targeting data, it will perform as desired. It is the great equalizer.

The only thing that ever counts is VLS size and numbers. And the 055 will have plenty very large VLS cells with large anti ship missiles. If any Burke or Atago or whatever clone carries 96 interceptor missiles, they will still suffer losses when 97 AShM attacks them. At best - for the defender that is.
It is just mathematics. No magic or ideology involved.

Nah man, armament is important, but sensors, combat management, subsystem integration, datalinking are all very important attributes for a modern surface combatant, and that's not including the issue of the quality of the armament as well. Measuring a warship only on the basis of weapons capacity is flawed.

The role of AShMs, while important in modern naval warfare, should not be excessively lionized, as the role of naval/carrier borne aviation for both offensive and defensive operations are very important as well for two sides if both have very capable AShMs.



that said, I agree that 055 is likely going to present quite a psychological shock to China's competitor navies.
Many of those navies are used to having a significant qualitative edge in terms of technology until recently with the introduction of newer warships like 052C/D and 054A, but before the emergence of 055 they could still feel comfortable knowing that their "capital" surface combatants were still larger and overall more capable than what the Chinese Navy had in its 052Ds.

However, with the 055s, which will likely be the world's largest in production surface combatant second to the Zumwalt class and likely the largest surface combatant of any westpac/asia pacific navy when it enters service, that previous sense of having a larger and more capable "capital" surface combatant will likely begin to be challenged. Furthermore, the 055 is not likely going to be built only in small numbers. There are four 055s in various stages of production before the first 055 is even launched and there are strong indications that we will see 055s in the double digits for merely the first batch/variant and to expect more 055s in a future improved variant as well, which considering the rate of construction of 055s that we can see and project, may not take too many years for a relatively large number to enter service.
Pair the likely-to-be-sizeable number of large and capable 055s with the large number of smaller but still quite advanced and capable 052C/Ds that have already been launched will enter service in coming years, and I think it is a combination of the size, capability, technological level, and number of the "capital" surface combatant 055s along with the number of "medium workhorse" surface combatant 052C/Ds, that will cause quite a paradigm shift in how the Chinese Navy will be perceived in the late 2010s/early 2020s compared to the Chinese Navy even as recent as the late 2000s.

 

[latenlazy]

What? The Zumwalt can not only launch the ESSM and SM-2, it will also have access to the SM-6 (400+km range).

As for the Pyotr Velikiy, once it gets modernized it will be an unquestionably superior warship to the 055. As is the KDX-III/King Sejong.

IMO the Ticonderoga is at least the equal if not the superior of the 055.

If the 055 is only going to load 112 cells then even 96-cell ships like the Atago/Kongou and Arleigh Burke are in contention to match or beat the 055 in overall combat effectiveness. It is also pure fanboyistic wishful thinking to assume that an AESA like the 346A is automatically superior to a PESA like AN/SPY-1. Far more relevant is the software behind the hardware, and Aegis has already had 4 decades and 7 iterations of experience and refinement.

Quality of software isn't always dictated by decades of experience and numbers of iterations.

 

[Lethe]

What? The Zumwalt can not only launch the ESSM and SM-2, it will also have access to the SM-6 (400+km range).

No it doesn't. Zumwalt loads only ESSM because the S-band SPY-4 radar to support long-range engagement was deleted from the class.

Far more relevant is the software behind the hardware, and Aegis has already had 4 decades and 7 iterations of experience and refinement.

In the world of commercial software, something that is four decades old is usually archaic or at least suffers from numerous inefficiencies relative to modern designs, requiring bootstraps having their own limitations.

Even in the realm of military software, F-35 boosters confidently inform us of how advanced its software architecture is compared to even F-22, and how legacy platforms with their dated software architectures cannot hope to incorporate incremental improvements to bridge the gap.

And yet in the case of Aegis we are expected to believe that being descended from the 1970s is an unalloyed blessing translating to unquestionable (yet undefinable) advantage of "maturity".

And of course Zumwalt doesn't run Aegis in the first place, which -- given the 'Starship Enterprise' ambitions for the rest of the class -- is itself suggestive of the limits of 1970s systems architecture.

 

[Blitzo]

Elaborating on what I think about the role and psychological effect of the 055, one needs to look holistically at the Chinese Navy's past, current and future order of battle structure for their surface combatants, and compare that with the orbat structure for other navies.

Specifically, I am thinking about blue water capable surface combatants, and I myself like to artificially separate them into three different categories:
-"capital ship" surface combatants, which are the largest, most capable, most advanced but also fewest in number in a navy's orbat
-"medium workhorse" surface combatants, which may be not as large or not as capable as capital ships but may approach them in technological advancement or size in other ways, but are significantly more numerous
-"low end workhorse" surface combatants, which are the smallest and least capable of the blue water capable surface combatants and which are also more numerous than the medium workhorses.

