055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[FORBIN]

Actually now that I think about, I don't believe B) to be a viable option. If there are going to be only two classes of blue water surface combatants, there is not going to be a "055/052" single replacement, it will just be a 055 or a variant of the 055.

I think the more likely possibilities are as follows:
A): 3 classes: 055/A (112 VLS), 052C/D/E (64 or 80 VLS), 054A/B (32 VLS)
B): 2 classes: 055/A (112 VLS), 054A/B (32-48 VLS)

Of these, the possibility of A) and B) is 100% and 0%, respectively, for the next 30-40 years. After that period of time the choice between A) and B) will become more relevant as the first 052C/D ships start to retire. Even if they stop building the 052 series some time in the next several years we won't know if they plan on replacing this class with a similarly-sized ship until it's almost time to retire this class, which won't happen for at least another 25-30 years from now; this is assuming they plan on keeping relatively constant 052C/D levels. OTOH if a "052E" starts popping out right after 052D stops, we'll know what type of structure the PLAN is planning. The only other exception to this uncertainty is if once the 052 class stops building the 055 build rate starts accelerating. That would also certainly be an augur of the times ahead.

I think the weapons load is not the more important for see the difference with others combattants,
ofc we are focused about that normal determines the power of the ship but for combat capacities essential is out
NB : for missiles power with 112 vs 64 but radar a little better he have 2 times the power of one 052D.

With YJ-18 which can fit in UVLS he a have a theorical anti-ship salvo much more important than a combattant which have missiles in canisters* to consider ofc majority of the missiles are SAMs.
NB : * All combattants armed with SM-2 in VLS have with these SAMs a anti-ship capability difference with Harpoon, warheard 2 times more light, not sea skimming but supersonic, SM-6 also capable soon longer range but same warhead.
And USN have AGM-158C for Mk-41 in few years, also possible a modified Tomahawk.

In fact the main advantage for the PLAN is for the first time* she have a true capable ASW ship with 2 Z-18F which have surely 3 times the power of a ship with a Z-9C or Ka-28

* Except ofc CV Liaoning have a CAW with 6 Z-18F

I have see the ships is or almost destroyed after first engagement LOL ships are not used alone but in TG or TF and to defend each other increase their defence - main difference for employment with submarines - and ofc a combattant is not surely destroyed after first engagement !

 

[Iron Man]

I see, well I can understand the logic behind that, but I think even with 3+ destroyers per year for three successive years, it would be a bit much to start talking about 90+ destroyers, unless there are additional credible rumours suggesting that may be the case.

"A bit much" is more charitable than is needed for such a dramatic claim. Even 3 destroyers a year for 10 years says nothing about "90+ destroyers" as the ultimate end point.

Retrofitting existing 054a with such new VLS would enable 16 cells being installed forward, with some room/weight to spare around the entire new VLS module. Depending on exact size of its missiles and their launch method, such modernized 054a could feature 2 to 4 Yu8 rocket launched torpedoes per cell and/or 3-4 9M96 sized missiles per cell. That'd amount to, say, 8-16 Yu-8 and 36-48 9M96 comaparable missiles. (and the 8 slanted antiship missile launchers)

If one wanted to do a little bit more tinkering underneath those 054a and change the footprint of its VLS well, 20 cells could fit up front, if a new 4 cell module was devised. And by changing the footprint i don't mean increasing overall area but managing its width and length.

I think 16 UVLS cells, even of the 7m type, could easily fit into the space that a 32-cell HHQ-16-style VLS fits into. If the height is insufficient, it could just simply be raised above the deck of the 054A until there is sufficient space beneath. This number could enable a loadout of 8 x 4 = 32 quad-packed MRSAMs, and 8 Yu-8 missiles. The real question is whether the PLAN would be willing to pay to upgrade all of those ships’ VLS modules. Is it worth the money, because you would also have to get rid all those HHQ-16 missiles in favor of something like DK-10A. Or the PLAN could accept the penalty of less HHQ-16 missiles in favor of an equal number of gained Yu-8 missiles without having to upgrade the 054A’s VLS, for example, instead of 32 HHQ-16 you have 24 HHQ-16 + 8 Yu-8, or 28 HHQ-16 + 4 Yu-8. BTW I don’t think anything more than a single Yu-8 would fit into the cell of the larger VLS. It wouldn’t need to if the designed air defense missiles house quad-packed MRSAMs in any case.

Some new, elongated 056 variant could also house such VLS, even if just 4 cells. That would still give it some decent Yu8 capability. Or if the variant is made a little bigger, then even a proper 8 cell could be installed, with half of the cells being self defense 3.3 m long ones, probably nicely packed with missiles.

