055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Tam]

Given the ranges involved for antiship (300KM+), any arsenal ship or destroyer is going to have to rely on offboard targeting and datalinks anyway for antiship missiles. Land-attack is straightforward as it covers fixed targets.
Those systems are actually cheap. It's long-range radars and electronics which make things really expensive.

If the Chinese Navy goes for a larger surface combatant, you're essentially talking about a Battle-Cruiser.
It's possible this might happen, given the increasing importance of missiles.

A Type-55 already has 112 VLS cells, so you would want at least 200 VLS cells.
Otherwise there isn't a significant enough cost-benefit over additional Type-55.

The long range radars and electronics are what makes things really expensive. Thus you want this cost of firing each missile to be spread out more over a larger number of missiles. Cost of radars+electronics/number of missiles.

But if you compare (1x Battlecruiser) versus (1x Type-55 Arsenal Ship + 1x Type-55 multi-role)

a) The Battlecruiser likely costs more in total.
b) The Battlecruiser carries fewer VLS cells in total.

I am not really so sure. You have to make two ships at the cost of one. You will require more engines in total, and more crews in total, more salaries to pay, more mouths to feed.

c) The Battlecruiser also concentrates the risk into a single hull.

On the other hand, a large hull can be made to be more survivable.

The key point is that for antiship and land-attack missiles, you don't need any expensive radars or electronics.
Any platform will do, because they have to rely on offboard targeting anyway.

That was the idea for the Arsenal Ship. Yet despite this, cash and resource strapped Russia, which has weighed much of its doctrine in anti-shipping and offensive strike, isn't considering the Arsenal Ship when they could be the ones that would most benefit from it.

Do remember that their Lider class destroyers are shooting for 17,000 tons now, making them larger than the Zumwalt?

As for the USN large surface combatant, it looks to me like what the Type-55 is today.
Eg. command spaces, bigger VLS cells, more electricity, space for expansion etc




It comes down to whether you want the Arsenal Ship to be a Capital Ship or Expendable.
When you have 200+ VLS cells in an arsenal ship, it accounts for a significant percentage of offensive missiles and cost, and becomes a capital ship.
And you don't want to operate capital ships in high risk environment, but that is what it will have to do.

In a contested environment, ships have to have some of the following characteristics:
a) Fast
b) Stealthy
c) Expendable
d) Be able to protect themselves.

If D (self-protection), then you might as well just buy an existing multi-role destroyer
If C (expendable), the ship itself may be cheap and expendable. But 200 missiles aren't.
If B (stealth), it's possible, but it is hard to hide a warship or small fleet when it is being hunted in the Western Pacific.
If A (speed), it needs to keep up with escort destroyers

If you do any sort of fleet mix calculation with moderately large SAG size, it's cheaper to have a few arsenal ships around.

Eg. Say a mission requires 500 antiship missiles, 600 SAMs and 10 AEGIS platforms.

You could have:

Option 1 - Destroyer only
10x Type-55 (48 Antiship missiles + 64 Long-range SAMs each)

Antiship missiles total: 480
Long-range SAMs totat: 640
Total AEGIS radars: 10
Total Platforms: 10

Option 2 - Destroyer + Arsenal Ship
2x Type-55 (36 Antiship missiles + 76 Long-range SAMs each)
8x Type-52D (64 Long-range SAMs each)
3x Type-55 Arsenal Ship (112 antiship missiles)

Antiship missiles total: 520
Long-range SAMs totat: 664
Total AEGIS radars: 10
Total Platforms: 13

So by adding a few arsenal ships, you get:

a) a more distributed fleet with more platforms for the opponent to target.
b) a lower cost fleet overall
c) which has more offensive/defensive missiles.
d) the offensive missiles are now concentrated in 5 ships in the protected centre of the formation, rather than in 10 ships spread throughout the formation. It forces an opponent to fight through the destroyers - in order to get through to the lower-cost (but bigger threat) arsenal ships in the centre.

Given that the "Red AEGIS" on the 055 is likely to be much better than the one on the 052D, Option 1 would have much more superior sensor power over Option 2. It is also likely Option 1 will have superior networking power over Option 2, even if the 052D has CEC. That's better icing over better cake.

(I pointed out previously in other posts that some 052D has small circular antennas on top of the bridge they might be using for CEC --- these are retrofits so not all ships have them yet. The ones of the 055 might be a set of four small phase arrays on top of the mast. However the ones for the 055 might be a generation ahead, not to mention they are built into the ship on the get go. The ones on the 055 are also set higher than on the 052C/D, so they have more of an extended horizon and range.)

Another disadvantage for Option 2 is that Option 1 is far stealthier per ship, both actively and passively. 055 appears stealthier than 052D, not much explanation needed given their appearance, but I would also add that the 055 going all AESA even in its secondary radars means these radars can go LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) unlike the 052D, whose secondary radars are still mechanical and use parabolic designs (Type 344, 364, 366.) These means that the secondary AESA radars on the 055 are less likely to be picked up by ESM, and are more resistant to ECM measures.

