055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Tam]

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.

HHQ-16 is missile used by the Type 054A, not the Type 055 which uses the HHQ-9, which in my view is much more capable. I am not entirely sure if the PLAN even plans to deploy HHQ-16 on the Type 055. The HHQ-16 would require X-band illumination, and the only potential radar on the Type 055 that might have this capability are the ones on the mast, but even this capability is highly speculative, and needs to assume that the mast radars, likely AESA, operate on the X-band. Its not a matter of technology, it can be done. Its whether the PLAN has decided to add or have this capability.

The Buk missiles could intercept targets up to Mach 4. Maybe the earliest versions are limited to Mach 2 to 3 targets, but by the time these missiles are exported to China, either through the land version or the sea version from the Project 956E destroyers, these were the later variants, and that gives you the take off base from where the HQ-16 would be copied from.

Saturation attacks by supersonic missiles are more difficult to do, and will have a lower chance of happening due to the supersonic missiles being much bigger and heavier, which limits how many can be carried on a ship or a plane. Due to their high cost, the inventories will be limited. Subsonic anti-ship missiles on the other hand, are small, plenty and cheap.

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.

Besides China, Russia and India, the place that has the most supersonic antiship missiles --- primarily designed against the PLAN at that --- is that place next door to China. Taiwan. They have developed their own, the Hsiung Feng III, they have been making it and they plan to make a lot more. They can deploy them from small stealthy corvettes to hidden coastal batteries. Preempting the land ones by ballistic missiles would be most difficult, as Taiwan disguises their TELs like commercial delivery trucks and shipping containers.





Next on the list is Vietnam. The Russians sold them a batch of Kilo 636, similar to what the PLAN has, but is a batch newer, and likely to have some improvements over the PLAN batch. These Kilos are also equipped with Klub antiship missiles. I don't have to tell you how nasty these things are, and they are the basis to the YJ-18.

The third is Japan, but only recently. This is the ASM-3 supersonic antiship missile, which currently is launched from the F-2 attack fighter.




These are very good treasons why the PLAN needs to step up its ante on supersonic anti ship missile defense.

The Russians are not helping. They want to sell their Project 22800 corvettes to the South East Asian region, and those things could pack Oniks or Klubs. The Indians are also looking to sell Brahmos to South East Asia, and they would fit into those 22800 corvettes.

 

[Tam]

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.

The best defense the Type 055 would likely have is through CEC. That's why all those Y-8 and Y-9 with advanced radars are going to be needed. That's why they also need to step up on the development of the HQ-9 and its successors in terms of range and CEC support. As a whole, with the help of surveillance and advance warning planes, they have to detect the threats way early, then direct LRSAMs way beyond the horizon to hit either the launching platforms, or threat missiles in their cruise or mid phase, where they are flying high for range and cruising efficiency, and not evasively maneuvering.

 

[AndrewS]

The best defense the Type 055 would likely have is through CEC. That's why all those Y-8 and Y-9 with advanced radars are going to be needed. That's why they also need to step up on the development of the HQ-9 and its successors in terms of range and CEC support. As a whole, with the help of surveillance and advance warning planes, they have to detect the threats way early, then direct LRSAMs way beyond the horizon to hit either the launching platforms, or threat missiles in their cruise or mid phase, where they are flying high for range and cruising efficiency, and not evasively maneuvering.

Long range SAMs generally cost a lot more than incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles.

But those incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles are launched from a small number of platforms (Submarines/Aircraft/Ships) which cost so much more.

So from a cost-benefit perspective, attacking the launch platforms makes more sense.

 

[ougoah]

HHQ-16 is missile used by the Type 054A, not the Type 055 which uses the HHQ-9, which in my view is much more capable. I am not entirely sure if the PLAN even plans to deploy HHQ-16 on the Type 055. The HHQ-16 would require X-band illumination, and the only potential radar on the Type 055 that might have this capability are the ones on the mast, but even this capability is highly speculative, and needs to assume that the mast radars, likely AESA, operate on the X-band. Its not a matter of technology, it can be done. Its whether the PLAN has decided to add or have this capability.

The Buk missiles could intercept targets up to Mach 4. Maybe the earliest versions are limited to Mach 2 to 3 targets, but by the time these missiles are exported to China, either through the land version or the sea version from the Project 956E destroyers, these were the later variants, and that gives you the take off base from where the HQ-16 would be copied from.

