055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Iron Man]

But my overall point is that I think we don't have any convincing indications or arguments either way for whether their original VLS requirement for 055 was 112 or 128, outside of a sense of "symmetry" and slight similarity to the VLS count of Tico and Sejong.

I think symmetry alone would be sufficient to act as a starting point for design. This was actually the starting point for the Burke. The designers of the Burke started with a Tico and proceeded to design a scaled-down, cheaper Aegis vessel. They were actually pitching something like "3/4 the fighting power for 2/3 the price" compared to a Tico, with fighting power equated to number of VL cells. Of course the price didn't eventually work out that way, but it's the thought that counts I guess.

For posterity's sake, I've even played around with the idea that maybe the large DDG to DDG and DDG to FFG relationship for VLS equivalents, might be: (VLS equivalent x 2) - 16

054A VLS + AShM = 32 + 4 = 40
052D VLS = (40 x 2) - 16 = 64


052D VLS = 64
055 VLS = (64 x 2) - 16 = 112

But I'm mostly kidding lol.

"(VLS equivalent x 2) - 16" happens to work out in terms of the math but you are dealing with multiple generations of ships and multiple types of missile tubes (HHQ-16 style, UVLS style, and slant launch). IMO multi-missile packing is going to be a strong possibility for a future MRSAM and somewhat likely for a future HHQ-9 variant, so that would make a straight single-cell to single-cell comparison between the 054A and the later PLAN warships "unfair" for the ships packing UVLS.

 

[SinoSoldier]

I definitely agree that 112 was unexpected and that I thought 128 would be a more round number and in line with what the VLS armament of Sejong and Tico had set precedent for (though technically the total VLS equivalent for those ships would include things like slant launched ASHMs and in Tico's case some removed cells for reloading cranes).

But I'm not sure what the argument that the Chinese Navy's starting requirement for 128 would be, outside of a similar number to Sejong and Tico, and even that IMO is not that strong when thinking of the total number of VLS+ASHM count tower classes have

Wasn't the starting requirement a 20000-ton vessel with some 500+ VLS cells, only to be scaled down later once their planners had realized just how ridiculous such a design would be?

I'm suspecting that the 64 + 48 configuration somehow reflects the PLAN's operational role for these destroyers, i.e. the mix of anti-surface and anti-air/ballistic armaments that would be carried at one time. There are also rumors that they might expand it to 128 VLS cells for the 055A series.

 

[Iron Man]

Wasn't the starting requirement a 20000-ton vessel with some 500+ VLS cells, only to be scaled down later once their planners had realized just how ridiculous such a design would be?

Maybe whoever's wild fantasy it was for the 500+ cell ship has been transplanted into that semi-submersible arsenal ship design.

 

[Blitzo]

Wasn't the starting requirement a 20000-ton vessel with some 500+ VLS cells, only to be scaled down later once their planners had realized just how ridiculous such a design would be?

I'm suspecting that the 64 + 48 configuration somehow reflects the PLAN's operational role for these destroyers, i.e. the mix of anti-surface and anti-air/ballistic armaments that would be carried at one time. There are also rumors that they might expand it to 128 VLS cells for the 055A series.

Henri K wrote that the starting requirement was a 20,000 ton vessel that necessitated that displacement primarily because of the sensor technology at the time to achieve that capability. But miniaturization and redesign managed to cut down sensor size and thus allowed the ship to achieve the design goals with much lower displacement.

I haven't read anything about the original 20,000 ton proposal's VLS cells or any 500 cell number or anything like that.

 

[Blitzo]

I think symmetry alone would be sufficient to act as a starting point for design. This was actually the starting point for the Burke. The designers of the Burke started with a Tico and proceeded to design a scaled-down, cheaper Aegis vessel. They were actually pitching something like "3/4 the fighting power for 2/3 the price" compared to a Tico, with fighting power equated to number of VL cells. Of course the price didn't eventually work out that way, but it's the thought that counts I guess.

I mean, I personally really dig the idea of symmetry, but out of all the VLS equipped warships in the world, there aren't many with an equal number of bow and aft VLS cells that I can come up with. In fact 052D and Tico are the only two I can come up with.

"(VLS equivalent x 2) - 16" happens to work out in terms of the math but you are dealing with multiple generations of ships and multiple types of missile tubes (HHQ-16 style, UVLS style, and slant launch). IMO multi-missile packing is going to be a strong possibility for a future MRSAM and somewhat likely for a future HHQ-9 variant, so that would make a straight single-cell to single-cell comparison between the 054A and the later PLAN warships "unfair" for the ships packing UVLS.

Yes -- I was mostly kidding with the whole "VLS equivalent thing".
While it would be numerically satisfying, I don't think the Navy had any sort of conscious decision to have multiples of 32 VLS cells or "(VLS equivalent x 2) - 16" as a way of projecting the armament they want for their different surface combatant weight classes.

 

[antiterror13]

Maybe they intend to include dual packing so they arrived at 112 as a more than sufficient number. Or maybe they thought 112 would be sufficient because their cells are larger, which might mean more capable missiles. It’s hard to know whether this was a trade off or optimization. Without more information you could make a case for either, I think.

yes and it was the idea from @Iron Man ... he is the first person suggesting dual-packing on Chinese VLS ... so you may need to quote him

 

[latenlazy]

yes and it was the idea from @Iron Man ... he is the first person suggesting dual-packing on Chinese VLS ... so you may need to quote him

I thought the attribution kinda went without saying. It’s still more of a novel idea than a real proposal though.

 

[antiterror13]

I thought the attribution kinda went without saying. It’s still more of a novel idea than a real proposal though.

it is true, but it was really mind blowing idea of dual packing by @Iron Man . He proved it that dual packed SAM is significantly could be bigger than quad-packed and potentially could be HHQ-9 series SAM, which I (and perhaps most members here) never thought about it and I had always thought it would be the same size SAM

And I personally believe PLAN have had thought about it and possibly already have it for 055 and 052D ..... who knows

 

[Iron Man]

it is true, but it was really mind blowing idea of dual packing by @Iron Man . He proved it that dual packed SAM is significantly could be bigger than quad-packed, which I (and perhaps most members here) never thought about it and I had always thought it would be the same size SAM

Actually it wasn't even my idea to begin with. It was somebody else on SDF a while back (I don't remember who). I just showed that it could be done for a missile the size of the early variant S-300, and therefore presumably the HHQ-9.

 

[latenlazy]

it is true, but it was really mind blowing idea of dual packing by @Iron Man . He proved it that dual packed SAM is significantly could be bigger than quad-packed and potentially could be HHQ-9 series SAM, which I (and perhaps most members here) never thought about it and I had always thought it would be the same size SAM

And I personally believe PLAN have had thought about it and possibly already have it for 055 and 052D ..... who knows

I have concerns about the physics involved in vertical launch for the canister geometry of a diagonally parititioned square. Maybe they go with canisters that have enclosed circular tubes for the missile instead, but I really don’t think we have any evidence to say that dual packing is a real thing.