80 VLS represents what I think is the low side of a cost-effective arsenal ship.
Of course, you can build a bigger ship, but it does concentrate more risk

Also look at the cost difference between:

1. a multi-role destroyer with 80 VLS (Approx $600M?)
versus
2. an arsenal ship based on a smaller destroyer hull with 80 VLS ($300m?), which would only be half the cost

As long as you operate a large enough fleet (which the Chinese Navy will), you can mix and match ship types, so that it works out cheaper overall.

I am not sure which is cheaper, a Type 05X Large Surface Combatant, or a 055X + 055 arsenal ship. I am not sure but I don't think the two ships are cheaper to operate than one. Nor am I sure that building two ships will cost less, and will be faster to construct overall, than a single large ship. Nor does it matter with China Speed, pounding it a 40,000 ton LHD like a hamburger. Add to the time for trials for each ship, add the cost of the crews per ship, wages, keeping them alive, and so on.

Yes, the trend was for ships to get larger, because the cost of electronics and weapons kept increasing.
In comparison, the hull and machinery costs remained comparatively cheap - so why not build a bigger hull to get the most use out of the electronics and weapons.

But what we don't see is any post-war Navy having a role for a battle-cruiser.
In the days of guns, ship size was directly proportional to defensive armour and naval gun size.
But missiles can be launched from any sized platform now.
During the cold war, the Kirov Battlecruisers were supposed to be lone wolves roaming distant oceans with little resupply, so they needed to carry a lot of missiles for repeat engagements.
But a Battlecruiser will always be inferior on the open seas to an aircraft carrier, which can detect and launch attacks at a much greater distance.

These battlecruisers are not meant to replace aircraft carriers, but to escort them in air defense. As much as the large antiship missiles on the Slava and Kirov class tend to eclipse everything else about these ships, don't forget that the Slava class has 64 VLS for the RIF-M (S-300 missiles) and the Kirov has over 150 VLS for the same. On top of that, the Slavas has another 40 VLS for short range SAMs, while the Kirov class has about 168 total short range and point defense SAMs. RIF-M also equips the Type 051C, which is the smallest ship to use that complex, and which has 48.

And we're moving to a world of battle networks, datalinks and distributed maritime operations.
So the different layers (sensor layer, C&C layer, weapons layer) don't have to be on the same platform anymore.
They can be on any mix of platforms, and this is pushing down the size of the platforms so they can be specialised.

For offensive sea power, this is determined by the size of the missiles, but it doesn't matter which platform launches.
So for offensive power, this pushes for cheaper specialised units just for launching offensive missiles.

But for defensive sea power, the expensive AEGIS long-range radar is a major cost, but is limited by the radar horizon for incoming antiship missiles.

I always mentioned that the Type 052C/D, the Type 055, the Ticos and the Burkes, all have secondary radars are placed on top of a mast for spotting antiship missiles. Respectively, the Type 364 on the 052C/D, the four sided X-band radar unnamed on the 055, the SPQ-9A or SPQ-9B on the Tico and the SPS-67 on the Burkes (Flight III gets SPQ-9B.)

 

[AndrewS]

The reasoning of larger combatants is that they can also be more survivable than smaller ships. They can also sustain operation longer. They can also provide another layer of protective umbrella over the smaller ships that doesn't have radars as powerful or as many large SAMs. In other words, not only are they more survivable themselves, they can help make smaller ships survive better.

As for leading larger ships, this would be interesting to know if the 055 has a second bridge, an admiral's bridge as some would call it. The FREMM frigates for example, have them.

Now you don't make a ship bigger for the sake of bigger. The ships are shaped because of another factor underlying it. Now I think the 055 is as large as it gets, for the size and numbers of the radars it has. Assuming a larger ship has 055 level sensors, but weighs over 20,000 tons, the difference would be entirely be on weapons load but your cost of the number of missiles over the cost of your radars, sensors and combat management systems gets lower.

Yes, I would define the key metric as "cost per missile launch"

I do think a larger ship than the 055 may have a problem keeping with carriers unless it increased its power per turbine or increase the number of turbines, in which case it won't be a 055 no longer, since I believe the number designation is tied to power train layout. Currently its 28kn right now per GT25000 but I heard there was a development in crystal turbine blade technology that can boost this to 33kw or 34kw. Perhaps these are technologies that are related to the WS-1X engines for the J-20.