Again, designing a custom made missile would be more efficient. Using a Tor like missile would not use the entire length of the VLS, but its width would prevent more than 4 missiles being packed. Using CAMM like missile design/capabilities would enable at least 6 if not 8 missiles to be packed inside.)

Of course, the tech may not be there yet to get CAMM like capabilities from such a small size. But eventually the tech will get there.

I think if the designers of the UVLS designed a new 5m variant, it would become useful in a 056-type follow-on, though I have said before that I don’t see a real pressing need for VLS on a ship the size of the 056. We already know there are ASW missiles that can launch from the standard PLAN slant launchers currently being used for ASCMs. All we need are 4 additional slant launchers for a total of 4 + 4 = 8 slant launchers, which could be used to house any combination of ASCM + ASW missiles. Also, why increase size, weight, and expense to install VL cells for a missile like the Tor when you could just increase the capacity of the HHQ-10 launcher from 8 to 16, or even to 24?

 

[kurutoga]

If frigates are to use the new, common VLS system, what needs to be done to fully utilize their potential on such ships? A new weapon, instead of HQ16 is definitely needed, as HQ16 is just awkwardly and inefficiently sized for the new VLS.

I think 054A can install HQ19, but I am not sure. Maybe 054A is not meant to go beyond South China Sea.

 

[Lethe]

I see, well I can understand the logic behind that, but I think even with 3+ destroyers per year for three successive years, it would be a bit much to start talking about 90+ destroyers, unless there are additional credible rumours suggesting that may be the case.

We usually have a pretty good idea of what is coming up a few years ahead. If PLAN sustains three destroyer inductions per year for three years, and there are no indications or credible rumours of a future deceleration, gap, or halt, such as a shortage of hulls in the production pipeline, or a future class transition, I think one would have to be fairly brave to bet against the idea that this is the new normal, and by year five I think you would be entering "head in the sand" territory.

 

[Iron Man]

We usually have a pretty good idea of what is coming up a few years ahead. If PLAN sustains three destroyer inductions per year for three years, and there are no indications or credible rumours of a future deceleration, gap, or halt, such as a shortage of hulls in the production pipeline, or a future class transition, I think one would have to be fairly brave to bet against the idea that this is the new normal, and by year five I think you would be entering "head in the sand" territory.

I see you went from "90+ destroyers" to "the new normal". A bit more vague, perhaps (and less indefensible), but 9 destroyers over 3 years is not a trend, to speak nothing of a 30-year trend.

 

[FORBIN]

055 and Burke

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Totoro]

BTW I don’t think anything more than a single Yu-8 would fit into the cell of the larger VLS. It wouldn’t need to if the designed air defense missiles house quad-packed MRSAMs in any case.

why increase size, weight, and expense to install VL cells for a missile like the Tor when you could just increase the capacity of the HHQ-10 launcher from 8 to 16, or even to 24?

We don't know how large Yu8 (or is it cy-5?) is. Do we? We do know ASROC's dimensions. 324mm with small fins protruding, for total finspan of 444mm or a box that's 408mm wide. Chinese system may have even the small fins folding, who's to know.

While quadpacking it may be too much, there's still the option of fitting two per cell in a specific fashion where fins would be folded towards each other and circular cross section of the missile bodies would not need to be placed perfectly side by side.


As for Tor, i believe it's a bad choice for a point defense missile. Lacks range and its dimensions don't allow for as many missiles to be packed within a small area. Of course, with the shortest VLS variant being only 3.3 meters it does seem PLAN intends to use something very similar to either Tor or, at best, Sea Ceptor. the latter would be better. Comparing hq10 with Sea Ceptor is another matter, where i do think there's sense in going with Sea Ceptor over HQ10, as long as the additional sensors and cost aren't a dealbreaker. OF course, for something as small as 056, it might just be too costly. But for a bit larger corvette it might be okay.

 

[AndrewS]

I see you went from "90+ destroyers" to "the new normal". A bit more vague, perhaps (and less indefensible), but 9 destroyers over 3 years is not a trend, to speak nothing of a 30-year trend.

Couple of points.

1. We should be looking at launches, not inductions. Every ship that gets launched eventually gets inducted into the fleet.

