055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[james smith esq]

Although an unpopular observation, it’s my opinion that, when engaging a USN Carrier Strike Force, even PLAN ship-borne AShMs (YJ-18s) would be of little use.[...]

Although I neglected the YJ-100 in this observation, my conclusion may still hold.

 

[Blitzo]

Although an unpopular observation, it’s my opinion that, when engaging a USN Carrier Strike Force, even PLAN ship-borne AShMs (YJ-18s) would be of little use. As I’ve suggested, regarding coastal-defense AShM batteries, I see it as being unlikely that a USN CSF would close inside of the combat radius of the F-18E, ~700 km. And, with the LRASM (range ~ 500 km) in the pipes and the fact that Carrier escorts Tomahawks have a range, supposedly, ~1700 km, this range could be extended out farther, especially in the initial stages of an engagement. As such, PLAN “high-intensity naval-air warfare” Task-Forces could, in fact, be reduced to single-role platforms, albeit AD2. This same limitation might obtain in engagements with future JMSDF Carrier Strike Forces, as well, as the combat radius their F-35B is ~ 800 km.

That's not an unpopular observation -- any YJ-18s or other AShMs that 055 (or indeed 052D) would embark as part of a high intensity air-naval engagement loadout, would be poorly used against an opposing well defended CSG if used in isolation.

In order to address this, I’d like to see the development of an AShBM/Hypersonic Vehicle platform minimized to fit these deep/strike cells and an air-launched supersonic AShM with a range of ~480 km. Although inferior to the proposed-range of the LRASM, this range, combined with supersonic speed, should be sufficient to constitute an equalizing threat.

This is getting too off topic now, but I will conclude just by saying that the rumored YJ-XX is a AShBM/HGV type system meant to be launched from the 9m UVLS and has been stated as one of the intended weapons for at least 055 by some individuals in the grapevine with good track records.

There is one more to that, though.
VLR SAMs themselves are becoming viable strike(ASuW/Land Attack) weapons, permitting potentially more homogenous loads.
So going "all big" may actually become a sufficient reason to justify a clearly larger ship.
With this in mind - I, however, don't personally think that PLAN for some time will go for such a missile that won't fit in normal 052Ds, as even "current" size is clearly big as it is(it allows for 40n6-class weapons).

So, for now:
1. Flexibility of loads(any empty cell can take anything you like).
2. Future-proofing.
3. Wastly increased strike capability(perhaps equivalent to a whole flotilla of smaller combatants).

Yes, but I grouped that just together with "greater payload flexibility," nor is it something exclusive to VLR SAMs. Also, it's not like MR SAMs do not also have the potential to act as viable medium range strike weapons against small ship/boat targets.

My underlying point is that trying to go "all big" with a ship's entire VLS complement does involve tradeoffs and isn't something that one can just slot into an existing ship.

 

[Tam]

It takes more than 40 minutes for a subsonic missile traveling at Mach 0.6 to reach 500km. A hypersonic missile at Mach 5 will do it in less than 5 minutes. There is no question which is the future of warfare here.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Also, it's not like MR SAMs do not also have the potential to act as viable medium range strike weapons against small ship/boat targets.

They don't have the potential to do it all and still carry a heavy warhead. Heavy=potentially universal.
Heavy SAMs are now reaching the point where they are easily making the presence of light ASCMs on the same ship redundant (allowing to simply remove them from the ship).
SM-6 intends to become just that(SAM+terminate phase ABM+Long range ballistic ASCM), for example.

They fly much further, they carry similar warheads, they can prosecute the same targets - and they're still just as deadly to planes and to missiles in the terminal phase. +universality adds numbers on its own.

 

[nlalyst]

It takes more than 40 minutes for a subsonic missile traveling at Mach 0.6 to reach 500km. A hypersonic missile at Mach 5 will do it in less than 5 minutes. There is no question which is the future of warfare here.

The future will be both. Flying at hypersonic speeds is significantly less efficient than flying at subsonic speeds. We would be looking at a trade-off of close to 10 subsonic missiles for 1 hypersonic missile for equal weight and range.

