055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[AndrewS]

A warship being half year in commission being a failure... Go and tell them that so that they can save billions and cancel out Lyndon B. Johnson because they're going to waste more money on this 'failure'!

Who said a warship being in late by half a year is a failure?

I'm referring to the Zumwalt programme which was supposed to be the standard large surface combatant in production to replace the Arleigh Burke. Instead, it has turned out to be a $22billion demonstrator programme for just 3 ships that aren't suited to what the US Navy needs.

There's no money left for development, so the US Navy had to restart Burke production.

 

[Lethe]

A warship being half year in commission being a failure... Go and tell them that so that they can save billions and cancel out Lyndon B. Johnson because they're going to waste more money on this 'failure'!

If a 90% reduction in planned acquisition numbers isn't a failure, I don't know what is.

Also there was the reduction in VLS numbers. And cancelling the VGAS system. And then cancelling LRLAP. And ripping out the SPY-4 radar. And abandoning the commitment to house sensors within the deckhouse to minimise RCS. And dropping the planned 57mm guns in favour of cheaper(!!) solutions. Those last three in particular are pure cost-saving measures (with out-sized effects on capability) that make sense in only one context: that of rats fleeing a sinking ship.

 

[AndrewS]

You can buy more land based fighters and aerial tankers for the same money, but that doesn't mean equal or more capability. Contesting the first island chain is meaningless if you can't actually take islands into your own control.

The area covered by the first island chain is vast, and its distance from Chinese shores is great. China isn't exactly buried in larger airfields that can act as main operation centers outside its immediate territory.

The first island chain is not that far. Everywhere is within 1000km of Chinese airbases, which is feasible for airborne tankers plus heavyweight fighters (F-15/F-22/Su-27/J-20) to cover.

And we've just seen China build 3 brand new airbases in the middle of the SCS, and which provide permanent presence.

China-Korea is 400km. Taiwan is 200km away. Okinawa is 700km. Philippines is 900km. Malaysia/Brunei/Saigon are 500km

Shanghai to the Japanese Home islands is only 1000km. And in order for fighter jets from a Chinese carrier to be useful in this scenario, it's going to have to sail right off the Japanese coastline. Do you seriously think a Chinese carrier can survive in this scenario?

I'm not saying that China shouldn't build carriers, but there is no point building them unless you plan to use them beyond the range of what land-based aircraft can do.

Carriers are better used in the open ocean where there are no airbases available and where they can use their mobility to hide/strike across great distances

EDIT

That also feeds into why China needs more Type-55, because they are more survivable than a carrier and can rely on land-based air cover to perform sea control within the first island chain.

 

[Janiz]

If a 90% reduction in planned acquisition numbers isn't a failure, I don't know what is.

Also there was the reduction in VLS numbers. And cancelling the VGAS system. And then cancelling LRLAP. And ripping out the SPY-4 radar. And abandoning the commitment to house sensors within the deckhouse to minimise RCS. And dropping the planned 57mm guns in favour of cheaper(!!) solutions. Those last three in particular are pure cost-saving measures (with out-sized effects on capability) that make sense in only one context: that of rats fleeing a sinking ship.

How much of this stuff like changing armament etc happen all the time in other navies all around the world? And reduction happened more or less because it was way too early for such a project that no one ever tried to make on a technological level rather than being failure. LRLAP was Lockheed's fault (or maybe not fault - they learned a lot from that I assume that will work in the future projects I assume) not USN. VGAS is an ongoing project and Zumwalt class is able to have without any problems in the future. SPY-4 radar suite? That was the biggest mistake when they started Ford class project and Zummies were only sheduled to get it because of that. Type 055 is only another generic warship, only that it's bigger, and you can call that a failure as they couldn't stuff it's armament on a smaller hull thinking your way compared to Zumwalt. Surely much cheaper as well. What's your point?

You're way ahead of your place calling something that's meant for the next 40 years a failure after 7 months...

 

[antiterror13]

How much of this stuff like changing armament etc happen all the time in other navies all around the world? And reduction happened more or less because it was way too early for such a project that no one ever tried to make on a technological level rather than being failure. LRLAP was Lockheed's fault (or maybe not fault - they learned a lot from that I assume that will work in the future projects I assume) not USN. VGAS is an ongoing project and Zumwalt class is able to have without any problems in the future. SPY-4 radar suite? That was the biggest mistake when they started Ford class project and Zummies were only sheduled to get it because of that. Type 055 is only another generic warship, only that it's bigger, and you can call that a failure as they couldn't stuff it's armament on a smaller hull thinking your way compared to Zumwalt. Surely much cheaper as well. What's your point?

You're way ahead of your place calling something that's meant for the next 40 years a failure after 7 months...

hmmmm ... the truth sometime hurts ... find another better excuses ... we might believe you .. if you are lucky

 

[FORBIN]

If a 90% reduction in planned acquisition numbers isn't a failure, I don't know what is.

