112 would definitely have a more interesting background story than 128.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
What difference does it make? I personally think it highly unlikely any modern warships will get to fire 100 missiles before either the battle or the war is decided, or the ship is sunk.
antiterror13
Brigadier
With 128 you would have a more flexible weapons arrangement and loads which your opponent wouldn't know what you are carrying which give extra complication to the opponents..... also with quad-packed ...... extra 16 VLSs really would make the diff, as it means you could have extra 4x16 = 64 short ranged SAM ready (~30-50kms like DK-10 SAM variant) to protect the ship
Yes, you could launch all of them if you have to (i.e during the war)
A 055 with 128 fully loaded cells could easily launch >100 missiles in a single engagement, so speak nothing of a "war", especially if sent out on an AAW mission. Of the 128, you can reasonably expect 8 ASW missiles, 16 ASCMs, and the rest some combination of HHQ-9 and DK-10A; that's 104 air defense cells, all of which could be used up during a saturation attack. And that's assuming no attacks from enemy subs and no attacks on enemy ships during the entire engagement.
It makes a HUGE difference.
The more cells you have, the more flexibility you have. You have many more options for mission load-outs, and enough cells to load out strongly for all feasible missions, AAW, ASW, ASuW.
Personally, I'd love to see the US build a new cruiser with 196 cells.
As I say, the flexibility and the depth of your magazine can make all the difference in the world.
In today's world, you can bet any carrier group, in a large war, will phase several attempts to saturate her defenses.
Key ti stopping that will first be to get to the platforms launching before they get into range and get a lock on your vessel. The second key will be how many AAW missiles you and your escorts carry. The less you carry, the fewer saturation attacks you will be able to stop.
The Russians planned...and exercised...to send several regiments of their attack bombers against any US carrier stroke group...and to do so how ever may times it took to deplete its missiles and sink its carrier and its escorts....and that was in the 1980s.
They also would try to position their SSGN subs so that they could help in those attacks.
Today, the same types of tactics will be employed...in addition to trying to get submarines into range.
American nuclear carriers can outrun most torpedoes if they have the time to turn away. IN addition, American carriers are now deploying with active anti-submarine and anti-torpedo weapons, in addition to their ASW helos, and their escorts carrying the same helos and anti-submarine weaponry themselves.
In the end...yo can never have too many IMHO...and the thing that will let your side survive to shoot your missiles is having more than your enemy and having better surveillance and computer and electronics operations.
In general I agree, but as long as your layered defence still gives an incoming missile X% of chance of getting through you will still run out of luck sometime.
In an oversimplified "russian roulette style" model that just takes a probability of catching one missile a time and repeats it multiple times your chance of not getting hit decreases with the number of tries:
Take a probability of 98% of intercepting a missile, catching 10 rounds has a probability of 82%, 20 rounds 67%, 30 rounds 55%, ...
With 95% it would be 60% for 10 rounds, 36% for 20 rounds, 21% for 30 rounds.
Carrying enough interceptors to potentially intercept 100 incoming missiles would be asking for a lot of luck (or trusting your engineers to give you near 100% intercept chances).
98% of intercepting a missile could be very optimistic depending on the missile. RAM is credited with >0.95 (presumably against missiles), while the S-400 is quoted with 0.7 against Harpoon-type missiles (i.e. subsonic, non-maneuvering, non-stealthy, non-crossing shot).
Assuming the HHQ-9 has a similar Pk to the S-400, then we can play out an interesting mental scenario: If the 055 has 128 cells and is fitting for maximal AAW with minimal consideration for ASW and ASuW and no LACMs, you could conceivably have a very large SAM loadout of 88 HHQ-9s and 64 DK-10As in 16 cells (along with the 8 ASW missiles and 16 antiship missiles). I can't find any Pk vs missile for the ESSM right now but let's assume it is in between S-400 and RAM, like 85%, and that the DK-10A is also similar. So vs vanilla missile Pks will be: HHQ-9 = 0.7, DK-10A = 0.85, HHQ-10 = 0.95. Let's also assume BTW that the 055 has overhead AEW/C support so that it can begin to attack inbound missiles at the HHQ-9's maximum range instead of inside the 055's radar horizon, which means that a single HHQ-9 can be assigned per target, or in the case of more than 44 inbound targets, a single HHQ-9 will HAVE to be assigned to some, most or all targets. For example, out of a hypothetical 100 inbound targets engaged initially by the HHQ-9s, all 88 would be assigned to individual targets. We also have to assign missile failures; let's say it's 4 missiles or 4.5% failure rate, which seems reasonable to me. Out of 84 targets attacked in the first round, about 25 statistically will get through, and with 16 targets unchallenged, a total of 41 will make it through to the next round, with all 88 HHQ-9s expended. The next layer of defense starts possibly at around 50km, depending on DK-10A's range. At this range there is still time to attack and reassess, so only 1 DK-10A will be launched per target. Out of 41 targets engaged in the second round, 2 DK-10A's will fail (similar failure rate of 4.9%). Out of 39 targets engaged, 6 will survive. Add the 2 unchallenged targets, a total of 8 will slip through to the third round. Round 3 will leave no time for reassessment, so 2 DK-10s will be assigned to each target for a total of 16 DK-10As. Roughly 1 target will fail to get hit, leaving 1 target for round 4. 2 HHQ-10s will be assigned to this target. Assuming this does the trick, after the initial wave of 100 inbound ASCMs all 100 have been downed, all 88 HHQ-9s have been expended, 57 of 64 DK-10As have been expended, and 2 of 24 HHQ-10s have been expended.