I suspect (my theory) that the 055 is limited to 112 missiles is because of its speed requirement. Remember the U-VLS is larger than the Mk.41, and each cell is likely to hold a minimum of an HQ-9 missile. That missile is alone is around 1300kg. A Mk. 41 cell holds the minimum of an SM-2MR, which is about 700kg, so its nearly 50% lighter and has less volume. In maximum, you get up to a 1200kg with the Tomahawk, and up to 1500kg for the SM-3 or SM-6, whereas the U-VLS is up to 2,300kg for the YJ-18. So the 055 maybe holding more missile volume and weight with 112 U-VLS than 128 cells of Mk. 41 VLS on another ship, and even when you consider the Sejong The Great class (80 Mk. 41 + 48 K-VLS, either mounting 820kg ASROC or 1500kg Hyunmoo III cruise missile.) But the 055 isn't exactly having more engine power than Burke or Burke like ships, as you are dealing 28kw per GT25000 turbine, whereas the turbines on the other side has gone from 25kw in the LM2500, to 30kw on the LM2500+ and 35kw on the LM2500+G4.

A Type-55 keeping up with a conventional carrier should be fine. A nuclear carrier is another story however.

As for there only being 112 VLS cells, I think it is due to:

1. the number of defensive missiles you can launch in 1 minute, which is the time a subsonic missile takes to cross half the radar horizon before the short-range air defence systems engage.
2. the sheer cost of the missiles, and how many you can afford to buy for the entire inventory.

So I don't think VLS weight is the issue.
Let's say a maximum of 2000 KG per VLS cell.
That is only 224 tonnes, which is <2% of the total ship weight.

Given that a 20,000 to 25,000 ton LPD like the Type 071 is allowed to roam all the way to the coast of Africa, I don't see a 15,000 to 20,000 ton cruiser having the same problem.

 

[AndrewS]

The long range radars and electronics are what makes things really expensive. Thus you want this cost of firing each missile to be spread out more over a larger number of missiles. Cost of radars+electronics/number of missiles.

Yes, cost per missile launch is the right metric.

On a tactical scale, for offensive antiship or land-attack missiles (which will have to use the battle network for offboard targeting anyway) the cost per launch is only dependent on being on the cheapest platform.

And for defensive SAMs, yes, there is a fixed cost for radars and electronics on the ship, so it is better to have more VLS cells available.

---

But from a strategic perspective, the stock of missiles is going to run out before all the launch platforms are destroyed.

A stock of 300 missiles is going to be used up quickly anyway
Say 2 reloads (2weeks) for a Type-55 and 4 reloads (4weeks) for a Type-52

So on the strategic scale, a lower cost per missile launch comes from the smaller, cheaper Type-52D than the larger Type-55.

I am not really so sure. You have to make two ships at the cost of one. You will require more engines in total, and more crews in total, more salaries to pay, more mouths to feed.

A Battlecruiser would have a very small production run.
The production learning cost curve is especially steep for the first 4 ships, but has settled down after 10 ships.
We may only be looking at 4 Battlecruisers, which would be prime targets as capital ships.

In comparison, for the combination of (1x Type 55 multi-role) + (1x Type-55 Arsenal Ship / ASW destroyer)

1. The Type-55s would already have benefited from the production learning curve
2. The Type-55 Arsenal Ship / ASW destroyer has much lower operating costs.
a) Because that it has a much smaller crew and fewer systems to maintain
b) It spends most of its time in port in peacetime, because it is simply a platform to launch missiles and helicopters.
c) Labour costs aren't significant, especially with Chinese wages

So I reckon a Battlecruiser would be more expensive.

On the other hand, a large hull can be made to be more survivable.

True, but after a hit, is it better on a single Battlecruiser hull or 2 smaller hulls?
It would also be preferable for the cheaper and more expendable Arsenal Ship to be hit first.

That was the idea for the Arsenal Ship. Yet despite this, cash and resource strapped Russia, which has weighed much of its doctrine in anti-shipping and offensive strike, isn't considering the Arsenal Ship when they could be the ones that would most benefit from it.

Do remember that their Lider class destroyers are shooting for 17,000 tons now, making them larger than the Zumwalt?

A number of points on the Russian Lidar Destroyer:

In all likelihood, the Lidar is never going to be built. They're struggling to build new frigates, never mind anything larger.

Plus the Lidar was designed around the following missions:
1. Cutting the sea lanes between Europe and the USA. Those sea lanes are 5000km+ from Murmansk
2. Long range missile strikes. But remember that missiles launched from Mother Russia can cover most of Europe anyway, which includes many ports.

In comparison, all the core objectives for the Chinese Navy lie within the 1st Island Chain, which is within 1300km of mainland China.
So they can just wait for ships and aircraft to approach a small number of fixed chokepoints (seaports/airports) then attack using land-based aircraft and missiles.

Then there is nothing but empty ocean until the 2nd Island Chain (Guam) which is some 3000km from China.
This is at the limits of land-based aircraft and missiles.
But a Chinese fleet can sail for just 3 days under air cover, launch missiles, then head back to rearm.

Then more empty ocean until the 3rd Island Chain (Hawaii), which is some 8000km from China.
This is just too far for a Chinese power projection fleet to get to.
Best to use submarines to sink convoys in the area.
It's also too far for even B-2 bombers to operate against China without aerial refuelling.
But even B-2 bombers will have to approach to 2000km of the Chinese coastline to be effective.

