055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[AndrewS]

Unfortunately from my perspective, because I was hoping for 128. As for Type 45, Horizon, and FREMM, it's interesting that you mention these types because IMO all three of them are undergunned for their displacement, especially the FREMM and most especially the Italian FREMM with only 16 VL cells for 16 Aster 15/30 missiles to show for its 6,700t displacement. That's only 800t less than the 052D but with one quarter of the missile carrying capacity.


Larger is only more useful IMO if there is a quad-packing MRSAM in the works for the PLAN (for which there is no confirmation or even rumor currently), otherwise a larger cell is still only a single cell for a single missile.

The Chinese VLS specification is publicly available and actually specifies quad-packed missiles.

And there are rumours/graphics/models of 2 MRSAMs that were quad packed in a VLS.

Even the USN accepts that they have to increase the number of ESSMs due to their cost-effectiveness in these times of budget constraints and the finite number of VLS cells available.

So if a Type-55 uses 32 cells for quad packed MRSAMs, that is 128 in total. Yet that still leaves 80 for LRSAMs and anti-ship missiles.

 

[Blitzo]

The Chinese VLS specification is publicly available and actually specifies quad-packed missiles.

And there are rumours/graphics/models of 2 MRSAMs that were quad packed in a VLS.

Even the USN accepts that they have to increase the number of ESSMs due to their cost-effectiveness in these times of budget constraints and the finite number of VLS cells available.

So if a Type-55 uses 32 cells for quad packed MRSAMs, that is 128 in total. Yet that still leaves 80 for LRSAMs and anti-ship missiles.

I'm sure he understands the benefits of quad packing missiles and their utility in helping preserve VLS number, rather he's expressing doubt as to whether the Navy has such a missile in the pipeline or not.


But as you say, the original GJB document mentions the ability for a cell to hold multiple missiles which many people logically interpreted as quad packing. I think if there is no quad packable missile that is already in service at present I would be very surprised if such a missile was not in development as we speak and fairly advanced stages of development at that.

 

[Iron Man]

And there are rumours/graphics/models of 2 MRSAMs that were quad packed in a VLS.

I'd like to see that. Please link to a credible graphic or model of this alleged semi-quad-packed MRSAM, preferably not one made by one of us on a military forum.

 

[Lethe]

Diameter of the cell is 0.85m. if you place a circle in a square, the diameter of the circle = length of each edge of the square.

Putting it another way, it is 0.85m x 0.85m

It would, if you get close enough of a picture. Keep in mind that Mk41 uses a dedicated exhaust port while the CUVLS uses each individual cylinder as its exhaust ports, so the 2x4 modules are not as different in size as individual cylinders.

Ok. The 22" figure given for Mk. 41 in my link earlier seems plausible given that this just accommodates Tomahawk and SM-3 Block II, the two heaviest munitions employed by the system. Hence, the CUVLS (I assume there is no more convenient/precise name for the system?) cells offer 2.3x the cross-sectional area of Mk. 41.

I assume that an in-cell sleeve for hot launch would not reduce the functional capacity of the cell because larger missiles would be cold launched without said sleeve, where hot launch is more likely for a future ESSM or Aster 15 analogue where fast response time is more critical.

As such we are left with the question of how China intends to use and take advantage of this very considerable disparity in missile launch capability. With such enormous volume to play with, there is no excuse for Chinese LACM, AshM, ASROC, AAW, ASAT and BMD capabilities to lag USN's in any respect, and in fact we should expect China to field superior systems going forward.

 

[PikeCowboy]

yes for example the YJ-18 carries a heavier warhead a greater distance at a greater speed compared with the harpoon

 

[Iron Man]

As such we are left with the question of how China intends to use and take advantage of this very considerable disparity in missile launch capability. With such enormous volume to play with, there is no excuse for Chinese LACM, AshM, ASROC, AAW, ASAT and BMD capabilities to lag USN's in any respect, and in fact we should expect China to field superior systems going forward.

I'm sure you realize that greater size is not an automatic indicator of greater capability. "Lag" will certainly not be determined by whether or not one VLS cell is greater than another VLS cell.

 

[szbd]

Yet as modern, clean-sheet designs they point to the standard for 21st century warships moreso than derivatives of older designs such as Arleigh Burke Ft. III or 052D do.

Even within USN and across a compressed timescale you can see this trend, with the older CG-47 being more missile-dense than DDG-51, this despite the fact that CG-47 also has extra facilities that DDG-51 lacks, and a second 5" gun to boot. A crude comparison would suggest that DDG-51 is "underarmed" when of course this is not true: it is simply a more modern design.

Needless to say, 055 is a rather more modern design than even DDG-51 and as such we would expect it to reflect the trend towards reduced missile density relative to displacement.

DDG51 was underarmed and lack a lot of things just because usn wanna make it look different from cg52, so get it passed by congress. E.g. It even didn't have a hanger but apparently usn saved the space for hanger. After that usn doesn't feel they need THAT much missiles on board. It is different for PLAN

 

[Lethe]

I'm sure you realize that greater size is not an automatic indicator of greater capability. "Lag" will certainly not be determined by whether or not one VLS cell is greater than another VLS cell.

If technology is equal then a larger missile of a given type is going to have longer range, greater payload, faster speed, improved seeker/guidance capabilities, or some combination of these factors.

The major trade-off for larger missiles -- that they require larger platforms to operate in equivalent numbers -- is obviated because the number of cells is known and fixed and already highly competitive, i.e. 112 cells on 055.

With such a large disparity in available volume, China's missiles can be technologically inferior while still achieving comparable performance. With comparable or only slightly inferior technology, they should offer comprehensively superior performance.

With USN being effectively confined to Mk. 41 for the foreseeable future while China (hopefully) rolls out CUVLS across the board, the opportunity exists for China to develop and field an array of munitions that out-perform their American equivalents.

 

[Insignius]

The roof for 055#1 was removed. Very low res shot, but one can still see it.

Guess that rumors are true and the launch is imminent.

 

[Insignius]

Older image showing the status of JN#2