055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Lethe]

It is good in its own way, but nothing like the Type 1130. A RAM missile works best in the intermediate zone where the single target is still pulling off the Gs within 40 to 10 KM. After that a gun system shines better with its much more instantaneous reaction rate and rate of fire against multiple targets. Both complements each other, which is why having a different system on both ends can be troublesome.

Undoubtedly the intent is to turn so that inbound missiles are exposed to the overlapping firing arcs of both HQ-10 and Type 1130. If the missile is launched or detected at range close enough that it is not possible to turn the ship in time, there's a good chance the system would not be in a ready-to-fire state regardless of the direction the missile is coming from.

In any case, the radar and EO-guided Type 1130 firing ~10k 30mm shells a minute makes the radar-only 6k/20mm Phalanx look like a toy. With ~270 degree coverage for each mount, I find it difficult to credit the idea that 055's close-in defences are inadequate.

 

[PanAsian]

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.

Come on, with your knowledge of the Chinese military you should know there are extremely few scenarios where China would enter into a war, over what, and with whom. Not to mention these few scenarios are regularly brought up around this forum including in this thread. I would hope that you do not buy into the China threat and China fanboy scenarios that envision China being as trigger happy far from its borders as other major military powers.

You should also know me well enough by now that I'm not interested in isolated technical analysis nor measuring contests but rather looking at the overall state of Chinese military power from China's point of view, which is deterrence against actual conflict. So when I say China does not have numerical superiority and 055's will face saturation attacks that means all launch platforms for anti-ship missiles and all launch platforms for defense against anti-ship missiles in the context of one of those few scenarios where China would actually be in a shooting war.

Thereby it should be readily obvious that I was stating the latter part of your point 1. above and there is really no need for discussion.

 

[Blitzo]

Come on, with your knowledge of the Chinese military you should know there are extremely few scenarios where China would enter into a war, over what, and with whom. Not to mention these few scenarios are regularly brought up around this forum including in this thread. I would hope that you do not buy into the China threat and China fanboy scenarios that envision China being as trigger happy far from its borders as other major military powers.

Of course I do, but even then we can mix and match quite a bit.

Is it the whole of the US armed forces, or is it merely the US pacific forces? Does it involve the whole of the ROC military, and/or JSDF, and/or ROK military, and/or elements of SEA nations like Vietnam as well, etc etc.

I'm not asking for an answer here, it's more to illustrate that even the broad direction of "westpac high intensity conflict" has various

You should also know me well enough by now that I'm not interested in isolated technical analysis nor measuring contests but rather looking at the overall state of Chinese military power from China's point of view, which is deterrence against actual conflict. So when I say China does not have numerical superiority and 055's will face saturation attacks that means all launch platforms for anti-ship missiles and all launch platforms for defense against anti-ship missiles in the context of one of those few scenarios where China would actually be in a shooting war.

Thereby it should be readily obvious that I was stating the latter part of your point 1. above and there is really no need for discussion.

I suspected that may have been what meant, but your word choice suggested something else.

In any case, I was just confused as to why you said "PLAN assets do not have numerical superiority against potential opponents" but if it was just a typo and you really meant overall combat capability or qualitative capability or something like that then I don't have as big of an issue with it.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Undoubtedly the intent is to turn so that inbound missiles are exposed to the firing arcs of both HQ-10 and Type 1130. If the missile is launched or detected at range close enough that it is not possible to make such a maneuver in time, there's a good chance the system would not be in a ready-to-fire state regardless of the direction the missile is coming from.

In any case, Type 1130 firing ~10k 30mm shells a minute with radar and electro-optical guidance makes the radar-only 6k/20mm Phalanx look like a toy. With 270 degree coverage for each mount, I find it difficult to credit the notion that 055's close-in defences are inadequate.

Well I did say that maintaining a CIWS system on alert mode is going to be much easier than attempting to maneuver a 10 thousand ton ship into the appropriate angle, especially if it is sailing at low speeds.
The type 055 CIWS are adequate, just adequate but not amazing as another post had stated above. It could be better, with the flaws being rectified on subsequent ships of the class.