2. Type-52C, Type-52D and Type-55 are all AEGIS type air-defence destroyers.

3. So if we look at the period from 2012-2016 inclusive, we can see 3 ships were launched in 5 of those 6 years.

4. If we look at the period going forward (say from 2017-2019 inclusive), we can see that they are ramping up production of the Type-55 in 2 shipyards, not 1. And it doesn't make sense for 2 shipyards to start building, unless they plan on at least 3 ships per year for the 3 years covering 2017-2019 inclusive.

5. So we're looking at a track record of roughly 3 ships per year in the 8 year period from 2012-2019.

The "New Normal" works for me.

 

[Iron Man]

We don't know how large Yu8 (or is it cy-5?) is. Do we? We do know ASROC's dimensions. 324mm with small fins protruding, for total finspan of 444mm or a box that's 408mm wide. Chinese system may have even the small fins folding, who's to know.

While quadpacking it may be too much, there's still the option of fitting two per cell in a specific fashion where fins would be folded towards each other and circular cross section of the missile bodies would not need to be placed perfectly side by side.

I don't see how packing it 2 into a cell is possible if 4 is not possible.

As for Tor, i believe it's a bad choice for a point defense missile. Lacks range and its dimensions don't allow for as many missiles to be packed within a small area. Of course, with the shortest VLS variant being only 3.3 meters it does seem PLAN intends to use something very similar to either Tor or, at best, Sea Ceptor. the latter would be better. Comparing hq10 with Sea Ceptor is another matter, where i do think there's sense in going with Sea Ceptor over HQ10, as long as the additional sensors and cost aren't a dealbreaker. OF course, for something as small as 056, it might just be too costly. But for a bit larger corvette it might be okay.

There is the matter of a larger HHQ-10 launcher being orders of magnitude less expensive than designing a bank of VLS modules into a 056.

Couple of points.

1. We should be looking at launches, not inductions. Every ship that gets launched eventually gets inducted into the fleet.

2. Type-52C, Type-52D and Type-55 are all AEGIS type air-defence destroyers.

3. So if we look at the period from 2012-2016 inclusive, we can see 3 ships were launched in 5 of those 6 years.

4. If we look at the period going forward (say from 2017-2019 inclusive), we can see that they are ramping up production of the Type-55 in 2 shipyards, not 1. And it doesn't make sense for 2 shipyards to start building, unless they plan on at least 3 ships per year for the 3 years covering 2017-2019 inclusive.

5. So we're looking at a track record of roughly 3 ships per year in the 8 year period from 2012-2019.

The "New Normal" works for me.

LOL more voodoo tea leaf-reading math, and now you want to try and throw in 052C/D production and attempt to merge it into 055 production to get some kind of "Aegis" production. Can you even find any shred of evidence that PLAN planners think in terms of "Aegis" production rather than "052D" and "055" production? And why did you NOT include 2011? Is it because it also doesn't fit into your scheme of 3 "Aegis" per year? Only 2 052Cs were launched that year. And why did you NOT included 2017? A total of 3 052Ds are expected to be launched along with 1 055 already launched; that makes 4. So in actuality, out of a 7 year period that "Aegis" ships are being produced from 2011 to 2017, THREE years do not match up with your "3 Aegis per year" "new normal". That's 2-3-1-3-3-3-4, or almost HALF the time that according to you establishes some kind of track record of "Aegis" production. That's a ridiculous "trend", or rather not any kind of trend.

Second, even if true, a second shipyard says NOTHING about "at least" 3 ships per year. What happened to the possibility of two, or 1 per shipyard? This is especially useful for keeping two shipyards trained on 055 production instead of giving both contracts to one shipyard, which in turn is good for ramping up production if necessary to say 4 ships/year, 2 per shipyard. 2 per shipyard is actually what is happening with the first round of 055 production. In any case 2 shipyards =/= 3 ships/year no matter how you try to spin it. Even worse for you will be if 052D production continues at current rates. Your theory will be shot straight to hell when we see 4 052Ds launched next year along with 1 to 3 055s. That's 5-7 of your "Aegis" ships in 2018. A few more than three. Maybe it's the new normal. LOL

 

[Totoro]

Here's how two missiles could maximize space inside a larger VLS cell.

Clearance from the cell walls was modeled after ratio of tomahawk missile diameter and mk41 cell width.

As shown in the image, the 2 missile arrangement allows for placement of missiles with 12% larger diameter compared to the quad packed missiles. Even with measurement errors and an imprecise drawing, one should get some 10% larger diameter. For example, if maximum diameter is 300mm for quadpacking, for doublepack it might be ~333mm. if hot launch needs to be used, two openings can serve as a common exhaust for either missile. This post does not take into account possible cost effectiveness of such solution.