These categories do not necessarily reflect the role or type of each ship in each category but rather a way of considering each type of ship and its relative capability within the navy it serves in.


I believe that any Navy can structure their blue water capable ships into those three categories, however some navies may have more medium workhorses or more capital ships as a proportion of their overall orbat, or more low end workhorses, etc.

However, the "role" of a certain type of ship in that navy is very much determined by how advanced the other ships in the navy are.

For example, for the Chinese Navy of the mid to late 2000s, I think it would be reasonable to say that the "capital ships" of its orbat then was made up by the two lone 052Cs, and possibly the 054As and 051Cs of the time depending on when one exactly measured it, whereas the "medium workhorses" were made up mostly by the Sovs, the 052Bs, 052s, 051B, 053H3s, 054s, with the "low end workhorses" being the much older 051s and 053s who for all intents and purposes did not have any realistic blue water endurance. In that era, the different roles of the ships were what I would classify based on judging each ship's combat capability rather than only their size.

However, going into the mid 2010s to now, as older ships began retiring in larger numbers and as newer ships entered service in larger numbers, I think we are starting to see a much clearer differentiation, where "capital ships" now include the 6 052Cs and 5 (and counting 052Ds), while "medium workhorses" include the 054As, the older destroyers of Sovs, 051C, 052B, 051B, and the "low end workhorses" are made up of 052s, 054s, 053H3s, and the few 051 and 053s which remain in service.

Going forwards into the late 2010s and early 2020s and beyond, I expect the categories to further evolve, where the "capital ships" will be made up of 055s, the "medium workhorses" of 052C/Ds, the "low end workhorses" made up of 054As as well as the older destroyers including the Sovs, 051C, 052B, 051B, 052, 054, etc.


So, I think seeing how the actual capability of the ships, in each category has advanced and how they will likely advance, and also considering the number of those ships in each category, is a useful way of thinking about the kind of qualitative and quantitative evolution the Chinese Navy's blue water capable surface combatant force will be going through.

Then, when we look at other regional navies (whom I won't individually compare) and the quantitative and qualitative evolution of their surface combatant order of battle across their three categories between the mid 2000s to now, to their planned procurement plans up to the early 2020s, and compare that with the qualitative and qualitative scope of the Chinese Navy's expected procurement, and I think the effects of the Chinese Navy's evolution on the region's balance of naval power can be better considered.

 

[Iron Man]

The Type 055 will be, upon launch, a big psychological shock against any adversary, for China will have, for the first time in 400 years, a surface combattant that has more firepower than any Western equivalent around.

What are you even talking about? Did you just decide to totally ignore Ticonderogas with 128 cells?

There are four 055s in various stages of production before the first 055 is even launched and there are strong indications that we will see 055s in the double digits for merely the first batch/variant and to expect more 055s in a future improved variant as well, which considering the rate of construction of 055s that we can see and project, may not take too many years for a relatively large number to enter service.

We don't have any indicators that the first batch of the 055 is going to reach double digits, to speak nothing of "strong" indicators. I think this is excessive exuberance on your part.

Quality of software isn't always dictated by decades of experience and numbers of iterations.

No, not necessarily "always", but I will certainly "usually" take a system with more experience and iterations than one with less experience and iterations. You pointing out the possibility of exceptions to the rule doesn't make the 346A + indigenous combat data system an actual exception to the rule.

No it doesn't. Zumwalt loads only ESSM because the S-band SPY-4 radar to support long-range engagement was deleted from the class.

In the world of commercial software, something that is four decades old is usually archaic or at least suffers from numerous inefficiencies relative to modern designs, requiring bootstraps having their own limitations.

Even in the realm of military software, F-35 boosters confidently inform us of how advanced its software architecture is compared to even F-22, and how legacy platforms with their dated software architectures cannot hope to incorporate incremental improvements to bridge the gap.

And yet in the case of Aegis we are expected to believe that being descended from the 1970s is an unalloyed blessing translating to unquestionable (yet undefinable) advantage of "maturity".

First of all SPY-4 functions on the Zumwalt have been taken over by SPY-3, which can and will perform target illumination for both ESSM and SM-2. It has specifically taken over the VSR functions of SPY-4, which BTW was never intended to perform "long-range engagement" in the first place, so I don't know where you got this information from. Second VSR is NOT the same as terminal illumination, something that was never part of SPY-4's job description. That was always going to be the SPY-3's job and this has not changed with the deletion of the SPY-4 program. Third, you would have us believe that the software for a mass-target combat data management system that controls the 346/A, something that China previously had no experience in, is somehow equivalent or even superior to a (YES) "mature" Aegis combat system that has been tested, used, and refined over 4 decades. Sorry, but that is about as sensible as asking us to believe that the C919 is better and safer because it's newer than a 737max or A320, just because they're older. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you as a passenger flying on a C919 is going to have more anxiety than you would have flying on a 737 or A320. I just don't think this is something you can argue successfully.

