055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Jura The idiot
General
oh sorry please delete it then
Either it was measured traveling at 30.6 knots or it wasn't. People cannot measure speed by eye spotting. Also that ferry was either stationary or traveling in opposing direction. No reason for 055 to be traveling at top speed anyway here so no idea on top speed from one video and public observers. It's a nice sight for the ferry though.
Some ships that have two guns in the front. I don't recall having anything like two Phalanx or two Goalkeepers. There are ships with two Daldos in the rear, don't recall having two in the front. There are ships with two Oto 76mm, there is a Korean frigate called Ulsan class with two Oto 76mm in front and two Daldo in the rear.
Horizon class --- two Oto 76mm guns between the bridge and the VLS. I don't know if this counts. The French one has Mistrals on the back for missile CIWS.
Sovremennyy class --- It has four AK630s, two of them in the front near the bridge, and two in the back. The exception are the last two made which went to the PLAN, where they got two Kashtans on the back. PLAN Hanzhou and Fuzhou, when they are through with their refits, will have 24 cell HQ-10 in the front, and four AK-630, two in the front, and two in the rear. PLAN Taizhou and Ningbo, if and when they are through with their refits, will have 24 cell HQ-10 in the front, and two Kashtans or two 730/1130 in the rear.
F22P and Type 053H3 Refit --- F22P has one HQ-7 launcher in the front, this system is effectively a missile CIWS anyway and two 730B in the back. Type 053H3 refit has one 8 missile HQ-10 launcher in the front and two 730B in the back. Well armed for small ships.
German frigates like F125 and Sachsen class don't have gun CIWS at all, they have 21 missile RAM launchers, one front, one rear. They trust this missile that much to have 42 of them around. Neighboring navies have different opinion. De Seven has I think two Goalkeepers and the Iver H. has two Oto 76 in the front and an Oerlikon in the back, both no CIWS missiles.
Going back to the Type 055, looking at the gun and missile CIWS might be too overemphasized. This ship also has brand new and unknown electronic warfare capabilities, if those arrays under the bridge wing are what I think it is. The electronic warfare is totally new on the ship, the ESM and ECM are nothing like we have seen on any Chinese ship before. If those arrays are AESA, they can be emitting tremendous power. Let's add that any AESA on the ship can also potentially jam and interfere, and for AESA to do this, it is through the back end and the software.
On top of all that, the ship is rich with chaff and decoys. I wonder if the PLAN has something that works like the Australian Nulkas.
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
I'm afraid if there were "a handful" of leakers, the day couldn't be saved by having more CIWS assets installed
(for example a Type 1130 fore and aft, and an HQ-10 port and starboard side; I said "for example")
plawolf
Lieutenant General
With a 10k rpm fire rate, a 1130 can send more rounds downrange with a 2 second burst than slower guns like the Phalanx could with a 3 second burst.
A 1s burst from a 1130 would send 150-160 rounds downrange depending on if it has a spool up delay. In reality, that’s probably as effective as a 2 second burst from a slower gun like the Phalanx, which can put maybe 200 rounds downrange in that time. Especially when you consider the much more powerful 30mm rounds vs 20 of the phalanx.
The whole point of the faster gun is to reduce the amount of time needed to engage a target before you move onto the next.
In a saturation attack scenario, an 1130 will most likely have an engagement cue, and will be sending 1-1.5 bursts (or whatever the optimal number calculated from tests) out at each target before moving onto the next based on threat priority.
You can do the same with any other gun based CIWS, but it won’t be nearly as efficient without such a monstrously high rate of fire, as needing to burst fire for longer at each target means fewer targets engaged in the same time.
Yes it is definitely more efficient at taking out targets given it's larger caliber rounds and higher rate of fire. Only provided the fire control systems can handle the improvements and make proper use of advantages, which should be a given at this point. CIWS videos seem to show the guns spraying for a good few seconds (maybe those are just for show) before barrels look like they need a cool down and some claim the ammo's out.
So the issue with gun is still limited ammo, hence limited number of targets they can engage. HHQ-10 has 24 missiles in each system. Even if three are fired at each target, it can intercept 8 targets coming from the same general direction. Coupling gun with missiles would give it best of both worlds in the same location. With this setup, Type 055 only has gun to rely on for frontal arc last ditch protection which seems risky for such a valuable, highly capable ship. I suspect they don't bother with any more because they have full confidence in other defenses and electronic means of disabling ordinance. I'm sure there are Chinese equivalents of Nulka like systems that may not be rocket based. Also subs are a greater threat than HARMs, Harpoons, and SMs used as anti-ship missiles. Bombs need to get in range and those fighters dropping them need to deal with their own problems.
So the issue with gun is still limited ammo, hence limited number of targets they can engage. HHQ-10 has 24 missiles in each system. Even if three are fired at each target, it can intercept 8 targets coming from the same general direction. Coupling gun with missiles would give it best of both worlds in the same location. With this setup, Type 055 only has gun to rely on for frontal arc last ditch protection which seems risky for such a valuable, highly capable ship. I suspect they don't bother with any more because they have full confidence in other defenses and electronic means of disabling ordinance. I'm sure there are Chinese equivalents of Nulka like systems that may not be rocket based. Also subs are a greater threat than HARMs, Harpoons, and SMs used as anti-ship missiles. Bombs need to get in range and those fighters dropping them need to deal with their own problems.
- Status