055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Insignius]

I'm more concerned that the rear mast will not feature a volume search radar

But yet again, they have specifically censored that part... Maybe we will get something. I hope for a navalized JY-26 or something.

 

[manqiangrexue]

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.
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...

All other things equal, it's not the same effing price to build 2 ships with 64 VLS vs. stretching one out to fit 128 VLS. On the other hand, a much larger ship altogether can host a more powerful radar, electronics, and perform additional functions like helicopter operations; it might be able to detect 2 smaller ships long before they can see it and strike them before as well. There are many advantages to increasing missile load. Not only can you can take on multiple enemies, you can take on multiple missions one after the other without restocking. You can fight and have missiles in reserve to protect you as you return to friendly territory to resupply. The last thing a destroyer captain needs is to be in a war and have to sail 30mph for 800 miles through hostile waters with enemies lurking and no missiles on him.

The only thing I agree with in what you said is that it would be foolish to build ships with more VLS just for the purpose of one-upping other designs in VLS number. As we see, China did not do that. If the number is 112, they clearly designed 055 with its mission in mind and determined that 112 is an adequate number with a healthy margin of error. If they just wanted to get into a VLS contest with the world, they could easily have stretched it a little more to have a few more cells than Sejong and Tico. Even if the VLS number was 128, it still shows that they had no desire to be the ship with the largest number of VLS or they'd easily just increase that a little more to win instead of draw.

 

[asif iqbal]

Remember that prediction list that was posted a few years ago of Chinese naval projects

It's where we first heard of the 12,000 ton Cutter the 50,000 ton AOR and Type 055

There was also a timeline would be interesting to see that list

 

[FORBIN]

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.

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

This is the first time I've heard someone complaining about a weapon having too much firepower.

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

When you face against a peer/near peer opponent who has a lot of assets to employ, it's bad bad bad idea to be ill-prepared. And not having enough missiles/bullets would be considered as very much ill prepared

like a chihuahua

He means " employment " but BTW in more missiles are expensive and stockpile limited, in general dépends countries, missile type you have in general for 1 or max 2 reloads by ship in fact very rare are counties with big stockpile and necessary do a ratio with the number of combattants also ofc.

 

[Tyloe]

Tieing excessive armaments to a single hull also bring opposite set of issues, and its why modern surface arsenal ships never go beyond drawings beside costs. So you still need to balance.

 

[PanAsian]

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...

As it happens I do think the PLAN stands to benefit from dispersal such as by building more smaller carriers rather than fewer larger carriers but dispersal comes at the cost of complicating command and control, likely increasing the resources needed to build and maintain, and the risk of spreading forces too thin.

In terms of the 055 the PLAN already have designs on the smaller end of the spectrum and needs the 055 on the significantly larger end for some concentrated firepower given their likely circumstances in case of conflict.

 

[taxiya]

If you want to fight at sea you don't need 100 missiles. Sejong has so much because it's sheduled to attack land based targets in case of war with North Korea. 30-60 VLS tubes is more than enough for a modern warship. Unless it's tasks are somewhat different from 'classical' approach, like in case of Korean destroyer.

It's not WWII of who's more 'heavily armed', now one or two strikes should take you out of action. That's all you need.

So what is "Arleigh Burke" with 96 VLS? Or "Kongō" with 90 VLS? Stupid?

 

[Iron Man]

As it happens I do think the PLAN stands to benefit from dispersal such as by building more smaller carriers rather than fewer larger carriers but dispersal comes at the cost of complicating command and control, likely increasing the resources needed to build and maintain, and the risk of spreading forces too thin.

In terms of the 055 the PLAN already have designs on the smaller end of the spectrum and needs the 055 on the significantly larger end for some concentrated firepower given their likely circumstances in case of conflict.

Yes, there is a place for every ship in the PLAN. 32-cell frigates, 64-cell destroyers, and 112-cell cruisers. Janiz in general is full of it, but on the one point that you shouldn't put too many eggs in one basket, there is some SMALL degree of merit to it and some limited application of the concern. This however certainly doesn't mean that NO ships should exist in a navy with large numbers of cells. That is just pure ridiculousness. As long as you aren't top-heavy and have a balanced tonnage range, you can use every ship according to its strengths and weaknesses. Janiz is also totally off about 1-2 needed to put a ship out of action. For a frigate this is probably true, but the larger the ship the more hits it can take. USS Stark, a 4,000t frigate, took 2 Exocets right in the gut and lived to sail to port on its own power. I would guess that you would need 4-6 Exocet-sized missiles to mission kill or sink a ship the size of the Burke, and a ship the size of 055 would be able to absorb even more than that.

 

[Lethe]

Comparing firepower by number of VLS cells seems rather silly when 055's cells are so much larger than Mk. 41 cells and capable of accommodating more devastating munitions.

Of course cells are just potential, a warship only has as much "firepower" as the missiles it actually carries. And in that respect the key deficiencies of 055, in common with all Chinese warships, remain first and foremost the lack of a quad-packed MRSAM in the class of ESSM, and secondarily the lack of an SM-3 BMD analogue.

 

[joshuatree]

If you want to fight at sea you don't need 100 missiles. Sejong has so much because it's sheduled to attack land based targets in case of war with North Korea. 30-60 VLS tubes is more than enough for a modern warship. Unless it's tasks are somewhat different from 'classical' approach, like in case of Korean destroyer.

It's not WWII of who's more 'heavily armed', now one or two strikes should take you out of action. That's all you need.

I think you're overlooking logistics. If there is a mission requirement for far deployments over an extended period of time, having that many missiles allows engagement and the ability to perform next mission without needing to seek nearest depot to reload.

Ultimately, I'm not sure where you are going with the statement because many navies, including the Japanese and American, have ships with VLS tubes numbering over 60.