055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[charles18]

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.

There are two variables that must be calculated in every decision:
1. what is the cost
2. what is the value
A target becomes vulnerable not because it is in a static position. It becomes vulnerable if the cost of destroying it is much cheaper than the value the enemy gains in its destruction.
A target does not become invulnerable because it is on a mobile platform. It becomes invulnerable if the cost of destroying it is far greater than the value the enemy gains in its destruction.

 

[kbecks]

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).

With all this talk about VLS, i'm wondering what opinions are on the 24x missile HHQ-10 systems on both 052D and 055. Seems they provide a useful final layer of defense against missiles and drones, though certainly don't give long range capability needed for true anti-air coverage. Seems this is still useful in reducing need to use an expensive and VLS-occupying missile when possible.

I believe some Arleigh Burke's have the roughly equivalent SeaRAM, though with only 11x RAMs, but as previously mentioned quad-packing is a huge advantage. That said, how difficult would it be for PLAN to add quad pack capability into existing ships? Seems easier and more effective than developing a whole new destroyer.

 

[Blitzo]

With all this talk about VLS, i'm wondering what opinions are on the 24x missile HHQ-10 systems on both 052D and 055. Seems they provide a useful final layer of defense against missiles and drones, though certainly don't give long range capability needed for true anti-air coverage. Seems this is still useful in reducing need to use an expensive and VLS-occupying missile when possible.

I believe some Arleigh Burke's have the roughly equivalent SeaRAM, though with only 11x RAMs, but as previously mentioned quad-packing is a huge advantage. That said, how difficult would it be for PLAN to add quad pack capability into existing ships? Seems easier and more effective than developing a whole new destroyer.

A quadpackable MR-SAM is already known to be in advanced stages of development for UVLS equipped ships (055 and 052D, and future ships with UVLS).
And at Zhuhai last year they showed the FM-3000N, a quadpackable ARH guided SAM with 45km range for naval use -- we are unsure if the PLAN's quadpackable MR-SAM will be FM-3000N, or if the FM-3000N was merely a parallel development or failed competitor that is now cleared for export.


Either way, it's been known since the early/mid 2010s that a quadpackable SAM would be on the cards for the UVLS equipped ships -- multi-packing was on the GJB standards for it.
So it's just a matter of waiting.

 

[Gloire_bb]

With all this talk about VLS, i'm wondering what opinions are on the 24x missile HHQ-10 systems on both 052D and 055. Seems they provide a useful final layer of defense against missiles and drones, though certainly don't give long range capability needed for true anti-air coverage. Seems this is still useful in reducing need to use an expensive and VLS-occupying missile when possible.

HHQ-10, much like SeaRAM), is equipped with a dual seeker(imaging IR+passive radar).
I.e. it's arguably a very dedicated system against ARH missiles - for everything else its seeker setup is very suboptimal.
p.s. also, while we don't really know HHQ-10 prices, SeaRAM missiles are actually goddamn expensive.

 

[Tam]

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).

A third destroyer class in addition to two existing destroyer classes will end up becoming more expensive than the 055. Do realize that the 055's cost curve has gone down after 8 ships. A smaller 9000 ton destroyer at the start of its production, first of two ships for example, can still end up being more expensive ship wise compared to the 055 when the 055 reaches its 16th ship.

The best reasons to justify a new destroyer class would be in the basis of cost effectiveness.

1. Be the replacement of the 052D. This will be the new light destroyer and the 052D line is ended.

I can imagine some ways to make it possible.

2. Namely the same size or slightly bigger than the 052D. A ship the size of the 052D can hold 80 missiles (64 + 16) in theory if you eliminate the deck real estate used for the Type 517/520 VHF radar array. I believe that its possible to make the VHF radar array redundant by using the 055's more powerful Type 346B radar instead of the 052D's 346A radar. Clearing the VHF array gives you more deck space for an addition 16 VLS cells.

3. Instead of four gas turbines, the propulsion would be two gas turbines and two diesels, with CODAG. Essentially an improved version of the 052D's power train.

4. I don't think 96 is needed. 80 would be enough to keep the size and cost down, and by then you have quad pack available for the VLS. Also, all of the 80 will be of the 9 meter length rather than having a 7/9 meter ratio. You have four banks of the VLS in front of the superstructure, and six banks of the VLS at the rear. Unlike the 055 where the VLS ends point port to starboard, the VLS front and end point fore and aft like on the 052D.