If you do this same mental exercise but eliminate the overhead AEW/C and instead start the engagement under conditions of complete surprise at 30km (radar horizon), those 100 inbound missiles will impose significantly more risk to the 055. 88 HHQ-9s would be doubly assigned to 44 targets; with 4 failures, meaning 4 targets would be engaged by only a single HHQ-9, with 1 of the 4 getting through; of the 40 engaged by 2 HHQ-9s, 4 would likely get through (Pm = 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.09), for a total of 5 targets slipping through after engagement by HHQ-9s. All 64 DK-10s would also be expended, with 48 targets having only one DK-10A assigned and 8 targets having 2 DK-10A assigned. Of the 48 targeted, about 2 would fail; of the 46 engaged, 7 would slip through, for a total of 9 targets slipping through. Of the 8 targets attacked by 16 DK-10As, probably none would slip through. So of the 56 targets attacked by 64 DK-10As, 9 would slip through. So a total of 14 targets would make it to the second round, which is now about at point blank range. 4 targets would each be assigned a single HHQ-10 while 10 targets will be assigned 2 HHQ-10s each. 1 HHQ-10 out of 24 will fail, and it will likely be in the double target group. Despite this, given the high Pk of the HHQ-10 it is likely all 14 will be destroyed by the HHQ-10 launcher. At this point all 100 of the targets will still have been shot down, but every last air defense missile in the 055's inventory is now expended, leaving chaff, decoys, ECM, and the 1130 as all that stands between the next swarm of missiles and the bottom of the ocean. This also assumes a maximal AAW loadout, when in general practice a more balanced arsenal is far more likely, with some mixture of BMD/anti-sat missiles, LACMs, and possibly additional ASW and antiship missiles as a more typical loadout for the 055.
And of course we have not talked about missile control channels. Can the 055 and the overhead AEW/C control all 88 HHQ-9s simultaneously in mid flight? I think I read somewhere long ago that the SPY-1D can control somewhere in the neighborhood of two dozen missiles simultaneously. The APAR can allegedly control 32 simultaneously. I guess it is possible that the Type 346B is a significant advancement over these systems and can control many more engagements simultaneously. The answer becomes far more unlikely, however, if we are talking about all 152 (88+64) missiles in the air simultaneously, though the notional DK-10A is allegedly active-guided and may not actually need to take up a control channel for as long as an SARH-guided missile.
Bottom line is that the more missiles you carry, the better chance you have of stopping saturation attacks.
This of course presumes that your sensors and electronics are good enough to give you the shots at the incoming missiles.
Clearly, if you detection and sensors are inferior and you do not know the incoming is a threat unitl it is almost upon you, then you will never get to fire enough missiles to stop them.
The US sensors depend on allowing the escorts to get off at least two intercepts of two missiles each, and then the inner zone defenses to get at least one missile shot and one CIWS gun shot.
If the US sensors do that well...and it is presumed that they will as much money as they spend testing them all the time against the latest upgraded threats, then the axoim applies of having more missiles in your magazines being a GREAT thing.
This of course presumes that your sensors and electronics are good enough to give you the shots at the incoming missiles.
Clearly, if you detection and sensors are inferior and you do not know the incoming is a threat unitl it is almost upon you, then you will never get to fire enough missiles to stop them.
The US sensors depend on allowing the escorts to get off at least two intercepts of two missiles each, and then the inner zone defenses to get at least one missile shot and one CIWS gun shot.
If the US sensors do that well...and it is presumed that they will as much money as they spend testing them all the time against the latest upgraded threats, then the axoim applies of having more missiles in your magazines being a GREAT thing.
Jura The idiot
General
I'm unconvinced (in general, it's not nothing against our Iron Man)
in a two-missile-salvo-against-the-same-target,
the probabilities would would be independent for the two outbound-missiles,
I mean in reality if the first misses, so will the second
(and if the first hits, the second will as well); the bottom line
then is the Pk of said salvo would be LOWER than
1.0 - (1-Pk_missile)*(1-Pk_missile)
if you know what I'm saying ... just an unspecific comment, inspired by:
in a two-missile-salvo-against-the-same-target,
the probabilities would would be independent for the two outbound-missiles,
I mean in reality if the first misses, so will the second
(and if the first hits, the second will as well); the bottom line
then is the Pk of said salvo would be LOWER than
1.0 - (1-Pk_missile)*(1-Pk_missile)
if you know what I'm saying ... just an unspecific comment, inspired by:
where apparently probabilities of miss are used to estimate the number of leakers (I sure don't mean to nitpick though)
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you think that if a first missile misses, so will a second, and vice versa. This is patently not true. The conditions under which the first engagement misses doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the conditions experienced during the second engagement, which will be further along the flight path of the bogey towards the 055, possibly significantly further. So local environmental conditions can be excluded. If you're talking about rain or other inclement weather, then decreased Pks would apply across the board to all missiles, both inbound and outbound, and not just to a single pair of HHQ-9s or DK-10As. You're probably thinking the engagements will be nearly simultaneous, whereas more likely they will be separated by a few seconds or even a few dozen seconds. Even if they were nearly simultaneous, the Pk for the engagement is being determined by the ability of the missile's on board sensor to correctly ascertain the position of the target, which instead of being binary ("I know where it or I don't know where it is"), is distributed on a curve ("it's most likely to be at X location with a Y degree of error"), the slope of which changes millisecond by millisecond as targeting information is updated. Each HHQ-9 will have a different curve and different slope, even ones separated by only a few seconds. They won't approach from exactly the same direction, they won't be flying at exactly the same speed, they won't be attacking from the same angle, etc. It is grossly unreasonable to think that if one missile misses, the other is also likely to miss. In reality both will definitely have independent individual Pks, even if they are same type of missile and attack the target only a few seconds apart.
Incidentally Pk can never be HIGHER than 1, so I'm not sure why you pointed out that Pk is lower than 1 in this discussion.
Last edited:
- Status