Saturation attacks by supersonic missiles are more difficult to do, and will have a lower chance of happening due to the supersonic missiles being much bigger and heavier, which limits how many can be carried on a ship or a plane. Due to their high cost, the inventories will be limited. Subsonic anti-ship missiles on the other hand, are small, plenty and cheap.



Besides China, Russia and India, the place that has the most supersonic antiship missiles --- primarily designed against the PLAN at that --- is that place next door to China. Taiwan. They have developed their own, the Hsiung Feng III, they have been making it and they plan to make a lot more. They can deploy them from small stealthy corvettes to hidden coastal batteries. Preempting the land ones by ballistic missiles would be most difficult, as Taiwan disguises their TELs like commercial delivery trucks and shipping containers.


View attachment 48775


Next on the list is Vietnam. The Russians sold them a batch of Kilo 636, similar to what the PLAN has, but is a batch newer, and likely to have some improvements over the PLAN batch. These Kilos are also equipped with Klub antiship missiles. I don't have to tell you how nasty these things are, and they are the basis to the YJ-18.

The third is Japan, but only recently. This is the ASM-3 supersonic antiship missile, which currently is launched from the F-2 attack fighter.

View attachment 48782


These are very good treasons why the PLAN needs to step up its ante on supersonic anti ship missile defense.

The Russians are not helping. They want to sell their Project 22800 corvettes to the South East Asian region, and those things could pack Oniks or Klubs. The Indians are also looking to sell Brahmos to South East Asia, and they would fit into those 22800 corvettes.

HHQ-16 can be equipped on Type 055. It serves in a different range band than HHQ-9 so HHQ-9 is not necessarily more capable in all areas and often wasteful to use long range SAMs on targets that are closer. I still would like to know details about the claims of HHQ-16 not being able to handle supersonic targets from the rumours (if whoever posted they read those rumours can elaborate or dig them up if possible).

Russia and India are the only regional nations with any significant range and numbers of supersonic anti-ship missiles. BUT, yes I did miss Taiwan there with the HF-3. Of course others can and do buy various AShM but their numbers are extremely small and their navies likewise. That's not to say they don't pose a threat to PLAN at all. Japanese missile is still being developed. They hardly have huge stockpiles of them for now. PLAN certainly thinks highly of supersonic AShM threats from all neighbouring navies but the greatest threat to PLAN's mission of securing coastal waters, is USN. Therefore I think PLAN is more invested in countering USN strengths ie carrier battle groups using fighter wing to eliminate chains of defenses. Without taking out those carriers, there will be no stopping the barrage of air launched anti-ship missiles unless PLAAF and PLAN gets air superiority and can deny F-35s and F-18s the range to get shots off (that is still quite unlikely even today). So PLAN can sit back and try to intercept missiles as much as they want, the only way they can do the job of defending islands and waters is by sinking carriers and somehow stopping US subs or detecting them well in advance. That is a much more difficult task than intercepting the handful of Vietnamese and Japanese AShM, which suggests PLAN places that on a lower priority than eventual goal of denying USN access to island chains.

I'm not saying AShM are no threat at all. Just that the greatest threat to PLAN's job is carriers and subs from USN therefore it makes sense for PLAN to be geared towards fighting the intricacies of those expected conflicts. I'm sure PLAN is capable of defending its modern vessels and main ships from smaller SE Asian navies (which most likely won't get into full scale war with China even in an alliance). More likely PLAN will sink those navies right after they start firing those AShM. Many of these nations have yet to make purchases of those Russian equipment. Vietnam is an exception and its Kilos are quite a threat to PLAN like all subs are.

 

[Tam]

HHQ-16 can be equipped on Type 055. It serves in a different range band than HHQ-9 so HHQ-9 is not necessarily more capable in all areas and often wasteful to use long range SAMs on targets that are closer. I still would like to know details about the claims of HHQ-16 not being able to handle supersonic targets from the rumours (if whoever posted they read those rumours can elaborate or dig them up if possible).

I have only seen fan art that illustrates HHQ-16 with the U-VLS used for the Type 055, but I have yet to see any official data or if there was, mention from "big fish" about it. I don't think there is any technological obstacle to that. The thing is, the U-VLS is way too long and too wide for HHQ-16 alone, and it would make better sense to be able to pack at least two inside the VLS.

