055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
The first 055, 101 after entering service in 2020 participated in 5 large excerise/long range patrols. I think we can assume PLAN are happy with the overall system.With 055 and 052D in larger numbers, I think we will see PLAN performing more and more long range patrols.

I don't see the point of railgun, or immediate need for more 055. I would like to see IEP on the new batch 055a, making the it more flexible to divert power to the powerful sensor suit and also for potential future upgrade.
Cant remember exactly from where, but I do believe the next batch of 055s are gonna have IEP? (hm, aren't it likely they get something like 055a or b then?).

Definitely something that is in the works (and something future designs and version upgrades will have at some point in time).
 

Kich

Junior Member
Registered Member
With the remaining 2 members of the 1st batch of 8 Type 055 destroyers slated for entering service by the end of this year (2022), we all know that China has confirmed order for another batch of 8 Type 055 destroyers.

Any information on how the 2nd batch of Type 055s would be like?

Will the 2nd batch be the same as the 1st batch (with/without slight modifications/upgrades), or will they be equiped with newer weapon systems (such as electromagnetic railguns and directed energy weapons)?

Speaking of which, there has been no updates/news regarding China's railgun project after the reveal of the test platform several years ago it seems...
With the way the geopolitics are moving, China simply needs more numbers of 052D and 055 to have more VLS cell count. Any major modification should be made after sufficient numbers are built, like maybe on the third batch of the 055.

But we might see some little modification like a universal funnel cap design or none.

Railgun is not as important and in fact I think a medium quad packed SAM--the 555 is more important. Guided missiles will run out fast in any medium-high intensity conflict. These ships needs a back-up to the HQ-10 to increase the VLS load outs.

This is Off-topic but I wonder if PLAN will ever pursue that submersible or semi-submersible arsenal concept ship. It will open a lot more possibilities for the planners in terms of VLS load out for other ships.
 

type055

New Member
Registered Member
The follow-up 8 ships of the 055 destroyer will start construction this year, and the two shipyards are still Jiangnan and Dalian. It is reported that Hudong will also join the 055 production enterprise, but it is not very likely. You must know that Hudong is moving. The 055 destroyer No. 101 will participate in various military missions throughout the year in 2021, so the PLA is satisfied with the performance of the 055, so there is no problem that the PLA requires modification. The new 8 055s will not be very different from the previous 055. This is Click to know0
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
This is Off-topic but I wonder if PLAN will ever pursue that submersible or semi-submersible arsenal concept ship. It will open a lot more possibilities for the planners in terms of VLS load out for other ships.

The concept of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships for the PLAN has always been a curious case for me.

Instead of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships, why not just:

1. Purpose-build surface-based Arsenal Ship, such as a larger version of the Kirov-class battlecruiser with hundreds of VLS missile cells; or

2. Purpose-build SSGNs, akin to the first 4 members of the Ohio-class SSGNs after their SSGN conversion; or

3. Convert the Type 094 SSBNs into SSGNs, similar in functionality as the first 4 member of the Ohio-class SSBNs, and let the newer Type 096 SSBNs armed with JL-3 SLBMs with truly sufficient range taking over the sea-based nuclear deterrent role?

What are the benefits of having submersible or semi-submersible arsenal ships? I just don't get it. Moreover, having the capability of semi-submersible/submersible just adds to the complexity and challenges to the technicalities and engineering of said arsenal ships, in my opinion.

So why not just stick with either a dedicated surface platform, or a dedicated underwater platform?
 

Attachments

  • 4122331400000578-0-image-a-3_1496689549343.jpg
    4122331400000578-0-image-a-3_1496689549343.jpg
    32.4 KB · Views: 109

latenlazy

Brigadier
The concept of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships for the PLAN has always been a curious case for me.

Instead of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships, why not just:

1. Purpose-build surface-based Arsenal Ship, such as a larger version of the Kirov-class battlecruiser with hundreds of VLS missile cells; or

2. Purpose-build SSGNs, akin to the first 4 members of the Ohio-class SSGNs after their SSGN conversion; or

3. Convert the Type 094 SSBNs into SSGNs, similar in functionality as the first 4 member of the Ohio-class SSBNs, and let the newer Type 096 SSBNs armed with JL-3 SLBMs with truly sufficient range taking over the sea-based nuclear deterrent role?

What are the benefits of having submersible or semi-submersible arsenal ships? I just don't get it. Moreover, having the capability of semi-submersible/submersible just adds to the complexity and challenges to the technicalities and engineering of said arsenal ships, in my opinion.

So why not just stick with either a dedicated surface platform, or a dedicated underwater platform?
Cost, scalability, and attritability. A dedicated arsenal ship that’s basically a modular slave to another full capable combat ship ought to cost a whole lot less than a full blown large destroyer or a nuclear submarine. The biggest costs to warships is not the mechanical functions of the weapons and the ship, but the manned stuff and smart stuff.
 

