055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Tam]

Could current 052Ds have 16 missiles added?

Not without removing the VHF radar array and the platform that supports it. If you do, you can potentially add 16, even possibly 32 more VLS. But you lose whatever purpose the VHF radar is supposed to bring. This have to be compensated by making the main radars even more powerful against stealthy objects, for the same reason why the 055 no longer features the VHF radar. To this, you need to replace this entire section of the ship. Think of the ship like a sausage assembled from cut sections. Instead of the section that has the VHF radar, you replace this with a new section that holds more VLS.

You can also choose to retain the current main radars and sacrifice the antistealth ability by letting other ships do that detection work.

 

[tphuang]

Not without removing the VHF radar array and the platform that supports it. If you do, you can potentially add 16, even possibly 32 more VLS. But you lose whatever purpose the VHF radar is supposed to bring. This have to be compensated by making the main radars even more powerful against stealthy objects, for the same reason why the 055 no longer features the VHF radar.

There is no reason for them to replace the VHF radar. It might be old, but they are going to be part of the network of counter-stealth radar needed to pick up F35s much further out in the sea.

In the next generation destroyer, they probably won't have it. I think VHF radar would probably be bad for stealth of aircraft. More importantly, the large main AESA radar panels will likely be more oriented for long range search vs fire control. Also, I think there will be more AEW UAV by then with large VHF antenna.

 

[Gloire_bb]

See literally zero point in changing the current core numbers (64(16 deep)/112(112 deep)).
A lot of money spent on a major redesign for vanity only.

It could make sense if 055 would be prohibitively expensive, or 052d would be severely limited by its cell number. Neither is the case.

Thus the money should probably be left either for additional classes PLAN lacks (054B, future heavy surface combatant) and new subsystems. Change to existing 052Ds taking away its two main competitive advantages (well-oiled production line and unmatched affordability) shall be prevented at all costs.

Furthermore, even for a new class increase in cell numbers shall be justified. Before such a justification comes - number of sufficiently capable ships shall come before all else.

 

[ashnole]

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.

Modern Guided Missile Cruisers are built primarily with Anti-Air Warfare mission in mind and with a secondary limited Land Attack Warfare mission. Cruisers aren't supposed to bother fighting enemy surface warships in this day & age. Their only role is escorting your Carrier Battle Group against the biggest & baddest aerial threats including ballistic missiles.

Also, when a Navy has a large Carrier force (5+) in its inventory, such as the PLA Navy by the early 2030s, Carrier-based Maritime Strike Fighters, and not necessarily the fleet's large surface combatants, are the ones who are supposed to deal with the enemy surface's fleet.

 

[dingyibvs]

Modern Guided Missile Cruisers are built primarily with Anti-Air Warfare mission in mind and with a secondary limited Land Attack Warfare mission. Cruisers aren't supposed to bother fighting enemy surface warships in this day & age. Their only role is escorting your Carrier Battle Group against the biggest & baddest aerial threats including ballistic missiles.

Also, when a Navy has a large Carrier force (5+) in its inventory, such as the PLA Navy by the early 2030s, Carrier-based Maritime Strike Fighters, and not necessarily the fleet's large surface combatants, are the ones who are supposed to deal with the enemy surface's fleet.

Warfare is constantly changing. If large hypersonic weapons become the antiship weapon of choice, then it's possible that carrier launched aircrafts would adjust its role to become defensive or offensive targeting/reconnaissance rather than strike.

 

[charles18]

Modern Guided Missile Cruisers are built primarily with Anti-Air Warfare mission in mind and with a secondary limited Land Attack Warfare mission. Cruisers aren't supposed to bother fighting enemy surface warships in this day & age. Their only role is escorting your Carrier Battle Group against the biggest & baddest aerial threats including ballistic missiles.

That's a very good description of how the US navy has been running its business for over 75 years.
However...
History gives us many examples where tradition can be turned upside down because of new technology and tactics.
Simply stated, "Just because that's the way it has been, doesn't mean that's the way it will be."

I believe guided missile cruisers will play a larger role in future conflicts. Of course cruisers will continue to provide air defense but in addition to that I see cruisers playing more of an anti-ship role. This is where you and I agree to disagree.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Well, sm-6 evolves in the direction of fully universal weapon - within and beyond LOS. Given that it soon will get 21" booster - it'll probably be able to engage surface targets from well over 500 miles(ballistic flight profiles).
HHQ-9 and 40N6 will probably get the same capability soon enough, if not already - it's too obvious and too good to miss.

 

[AndrewS]

Well, sm-6 evolves in the direction of fully universal weapon - within and beyond LOS. Given that it soon will get 21" booster - it'll probably be able to engage surface targets from well over 500 miles(ballistic flight profiles).
HHQ-9 and 40N6 will probably get the same capability soon enough, if not already - it's too obvious and too good to miss.

The SM-6 only has a small 64kg warhead. Plus it is expensive at $4.3 Million because it is designed as a SAM and also to intercept ballistic missiles.

In comparison, the purported price of a DF-17 is only $2 Million. And a DF-17 has a far larger payload and range as an antiship/land-attack missile than an SM-6.

That leads to 2 conclusions:

1. Adding an antiship capability to the HHQ-9 and 40N6 would be far more expensive than just buying a dedicated antiship DF-17, assuming the targets are around 2000km from the Chinese coast.
2. You could launch many more DF-17s ($2 Million) because they are lower cost than the defending SM-3 missiles ($12 Million) or SM-6 ($4.3 Million)

 

[Tam]

The SM-6 only has a small 64kg warhead. Plus it is expensive at $4.3 Million because it is designed as a SAM and also to intercept ballistic missiles.

In comparison, the purported price of a DF-17 is only $2 Million. And a DF-17 has a far larger payload and range as an antiship/land-attack missile than an SM-6.

That leads to 2 conclusions:

1. Adding an antiship capability to the HHQ-9 and 40N6 would be far more expensive than just buying a dedicated antiship DF-17, assuming the targets are around 2000km from the Chinese coast.
2. You could launch many more DF-17s ($2 Million) because they are lower cost than the defending SM-3 missiles ($12 Million) or SM-6 ($4.3 Million)

HQ-9 has a 180kg warhead, even bigger than the 48N6E S-300 missile 155kg. That's as big as the YJ-83's warhead. But of course the HHQ-9's warhead is HE-FRAG while the YJ-83 is semi AP. You have to consider that the Buk has a 17 meter blast radius from its 70kg warhead, a 180kg warhead is going to have a much bigger and wider bang. It may not sink a ship, but it can do a large amount of surface damage. It does not need to hit the target but explode just near it.

 

[pakje]

HQ-9 has a 180kg warhead, even bigger than the 48N6E S-300 missile 155kg. That's as big as the YJ-83's warhead. But of course the HHQ-9's warhead is HE-FRAG while the YJ-83 is semi AP. You have to consider that the Buk has a 17 meter blast radius from its 70kg warhead, a 180kg warhead is going to have a much bigger and wider bang. It may not sink a ship, but it can do a large amount of surface damage. It does not need to hit the target but explode just near it.

That's big, if they put that new explosive material on that you have a pretty decent AshW and land attack missile