So you can see that if the Chinese Navy wants to cut off the USA from Asia, it doesn't have to venture far from mainland China.
That negates most of the argument for ships with long range.

Given that the "Red AEGIS" on the 055 is likely to be much better than the one on the 052D, Option 1 would have much more superior sensor power over Option 2. It is also likely Option 1 will have superior networking power over Option 2, even if the 052D has CEC. That's better icing over better cake.

(I pointed out previously in other posts that some 052D has small circular antennas on top of the bridge they might be using for CEC --- these are retrofits so not all ships have them yet. The ones of the 055 might be a set of four small phase arrays on top of the mast. However the ones for the 055 might be a generation ahead, not to mention they are built into the ship on the get go. The ones on the 055 are also set higher than on the 052C/D, so they have more of an extended horizon and range.)

Another disadvantage for Option 2 is that Option 1 is far stealthier per ship, both actively and passively. 055 appears stealthier than 052D, not much explanation needed given their appearance, but I would also add that the 055 going all AESA even in its secondary radars means these radars can go LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) unlike the 052D, whose secondary radars are still mechanical and use parabolic designs (Type 344, 364, 366.) These means that the secondary AESA radars on the 055 are less likely to be picked up by ESM, and are more resistant to ECM measures.

Is there any reason why a Type-52E couldn't be built to similar specifications as a Type-55?

Remember sensor performance is irrelevant given the limitations of the radar horizon and offboard sensors from the battle network
The radar performance of a Type-52D is more than sufficient for long-range SAMs.

Plus there shouldn't be any difference in networking power between the Type-52D/E and Type-55.
Most of the processing will be done locally, and only the final results would be shared in a datalink.

And the options I presented were an example.

You can rework for any mix of (Type-55 and Type-52E) versus a mix of (Type-55, Type-52E, Arsenal Ship)
You still get the same result, because an Arsenal Ship has a lower cost per VLS launch.
But this only works if you have large enough overall navy size and large enough SAGs - which lets you rebalance capabilities across a larger number of platforms.
Only the US Navy and Chinese Navy are large enough to do this.

I am not sure which is cheaper, a Type 05X Large Surface Combatant, or a 055X + 055 arsenal ship. I am not sure but I don't think the two ships are cheaper to operate than one. Nor am I sure that building two ships will cost less, and will be faster to construct overall, than a single large ship. Nor does it matter with China Speed, pounding it a 40,000 ton LHD like a hamburger. Add to the time for trials for each ship, add the cost of the crews per ship, wages, keeping them alive, and so on.



These battlecruisers are not meant to replace aircraft carriers, but to escort them in air defense. As much as the large antiship missiles on the Slava and Kirov class tend to eclipse everything else about these ships, don't forget that the Slava class has 64 VLS for the RIF-M (S-300 missiles) and the Kirov has over 150 VLS for the same. On top of that, the Slavas has another 40 VLS for short range SAMs, while the Kirov class has about 168 total short range and point defense SAMs. RIF-M also equips the Type 051C, which is the smallest ship to use that complex, and which has 48.

If we're talking about a Type-55 in a carrier escort role, remember that there is supposed to be a quad-packed MR-SAM in development, like the ESSM.
So a Type-55 could end up with the following loadout:
1. 96x LR-SAMs and 64 MR-SAMs
2. 64x LR-SAMs and 192 MR-SAMs

Remember that the Kirov BattleCruisers were supposed to operate alone at long distances with little resupply, against enemy shipping lanes.
Even then, it was debateable whether they could survive if there was an aircraft carrier in the vicinity.
Nowadays, in an era where there is almost constant optical satellite coverage over every point of the globe, it's impossible.

So Chinese navy doesn't have a requirement for lone surface ships to cut off distant shipping lanes.

I always mentioned that the Type 052C/D, the Type 055, the Ticos and the Burkes, all have secondary radars are placed on top of a mast for spotting antiship missiles. Respectively, the Type 364 on the 052C/D, the four sided X-band radar unnamed on the 055, the SPQ-9A or SPQ-9B on the Tico and the SPS-67 on the Burkes (Flight III gets SPQ-9B.)

 

[AndrewS]

Andy why none of Navies of the World operates an arsenal ship?

Only the US Navy (today and in the past) and the Chinese Navy (today) and the USSR Navy (previously) were large enough to justify a specialised subclass of arsenal ships to complement their multi-role ships.

I think Arsenal Ship is probably the wrong term to use, given the US proposal was for a monster with 500 VLS cells.

Arsenal ships imply just the platform, but that only works in a low-risk environment and/or if it can be protected and used.

For the USSR, I think it was the lack of electronics.
Which affected the availability of cheap robust datalinks, sensors, guidance systems for missiles etc for a battle network for offboard targeting.

As for the US Navy, they never needed to worry about naval supremacy for the past 30 years.
And prior to that? I think part of it was the Carrier mafia which saw arsenal ships as a threat to the aircraft carrier.

