055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[manqiangrexue]

Well, I wouldn't call them all nitwits but some of them might be in that group (yes, SK mainly). Post a list of original requirements that those warships were all built for (missile defence\land attacking capabilities. Making a list of 'this has got more!' without stating or realising the reason standing behind those numbers is pointless. And making a warship for pure 'it has to have more VLS than xxx class destroyer!' reasons is a pure stupidity.

You're the only nitwit here... oh, and SadBlue. The 2 of you have posted way too many of these idiotic memos thinking you're smarter than professional design teams.

"Augghhh, these guys are stupid! 128 VLS?? Wasted! You only need 1 VLS if you can perfectly place a missile right in the enemy's reactor! Nitwits!"

Did you ever consider that there could be more than 1 enemy ship, many with capable CIWS defenses, that you might need to launch saturation attacks on simultaneously? When you see the whole world moving in a direction that you don't agree with, do you have a filter in your brain that alerts you to the possibility that somebody might know something that you don't?

 

[Jura The idiot]

Just a question: are these images from the alleged launch yesterday or was this even just this morning ?

LOL
Deino
I saw in Twitter you had been in contact with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

there, so I would think you could ask him directly ... to answer your question: I don't have the slightest idea LOL I just reposted that tweet

 

[sanblvd]

It's time to build them like sausages.

 

[Insignius]

More missiles are definitely better.

Always remember: You need at least two interceptors for every incoming missile.

So, if the enemy attacks you with 64 Harpoons, you better have 128 interceptors to deal with them - and not any less, as you cannot rely on any soft-kill measures.

As such, a single 055 will unlikely withstand the entire strike package of a Nimitz-carrier (48 Super-Hornets, each with 2 Harpoons) without quad-packed MR-SAM.

And the USN is already replacing the Harpoons with LRASM, which will make defense even harder, as they can only be reliably engaged at visual distance due to their stealth defeating both early detection, as well as radar illumination for semi-active/TVM SAMs.

At a certain quantity of enemy missiles, intercepting them is hopeless, though. Which is why I think China's new submersible arsenal ship concept is the future: If the LRASMs are getting too many, it can simply submerge and evade them instead of wasting precious and expensive interceptor missiles to shoot them down.

 

[PanAsian]

More missiles are definitely better.

Always remember: You need at least two interceptors for every incoming missile.

So, if the enemy attacks you with 64 Harpoons, you better have 128 interceptors to deal with them - and not any less, as you cannot rely on any soft-kill measures.

As such, a single 055 will unlikely withstand the entire strike package of a Nimitz-carrier (48 Super-Hornets, each with 2 Harpoons) without quad-packed MR-SAM.

And the USN is already replacing the Harpoons with LRASM, which will make defense even harder, as they can only be reliably engaged at visual distance due to their stealth defeating both early detection, as well as radar illumination for semi-active/TVM SAMs.

At a certain quantity of enemy missiles, intercepting them is hopeless, though. Which is why I think China's new submersible arsenal ship concept is the future: If the LRASMs are getting too many, it can simply submerge and evade them instead of wasting precious and expensive interceptor missiles to shoot them down.

I'm not completely sold on the submersible idea but that's another story.

Numbers and stealth are why gun-CIWS are still relevant.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Shouldn't inakes go closer to the bow, and exhaust closer to the stern? ...

would you be willing to tell me which intakes you're talking about at this page (which is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)? or did you refer to something else?

now I noticed

Very interesting. If this is legit we may finally know what that hump behind the stacks is for: air intakes. I have to say this is a surprising location given that it's located just forward of the aft VLS bank, which means it could potentially suck in air mixed with exhaust from a launching missile.


...

so there're intakes where I put the red ellipse now:

please?

 

[sanblvd]

Which is why I think China's new submersible arsenal ship concept is the future: If the LRASMs are getting too many, it can simply submerge and evade them instead of wasting precious and expensive interceptor missiles to shoot them down.

Activate noclip

 

[Insignius]

I'm not completely sold on the submersible idea but that's another story.

Numbers and stealth are why gun-CIWS are still relevant.

Indeed. Although Gun-CIWS has the problem that its engagement envelope is very short by naval warfare standards - which means it will have little time to intercept more than one missile. Combine it with short range point defense missile systems like the HHQ-10, and it will get better, but still not enough. Near future, lasers could also join the fray. Although they are vulnerable to weather conditions and also restricted to visual contact.

Personally, I hold out for quad-packed active radar/infrared dual mode MR-SAMs that can engage most incoming missiles slightly over the horizon, as well as super long range SAM to take out the missile carriers.

For the future, the directional EMP/High Powered Microwave weapon that is under development is the best bet for hard-kill of missile swarms.

 

[Janiz]

Your scenario only works when you are fighting a toothless opponent, like a chihuahua, who can only mount a few weak attacks.

Yeah, getting hit with a single or two missiles and sinking millions in a few hours doesn't seem like an overkill... Of course... That's the main reason why most navies go with 30-60 configuration. With that you can get few different missile packs depending on the mission and can over losing it during war. Or you can go into clash with wishful thinking that nothing wrong will happen.

It's the other way around - packed up Burke class destroyer is a perfect tool against weak nations. Like hitting places in Syria recently. Or going against North Korea.

Two words: saturation attacks. Gotta survive them, and hit back, multiple times.

A very optimistic way of looking at things I must say. Not completly unimaginable though.

Can I ask you a question - you would go with a maxed single platform with 128 tubes or two with 32-64 VLS tubes if you had to stand up against armed enemy? I think that you get increased manouverability, survivalabilty, more abundant tactics etc with exactly THE SAME firepower. Those discussions are as old as organized armed forces I assume. Think for a moment and answer. But I already know what you would rather go...

 

[SinoSoldier]

Before anyone jumps the gun, are people certain that the 055 only has 112 VLS cells? Sat/photographed images are yet to come in.