055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Biscuits]

055s can compensate for that over the 052D, by being more automated. Theoretically possible, that the 055, despite being a larger ship, might have the same crew complement as the 052D. Maybe even less. You use advance automation to replace people. It is not so long ago, the same number of people you put into a 052D is crammed into a ship the size of a 051 Luda.

Slight delay of 055 next batch is likely in my opinion, for quality finishing and refinement. Remember that in the analogy of software versions, our current 055 is like 1.03 in the latest Nanchang form. In contrast the 052D is a highly debugged and refined vessel, like version 3.0. The quality finishing is not going to expand the 055's combat capability, but squash reliability issues, software and electronics related bugs, improve quality of life issues with the crew, lessons derived from the experience of years of the Nanchang's service, things that no engineer in the drawing board is able to anticipate. There is going to be a long list of them, likely in the hundreds, which they will have to deal with one by one and fix it in the drawing board.

I don't see any purpose now for a destroyer in the middle of the 055 and 052D. Its just an additional developmental and manufacturing headache. Making more 055 will lower its cost, with a highly trained production pipeline making them as smooth as a machine. Its only a matter of the 055's inevitable maturation with bug squashing and reliability improvements.

I also think that 055 will be grouped into two specialized flotillas, one in the north and one in the south. For now, there is no need to seed other destroyer divisions to train them. Previously, migrating non 052D equipped destroyer divisions took quite an effort (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 10th Destroyer Division). These DDs have older and even antique destroyers. You have to train them by seeding them with one new 052D for each (117, 161, 131, and 120 for those respective DDs), then use that ship to train the rest of the personnel for other 052Ds to come.

I'm pretty sure 055s are not that pricy anyways. Accounting for difference in corruption, they're probably similarly priced to Arleigh Burke flight 3s. You can easily keep a fairly large fleet with China's economy, even if military spending isn't raised.

 

[charles18]

It isn't trivial to 'just' move something like a DF-26 to 'some island', and it needs like various support vehicles and logistics, if it needs to fire more than 1 missile.

I agree this is not trivial.
However the idea cannot be ruled out.

 

[daifo]

Is there some rule that says you Must have an aircraft carrier to have a decent chance of surviving?
What if instead the PLA navy puts a bunch of DF-26 ASBM on some islands in the Pacific. So long as the destroyers stay within the combat radius of the DF-26 missiles they have protection.

Your island will not last too long with waves of b2 / b21 flowing over it's static position.

 

[charles18]

Your island will not last too long with waves of b2 / b21 flowing over it's static position.

Does being in a static position make you more likely to be hit than being on a mobile platform? If we're talking about ww2 the answer is yes. Back then targeting was done by human eye site. Humans can hit stationary targets much easier than moving targets.

However with today's technology we have computers that can perform 1 Trillion calculations per second and they're small enough to fit in your pant's pocket. A computer guided missile with fancy sensors can hit a moving target just as good as a static target. Being on a mobile platform today no longer gives you "protection" unlike back in WW2. Therefore being in a static position is no more of a liability than being on a mobile platform.

If being mobile no longer gives you "protection" then what does? answer: Anti-missile defense systems like decoys, SAM's and CIWS. You can also launch your own aircraft and hit your opponent before he hits you. We have to get rid of this idea that a static position is a huge liability that should be avoided. No offense but that is an outdated WW2 mindset.

 

[ougoah]

Lol yes but how would any defending position possibly weather hundreds of bombs and cruise missiles? Same fate for every regional US base and even carrier to be honest but stationing anything on those islands are things that will get destroyed no different to any regional American base with only a few dozen interceptors defending them.

Static just makes your position predictable and ordinance to be used can be of the less sophisticated variety.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Does being in a static position make you more likely to be hit than being on a mobile platform? If we're talking about ww2 the answer is yes. Back then targeting was done by human eye site. Humans can hit stationary targets much easier than moving targets.

Now is the same.
Static position can be precisely targeted by literally anything with GPS/INS, from any standoff necessary. There is essentially no such thing as kill chain.

 

[ashnole]

that's actually very nice they'd have it, makes a lot of sense. i wonder what kind of service it is able to support, certainly not gaming or streaming, but perhaps download a movie or two?

I heard they download and watch new episodes of K-dramas everyday. 'Alchemy of Souls' is their new favourite K-drama right now. Btw K-Pop is totally banned and anyone found listening to it is to be tried for treason.

 

[ashnole]

Well, maintaining a presence past the 2nd Island Chain also requires enough aircraft carriers so that surface ships have a decent chance of surviving.

And from what we know, a Type-055 is about half the cost of an Arleigh Burke. So why couldn't China just build more Type-055s instead of introducing a new mid-sized destroyer?

The current destroyers have 64 and 112 VLS cells respectively. A new mid-sized destroyer would presumably have about 88 VLS cells which is in the middle of this range.

Is it worth establishing an entirely new class of mid-sized destroyer?

A Type-055 would only be 30% larger in terms of displacement and VLS count than such a new mid-sized destroyer.
So you might as well build more Type-055s as it probably works out cheaper.

The 055 is essentially a Cruiser and will be used primarily as a Carrier Group Escort and therefore most of its 112 VLS cells are going to be filled with AAW missiles without a shadow of a doubt.

The 052D having only 64 VLS cells doesn't give you a large land attack missile load because AAW missiles will eat up most of the cells.

So you need something in between the 055 and the 052D, a sweet spot of some kind, something that has enough cells to comfortably carry missile loads for both AAW and land attack missions. Hence this requirement for a new mid-sized destroyer (~9000t).

 

[Gloire_bb]

The 055 is essentially a Cruiser and will be used primarily as a Carrier Group Escort and therefore most of its 112 VLS cells are going to be filled with AAW missiles without a shadow of a doubt.

World average for a dedicated AAW combatant is something 40-50ish - more doesn't make too much sense unless there are very special considerations. Neither mathematically, nor operationally, nor even economically (full 100+ large SAMs alone will cost you as much as a frigate).

Thus operationally it's much more prudent to leave as much as possible of your large-cell combatant with strike loadouts - it simply can spare more without becoming a weak link in AA grid, and more of its full-length cells will be used fully (unlike 052D, which is limited to just 16).

And of course, CSG needs strike missiles too - they're an integral part of its offensive potential.

So you need something in between the 055 and the 052D, a sweet spot of some kind, something that has enough cells to comfortably carry missile loads for both AAW and land attack missions. Hence this requirement for a new mid-sized destroyer (~9000t).

It is a 055 spot. 055s are important for CSGs, because they do things 052Ds do not (ABM, better CICs etc), but they aren't nailed to them either.

 

[Strangelove]