For the Chinese Navy, they've only just started building their fleet, so they don't have enough ships to justify another class yet.

---

So the requirement is for a ship to sail quickly into a high-risk environment and launch missiles, then come back quickly to reload.
So this ship needs to defend itself to a degree with low-cost short-range air-defence. Submarines are also one of the biggest threats.
And this ship is the cheapest survivable platform for ASW helicopters to be located on, so it's logical to add this capability
So instead of Arsenal Ship, I think ASW Destroyer is a better term for what I'm describing.

Think the Spruance ASW destroyers (similar hull/size to the Ticonderoga cruiser) which could carry 69 anti-ship missiles in total, along with 2 ASW helicopters.

But the primary role is as missile carrier in the centre of a formation, rather than independent ASW on the fringes of the formation.

It has less electronics and weapons because it is expected to operate close to a multi-role destroyer, whilst the ASW helicopters have enough range/speed to cover the entire formation anyway, and can be directed by other ships.

 

[2handedswordsman]

Bit offtopic, but USSR did it quite well during it's times. 30 years later the modern Russian Navy can't afford to build a proper warship. Maybe because of the "westerners" sanctions LOL

USSR made a long list of missiles much more capable of these of US Navy current inventory. They made Glonass, OTH radars, ABM systems, they launched the goddammit Sputnik lol.

*edit I think they first put datalinks on their fighters also, if anyone knows anything please confirm or not

Aircraft carriers proven "not enough" in a full scale engagement with a capable force ( Japan WW2, USA Korean War and Vietnam War ) . Against a proven nuclear force , carriers are just a lost cause with out any diplomatic significance ( USA DPRK nowdays )

20 flat tops and 90 10.000 ton. ships are a massive unjustified overkill just to make any kind of trumps out there to make money PRC wisely is investing in railways and more reasonable ships like Type 055

 

[Tam]

Yes, cost per missile launch is the right metric.
Is there any reason why a Type-52E couldn't be built to similar specifications as a Type-55?

It would result in a greater cost of missile / per shipboard electronics. On the other hand, if you create a larger cruiser with the 055's radars and electronics, you get a lower cost of missile / ship electronics. All three ships will still have the same sensor performance.

Remember sensor performance is irrelevant given the limitations of the radar horizon and offboard sensors from the battle network

Maybe you didn't get what I said and in many of my previous posts.

Additional and secondary search radars and ESM sensors can be placed on top of the mast which will extend the radar horizon.

While every ship can put some sensor on the top, there is also a difference in the quality of these sensors that can determine quicker detection, reaction, and tracking quality against sea skimming threats. Generally on this side, I would prefer using AESA, like on the Type 055 with the small X-band AESA on its top mast, than using a mechanical radar, like on the Type 052C/D's Type 364 which is the spherical dome on top of the mast. Of course, this is not as cheap. Note that I am >NOT< referring to the Type 346A or 346B main AEGIS like radar panels on the 052D and 055.

The radar performance of a Type-52D is more than sufficient for long-range SAMs.

That's not enough. The 055 going all AESA is more than just about supporting long ranged SAMs. The AESAs, including secondary and tritiary radars for gunnery, navigation, sea search, are also meant to be frequency and modulation agile, which can make them difficult to detect from an enemy ESM. The signals might appear like stray noise and won't trigger an alert. Being agile these radars are also much more difficult to counter with ECM.

As a whole, the 055 is much more survivable than the 052C/D in the context of a future highly electronic war scenario.

Plus there shouldn't be any difference in networking power between the Type-52D/E and Type-55.
Most of the processing will be done locally, and only the final results would be shared in a datalink.

Not enough. CEC means the ships are sharing sensor data in real time across a network. That means if you have six ships, your tactical display is showing the radar scanning of all six ships like as if they are one ship. If some ships are out of horizon from the other ships, the sensor output of Ship C would be passed to Ship B which is passed to Ship A and then vice versa. All this in real time and automated. In addition to these, all ships have multiple radars working on different spectrum, and plus you got aircraft and helicopters adding their sensors to the network. So bandwidth goes up fast.

The CEC on the 052C/D is located just on top of the bridge, while on the 055 it is on the mast set even higher than the X-band AESA radars there. So the higher these are set, the longer the range of radio line of sight one ship has with another. That in the addition the 055's sets appear to use phase arrays.

You cannot mathematically calculate the qualitative and synergistic advantages brought about by all the electronics on board the 055. It is on a completely different level over the 052C/D, and thus its better to refrain using a cost comparison which only makes sense if the ships are qualitatively on the same level.

Remember that the Kirov BattleCruisers were supposed to operate alone at long distances with little resupply, against enemy shipping lanes.

I keep telling you, that they are not. They are meant to escort carriers like the Kuznetsov and the Varyag (turned Liaoning). They are also meant to lead other battle groups that include Slavas, Sovremennyys and Udalois.

