Lol... @Iron Man you have just missed (ignored) his entire point i.e. regarding "hostile exchanges". Instead of focusing on his profile and presence, try to grasp what he is pointing towards.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Lol... @Iron Man you have just missed (ignored) his entire point i.e. regarding "hostile exchanges". Instead of focusing on his profile and presence, try to grasp what he is pointing towards.
Jura The idiot
General
since I noticed anti-air area-defense tactics talk here ... there's an alternative study (LOL I happen to know it's been discussed more than two years ago in https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-laser-and-rail-gun-development-news.t5879/)
Peeling Back the Layers: A New Concept for Air Defense
now picking just one sentence out of tens of pages:
"A defensive AAW scheme centered on medium-range (10–30 nm
52 [refers to a footnote]
) interceptors such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) would address both the weapons and cost exchange challenges."
(it's on top of p. 19; 33 of 72 in PDF: )
funnily, it basically defies defense in depth (plus it fantasizes about lasers, railguns etc.)
thought I might share, is all
Peeling Back the Layers: A New Concept for Air Defense
now picking just one sentence out of tens of pages:
"A defensive AAW scheme centered on medium-range (10–30 nm
52 [refers to a footnote]
) interceptors such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) would address both the weapons and cost exchange challenges."
(it's on top of p. 19; 33 of 72 in PDF: )
funnily, it basically defies defense in depth (plus it fantasizes about lasers, railguns etc.)
thought I might share, is all
Are you kidding or are you really as clueless as he is? The point about his profile was that he obviously has not been around for the far more hostile exchanges that have happened on this forum over the years than a couple extra question marks, some of the most recent of which have just been cleaned up by mods in the last several days. Seriously, get real and wake up. This is the internet. It isn't a place for easily butthurt snowflakes.
Well the cost-exchange ratio is definitely going to favor the attacker until lasers and railguns are deployed. This doesn't mean large ships like the 055 have to bulk switch to MRSAMs. Even after lasers and rail guns become a reality, given their projected effective ranges they won't be able to substitute for the kind of power projection that LRSAMs and long range ASCMs buy for you, even if you have to pay a high price for them. What they will do is obviate the need for CIWS, SRSAMs, and main guns. And maybe even MRSAMs as technology continues to improve.
BACK 5 Mins and into this already !!!
Iron Man whatever the interpretation of 3 Question marks may be, calling other members clueless is definitely an infraction. Playing the ball and playing the ball hard is fine. I do not however expect to see members playing the man.
Everybody play on, but do not make me have to comment on this again.
Iron Man whatever the interpretation of 3 Question marks may be, calling other members clueless is definitely an infraction. Playing the ball and playing the ball hard is fine. I do not however expect to see members playing the man.
Everybody play on, but do not make me have to comment on this again.
Lethe
Captain
Are you unfamiliar with the idea that someone is 'on track' to meet a particular milestone? I often hear it in sports coverage, e.g. at this stage of the race X is on track to break the record. It does not mean that they will meet that milestone, rather it means that their performance to date is such that if it is maintained they will meet that milestone. The phrase itself is conditional and is not a prediction, it implicitly acknowledges the possibility that the future may differ from the past, such that the person would no longer be 'on track' to meet that particular milestone.
If PLAN commissions three destroyers per year for three or more consecutive years, they could reasonably be said to be "on track" toward a fleet of 90+ destroyers. That is not a claim that PLAN will build 90+ destroyers, or even that such an outcome is likely. Nonetheless, it is the point at which such a number could reasonably enter the conversation, in contrast to the present where PLAN has yet to demonstrate the required induction rate even over a short span.
Last edited:
I wonder about the same subject so I consider these possibilities:
A) 4 classes (055, 052, 054, 056)
B) 3 classes (055/052 single replacement, 054, 056)
C) 3 classes (055, 052/054 single replacement, 056)
D) 3 classes (055, 052, 054/056 single replacement)
The single replacements would be towards the heavier side.
On one hand China faces potential opponents with a diverse range of capabilities, likely to significantly improve at the low end, as well as a diverse range of potential conflict intensity concentrated close to its periphery but likely to involve expeditionary opponents with cutting edge capabilities.
On the other hand while China has caught up at the high end of capabilities a lot it still needs to invest a lot more of its ultimately limited resources in high end areas in at least the air and sea domains relevant to its potential maritime conflicts where its capabilities are deficient, non-existent, or must keep pace i.e. large DDG/CG, LHD/LHA/CV, specialized naval aviation, rotary naval aviation, airlift, LR bombers, a variety of next gen technologies. Not to mention low end but large scale improvements needed for its amphibious/naval ground forces.
In order to balance and meet these needs I think C) above would make the most sense with the 056/replacement also skewing heavier/more capable. While if I understand correctly you are suggesting B) above as more likely if the 055 is of lesser specs than expected.
But that's my point. If the PLAN commissions 3 destroyers per year for 3 years, they could BY NO MEANS be reasonably said to be on track toward a fleet of 90+ destroyers. What if they stop construction after 3 years? Or 5? Or 10? How do you even remotely know that 3 destroyers per year x3 years indicates anything at all about long term trends, much less over a span like 30 years? You couldn't even remotely tell long term trends for the 052D even after 4 years (don't even tell me you can), so I have no idea why you continue to try and argue this indefensible claim.
While I guess you could include the 056 class into the fleet structure, I have tended to keep it out given it is not a blue water-capable ship and not as relevant to sea-based conflicts with other major naval powers. Otherwise you could keep going lower to the Type 022 catamarans and other smaller vessels.
To be able to claim being on track, a timescale must really be included in the equation, otherwise it just becomes so loose as to be meaningless.
I know its very difficult to assess with the PLAN, mainly becomes the main shipyards have been on overdrive for the best part of the last 10 years. To get a clue, I think you would need to look at full dockyard production for all classes and see if production capacity is static or being expanded.
Anyhow lets not stray too far from 055 as the 052's have their own thread.
I know its very difficult to assess with the PLAN, mainly becomes the main shipyards have been on overdrive for the best part of the last 10 years. To get a clue, I think you would need to look at full dockyard production for all classes and see if production capacity is static or being expanded.
Anyhow lets not stray too far from 055 as the 052's have their own thread.
- Status