055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[sinophilia]

It’s not a dick wagging contest. Stealthier, better radar, better missiles, better range of suitable mission specific missiles, and better integration is worth a lot more than having a handful more VLS cells. An ostentatious determination to one up everyone else by some metric that is secondary to true combat effectiveness actually bespeaks of corrupt politically driven unprofessionalism.

Very concise and well-written comment (and the principle makes sense), but just one sticking point. Is there actually any proof that Type 055 being stealthier or having a better radar or having better missiles or better integration came at the cost of VLS cells? Is there a 1:1 takeaway here? Or is this just an assumption.

Also better in all those categories compared to what? Would you say the Type 055 is better in all or most of those aforementioned categories to the newest US warships being commissioned? Because those ships (Flight 3 Burke) have a higher number of VLS per square foot as well.

 

[AndrewS]

KDX-III and Ticos which are thousands of tons less displacement have that many. There's 0 excuse for 055 to be under-armed in missiles. I still remember on 2017 launch day when people were surprised that it wasn't 128.

I recall writings that the Ticos had too many VLS to actually be used, which is why the Arleigh Burkes only have 96 VLS cells.

But if it makes you feel better, the Type-055 VLS cells are twice the size of the Mk41 VLS on the KDX and Ticos.
That is based on 85x85cm and a depth of 9m, versus the Mk41 at 61x61cm and 7m depth

 

[AndrewS]

Very concise and well-written comment (and the principle makes sense), but just one sticking point. Is there actually any proof that Type 055 being stealthier or having a better radar or having better missiles or better integration came at the cost of VLS cells? Is there a 1:1 takeaway here? Or is this just an assumption.

Also better in all those categories compared to what? Would you say the Type 055 is better in all or most of those aforementioned categories to the newest US warships being commissioned? Because those ships (Flight 3 Burke) have a higher number of VLS per square foot as well.

I expect the Type-055 to have a much larger VLS volume than the Flight 3 Burkes. That is very useful for longer ranged missiles.

As mentioned previously, the Mk57 VLS was supposed to be new standard with the Zumwalts. Each Mk57 cell is bigger than the Mk41 but not as big as the Chinese UVLS

 

[clockwork]

You're right that each missile in the 055 may be more capable than a US missile (though not by much, the US UVLS's are really no slouch...) But most of the time cells would still be single-packed so the 055 would be at a numerical disadvantage still. I'd definitely rather have a 30-round magazine in my rifle instead of 25 shots even if each bullet were slightly smaller. Also the point is it's so easy to fit in another row or two on the VLS module so why not. I don't see how it couldn't be accomplished by at most adding a few m to overall ship length, if it couldn't be done by just making better use of existing space.

And nobody is denying that the 055 is overall a significantly better ship than the Sejongs/Ticos.

 

[Blitzo]

Very concise and well-written comment (and the principle makes sense), but just one sticking point. Is there actually any proof that Type 055 being stealthier or having a better radar or having better missiles or better integration came at the cost of VLS cells? Is there a 1:1 takeaway here? Or is this just an assumption.

There is no inherent "relationship" between those features described and the number of VLS cells.

Some people (not saying yourself or Richard Santos) think about ships (or aircraft or tanks or whatever for that matter) think about the various subsystems and capabilities of a ship as if there are "points" to spend on a given subsystem/capability like armament, signature reduction, combat management, sensors etc, and that if a ship is more potent in one of those domains then it must necessarily be less capable in others.

All products are the result of compromise between competing requirements yes, but not in such a straight forward way.

 

[AndrewS]

You're right that each missile in the 055 may be more capable than a US missile (though not by much, the US UVLS's are really no slouch...) But most of the time cells would still be single-packed so the 055 would be at a numerical disadvantage still. I'd definitely rather have a 30-round magazine in my rifle instead of 25 shots even if each bullet were slightly smaller. Also the point is it's so easy to fit in another row or two on the VLS module so why not. I don't see how it couldn't be accomplished by at most adding a few m to overall ship length, if it couldn't be done by just making better use of existing space.

And nobody is denying that the 055 is overall a significantly better ship than the Sejongs/Ticos.

Reloading isn't too big of an issue in the Western Pacific as ports are nearby in China.