I don't see any citing about HHQ-16 not being able to handle supersonic targets. Given the lack of concrete data on the missile, assumptions have to be based on the Russian original, the Shtil-1 system or to be more precise, the 9M317ME missile.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Depending on what you read, you get a maximum target speed of 820 or 850 m/s. That amounts to about Mach 2.5. If the supersonic missile comes in faster than Mach 2.5, then you're in trouble. But its difficult for any missile to go Mach 3 at sea level, but if the Klub antiship missile goes Mach 2.9 at its final stage, which is also at sea skimming level, then you got a problem.

Even then, we still don't know how the actual HHQ-16 will perform, and all its improvements over the Russian counterpart if it has any. We only have an approximation based on its Russian counterpart.

To compare, the S-300 missiles (5V55, 48N6, etc,.) has a maximum target speed ranging from 1100 meters per second and higher up to 2800 meters per second, taking Wiki numbers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That translates to about Mach 3.3. I would say the higher numbers are for tactical ballistic missiles. We don't know exactly how much the HQ-10 itself is derived from the S-300 missiles, but even using the low end numbers for the S-300, that would put the HQ-10 potentially on the safer side of intercepting supersonic missiles than the HQ-16.

I hope this gives you an approximation. I won't say its accurate until you have hard confirmed data but it should give you a ballpark estimate. But even based on estimates, there is such a wide and obvious gap between the HQ-9 and HQ-16 in performance, that I don't see any purpose of using HHQ-16 on the Type 055, and the HQ-16 missile is also a waste of the VLS potential, if its a one on one with the VLS, and the HQ-16 is not multipacked. The 1300kg HQ-9 missile however seems overkill trying to take down a 700kg subsonic ASM but the cost of the potential damage the ASM can do is much higher.

Russia and India are the only regional nations with any significant range and numbers of supersonic anti-ship missiles. BUT, yes I did miss Taiwan there with the HF-3. Of course others can and do buy various AShM but their numbers are extremely small and their navies likewise. That's not to say they don't pose a threat to PLAN at all. Japanese missile is still being developed. They hardly have huge stockpiles of them for now.

ASM-3 was accepted this year and so begins production.

PLAN certainly thinks highly of supersonic AShM threats from all neighbouring navies but the greatest threat to PLAN's mission of securing coastal waters, is USN. Therefore I think PLAN is more invested in countering USN strengths ie carrier battle groups using fighter wing to eliminate chains of defenses. Without taking out those carriers, there will be no stopping the barrage of air launched anti-ship missiles unless PLAAF and PLAN gets air superiority and can deny F-35s and F-18s the range to get shots off (that is still quite unlikely even today). So PLAN can sit back and try to intercept missiles as much as they want, the only way they can do the job of defending islands and waters is by sinking carriers and somehow stopping US subs or detecting them well in advance. That is a much more difficult task than intercepting the handful of Vietnamese and Japanese AShM, which suggests PLAN places that on a lower priority than eventual goal of denying USN access to island chains.

I'm not saying AShM are no threat at all. Just that the greatest threat to PLAN's job is carriers and subs from USN therefore it makes sense for PLAN to be geared towards fighting the intricacies of those expected conflicts. I'm sure PLAN is capable of defending its modern vessels and main ships from smaller SE Asian navies (which most likely won't get into full scale war with China even in an alliance). More likely PLAN will sink those navies right after they start firing those AShM. Many of these nations have yet to make purchases of those Russian equipment. Vietnam is an exception and its Kilos are quite a threat to PLAN like all subs are.

USN will likely rely on the LRASM in the future and the PLAN will also be tasked to defend against JSOW. So you're dealing with slower, but stealthier targets here. That's all going to greatly depend now on your sheer radar capabilities, and that of the missile seeker being able to lock on to the stealthier targets. So the next decade or so, PLAN needs to improve radar on all ships and planes, and defend itself against USN submarines. Having carriers and J-15s are not enough; J-15 radar is outdated compared to the latest Super Hornet and F-35. They need a new batch of J-15 and the J-15D, more similar to the J-11D or J-16 in avionics and radars, plus hurry up on their next generation carrier fighter.

 

[Tam]

Long range SAMs generally cost a lot more than incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles.

But those incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles are launched from a small number of platforms (Submarines/Aircraft/Ships) which cost so much more.

So from a cost-benefit perspective, attacking the launch platforms makes more sense.

