055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[by78]

Latest available satellite photo on the two 055 units at Dalian, courtesy of Terraserver.

 

[jobjed]

Latest available satellite photo on the two 055 units at Dalian, courtesy of Terraserver.

Higher zoom and better resolution:

 

[asif iqbal]

Imagine the two launched from DL within similar timeframe

World media will have field day !

 

[Lethe]

One CDF member :

One UVLS cell : 0.85m X 0.85m = 0.7225m²
One MK-41cell : 0.63m X 0.63m = 0.3969m²

ratio UVLS cell /MK-41 cell : 0.7225/0.3969 = 1.82

Why Chinese need also big cell's ... ?

I was wondering when we were going to come back to this.

The size difference between China's UVLS and Mk. 41 is far more significant than the question of 112 vs. 128 cells that has garnered so much attention to date. China's VLS offers a significantly higher capability ceiling than Mk. 41, and in the medium-long-term China's missile engineers will be able to take advantage of that to create munitions that out-perform their American and allied equivalents.

 

[AndrewS]

I was wondering when we were going to come back to this.

The size difference between China's UVLS and Mk. 41 is far more significant than the question of 112 vs. 128 cells that has garnered so much attention to date. China's VLS offers a significantly higher capability ceiling than Mk. 41, and in the medium-long-term China's missile engineers will be able to take advantage of that to create munitions that out-perform their American and allied equivalents.

I suspect it would be worth China deploying a very long-range SAM (300-400km) like the K-100 or 40N6 missile on the UVLS. The primary targets would be delicate high-value assets like AWACs, tankers and ISR aircraft, because the missiles would be large and expensive, plus fighter-sized targets would probably be able to evade. At a minimum, that would keep those assets far away enough that they couldn't maintain a radar line of sight to the Chinese mainland.

Actually, I would expect China to develop land-based versions of such missiles anyway, as they would automatically cover the airspace over hostile airbases in a number of scenarios.

Another way of looking at it is that the 112-cell Type-55 has 60% more VLS surface area (and therefore volume) than the 128-cell Ticonderoga cruiser.

 

[Totoro]

We already have that one image of a mystery missile being launched from a test ship. Looking like a two staged missile with a huge booster and a medium to large second stage (like a sm-2/patriot with a much larger booster)

 

[FORBIN]

Perhaps the size of the Chinese cells are not dictated by the largest single missile they are designed to fire, but to multi-pack larger missiles into a single cell than their foreign equivalents?

The DK-10A do 26 cm for diameter

I was wondering when we were going to come back to this.
The size difference between China's UVLS and Mk. 41 is far more significant than the question of 112 vs. 128 cells that has garnered so much attention to date. China's VLS offers a significantly higher capability ceiling than Mk. 41, and in the medium-long-term China's missile engineers will be able to take advantage of that to create munitions that out-perform their American and allied equivalents.

They don't need all new SM-6, AGM-158C, SM-3 Block I/II fit inside

 

[Lethe]

The DK-10A do 26 cm for diameter

They don't need all new SM-6, AGM-158C, SM-3 Block I/II fit inside

SM-3 is limited by the diameter of the launch tube. You don't think they would make it bigger if they could?

As above, it's not only about launching the biggest missiles, but about being able to multi-pack larger missiles too.

As has already been pointed out, USN in fact tried to go with a new, larger VLS design in the form of the Mk. 57 on Zumwalt. But that program crashed and burned and they're back to the Arleigh Burke design which has no room for such luxuries.

 

[AndrewS]

The DK-10A do 26 cm for diameter


They don't need all new SM-6, AGM-158C, SM-3 Block I/II fit inside

What is the state of air defence?

In the short term

Comparatively few large LR-SAMs for aircraft, plus large numbers of cheap quad-packed MR-SAMs which benefit from having a larger cell to work with.

In the medium-long term

Comparatively few large LR-SAMs for aircraft, plus lasers/railguns/artillery rounds for medium range work.

In this scenario, MR-SAMs don't really have a place, so the spare cells can be used for more long-range ASMs, which again benefit from the larger cell.

 

[FORBIN]

What is the state of air defence?

In the short term

Comparatively few large LR-SAMs for aircraft, plus large numbers of cheap quad-packed MR-SAMs which benefit from having a larger cell to work with.

In the medium-long term

Comparatively few large LR-SAMs for aircraft, plus lasers/railguns/artillery rounds for medium range work.

In this scenario, MR-SAMs don't really have a place, so the spare cells can be used for more long-range ASMs, which again benefit from the larger cell.

I think you are in too many scenarios