Even then, it was debateable whether they could survive if there was an aircraft carrier in the vicinity.
Nowadays, in an era where there is almost constant optical satellite coverage over every point of the globe, it's impossible.

That depends but these ships have an enormous mount of missiles in VLS. You are talking about the S-300 on the water. Both the Kirovs and the Slavas provide a long range air cover for all the other ships, much like 055/052C/D today, while the Sovs fill in the medium range, like Type 054A.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Only the US Navy (today and in the past) and the Chinese Navy (today) and the USSR Navy (previously) were large enough to justify a specialised subclass of arsenal ships to complement their multi-role ships.

I think Arsenal Ship is probably the wrong term to use, given the US proposal was for a monster with 500 VLS cells.

Arsenal ships imply just the platform, but that only works in a low-risk environment and/or if it can be protected and used.

For the USSR, I think it was the lack of electronics.
Which affected the availability of cheap robust datalinks, sensors, guidance systems for missiles etc for a battle network for offboard targeting.

As for the US Navy, they never needed to worry about naval supremacy for the past 30 years.
And prior to that? I think part of it was the Carrier mafia which saw arsenal ships as a threat to the aircraft carrier.

For the Chinese Navy, they've only just started building their fleet, so they don't have enough ships to justify another class yet.

---

So the requirement is for a ship to sail quickly into a high-risk environment and launch missiles, then come back quickly to reload.
So this ship needs to defend itself to a degree with low-cost short-range air-defence. Submarines are also one of the biggest threats.
And this ship is the cheapest survivable platform for ASW helicopters to be located on, so it's logical to add this capability
So instead of Arsenal Ship, I think ASW Destroyer is a better term for what I'm describing.

Think the Spruance ASW destroyers (similar hull/size to the Ticonderoga cruiser) which could carry 69 anti-ship missiles in total, along with 2 ASW helicopters.

But the primary role is as missile carrier in the centre of a formation, rather than independent ASW on the fringes of the formation.

It has less electronics and weapons because it is expected to operate close to a multi-role destroyer, whilst the ASW helicopters have enough range/speed to cover the entire formation anyway, and can be directed by other ships.

Andy so arsenal ships are being "procured" only by fanbois, right?

 

[Tam]

A Battlecruiser would have a very small production run.
The production learning cost curve is especially steep for the first 4 ships, but has settled down after 10 ships.
We may only be looking at 4 Battlecruisers, which would be prime targets as capital ships.

In comparison, for the combination of (1x Type 55 multi-role) + (1x Type-55 Arsenal Ship / ASW destroyer)

1. The Type-55s would already have benefited from the production learning curve
2. The Type-55 Arsenal Ship / ASW destroyer has much lower operating costs.
a) Because that it has a much smaller crew and fewer systems to maintain
b) It spends most of its time in port in peacetime, because it is simply a platform to launch missiles and helicopters.
c) Labour costs aren't significant, especially with Chinese wages

So I reckon a Battlecruiser would be more expensive.

The Type 055 is overbuilt to be a cheap Arsenal ship, with four gas turbines and six 5MW generators.

Lets assume you reduce the generators to three each. The question next is whether you want to keep four GTs, or go with 2 GTs and 2 diesels, which will set the ship into a 052 instead. Lets say, keep the GTs so it can keep up with carrier groups.

Reduce the cost of the radars. Change the four large S-band AESA panels to a dual backed S-band AESA that is rotating. Sort of like a successor to the Type 382 Top Plate, and similar to the radar used on the Type 075, except two sides having S-band. So more or less like a SAMPSON. You put this radar on top of tall mast, so you can extend the radar horizon. Even using this radar, your range still extends to 350km, based on the Type 075's new radar. Might sound counter intuitive to some, but ships like the Kirov and the Slava uses the Top Plate predecessors like Top Steer or Top Pair, and is upgraded to the MR710 Top Plate. Meaning, these large ships have a search radar that performs on the same level as the Type 382 Top Plate on the 054A. So this search radar is sufficient for a RIF-M (naval S-300) complex. The phase arrays that comes with the RIF-M is fire control, not search and acquisition.

Below this rotating radar you put the CEC and ESM and immediately below that, a four faced X-band AESA for the fire control of guns and missiles which will still be in the integrated mast and set high above over the deckhouse. IFF bars are set on top of the bridge. The whole superstructure is lower because it no longer supports four large radar panels. Probably save like about 11 tons of weight? Weight decreases can be offset by adding more missiles, lets say from 112 to 128. Or go with a smaller missile load, and revert the power train to 2 GT and 2 diesels, so this becomes an extended 052. But the 052X is in number only, it won't have the large radars of the 052D.

So basically applying what I think is the electronics for the 054B/057, over a larger ship that may have 128 VLS.

Mechanical radars such as the 344, 364 and 366 will not be present.

