055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Helius]

[snip]

Without watermarks -

 

[Gloire_bb]

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.

Hah, interesting points.
(1) For unarmoured warships <10'000t it isn't that small. Due to higher explosive mass&remains of the airframe, it's a ~100kg bomb at least. Even without fuze delay etc one probably splinter and burn quite a lot of external stuff - and with modern low crew numbers even basic damage control may take too many people.
(2) SM-6 Ib will have it increased specifically against surface/land targets, both in range and in warhead type(with smart fuze ofc). Probably to 125-150kg range, which is broadly comparable to Fort/HHQ-9* and lighter ASCMs.
*should be noted those are DP in the first place - the new thing is OTH ASM capability.

On the other hand - it massively increases your true ammo depth and engagement capability of destroyers and cruisers. Both directly(more SM-6s) and, far more crucially, indirectly(more universal SM-6s= less specialized subtypes, more space for SM-3s).
It's possible to have dedicated more specialized cruise missiles - but i frankly speaking don't see it as worth it for ships with large numbers of standard and full cells(i.e. destroyers) - ammo depth against all targets(including ballistics and hypersonics) overcomes that.

Ships with very unequal cells (frigates, rocket-Zumwalts), that simply can't have many "universals"(of equal, big enough size) - yes, those mathematically win from dedicated&specialized missiles.

Finally, on ships that really can take both in any numbers(i.e. 055) - you still get more shots either way(loading specialized ship killers or not loading doesn't matter in this case). And you'll always have comparatively more space for the payload you actually bring for the mission(say, LACMs).

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.

By mid 2020s it's prudent to expect both* sides to have such capability - which will also require more ABM capability from PLAN destroyers.
*both=bluefor, as at very least Japan can be expected to field something similar, too - and there is a certain risk even a certain rogue island can get it for their HIMARS.

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)

1. It isn't expensive at all. I mean, they both have necessary energetics and airframes, already have ARH capable of filtering out targets at sharp angles against the surface, both have INS/SNS and datalinks. You just test everything out（Fort missiles don't even require fuze update, HHQ-9 probably neither - as Chinese designers had it before their eyes). The reason United States went in this direction is it is simply very logical.
2. The problem is how much you can get at the scene. Having "universal archers"(destroyers in this case) supported by DF-17s is simply better than having the first ones without such capability.
No amount of money will buy you more necessary missiles when already at sea.

 

[TK3600]

I am fully convinced more 055 is the way to go for high intensity combat. It complement carriers way better. 052D is more of a cost effective all rounder for general purpose. When it comes to combating enemy fleet and protecting your own 055 is 100% worth the premiums.

It can stop ballistic missiles. It has better radar. It can do better anti ship job. It can fire ashbm. It is much faster to keep up with carriers. And frankly the cost is not that high relative to 052D either. As long as it is not wasted for basic patrol all those extra capability pay for itself.

 

[AndrewS]

Hah, interesting points.
(1) For unarmoured warships <10'000t it isn't that small. Due to higher explosive mass&remains of the airframe, it's a ~100kg bomb at least. Even without fuze delay etc one probably splinter and burn quite a lot of external stuff - and with modern low crew numbers even basic damage control may take too many people.

I just don't see it causing enough damage. For example, a missile might take out a single AESA side panel on a destroyer but there are 3 more which means it can retain most of its combat capability.

(2) SM-6 Ib will have it increased specifically against surface/land targets, both in range and in warhead type(with smart fuze ofc). Probably to 125-150kg range, which is broadly comparable to Fort/HHQ-9* and lighter ASCMs.
*should be noted those are DP in the first place - the new thing is OTH ASM capability.

On the other hand - it massively increases your true ammo depth and engagement capability of destroyers and cruisers. Both directly(more SM-6s) and, far more crucially, indirectly(more universal SM-6s= less specialized subtypes, more space for SM-3s).

At the tactical level, the limitation on the number of SM-3s isn't due to the number of VLS cells. It's the $12 million cost for each missile which means they are procured in low numbers.

At a fleet level, yes, the total number of naval VLS cells is an issue. But that is due to budget constraints - combined with a US fleet structure comprised exclusively of very high-end expensive destroyers. Using the SM-6 as an unnecessarily expensive antiship missile contributes to the budget crunch.

I see this as a persistent trend in the US military, where weapons are overengineered (and therefore expensive) for the actual use cases which are encountered.

It's possible to have dedicated more specialized cruise missiles - but i frankly speaking don't see it as worth it for ships with large numbers of standard and full cells(i.e. destroyers) - ammo depth against all targets(including ballistics and hypersonics) overcomes that.

Ships with very unequal cells (frigates, rocket-Zumwalts), that simply can't have many "universals"(of equal, big enough size) - yes, those mathematically win from dedicated&specialized missiles.

Finally, on ships that really can take both in any numbers(i.e. 055) - you still get more shots either way(loading specialized ship killers or not loading doesn't matter in this case). And you'll always have comparatively more space for the payload you actually bring for the mission(say, LACMs).

Again, the limitation at a fleet level for the US Navy and PLAN isn't really the number of VLS cells. It's that they will run out of missiles long before they run out of ships.

