055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[AndrewS]

That is completely incorrect by a full 180 degrees. It is missiles by far and large that spurred ship size.

Ship size is inter-related to many things.

But specifically with regards to missiles, you have the size of the missiles AND the number of missiles required on a ship.
So yes, the size of the missiles required does have an impact.
But the number of missiles per ship is directly affected by the targeting requirements for each missile.

So in the first incarnation of AEGIS+Mk41 VLS, we saw the Ticonderoga with 128 cells coupled with a really expensive SPY-1 radar at the time.
Afterwards, they realised that they put in too many cells for the targeting systems to effectively use.
So there was a decision to reduce the number of VLS cells to 96cells with the following Arleigh Burke design
But both the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke are the same tonnage.

And given that we are entering the age of the battle network and offboard targeting, what matters is calculating the optimal number of ships/platforms required, because the missile size is fixed. Eg.

10 ships x 48cells
or
5 ships x96cells

 

[AndrewS]

Missiles will continue to spur warship growth, but . Bigger missiles and more of them. I am not completely sure if the current U-VLS can employ ballistic hypersonics, but a small increase in depth so it will be close to UKSK-M might be in order to allow for ballistic hypersonics. Another is the Type 055 currently employs 112 cells. 128 cells would increase its size obviously. If you want to lower the cost of each launch, you can freeze the sensor suite and raise the missile complement to as much as 200. This ship is more and more a bit of an Arsenal Ship, namely an Arsenal Ship wedded with the Type 055's sensors, which remains spec frozen.

At the level of an individual ship, a larger VLS inventory does lower the cost of each launch.

But not if missiles are expensive, you have a budget to work to, and we look at a strategic level
Eg.

Option A. Type-55 with 4 reloads. Missile Cost = $2M
Ship cost: $857M
Missile cost $896M (448missiles @ $2M)
Total Cost = $1753M

In comparison, for the same money, you can buy:

Option B. Type-52D with 9-10 reloads. Same missile cost
Ship cost $500M
Missile cost $1252M (626missiles @ $2M)

Your cost per missile is significantly lower with a smaller Type-52D, if you expect a longer campaign.

NB. 4 reloads is based on the PLARF estimates of launchers and missiles.

 

[Max Demian]

Ship size is inter-related to many things.

But specifically with regards to missiles, you have the size of the missiles AND the number of missiles required on a ship.
So yes, the size of the missiles required does have an impact.

I think Tam is right to point out that sensor capability is one the main drivers for a large surface combatant, such as the Type 055.

Several studies have painted the SPY-6 +15dB sensitivity improvement requirement over SPY-1D (V) from marginally adequate to inadequate in the missile defense role. The latter recommended a radar with at least +30dB (1000x) sensitivity improvement. That would require an array size that would dwarf even that installed on the Type 055.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Andy what exactly is your "reload" below

At the level of an individual ship, a larger VLS inventory does lower the cost of each launch.

But not if missiles are expensive, you have a budget to work to, and we look at a strategic level
Eg.

Option A. Type-55 with 4 reloads. Missile Cost = $2M
Ship cost: $857M
Missile cost $896M (448missiles @ $2M)
Total Cost = $1753M

In comparison, for the same money, you can buy:

Option B. Type-52D with 9-10 reloads. Same missile cost
Ship cost $500M
Missile cost $1252M (626missiles @ $2M)

Your cost per missile is significantly lower with a smaller Type-52D, if you expect a longer campaign.

NB. 4 reloads is based on the PLARF estimates of launchers and missiles.

 

[AndrewS]

I think Tam is right to point out that sensor capability is one the main drivers for a large surface combatant, such as the Type 055.

Several studies have painted the SPY-6 +15dB sensitivity improvement requirement over SPY-1D (V) from marginally adequate to inadequate in the missile defense role. The latter recommended a radar with at least +30dB (1000x) sensitivity improvement. That would require an array size that would dwarf even that installed on the Type 055.

I'm not disputing that a Type-55 sized ship is useful. But I doubt that an even larger ship would work out

 

[AndrewS]

Andy what exactly is your "reload" below

Imagine a ship fires off all its missiles and has to reload the VLS in port.

Call it one sortie per week from mainland China.

 

[TK3600]

I'm not disputing that a Type-55 sized ship is useful. But I doubt that an even larger ship would work out

My take: larger ship will not work now, but it could in future. As sensor needs grows, power consumption increase as rail gun and direct energy is used, ship would grow larger to accomodate. As of now, 52D is probably more efficient. 55 could already be overkill. But as the ship gets older, it needs some future proofing to support the new toys. That is why 055 is overbuilt. It may not be efficient today, but once future upgrade is considered it will be efficient. And the next ship would also be too large like 055, but it pays off in future.

 

[AndrewS]

My take: larger ship will not work now, but it could in future. As sensor needs grows, power consumption increase as rail gun and direct energy is used, ship would grow larger to accomodate. As of now, 52D is probably more efficient. 55 could already be overkill. But as the ship gets older, it needs some future proofing to support the new toys. That is why 055 is overbuilt. It may not be efficient today, but once future upgrade is considered it will be efficient. And the next ship would also be too large like 055, but it pays off in future.

I used to think the Chinese Navy should discontinue the smaller Type-52 hull, and just standardise on the larger Type-55 hull which is more future proofed.
In the long-run that should work out cheaper for a Global Navy, as there would still be lots of smaller Type-52 and Type-54 hulls available as well.

But the strategic situation has gotten much worse over the past 2 years, so I think it's better to focus spending on ships which have a greater benefit now rather than in the future.

So future proofing can be de-prioritised, because the standardised VLS means there's no risk of the Type-52D or Type-55 becoming obsolete during their lifespan.

 

[Tam]

At the level of an individual ship, a larger VLS inventory does lower the cost of each launch.

But not if missiles are expensive, you have a budget to work to, and we look at a strategic level
Eg.

Option A. Type-55 with 4 reloads. Missile Cost = $2M
Ship cost: $857M
Missile cost $896M (448missiles @ $2M)
Total Cost = $1753M

In comparison, for the same money, you can buy:

Option B. Type-52D with 9-10 reloads. Same missile cost
Ship cost $500M
Missile cost $1252M (626missiles @ $2M)

Your cost per missile is significantly lower with a smaller Type-52D, if you expect a longer campaign.

NB. 4 reloads is based on the PLARF estimates of launchers and missiles.

Only because your comparison is using a different ship with an inferior radar and sensor layout.

Assuming theoretically, you managed to fit the full sensor suite of the 055 into a 052X hull, making in effect, a mini-055 with 64 cells, the cost to launch each missile would be higher.

The electronics suite on the 055 is more than just for the SAMs. Additional X-band AESA. Phase arrays for the datalinks. Massive ECM arrays. LPI surface radars. This is a ship that is more undetectable, more survivable, more able to integrate data from a networked environment.

 

[TK3600]

I used to think the Chinese Navy should discontinue the smaller Type-52 hull, and just standardise on the larger Type-55 hull which is more future proofed.
In the long-run that should work out cheaper for a Global Navy, as there would still be lots of smaller Type-52 and Type-54 hulls available as well.

But the strategic situation has gotten much worse over the past 2 years, so I think it's better to focus spending on ships which have a greater benefit now rather than in the future.

So future proofing can be de-prioritised, because the standardised VLS means there's no risk of the Type-52D or Type-55 becoming obsolete during their lifespan.

Type 52D is produced much faster than type-55, so I think PLAN is doing exactly that.