I would not say a lot more within the context of the same country or its block allies or customers. On top of my head, will take a while to recheck them again, an S-300 missile like 48N6E would cost about a million a piece while Oniks or Brahmos is like $850,000.

Its always easy to say first strike is the best defense, that is against fixed or static targets. But if the launching platforms are mobile, whether its on water, on wings or on wheels, then works to camouflage and stealth them, its better said than done. Likewise, the other guy is trying to do the same thing to you. So if you failed to get them first, they will surely go after you, so you better survive so you can throw back.

 

[ougoah]

I would not say a lot more within the context of the same country or its block allies or customers. On top of my head, will take a while to recheck them again, an S-300 missile like 48N6E would cost about a million a piece while Oniks or Brahmos is like $850,000.

Its always easy to say first strike is the best defense, that is against fixed or static targets. But if the launching platforms are mobile, whether its on water, on wings or on wheels, then works to camouflage and stealth them, its better said than done. Likewise, the other guy is trying to do the same thing to you. So if you failed to get them first, they will surely go after you, so you better survive so you can throw back.

Currently there is no official statement on what Type 055 can store in its VLS cells. That's to be expected. But that doesn't mean it cannot store HHQ-16s either. Surely they will have designed that capability into the 055. Having the ability to launch HHQ-16s shouldn't have physical barriers but it likely takes up an entire cell so it is definitely a waste in that respect. But if each hhq16 is many times cheaper than hhq9, it may make sense to carry a few.

PLAN will need to go after those launching platforms sooner or later in an actual fight. They can't sit back until all hhq9s or whatevers are exhausted. So while destroyers like 055 are a great addition in terms of air protection and sensors package, they will definitely be storing an arsenal of offensive weapons with enough defensive weapons like hhq9 to deflect enough enemy ordinance until the fleets can do their job of destroying launching platforms.

It is a balancing act. I'm aware you're not saying it isn't at all but destroyers are not only there for fleet defense. While it seems PLAN wants to go the USN route of carriers doing the heavy fighting with most surface assets defending the carrier while supplementing carrier launched fighters, PLAN currently does not have enough carriers or the eventual carrier air wing to do this. Therefore to be prepared for any invasion from USN, destroyers and subs play a more multirole part in fleet operations. Quite off topic now but PLAN really needs more subs and stealthier subs to best counter US and Japanese. 055 is a step in the right direction in terms of the eventual surface fleets and doctrine PLAN wants with carrier being centre of all operations.

 

[AndrewS]

I would not say a lot more within the context of the same country or its block allies or customers. On top of my head, will take a while to recheck them again, an S-300 missile like 48N6E would cost about a million a piece while Oniks or Brahmos is like $850,000.

Its always easy to say first strike is the best defense, that is against fixed or static targets. But if the launching platforms are mobile, whether its on water, on wings or on wheels, then works to camouflage and stealth them, its better said than done. Likewise, the other guy is trying to do the same thing to you. So if you failed to get them first, they will surely go after you, so you better survive so you can throw back.

Taking your example, a first salvo would typically see 2x 48N6E missiles would be launched against a single Oniks. So that's 2.0 Million of SAMs launched against a 0.85 Million incoming missile. That calculations applies to both China and the USA, whether they are on the offensive or defensive side.

Remember that China is still behind in terms of military spending and also available missiles and launch platforms.
So it simply makes more sense for China to devote its limited resources towards areas where there is a cost advantage.

Shorter range defensive SAMs which are much cheaper would be a better choice for defending against incoming missiles.

But part of the reason for the US going with longer range SAMs is because a Carrier Air Wing is only active for 12 hours per day.
And because the carrier+air wing is so expensive, it's worth spending a lot to protect the carrier when the air wing is not operational.

---

And if you look at operations in the Western Pacific, let's take anti-ship cruise missiles with a notional 1000km range.
If these are launched from trucks on the Chinese mainland, they can cover the entire first island chain and beyond.
For the anti-ship missiles, what matters then is sustained offboard targeting, which is going to come from submarines or satellites or high-altitude aircraft.

So would expensive long-range SAMs really be better than more short-range SAMs?

 

[AndrewS]

Currently there is no official statement on what Type 055 can store in its VLS cells. That's to be expected. But that doesn't mean it cannot store HHQ-16s either. Surely they will have designed that capability into the 055. Having the ability to launch HHQ-16s shouldn't have physical barriers but it likely takes up an entire cell so it is definitely a waste in that respect. But if each hhq16 is many times cheaper than hhq9, it may make sense to carry a few.

