Don't mean to spam but on the 1130 12 o'clock issue, the trajectory path is important to keep in mind but it does seem like AShM that get very close will not be able to be targeted. If ship is directed at incoming threats, it is a smaller target but only CIWS available to defend in this direction is 1130. I guess for these scenarios PLAN doesn't believe many AShM will be making it through the long and medium range nets, if any. Again they don't plan on sitting around simply receiving waves of ordinance. Knocking out launching platforms will be the whole point of PLAN because they will be doing saturation attacks on all nearby US bases and eventually PLAN's subs will be trying to sink USN entering island chains. Promising a bloodbath for both sides which will cost US leadership more.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Bullets can't, but the CIWS FCR and E/O ball that targets for the bullets most certainly can, so in the end a gun CIWS is not any less jammable or blindable than a missile CIWS.
Ahh and you are right. Huge oversight from me.
CIWS and the 5/45-55s jam all the time
I think 055's CIWS set up is fine. Not amazing, but fine.
For the purposes of saturation attacks ships should be relying on medium range SAMs with radars and combat systems capable of supporting significant simultaneous mutli target engagement. A medium range, quad packed SAM preferably with ARH would be the most optimal solution with today's technology. Meanwhile, CIWS are used for last ditch terminal defense.
I'm not sure what you mean by not having "numerical superiority" and which "potential opponents" you refer to. Nor is there necessarily any relationship between having or not having numerical superiority and an enemy's ability to organize saturation attacks.
Other than USN, most potential opponents of PLAN are counting more and more on supersonice missiles. I know 1130 theortically, as claimed by PLAN (forums), can stop those with 10,000+ rpm. I also understand current anti-missile is counting on "system" (theatre) in stead individual combat vessel.
Nevertheless, theoretically (again) any missile of Mach 3+ will give you less one minute to react when it jumped out of sea horizon. Even your interception radar and computer can respond that fast, can current mid-range SAM, in PLAN case it will be HHQ16A/B as tier 2 (HHQ9 as tier 1), plus HQ10 and one CIWS as last tier(s), will be enough? especially for such a high-value asset as 055. I did see forums claiming that HHQ16 is not designed for such saturation (supersonic) attack. Appreciate someone shed some light on it.
Nevertheless, theoretically (again) any missile of Mach 3+ will give you less one minute to react when it jumped out of sea horizon. Even your interception radar and computer can respond that fast, can current mid-range SAM, in PLAN case it will be HHQ16A/B as tier 2 (HHQ9 as tier 1), plus HQ10 and one CIWS as last tier(s), will be enough? especially for such a high-value asset as 055. I did see forums claiming that HHQ16 is not designed for such saturation (supersonic) attack. Appreciate someone shed some light on it.
Come on, refer to our other discussion regarding future PLAN composition and minimal deterrence!
I do recall that dicsussion (the few posts in this thread here: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/future-use-of-plan-carriers.t8313/page-8), but I don't think we discussed what kind of numerical superiority China may or may not be facing in the future timeframe. I think we went over the orbat that the PLAN may have by the mid 2030s, but didn't really go into detail about what kind of opfor they would be stacked up against.
Or at least, I don't recall going over it in much detail or even considering the countries involved etc.
If we are only talking about numbers, the PLAN would obviously be up there as they have a large number of small combatants like corvettes and FACs, but that doesn't technically mean such a force would be more capable of launching saturation attacks compared to a smaller number of larger combatants like frigates or destroyers.
OTOH, saturation attacks also involve non-naval combatants including aircraft both carrier based and land based, and the PLA have a large number of maritime capable strikers and bombers as well, arguably one of the largest if not the largest in the region.
So I suppose for the purposes of discussion, I'd argue for two main points:
1: PLAN technically do have numerical superiority in terms of naval assets even today compared to other regional navies, and even in terms of combined navies to a degree. But in terms of overall combat capability obviously that is not currently the case.
2: Having a larger or smaller force of naval assets do not capture the ability to launch a saturation attack alone, as various non-naval assets like land based aircraft, missiles as well as ISR assets are very important as well.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Well actually the ratio of CIWSs per ship on the Russian navy is actually pretty standard, only the Kuznetsov/Kirov class bristles with 6 cannons but those are capital ships after all. The rest mounts 2 or 4 if it is the older AK630. Now of course the best way to stop an enemy missile would be to destroy the launching platform. but that did be easier said then done. But also just as importantly, the other side too has to expend and replenish their missile stocks after each missile fired so it is not a one sided affair.
How come the US Navy counter the saturation attack? They choose to make the opponent not have the ability to do a saturation attack in the first place. A single 055, just like a single burke, is impossible to counter a so-called saturation attack, that is the fact. The near-peer navy battle is a highly sophisticated thing, it depends on the whole combat system.
- Status