Kich

Junior Member
Registered Member
The concept of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships for the PLAN has always been a curious case for me.

Instead of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships, why not just:

1. Purpose-build surface-based Arsenal Ship, such as a larger version of the Kirov-class battlecruiser with hundreds of VLS missile cells; or

2. Purpose-build SSGNs, akin to the first 4 members of the Ohio-class SSGNs after their SSGN conversion; or

3. Convert the Type 094 SSBNs into SSGNs, similar in functionality as the first 4 member of the Ohio-class SSBNs, and let the newer Type 096 SSBNs armed with JL-3 SLBMs with truly sufficient range taking over the sea-based nuclear deterrent role?

What are the benefits of having submersible or semi-submersible arsenal ships? I just don't get it. Moreover, having the capability of semi-submersible/submersible just adds to the complexity and challenges to the technicalities and engineering of said arsenal ships, in my opinion.

So why not just stick with either a dedicated surface platform, or a dedicated underwater platform?
1. A large surface-based ship will be less stealthy than a submersible or semi-submersible vessel. Siting on the ocean surface, it won't even be able to hide its thermal signature and might be detected visually from space. And such a large warship will be seen like a capital ship and will require escort protection since it can't have unnecessary large radars and SAM system to defend itself. Those items will make the vessel expensive and even inefficient compared to large DDG or even a cruiser (which PLAN doesn't operate).
An arsenal concept is an offensive system and should just be based around VLS cell count, bringing more to the fight. Almost like Land-based MLRS systems but with smarter munitions like cruise missiles or hyper sonic missiles. Attaching too many requirements won't make sense and due to their offensive capabilities, you don't want to make them too vulnerable so they will require primarily their stealth for defense.

2. PLAN can't build purposely SSGN until they have perfected the next SSN and SSBN vessels. I guess when they are comfortable with the Type 095 and 096 designs.

3. It won't be smart to convert the Type 094 SSBNs because PLAN needs all the nuclear deterrent it can get and it will take a long time before they build sufficient numbers of the Type 096.

I don't want us to really get off topic but I think the major issue for the arsenal concept will be its propulsion which will decide its cost and effectiveness.
 

56860

Senior Member
Registered Member
ywx2jc6s8yl41.jpg


055 is freaking massive
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Large destroyer Nanchang holds live-fire cross-regional drills

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Published: Mar 28, 2022 10:08 PM


Photo taken on Jan. 12, 2020 shows the ceremony of the commissioning of the Nanchang, China's first Type 055 guided-missile destroyer, in the port city of Qingdao, east China's Shandong Province. The commission of Nanchang marks the Navy's leap from the third generation to the fourth generation of destroyers, according to a statement from the Navy. (Photo by Li Tang/Xinhua)

Photo taken on Jan. 12, 2020 shows the ceremony of the commissioning of the Nanchang, China's first Type 055 guided-missile destroyer, in the port city of Qingdao, east China's Shandong Province. The commission of Nanchang marks the Navy's leap from the third generation to the fourth generation of destroyers, according to a statement from the Navy. (Photo by Li Tang/Xinhua)

China's first 10,000 ton-class large destroyer, the Nanchang, recently conducted a series of live-fire cross-regional drills under realistic combat scenarios, in a move that analysts said on Monday prepared the warship for some impactful far sea exercises likely to come later this year.

Forming a flotilla together with the Type 052D destroyer Urumqi, the Type 055 large destroyer Nanchang, attached to the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Northern Theater Command Navy, recently sailed across multiple sea regions for drills under realistic combat scenarios, establishing simulated battlefield environments and multiple emergency situations in the process, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Monday.

During the drills, the two warships carried out live-fire shooting on mock vessel targets using their main guns, and then used their close-in weapon systems to intercept incoming mock hostile aircraft, CCTV reported.

The flotilla then simulated a scenario in which the Nanchang suffered a hull breach, leading to a water leak and fire outbreak. The sailors performed drills to rescue the wounded, extinguish the fire and seal the breach in a successful damage control exercise, the report said.

The drills were held for three days, and training sessions were held throughout, Captain Liang Dong, vice skipper of the Nanchang, said on CCTV.

Having entered PLA Navy service more than two years ago as China's first 10,000 ton-class large destroyer - which is known in the US as a cruiser - the Nanchang has already formed combat capability and it participated in impactful far sea operations last year, a Chinese military expert told the Global Times on Monday, requesting anonymity.

These operations included
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in September 2021 and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that saw the warship circumnavigate Japan in October 2021, according to media reports.

It is natural that the Nanchang would continue to join similar operations this year, and the latest drills would be a good warm-up, the expert predicted.

Foreign media reports suggest that China has launched eight Type 055 large destroyers.

The Type 055 is the world's best destroyer in terms of comprehensive capabilities, and the continued commissioning of ships in this class will contribute to the PLA Navy's combat capabilities, Shi Hong, executive chief editor of the Chinese magazine Shipborne Weapons, told the Global Times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top