 

[latenlazy]

What are you even talking about? Did you just decide to totally ignore Ticonderogas with 128 cells?

I'm talking about whether more experience or iterations necessarily means you can assume a piece of software to be better than one with less experience and fewer iterations. It doesn't.

 

[Iron Man]

I'm talking about whether more experience or iterations necessarily means you can assume a piece of software to be better than one with less experience and fewer iterations. It doesn't.

No, it doesn't "necessarily". But you missed my point, which is that not "necessarily" already implies that you've conceded the point.

 

[Blitzo]

We don't have any indicators that the first batch of the 055 is going to reach double digits, to speak nothing of "strong" indicators. I think this is excessive exuberance on your part.

I do not think so.

Late last year fzgfzy suggested that the order for the first batch of 055s may end up being larger than initially thought, with the first batch having been stated before as being 8 ships.

From over 8 ships, you would not have to go very far to reach double digits.

No, not necessarily "always", but I will certainly "usually" take a system with more experience and iterations than one with less experience and iterations. You pointing out the possibility of exceptions to the rule doesn't make the 346A + indigenous combat data system an actual exception to the rule.

I think that "rule" only holds true if certain assumptions about the technological advancement and capability of the two respective industries producing the two competing products are made (in this case, combat management systems/CMSs), and also if certain assumptions about the level of technological advancement and capability of the two competing products (the earlier/more experienced product versus newer product).

For example, this would assume that the industry which produced the original more experienced CMShas maintained a sufficient lead in capability over the competing industry which produced the newer CMS such that the newer product does not have the ability to meet or even exceed the original more experienced CMS.

It would also assume that the original CMS is not fundamentally limited in some way compared to the newer CMS whereby the newer CMS(due to being a newer development) has been able to take advantage of technological advances thus allowing it certain inherent inherent capability advantage, whereby even though it is a less mature product than the original CMS, it is still able to meet or perhaps even exceed the performance of the more mature original CMS.

Of course, I'm not saying the software behind the 346/A or the 055 or 052D or whatever is necessarily as good, better, or worse than aegis, spy-1 or spy-6 or whatever.

First of all SPY-4 functions on the Zumwalt have been taken over by SPY-3, which can and will perform target illumination for both ESSM and SM-2. It has specifically taken over the VSR functions of SPY-4, which BTW was never intended to perform "long-range engagement" in the first place, so I don't know where you got this information from. Second VSR is NOT the same as terminal illumination, something that was never part of SPY-4's job description. That was always going to be the SPY-3's job and this has not changed with the deletion of the SPY-4 program. Third, you would have us believe that the software for a mass-target combat data management system that controls the 346/A, something that China previously had no experience in, is somehow equivalent or even superior to a (YES) "mature" Aegis combat system that has been tested, used, and refined over 4 decades. Sorry, but that is about as sensible as asking us to believe that the C919 is better and safer because it's newer than a 737max or A320, just because they're older. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you as a passenger flying on a C919 is going to have more anxiety than you would have flying on a 737 or A320. I just don't think this is something you can argue successfully.

I think the relationship we are examining is one of maturity/capability/reliability of a product versus time, and I agree that as time progresses, the maturity/capability/reliability of a product type also increases, but I do not think the relationship is a continuously proportional one, and eventually the curve reaches a point where the gains in maturity/capability/reliability begin to plateau or reach diminishing returns with time.

So when comparing two systems or products, I think what we should be interested in is how the capability vs time curve of both overlay onto each other, and whether the "younger" system is able to reach a given level of capability/maturity/reliability faster or slower than the "existing" system has already been, and how quickly the "younger" system is able to catch up in terms of capability/maturity/reliability.


In the case of say, comparing the aegis combat system versus whatever combat system the 055 or 052D or whatever uses, the question should be to ask what level the aegis combat system's capability/maturity/reliability is between two time points (say, between now and sometime in the near future) and how its capability/maturity/reliability will change over that time, and compare that to where the 052D's capability/maturity/reliability is between those same two time points and how it may also change over that time.

 

[latenlazy]

No, it doesn't "necessarily". But you missed my point, which is that not "necessarily" already implies that you've conceded the point.

No, I didn't miss your point. Your point is based on a presumed conjecture. I questioned the soundness of the conjecture. If the basis of your point was so dependable then incumbents would never be overtaken in anything, and we know that to be untrue. You made an absolute claim. I challenge the confidence of the claim.