PLAN will need to go after those launching platforms sooner or later in an actual fight. They can't sit back until all hhq9s or whatevers are exhausted. So while destroyers like 055 are a great addition in terms of air protection and sensors package, they will definitely be storing an arsenal of offensive weapons with enough defensive weapons like hhq9 to deflect enough enemy ordinance until the fleets can do their job of destroying launching platforms.

It is a balancing act. I'm aware you're not saying it isn't at all but destroyers are not only there for fleet defense. While it seems PLAN wants to go the USN route of carriers doing the heavy fighting with most surface assets defending the carrier while supplementing carrier launched fighters, PLAN currently does not have enough carriers or the eventual carrier air wing to do this. Therefore to be prepared for any invasion from USN, destroyers and subs play a more multirole part in fleet operations. Quite off topic now but PLAN really needs more subs and stealthier subs to best counter US and Japanese. 055 is a step in the right direction in terms of the eventual surface fleets and doctrine PLAN wants with carrier being centre of all operations.

I think we've got to look at the likely scenarios.

In the far seas, it's going to be a low-intensity conflict where there isn't any high-end opposition.
And in the near seas, it is going to be a high-intensity conflict, where Chinese carriers are going to be vulnerable targets and where Chinese air bases and missile-trucks are going to be close by anyway.

 

[Tam]

Taking your example, a first salvo would typically see 2x 48N6E missiles would be launched against a single Oniks. So that's 2.0 Million of SAMs launched against a 0.85 Million incoming missile. That calculations applies to both China and the USA, whether they are on the offensive or defensive side.

Remember that China is still behind in terms of military spending and also available missiles and launch platforms.
So it simply makes more sense for China to devote its limited resources towards areas where there is a cost advantage.

Shorter range defensive SAMs which are much cheaper would be a better choice for defending against incoming missiles.

But part of the reason for the US going with longer range SAMs is because a Carrier Air Wing is only active for 12 hours per day.
And because the carrier+air wing is so expensive, it's worth spending a lot to protect the carrier when the air wing is not operational.

---

And if you look at operations in the Western Pacific, let's take anti-ship cruise missiles with a notional 1000km range.
If these are launched from trucks on the Chinese mainland, they can cover the entire first island chain and beyond.
For the anti-ship missiles, what matters then is sustained offboard targeting, which is going to come from submarines or satellites or high-altitude aircraft.

So would expensive long-range SAMs really be better than more short-range SAMs?

Yes. These larger SAMs have a greater chance of taking down a threat missile. As I pointed out the HQ-16 may have a limitation not being able to engage an airborne target over Mach 2.5, while the HQ-9 might be able to still engage even over Mach 3. The HQ-16 may not shot down the Oniks, but the HQ-9 can.

SAMs take down two ways. Either direct impact or proximity explosion. The effectiveness of the latter depends on how big the explosion is, and its pattern, which is even carefully engineered by the direction of the blast. The HQ-10 can have as much as 150 to 180kg of warhead, while the HQ-16 is about 62 to 70kg, and the HQ-10 about 10 to 11kg. You may need launch more of the smaller missiles to take down the same threat.

The larger SAMs have the range potential to take down a plane before it can launch its missiles. Longer ranges means it can protect more of a fleet under a bubble instead of just itself. Ships like the Type 054A and 056 may need cover against threats their SAMs cannot reach. Its also likely that the ships may also be tasked in the defense of the homeland to strike down incoming cruise missiles before they hit land targets such as those in the coast. If you have larger AD bubbles, they can be combined and overlapped. If you have smaller bubbles, offensive threats can pass through the space between the bubbles.

Finally, SAMs do have the ability to strike surface targets, like secondary anti-ship missiles. When used in this regard, an HQ-10 will have more punch than an HQ-16.

PLAN started as a fleet with nothing but short range air defenses. The HQ-61 and HQ-7 predated everything and they only acted as a short range missile defense only. They bought the Sovremennyy to have their first taste of a medium range air defense, liked it, and copied the systems there, even bought the same ADS for the Type 052B. They bought RIF-Ms for their first long range air defense and installed them on the Type 051C. Then comes the Type 052C and 052D, now the Type 055. The evolutionary trend of PLAN's ADS is to increase range and reach.