By mid 2020s it's prudent to expect both* sides to have such capability - which will also require more ABM capability from PLAN destroyers.
*both=bluefor, as at very least Japan can be expected to field something similar, too - and there is a certain risk even a certain rogue island can get it for their HIMARS.

1. It isn't expensive at all. I mean, they both have necessary energetics and airframes, already have ARH capable of filtering out targets at sharp angles against the surface, both have INS/SNS and datalinks. You just test everything out（Fort missiles don't even require fuze update, HHQ-9 probably neither - as Chinese designers had it before their eyes). The reason United States went in this direction is it is simply very logical.
2. The problem is how much you can get at the scene. Having "universal archers"(destroyers in this case) supported by DF-17s is simply better than having the first ones without such capability.
No amount of money will buy you more necessary missiles when already at sea.

For antiship warfare, I think it's less about the number of antiship missiles because there are comparatively few naval ships in each Navy.

So it's primarily about the range at which those antiship missiles can reach. What is the point of adding an 800km antiship capability to SM-6s on an Arleigh Burke, if those SM-6s have to be expended when defending against lower cost missiles such as the a) land-launched DF-17 or b) comprised ASBM launched from the larger VLS cells on a Type-055 or Type-052D.

In both these cases, the DF-17 and naval-launched ASBM are lower cost and have far more range than a SM-6.

 

[dingyibvs]

By mid 2020s it's prudent to expect both* sides to have such capability - which will also require more ABM capability from PLAN destroyers.
*both=bluefor, as at very least Japan can be expected to field something similar, too - and there is a certain risk even a certain rogue island can get it for their HIMARS.

I think going from having no clear timeline of successfully developing a DF-17 like weapon to developing it, then fielding it, then equipping a foreign force with it in 3-5 years is highly improbable.

I just don't see it causing enough damage. For example, a missile might take out a single AESA side panel on a destroyer but there are 3 more which means it can retain most of its combat capability.

If a missile with 100kg of explosives hits the bridge, I think there's a good chance it'd knock out all 4 panels. In fact, while the ship won't sink, it'll be a mission kill.

 

[ashnole]

In comparison, the purported price of a DF-17 is only $2 Million.

Wait what? Just $2M for an IRBM with a hypersonic glide vehicle as its payload? There's no way that's true!

 

[Zichan]

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.

SM-6 sank a decommissioned OHP frigate in 2016. The threat of large supersonic SAMs in anti-shipping role is not be easily dismissed.

 

[ashnole]

I am fully convinced more 055 is the way to go for high intensity combat. It complement carriers way better. 052D is more of a cost effective all rounder for general purpose. When it comes to combating enemy fleet and protecting your own 055 is 100% worth the premiums.

It can stop ballistic missiles. It has better radar. It can do better anti ship job. It can fire ashbm. It is much faster to keep up with carriers. And frankly the cost is not that high relative to 052D either. As long as it is not wasted for basic patrol all those extra capability pay for itself.

055 has been designed primarily as a Carrier Group escort with speed, range and survivability in mind. It is supposed to destroy volleys after volleys of enemy missiles and I'm sure it's quite good at it. A notional PLAN Carrier Battle Group is said to have two 055 as its principal AAW escort however with such high capabilities of this ship and such low procurement cost (055 costs only half that of a USN Burke!) one can't help but wish they double that number! Since during wartime Carriers will operate in pairs if not in groups of three (for high-intensity 24x7 air operations you need ideally three Carriers in a group as one Carrier can only support air operations for upto 10-14 hours at a time because crews need rest and every few days a Carrier needs to fully stop air operations for one full day because of repairs/maintenance), a notional PLAN Carrier Battle Force of two Carriers having eight 055s as primary AAW escorts would be quite amazing and reassuring. It's not like the PLAN cannot afford a large 055 fleet, at least when it comes to Carrier escort role.

 

[AndrewS]

Wait what? Just $2M for an IRBM with a hypersonic glide vehicle as its payload? There's no way that's true!

That is the figure being mentioned by the big shrimps in China...

But perhaps that is just for the DF-ZF glide vehicle, with rocket stages costed separately?

 

[AndrewS]

055 has been designed primarily as a Carrier Group escort with speed, range and survivability in mind. It is supposed to destroy volleys after volleys of enemy missiles and I'm sure it's quite good at it. A notional PLAN Carrier Battle Group is said to have two 055 as its principal AAW escort however with such high capabilities of this ship and such low procurement cost (055 costs only half that of a USN Burke!) one can't help but wish they double that number! Since during wartime Carriers will operate in pairs if not in groups of three (for high-intensity 24x7 air operations you need ideally three Carriers in a group as one Carrier can only support air operations for upto 10-14 hours at a time because crews need rest and every few days a Carrier needs to fully stop air operations for one full day because of repairs/maintenance), a notional PLAN Carrier Battle Force of two Carriers having eight 055s as primary AAW escorts would be quite amazing and reassuring. It's not like the PLAN cannot afford a large 055 fleet, at least when it comes to Carrier escort role.

Look at the carrier escorts diagram.

For inner-zone coverage, there are two Type-055s
For middle-zone coverage, there is a Type-052D and a Type-054A
For picket duty, there are a 2 sets of [Type-054A and Type-052C]

If you start using Type-055s as pickets, they become a juicy target in their own right, whilst adding little to the picket role over a Type-052C