Hypersonics are very difficult to combine with stealth, as the missiles are big, fly high (>27km) and run hot. For a 500km range surface-to-surface missile that would allow the enemy to have a rather good estimate of the shooter's location since they will be able to track it as soon as it launches.

 

[Tam]

They don't have the potential to do it all and still carry a heavy warhead. Heavy=potentially universal.
Heavy SAMs are now reaching the point where they are easily making the presence of light ASCMs on the same ship redundant.
SM-6 IB intends to become just that, for example.

They fly far further, they carry similar warheads, they can prosecute the same targets - and they're still just as deadly to planes and to missiles in the terminal phase.

HQ-9 weighs heavier than a Tomahawk and with a 180kg warhead, that's practically the same as the warhead weight of a YJ-83.

The danger of a SAM prosecuting a ship is that it may choose to prosecute the ship instead of the intended target like a missile or plane. Worst, it may home in on an allied or friendly ship.

You definitely need some mode switch here, set by the fire control computer before launch, so that if the missile is in ASM mode, it won't go after planes, and if its on the SAM mode, it won't go after boats and ships.

 

[Tam]

The future will be both. Flying at hypersonic speeds is significantly less efficient than flying at subsonic speeds. We would be looking at a trade-off of close to 10 subsonic missiles for 1 hypersonic missile for equal weight and range.

Hypersonics are very difficult to combine with stealth, as the missiles are big, fly high (>27km) and run hot. For a 500km range surface-to-surface missile that would allow the enemy to have a rather good estimate of the shooter's location since they will be able to track it as soon as it launches.

Stealth tends to be limited to high frequency, the longer the band, the less effective it is, and practically useless at UHF/VHF lengths which long range OTH radars use. If you have too much time, over 40 minutes, the subsonic might be tracked by AEW and shot down by fighters before it even reaches the radius of the surface air defense.

Hypersonics generate some stealth --- the air and shockwave around the hypersonic creates plasma that does wonderful things to radio reflection, such as interfering and absorbing it. However it also makes guidance of the missile difficult and so is communication to it. Even if you can track the missile, it is still impossible to shoot it down because either the SAM lacks the speed for it, or when it does, the SAM will burn up in the atmosphere.

 

[nlalyst]

Hypersonics generate some stealth --- the air and shockwave around the hypersonic creates plasma that does wonderful things to radio reflection, such as interfering and absorbing it. However it also makes guidance of the missile difficult and so is communication to it. Even if you can track the missile, it is still impossible to shoot it down because either the SAM lacks the speed for it, or when it does, the SAM will burn up in the atmosphere.

Why would it be impossible to shoot it down? There are plenty of SAMs that can target ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. Even SRBM can attain speeds up to Mach 9.5.

 

[ougoah]

Why would it be impossible to shoot it down? There are plenty of SAMs that can target ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. Even SRBM can attain speeds up to Mach 9.5.

He probably means the existing SAMs being used on ships, given the context of the post. But it's not impossible surely.

Ballistic missiles in terminal phase that are well into hypersonic speeds are different to glide vehicles. Ballistic target has very predictable trajectory and if it is possible to intercept the target (a question of range and time), any SAM potentially could perform terminal phase intercept. If we consider that as an academic question only. Tam was referring to an HGV which would not have a predictable flight path and require an intercepting missile to have significantly more energy because of how missiles work.

Since the interceptor will be using its own radar or fed information by another radar to "home" in on its HGV target, every single time the HGV turns, the missile will have to recalculate an interception point and do its internal probability analysis on where to look for the target next (or receive data on that from another source) and where the newest most probable interception point will be. This might happen dozens or hundreds of times every second if the HGV is moving around. There might be new software or "machine learning" solutions to optimise interceptors.

We know China has performed at least one successful interception of HGV not too long ago so it is indeed possible for new interceptors developed for the specific task of intercepting HGVs. Can existing SAMs intercept HGVs? They're certainly not made to. Most struggle with intercepting easy targets. Turkish trials nearly 10 years back, Patriot and S-300 both failed. Even though the HQ-9 export version scored all intercepts, the targets given were probably much less challenging than a ballistic missile, a HGV would be far more out of reach.

 

[Akame]

Any news about the HQ-26 missile? It was tested in 2017. When will it appear?