 

[damon]

Beautiful

 

[PanAsian]

Of course I do, but even then we can mix and match quite a bit.

Is it the whole of the US armed forces, or is it merely the US pacific forces? Does it involve the whole of the ROC military, and/or JSDF, and/or ROK military, and/or elements of SEA nations like Vietnam as well, etc etc.

I'm not asking for an answer here, it's more to illustrate that even the broad direction of "westpac high intensity conflict" has various

I suspected that may have been what meant, but your word choice suggested something else.

In any case, I was just confused as to why you said "PLAN assets do not have numerical superiority against potential opponents" but if it was just a typo and you really meant overall combat capability or qualitative capability or something like that then I don't have as big of an issue with it.

In terms of overall, qualitative, and quantitative capability China will not have superiority, what I wrote is what I meant. You can try to throw shade or put words in my mouth all you want, that's just an inability on your part to agree to disagree.

 

[ougoah]

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.

Which forums have claimed HHQ-16 is not designed for intercepting supersonic saturation attacks? Saturation should be dealt with through systems. So I guess if one HHQ-16 can intercept high end supersonic missiles, then it makes sense they can be used to defend against saturation attacks if the networked systems are capable of handling such detection, tracking, and engaging. Even if it is just one 055.

I'm curious about whether HHQ-16 can handle such a task though and wonder what credentials those claimants have. It is based off Buk missiles which were not designed to intercept maneuvering supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. Who knows. Why would PLAN bet everything on HHQ-16 if it can't do the job. Are they that corrupted or out of touch? Probably not seeing as naval developments have been on the right path technologically.

Only Russians and Indians possess supersonic anti-ship missiles in significant numbers. Others only have a few shots and developing them. US relies on totally different surface combat strategy, using their fighters and subs which is far more effective than launching 100+ Brahmos/Onyx and crossing your fingers. Since PLAN is not geared to fight Russians or Indians, the focus is on anti-sub and air superiority + air defense.

 

[Blitzo]

In terms of overall, qualitative, and quantitative capability China will not have superiority, what I wrote is what I meant. You can try to throw shade or put words in my mouth all you want, that's just an inability on your part to agree to disagree.

I was explaining how I interpreted your previous post. You used the word "numerical," I was confused, so I asked for clarification and you gave it and I'm fine with that.

If you're suggesting I should've been able to interpret that you meant overall qualitative and quantitative capability when you specifically wrote "PLAN assets do not have numerical superiority against potential opponents," I think that's a bit unreasonable.

===


Back on topic, 055 photo taken from passing ferry it seems

 

[Jura The idiot]

... and two gun CIWS on each side in the front. I know either an existing or planned ship, not PLAN, has this configuration just don't remember which.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm responding mainly to mention what I was thinking about,

which is this arrangement

(two CIWS with practically overlapping firing-arcs)

needs an additional level of coordination (target-designation and -tracking), I guess

(so that in case there were two incoming missiles, both guns would NOT shoot at the same missile! leaving the other incoming missile unattended)

 

[ougoah]

Undoubtedly the intent is to turn so that inbound missiles are exposed to the overlapping firing arcs of both HQ-10 and Type 1130. If the missile is launched or detected at range close enough that it is not possible to turn the ship in time, there's a good chance the system would not be in a ready-to-fire state regardless of the direction the missile is coming from.

In any case, the radar and EO-guided Type 1130 firing ~10k 30mm shells a minute makes the radar-only 6k/20mm Phalanx look like a toy. With ~270 degree coverage for each mount, I find it difficult to credit the idea that 055's close-in defences are inadequate.

Not inadequate for one or two targets that slip through the first two tiers of defense, but possibly inadequate for such a valuable asset if more than a handful slip through. Firing at 10k rpm may be a bit wasteful of ammo unless fire control can deal with threats more efficiently or rate of fire can be adjusted easily depending on situation. Guns can only deal with a few missiles before barrels melt and ammo is depleted.