The Type 517 or any VHS array, just shuck it, replaced with VLS. On the 052D, you have two Type 366-2 globes which act as ESM to assist in anti-ship targeting, you don't remove that too, as they are under the Type 517M. So that space is cleared for VLS. The SATCOM is placed on the hanger, just use one instead of two since the SATCOM knows has a better view of both horizons where it sits and is not blocked by a radar.

So this ship is how I see it if I will do your idea. This may still be an 055 even if downgraded, if you choose to retain the 4 gas turbines. Or it maybe called an 052X if you use two GT and 2 diesel CODAG configuration. On the latter, I will take the space over where the dual SATCOMs, Type 517M and two Type 366-2 ESM is, and turn that into VLS, raising it to 80 VLS. So this ship is an 80 VLS ship with the electronics and sensors of Type 054B (or 057 if this new frigate will have a gas turbine). Add two hangers for ASW. The 054B level electronics, radars and sensors will still be at a high level --- comparable to let's say, the Admiral Gorshkov which is currently Russia's leading edge right now, European frigates, or even a Type 45 destroyer as they have both a dual backed small S-band radar set on the high mast. In silhouette this might appear more like a highly modernized 052B with an integrated mast. I hesitate to call this an arsenal ship, this is more like a mid line or budget destroyer, and our cost won't be much higher than an advanced frigate like 054B.

The ship can pass off control of launched HQ-9s to other ships like 055 and 052C/D, so this ship is firing missiles like it belongs to other ships.

 

[AndrewS]

It would result in a greater cost of missile / per shipboard electronics. On the other hand, if you create a larger cruiser with the 055's radars and electronics, you get a lower cost of missile / ship electronics. All three ships will still have the same sensor performance.

Yes, that is true at the level of the individual ship for a single engagement.
A single set of expensive radars and electronics can be used over a greater number of missiles.

But at a strategic level in a high-intensity campaign - both US Navy and Chinese Navy destroyers will run out of missiles very quickly.
You can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation yourself.
Then you end up with a large number of ships without enough missiles.

So on a strategic level in a protracted campaign, you want to spend less on each Destroyer and reduce the number of VLS cells.
That allows you to buy more missiles in total, although you can't launch as many at a single time.

Maybe you didn't get what I said and in many of my previous posts.

Additional and secondary search radars and ESM sensors can be placed on top of the mast which will extend the radar horizon.

While every ship can put some sensor on the top, there is also a difference in the quality of these sensors that can determine quicker detection, reaction, and tracking quality against sea skimming threats. Generally on this side, I would prefer using AESA, like on the Type 055 with the small X-band AESA on its top mast, than using a mechanical radar, like on the Type 052C/D's Type 364 which is the spherical dome on top of the mast. Of course, this is not as cheap. Note that I am >NOT< referring to the Type 346A or 346B main AEGIS like radar panels on the 052D and 055.



That's not enough. The 055 going all AESA is more than just about supporting long ranged SAMs. The AESAs, including secondary and tritiary radars for gunnery, navigation, sea search, are also meant to be frequency and modulation agile, which can make them difficult to detect from an enemy ESM. The signals might appear like stray noise and won't trigger an alert. Being agile these radars are also much more difficult to counter with ECM.

As a whole, the 055 is much more survivable than the 052C/D in the context of a future highly electronic war scenario.

Yes, all your points about radars, ESM and horizons is correct, but also irrelevant.

Think about how operations are going to be conducted around the 2nd Island Chain.
Such fleets will be under complete EMCON silence, with all radars and electronics switched off.
So it doesn't matter if the Type-55 has better electronics and radars than a Type-52D or an Arsenal Ship or Missile-Carrying Destroyer.
Anti-ship missiles will be relying on offboard targeting.
And land-attack missiles will be pre-programmed.

So the only time when the superior radars of a Type-55 matters is when they have already been detected and are under attack.
And bluntly speaking, you want a Type-52D to have a larger radar signature in such a scenario.
Because it's better for a cheaper Type-52D to get hit instead of a Type-55.

Not enough. CEC means the ships are sharing sensor data in real time across a network. That means if you have six ships, your tactical display is showing the radar scanning of all six ships like as if they are one ship. If some ships are out of horizon from the other ships, the sensor output of Ship C would be passed to Ship B which is passed to Ship A and then vice versa. All this in real time and automated. In addition to these, all ships have multiple radars working on different spectrum, and plus you got aircraft and helicopters adding their sensors to the network. So bandwidth goes up fast.

The CEC on the 052C/D is located just on top of the bridge, while on the 055 it is on the mast set even higher than the X-band AESA radars there. So the higher these are set, the longer the range of radio line of sight one ship has with another. That in the addition the 055's sets appear to use phase arrays.

You cannot mathematically calculate the qualitative and synergistic advantages brought about by all the electronics on board the 055. It is on a completely different level over the 052C/D, and thus its better to refrain using a cost comparison which only makes sense if the ships are qualitatively on the same level.

Despite what you think, bandwidth doesn't actually go up fast with CEC / datalinks.