I've seen an analysis that says the Arleigh Burke has one of the highest complexity ratios of any surface ship, and it would benefit from a larger hull volume like the Kongos built in Japan. That would reduce construction and maintenance costs overall.

If the Type-055 is 13000 tonnes loaded, that sounds about right for 112 of the larger UVLS cells, plus some growth margin

 

[AndrewS]

You're right that each missile in the 055 may be more capable than a US missile (though not by much, the US UVLS's are really no slouch...) But most of the time cells would still be single-packed so the 055 would be at a numerical disadvantage still. I'd definitely rather have a 30-round magazine in my rifle instead of 25 shots even if each bullet were slightly smaller. Also the point is it's so easy to fit in another row or two on the VLS module so why not. I don't see how it couldn't be accomplished by at most adding a few m to overall ship length, if it couldn't be done by just making better use of existing space.

And nobody is denying that the 055 is overall a significantly better ship than the Sejongs/Ticos.

Plus if you're talking about antiship missiles, having a longer ranged missile than your opponent is better.

 

[InfamousMeow]

You're right that each missile in the 055 may be more capable than a US missile (though not by much, the US UVLS's are really no slouch...) But most of the time cells would still be single-packed so the 055 would be at a numerical disadvantage still. I'd definitely rather have a 30-round magazine in my rifle instead of 25 shots even if each bullet were slightly smaller. Also the point is it's so easy to fit in another row or two on the VLS module so why not. I don't see how it couldn't be accomplished by at most adding a few m to overall ship length, if it couldn't be done by just making better use of existing space.

And nobody is denying that the 055 is overall a significantly better ship than the Sejongs/Ticos.

A difference of 16 VLS is not that significant. That numerical disadvantage won't even translate to disadvantages in actual combat. For surface to air combat, radar is the actual limiting factor not the number of SAMs hosted on the warships. For AShMs, NOTHING matters more than the actual capabilities of the missiles at hand. Bullets in rifle really is not a good analogy to DDGs. Also, why so caught up with the random number of 128 VLS? Why not 8, 16, or even 24 more on top of 128? If 055s have thousands of tons more displacement than those 128 VLS ships, then by your reasoning, there is no excuse to not have 136, 144, or even 152 VLS on 055s, right? There are obviously more things to consider than just the number of VLS, I am fairly certain that PLAN knows where it is going with each iteration of their technologies. If 055 comes into fruition before those DDGs, then 112 VLS, rather than 128 VLS, will be the gold standards. If, for some reason, there is a DDG of 136 VLS, then people will be touting 136 VLS as the gold standards. Follow the science, not the fad.

 

[Gloire_bb]

And yes, fixing the VLS count at least to 128 as well

Anything wrong with number 112?

p.s. since so many people have already mentioned this - a few cents to differentiate.
The number of cells isn't that many people often seem it is - it's but a calculation (threshold/desirable) for given requirements - e.g., number/type of surface to air engagements, desired strike capability, desired variety, and so on and so forth.
It is a calculated value.
VLS cells themselves aren't cool or anything - they're literally just boxes for launch containers with weapons.

 

[clockwork]

For surface to air combat, radar is the actual limiting factor not the number of SAMs hosted on the warships.

That does make sense and assuages me somewhat, though I was thinking more a sustained combat scenario against a large number of enemy forces (i.e. US + allied navies), where the total VLS capacity comes into play, which actually might happen sooner than you think, I mean missiles get launched pretty fast in a high-intensity engagement. Though I guess in this case the more important number would be the total number of VLS cells across the fleet, so China can make up for a lower number per ship by just building more 055s + 052Ds. But you'd also need to consider cost-effectiveness, i.e. marginal cost per VLS cell, and it seems to me to be much cheaper to squeeze in more VLS into each ship than to build more whole new ships with all the other subsystems and costs they entail, for the same total number. But Russia is much worse than the PLAN in this regard, with a bunch of frigates/corvettes carrying a very small number of UVLS each.

I'm not fixated on the 128 number, obviously even higher is better, but the larger Chinese VLS diameter does help explain the lack of parity.

I agree that Chinese missiles, especially AShM, are much more capable each (though the gap may be dwindling as the US deploys their new longer ranged stealth ones)

055s can't easily go into port and reload in wartime, suggesting that seems pretty silly.

Does anyone know who has the relative advantage in terms of detection range and so on for the 055's Type 346B vs the new SPY-6?