5. Less crew, more automation.

6. Use as much of the 055's parts and sensors as possible, to reduce cost, maintenance and logistics. This includes using the 055's fixed four panel X-band radar set and integrated mast with CEC. The resulting ship is essentially a mini 055 with 052D power train.

 

[tphuang]

A third destroyer class in addition to two existing destroyer classes will end up becoming more expensive than the 055. Do realize that the 055's cost curve has gone down after 8 ships. A smaller 9000 ton destroyer at the start of its production, first of two ships for example, can still end up being more expensive ship wise compared to the 055 when the 055 reaches its 16th ship.

The best reasons to justify a new destroyer class would be in the basis of cost effectiveness.

1. Be the replacement of the 052D. This will be the new light destroyer and the 052D line is ended.

I can imagine some ways to make it possible.

2. Namely the same size or slightly bigger than the 052D. A ship the size of the 052D can hold 80 missiles (64 + 16) in theory if you eliminate the deck real estate used for the Type 517/520 VHF radar array. I believe that its possible to make the VHF radar array redundant by using the 055's more powerful Type 346B radar instead of the 052D's 346A radar. Clearing the VHF array gives you more deck space for an addition 16 VLS cells.

3. Instead of four gas turbines, the propulsion would be two gas turbines and two diesels, with CODAG. Essentially an improved version of the 052D's power train.

4. I don't think 96 is needed. 80 would be enough to keep the size and cost down, and by then you have quad pack available for the VLS. Also, all of the 80 will be of the 9 meter length rather than having a 7/9 meter ratio. You have four banks of the VLS in front of the superstructure, and six banks of the VLS at the rear. Unlike the 055 where the VLS ends point port to starboard, the VLS front and end point fore and aft like on the 052D.

5. Less crew, more automation.

6. Use as much of the 055's parts and sensors as possible, to reduce cost, maintenance and logistics. This includes using the 055's fixed four panel X-band radar set and integrated mast with CEC. The resulting ship is essentially a mini 055 with 052D power train.

I agree with most of this. I think 80 missiles would be plenty. The more essential part is having more of those 9 m length VLS. What's the ratio of 7 to 9 m length one right now. (is it 50/50 right now with all the forward VLS of 9 m variety?). I actually would be curious if they can have 11m VLS. That would give a potential hypersonic missile more power/payload. For things like LACM, AAW and ASW, 7 m is probably sufficient.

I think at some point, they have to go for a new light destroyer series to replace 052D. 052D is just really maxed out version of 052, which came out 30 years ago. The current buildup is just to make sure they have enough numbers for the short/medium term. I'm actually in favor of COGAG or IEP propulsion. I think that would make the destroyer less noisy and better for ASW missions.

Any new light destroyer design would have significantly higher automation and larger berthing for crew. They should have modern damage control design making it more survivable in the event it gets hit by a missile. All these are things they need to do as the fleet becomes more blue water.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Any new light destroyer design would have significantly higher automation and larger berthing for crew. They should have modern damage control design making it more survivable in the event it gets hit by a missile. All these are things they need to do as the fleet becomes more blue water.

I think the PLAN should consider going the way of Mogami, but proper planning and execution must be taken in order to avoid the situation that caused the rusty Zumwalt.

 

[Andy1974]

A third destroyer class in addition to two existing destroyer classes will end up becoming more expensive than the 055. Do realize that the 055's cost curve has gone down after 8 ships. A smaller 9000 ton destroyer at the start of its production, first of two ships for example, can still end up being more expensive ship wise compared to the 055 when the 055 reaches its 16th ship.

The best reasons to justify a new destroyer class would be in the basis of cost effectiveness.

1. Be the replacement of the 052D. This will be the new light destroyer and the 052D line is ended.

I can imagine some ways to make it possible.

2. Namely the same size or slightly bigger than the 052D. A ship the size of the 052D can hold 80 missiles (64 + 16) in theory if you eliminate the deck real estate used for the Type 517/520 VHF radar array. I believe that its possible to make the VHF radar array redundant by using the 055's more powerful Type 346B radar instead of the 052D's 346A radar. Clearing the VHF array gives you more deck space for an addition 16 VLS cells.