What is sharing sensor data in real time?

Remember that a ship will be doing all radar processing locally.
So they only need to share what are in effect tiny text messages with 3D locations and attributes.
You already get this with the equivalent of Link-16.

So what is CEC?

Eventually it is the ability to co-ordinate the entire response to the sensor data eg.
1. What is the optimum position and orientation for each platform in the defence/offensive network
2. Which missiles/guns from which ship/aircraft should be assigned to each target
3. Handing off control of the missiles from a launch platform to the targeting/control platform.

Again, this barely uses any data throughput, because the sensor and data processing all happens locally.

So the additional cost of adding CEC datalinks to a ship is marginal.
The hardware comprises a few computer cabinets and a few AESA datalink receivers/transmitters.
Most of the cost is comprised of software and algorithms.

And again, a fleet wants to spend most of its time under EMCON, and never wants to use its radars or outbound CEC.

I keep telling you, that they are not. They are meant to escort carriers like the Kuznetsov and the Varyag (turned Liaoning). They are also meant to lead other battle groups that include Slavas, Sovremennyys and Udalois.



That depends but these ships have an enormous mount of missiles in VLS. You are talking about the S-300 on the water. Both the Kirovs and the Slavas provide a long range air cover for all the other ships, much like 055/052C/D today, while the Sovs fill in the medium range, like Type 054A.

I would agree that Kirov Battlecruisers had a secondary mission to protect carriers and lead battlegroups.
But what is the point of putting in a nuclear reactor with unlimited range, if the other ships are conventionally powered?
It doesn't make any sense, unless you plan on the Battlecruiser operating independently.

The distance from Murmansk to the sea lanes between Europe and the USA is 5000km.

The Slava and Sovremenny only have a range of 5000km-6000km at 18knots, so they are reliant on a slow underway replenishment ship.
So why would you want a nuclear-powered Kirov, if it was going to be tethered to slower ships that need a replenishment ship anyway?

The Kuznetsov carriers and Udaloys are longer-ranged (15000km at 18knots approx).
So they could get to the NATO shipping lanes and back, although they probably would want a replenishment ship to accompany.
Again, why would you want a nuclear-powered Kirov, if it was going to be tethered to slower ships which include a replenishment ship?

In addition, you end up with a group mostly comprised of capital ships (Kuznetsov+Kirov) with only a few Udaloys as ASW escorts.
And a Kirov Battlecruiser is definitely a high-priority target, because its sheer size and armament make it a Capital Ship.

If the Soviet Navy really did plan on using Kirovs with non-nuclear ships - then the decision to make the Kirov nuclear-powered was a big mistake.

---
So let's have another look at how a Chinese AEGIS destroyer would be used.

1. Escorting another ship such as an aircraft carrier or amphibious warship.
We'll leave this scenario aside in the context of an arsenal ship or missile-carrying destroyer

2. Projecting power with VLS cells filled with antiship or land-attack missiles.
Likely around the Second Island Chain which is a high-risk environment, so the VLS cells need protection.
Call it 6 AEGIS air defence sets with xxx long-range SAMs as per your example.

Your argument is to build a bigger Destroyer or Battlecruiser with more VLS cells on those 6 platforms.
But if you do this, you either create a high-value Capital Ship in the middle of the formation, or you make the escort Destroyers (who now have more VLS cells) on the fringes a worthwhile target.
Remember that the purpose of the AEGIS sets is to protect the offensive missile-carrying VLS cells.

My argument is that it's better to put VLS-launched offensive missiles on additional cheaper platforms because:
1. antiship or land-attack missiles don't derive any direct benefit from being located on the same platform as the AEGIS radar.
2. you avoid concentrating more risk in existing ships, and make the fleet more distributed and survivable.
3. there's no reason you can't have an Arsenal Ship or survivable Missile-Carrying Destroyer that stays deep inside the formation, literally next to a Type-55. It literally becomes an extension of that Type-55 due to datalinks/CEC.
4. it should be cheaper to do this, even factoring in the cost of an additional hull.

 

[Biscuits]

I think the conception of using just missiles for land attack role is a bit outdated.

The current PLAN vessels are strictly focused towards defense, but the railgun program will be key towards China’s sustained land attack/invasion capability if it decides it needs one.

A stealthy “mini zumwalt” as big as a frigate (054A) or a light destroyer (052D) can carry 24-32ish VLS dedicated to land attack on it’s flanks. It’s main armament would be a single railgun housed in a stealthy turret. For self defense, it would give up a few cruise missiles for a handful of MRSAMs, otherwise having only it’s stealth and HQ-10 launchers to defend.

Such a ship would not be overly expensive due to small size, but it would carry a massive punch, bigger than any 112 VLS fleet destroyer.

In low danger scenario, they can operate independently and muscle out any single foreign navy ship attempting to encroach China. If open war breaks out, they could sail under the protection of red AEGIS vessels and act as main land attack.