Jura The idiot
General
wait Andy why your numbers of your reloads (= "sortie per week from mainland China"
#7355 AndrewS, Yesterday at 9:32 PM)
are "4" for "Type-55", and "9-10" for "Type-52D"??
did you pull this out of your keister?
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
#7355 AndrewS, Yesterday at 9:32 PM)
are "4" for "Type-55", and "9-10" for "Type-52D"??
did you pull this out of your keister?
I put a note at the bottom that 4 reloads is based on what we see with the PLARF estimates.
And point out that for the same money, a cheaper Type-52D allows for more missiles to be purchased with the savings. But that a Type-52D needs a longer time and more reloads to fire them all.
Jura The idiot
General
what estimates would those be? could you link them?
Figure below from the CBSA.
---
The DF-11/15/16 series seem to have 4-5 missiles (and salvoes) per launcher.
The others look like 1-2 salvoes per launcher.
So I've used 4 salvoes as the comparison, which is subject to all sorts of caveats.
But it illustrates the point that for a FIXED budget, you can buy the cheaper Type-52D and use the savings for more missiles.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL Andy what's the connection between the chart captioned 'POTENTIAL ASM PAYLOAD OF SOME PLAAF AIRCRAFT' and Chinese destroyers, exactly:
you posted Sierra
#7351 AndrewS, Yesterday at 8:38 PM
about, quote,
Type-55 with 4 reloads.
Type-52D with 9-10 reloads.
end of quote, and you kept repeating it as if your Sierra existed
Look at the RIGHT HAND side of the chart with the Missile counts Jura.
I know you aren't blind
Not just my construct anymore.
The CSBA argument (released on 31 Dec 2019) is for an 2000ton Arsenal Ship Destroyer (DDC) costing $300M with only 32 Mk41 VLS cells.
Even I'm surprised at how low this is, but they've done the modelling. Report below.
DDC Details below.
They're better at detailing the full rationale, since they're being paid to do this.
A mixed formation of DDGs with DDCs has multiple advantages over an all-DDG formation. First, depending on the cost of the DDC, the formation may cost less, enabling a net cost saving or a reallocation to other requirements. Second, it has both greater net missile capacity and higher missile availability, measured in firing cycles over 30 days, as the DDCs fire and rearm. The latter advantage stems from the fact that assuming the SAG of all DDGs would exhibit a relatively uniform firing rate, it would likely need to collectively retire upon reaching a minimum weapons capacity threshold (here modeled as 25 percent of VLS cells) in order to maximize protection. In contrast, the mixed formation could have its DDCs act as offensive shooters, while the DDGs would not expend munitions and could apportion a relatively higher proportion of munitions for defensive purposes. Employing a serial firing doctrine in which the first DDC in the formation fires until out of weapons then retires and the second DDC in formation takes its place firing, when the DDCs run out of munitions, they would individually retire to reload and then rejoin the formation. In a formation of six DDCs with a capacity of 32 VLS cell equivalents each, this cycle of DDCs would ensure that there is always at least one DDC per DDG-51 available to fire, as long as the formation’s operating radius does not exceed the shuttle times of its DDC. Third, the mixed formation may be able to risk reloading the less expensive DDCs at more contested support locations, like a forward port, where it might be more dangerous due to enemy action for large, high-value ships such as DDG-51 to dock for a prolonged period of time. Fourth, the larger number of platforms in the mixed formation may also be more difficult to comprehensively defeat than the formation of three DDG-51s. Augmenting surface combatant VLS magazines with offboard capacity is a promising concept that may increase operational effectiveness and logistical supportability.
The Chinese Navy has less need for the arsenal ship concept because it is operating really close to homeports and Chinese destroyers aren't as expensive. Plus only a modest number of Chinese Destroyers have actually been put into service, so it's a bit too early to be building arsenal ships to accompany them.
But the same logic still applies, which is to leverage a cheaper platform to supply missiles, whilst relying on a higher-end ship for protection and targeting. So what is the best balance between say:
1. Type-55 and Type-52D numbers
2. Type-55 and a notional Arsenal Ship Destroyer
3. Type-52D and a notional Arsenal Ship Destroyer
Last edited:
Type 055 doesn't seems to possess autocannon, any reasons why?
A lot of ships don't have 25mm Mk 38s either. Like all earlier Arleigh Burkes and Ticos. Practically every frigate in Europe. The Japanese Kongo and Atago classes. The S. Korean Sejong the Great.
Every ship on the PLAN doesn't have them, with the exception of the Type 056 and 056A which have a pair of 30mm autocannons. But on later ships, these were replaced by a pair of 14.5mm machine guns, allegedly these machine guns have an output similar to a 25mm. Ships larger than the 056 don't have these 30mm autocannons because these ships have CIWS which can be used against surface targets.
Launch what exactly. We don't know the ratio of 7 meter to 9 meter VLS the 052D has versus the 055, but the 055 may have a higher ratio of 9 meters cells from its 112 cells. That may enable the 055 to carry more of longer ranged, more offensive missiles. The 7 meter cells is used to launch SAMs and ASROCs, but with the potential for smaller subsonic cruise missiles, while the 9 meters cells have the potential for YJ-12 and YJ-18 caliber ASMs, larger, longer ranged cruise missiles and maybe even ballistic hypersonics.
That is why I am looking at this arsenal ship idea more closely.
An 80 cell arsenal ship may not sound much when you have a 64 cell and a 112 destroyer, but what if everyone of these 80 cells is a 9 meter deep VLS, versus the destroyers that carry a ratio of 7 vs. 9 meter deep cells with the ratio heavily in favor of the 7 meter. If the 055 has all 9 meter deep cells, then there is no need for this ship and the 055 itself is already a quasi arsenal ship.
- Status