3. Instead of four gas turbines, the propulsion would be two gas turbines and two diesels, with CODAG. Essentially an improved version of the 052D's power train.

4. I don't think 96 is needed. 80 would be enough to keep the size and cost down, and by then you have quad pack available for the VLS. Also, all of the 80 will be of the 9 meter length rather than having a 7/9 meter ratio. You have four banks of the VLS in front of the superstructure, and six banks of the VLS at the rear. Unlike the 055 where the VLS ends point port to starboard, the VLS front and end point fore and aft like on the 052D.

5. Less crew, more automation.

6. Use as much of the 055's parts and sensors as possible, to reduce cost, maintenance and logistics. This includes using the 055's fixed four panel X-band radar set and integrated mast with CEC. The resulting ship is essentially a mini 055 with 052D power train.

Could current 052Ds have 16 missiles added?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Could current 052Ds have 16 missiles added?

If the schematics on the 052Ds below are correct - Pretty challenging I suppose.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

A third destroyer class in addition to two existing destroyer classes will end up becoming more expensive than the 055. Do realize that the 055's cost curve has gone down after 8 ships. A smaller 9000 ton destroyer at the start of its production, first of two ships for example, can still end up being more expensive ship wise compared to the 055 when the 055 reaches its 16th ship.

The best reasons to justify a new destroyer class would be in the basis of cost effectiveness.

1. Be the replacement of the 052D. This will be the new light destroyer and the 052D line is ended.

I can imagine some ways to make it possible.

2. Namely the same size or slightly bigger than the 052D. A ship the size of the 052D can hold 80 missiles (64 + 16) in theory if you eliminate the deck real estate used for the Type 517/520 VHF radar array. I believe that its possible to make the VHF radar array redundant by using the 055's more powerful Type 346B radar instead of the 052D's 346A radar. Clearing the VHF array gives you more deck space for an addition 16 VLS cells.

3. Instead of four gas turbines, the propulsion would be two gas turbines and two diesels, with CODAG. Essentially an improved version of the 052D's power train.

4. I don't think 96 is needed. 80 would be enough to keep the size and cost down, and by then you have quad pack available for the VLS. Also, all of the 80 will be of the 9 meter length rather than having a 7/9 meter ratio. You have four banks of the VLS in front of the superstructure, and six banks of the VLS at the rear. Unlike the 055 where the VLS ends point port to starboard, the VLS front and end point fore and aft like on the 052D.

5. Less crew, more automation.

6. Use as much of the 055's parts and sensors as possible, to reduce cost, maintenance and logistics. This includes using the 055's fixed four panel X-band radar set and integrated mast with CEC. The resulting ship is essentially a mini 055 with 052D power train.

For the PLAN to build up a formidable and powerful major surface combatant fleet, I believe having 3-tier classification is the best for the fleet ot be viable, flexible and effective.

Tier 1 - Small size and displacement.
Ship type - Frigates (FFG)
Displacement around 5000-6000 tons.
48 VLS cells.
Role: anti-sub > anti-air > anti-ship.

Tier 2 - Medium size and displacement.
Ship type - Destroyers (DDG)
Displacement around 7000-9000 tons.
80 VLS cells.
Role: anti-air >= anti-ship > anti-sub.

Tier 3 - Large size and displacement.
Ship type - Cruisers (CG)
Displacement around 12000-15000 tons.
128 VLS cells.
Role: anti-ship >= anti-air > anti-sub.

In a nutshell:
Tier 1 - The roles played by FFGs today would be similar to the roles played by destroyers during WW2, i.e. tin cans for defending against enemy submarines, smaller crafts and anti-air.
Tier 2 - The roles played by DDGs today would be similar to the roles played by cruisers during WW2, i.e. jack-of-all-trades, but mainly provide anti-air cover and can effectively duel with enemy ships.
Tier 3 - The roles played by CGs today would be similar to the roles played by battleships during WW2, i.e. steel monsters meant to deal heavy blows against enemy ships.

(Note: I didn't count corvettes in, due to the limitations of their size and displacement, which translates to seakeeping capabilities for operation on the high seas. Therefore, I believe that corvettes should mostly loiter around Chinese shorelines and within the First Island Chain. Their job is to patrol and guard the waters close to home, plus protecting Chinese ports, naval bases and major waterways from infiltration and attacks by enemy ships or submarines.)

Just my two cents.