Also there was the reduction in VLS numbers. And cancelling the VGAS system. And then cancelling LRLAP. And ripping out the SPY-4 radar. And abandoning the commitment to house sensors within the deckhouse to minimise RCS. And dropping the planned 57mm guns in favour of cheaper(!!) solutions. Those last three in particular are pure cost-saving measures (with out-sized effects on capability) that make sense in only one context: that of rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Unusual but disapointing even not AEGIS for this price ! no TL also.
Main advantage very difficult to detect/destroy after obviously i prefer have 2 AB for one.

China do more " simple " with especialy 055 best choice, too sophisticated is not good more expensive clearly and the number is necessary, new AB Fl IIa ready completely in time and Flight III in a good way.

 

[Lethe]

A project that sets realistic goals and achieves them is a successful project. See: Super Hornet, Virginia class.

A project that sets extraordinary goals and spends decades and tens of billions of dollars and ends up cutting planned procurement numbers by 90% and walking capabilities back, and back, and back, and back, and back ... is a failure of epic proportions.

 

[latenlazy]

The first island chain is not that far. Everywhere is within 1000km of Chinese airbases, which is feasible for airborne tankers plus heavyweight fighters (F-15/F-22/Su-27/J-20) to cover.

And we've just seen China build 3 brand new airbases in the middle of the SCS, and which provide permanent presence.

China-Korea is 400km. Taiwan is 200km away. Okinawa is 700km. Philippines is 900km. Malaysia/Brunei/Saigon are 500km

Shanghai to the Japanese Home islands is only 1000km. And in order for fighter jets from a Chinese carrier to be useful in this scenario, it's going to have to sail right off the Japanese coastline. Do you seriously think a Chinese carrier can survive in this scenario?

I'm not saying that China shouldn't build carriers, but there is no point building them unless you plan to use them beyond the range of what land-based aircraft can do.

Carriers are better used in the open ocean where there are no airbases available and where they can use their mobility to hide/strike across great distances

EDIT

That also feeds into why China needs more Type-55, because they are more survivable than a carrier and can rely on land-based air cover to perform sea control within the first island chain.

Relying on the outer ranges of what your air fleet is capable of reaching to conduct intensive operations is strategically foolish. Such an approach would be extremely vulnerable to logistical disruptions, which would drastically dampen their offensive power and efficacy. Furthermore, bringing your fleet close to the ground bases of your adversaries means being exposed to their air power. Even if we're to submit that its better to lean on destroyers to conduct surface strikes you'd still need carriers to provide effective air defense against the nettle of aerial attacks that would be marshaled for base defense.

Those 3 airbases in the SCS are pitstops. They're hardly sufficient as main operation centers for an air campaign.

In a scenario where China would have to contest Japan, carriers wouldn't be operating alone. Also, Japan isn't *only* 1000 km. 1000 km is very far, and effective air campaigns require that you're not strapped to tight fuel margins limiting your operational flexibility. A Flanker that can barely make it back to base from its mission is a Flanker that's easily deterred and interdicted. Just because your air fleet *can* make a round trip using its max range doesn't that it *should*. Being effective 1000km away from your home base *is* something outside the ranges of what China's current land based air fleet can do.

 

[Janiz]

A project that sets extraordinary goals and spends decades and tens of billions of dollars and ends up cutting planned procurement numbers by 90% and walking capabilities back, and back, and back, and back, and back ... is a failure of epic proportions.

Many astronauts gave their lives to the project of people going safe into space or even land on the Moon. And all of that because few guys said - hey, let's go into space!

Because right now you described mankind going into space. As a failure. An epic failure.

 

[Blitzo]

@Bltizo

I agree with Iron Man on the usage of carriers within the First Island Chain.

For the money spent on a carrier+escorts+navalised fighters, you can buy a lot more in terms of land-based fighters and aerial tankers to patrol within the First Island Chain.

The carriers are better employed further away where there aren't any Chinese airfields available.

For a near seas contingency, it would be to employ carriers further away from China's coast where there aren't any Chinese airfields available. There aren't any Chinese airfields 500km out from its coast (apart from maybe SCS, but that's a different story to talk about below) that can allow them to project organic, long endurance air power at that distance to extend China's air superiority/contesting/strike umbrella that far. Buying more land based fighters and tankers provide their own capability yes, but it doesn't necessarily offer the same long-distance-from-coast, organic air power capability as a carrier, as latenlazy has said.

At the same time, the carriers would provide much needed capability to respond to blue water contingencies as well, so it's not like their role would only be relegated to responding to near seas contingencies.

Plus a hardened airbase is way more survivable than a carrier is within the first island chain.

I assume you're talking about the SCS island bases; I do not expect them to be that survivable given their fixed and isolated nature. It would require quite a multilayered defence in place at the outset of hostilties for them to survive.