055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Andy1974]

For anti-shipping roles, wouldn’t a 30-knot+ arsenal ship with large number of anti-ship missiles (cruise and ballistic missiles) and CEC makes more sense?

055 class are equipped with very expensive sensors that are geared toward anti-air and anti-space. Those expensive sensors aren’t used for ship searching. UAV, KJ-600 and space assets are the one that hunt down the locations of enemy surface ships. It would be a waste to put so many anti-surface missiles on 055.

The 055 can be an arsenal ship, equipped with multi-role hypersonic weapons with sufficient range, a single example could disable most of the USN pacific destroyer fleet, and their allies destroyers too.

We often see a single 055 accompanied by a 052 and a 054 alongside a replenishment ship (maybe a sub too). If all the 9m cells are for hypersonics (land/ship, does it matter?) and the 7m cells for quad packed 555s for self defence, how many ships could that little fleet take out?

The replenishment ship give this fleet long range and endurance. I wonder how many action groups like this could be deployed around the oceans in the future.

It sure seems like it’s gonna be tough for ships to survive in the near-future, I expect the PLAN is also developing long range ASW ballistic/hypersonic missiles and torpedoes.

 

[tphuang]

The DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle on the DF-17 should have a terminal speed significantly slower than a DF-26 ASBM re-entry vehicle.

So if the DF-26 can have an active seeker for anti-shipping, then logically you could use the same seeker on a DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle

Well, it's significantly harder to pick up than df26. How much time is from re entry to target? I would love to hear about how existing carrier group in ocean would pick up hgv before re entry.

Anyhow, another tweet from Lyle on 055. I would have to disagree with him on the last part. I think you must have the ships ready before the conflict. Any ship you build in the middle of a conflict aren't going to enter service until it is over.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546585791811444738

 

[AndrewS]

DF-21d being phase out, only 1/2 BGD vs 5/6 DF-26 BGD.
I believe same thing happening for DF-10 vs DF-100

It's curious how Chinese solid-fuelled ballistic missiles (like the DF-21D) have such short operational lives.
I'm speculating that part of the reason Chinese missiles are low-cost is because they don't last as long?

EDIT
Or is the number of active DF-21 launchers being phased downwards, but the number of missiles remain the same?
So the DF-21 missiles would be used for follow on land-attack strikes when missile defences have been depleted

Rocket propellant life is shorter than that. From what I know of the Russians', its about 10 years. You could already see PLAN phasing out Shtil missiles that were bought in the 2000s, which is a good reason why they are changing the Sovremennys to HHQ-16. You can also see the gradual phase out of the Moskits, even if that uses jet fuel (supplied from Russia and stored somewhere? Not using Chinese fuels?)

10 years for a manufacturer guaranteed shelf life sounds about right for a solid-fueled missile.

I see the SM-1 and Rapier missiles were rated at 8 years previously.

But with additional ongoing testing, missiles can be used beyond the manufacturer guarantee. See below

Army researchers extend missile system shelf life

Due to the success of the program, the average shelf life for missile systems has been extended from 7.9 to 22.6 years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Andy1974]

Well, it's significantly harder to pick up than df26. How much time is from re entry to target? I would love to hear about how existing carrier group in ocean would pick up hgv before re entry.

Anyhow, another tweet from Lyle on 055. I would have to disagree with him on the last part. I think you must have the ships ready before the conflict. Any ship you build in the middle of a conflict aren't going to enter service until it is over.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546585791811444738

What if the war lasts for years? look how fast they are building that batch of 5 or 6 destroyers in only a single dry dock. Win or lose, they will need to replace losses, so if the shooting starts they should start all the sausage factories. Isn’t this what won the last world war?

 

[taxiya]

I was reading "Carrier Killer: China's Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles and Theater of Operations in the early 21st Century" (ISBN-10: 1915070643) and the authors hold a similar skeptical view on China's current ASBM capabilities, citing the following:

- Test of DF-21D and DF-26 in November 2020 were not assessed by the U.S. as having hit moving targets at sea

- Calculation of DF-21D needing 82 missiles to create an 80 percent chance of a kill, without countermeasures. China fields only two brigades of DF-21Ds, each with about a dozen launchers. (No mention of DF-26, but it was perceived as not too dissimilar)

What a joke of calculation? Do the authors have engineering degrees to be able to know how to calculate? I have seen published HGV control algorithms, I am well trained in mathematics in university and I was still very lost.

The algorithms are published in a book in 2014 by National Defence Publish House. This is before DF-21D and DF-17 were publicly revealed. The book categorized DF-21D as symmetric glider same as AHW, DF-17 is waverider like HTV. The book regards waverider as the natural next step after symmetric glider. The book discusses the terminal guiding algorithm without differentiating the two body shapes (irrelevant).

Their simulation and live tests presented the following conclusions:

• For fixed target
  1. Single shot simulation, with fixed parameters of terminal phase, the theoretical accuracy is 0.26 meter.
  2. CEP<=10m, calculated by 4000 times.
• For moving target, target moving at 15m/s (29 knots that is a ship)
  1. Single shot simulation, with fixed parameters of terminal phase, the theoretical accuracy is 2, 18 and 36 meters depending on the target's vectors. The target is only able to escape in certain moving direction.
  2. To cover those escape directions, only Five shots are needed.

 

[latenlazy]

Well, it's significantly harder to pick up than df26. How much time is from re entry to target? I would love to hear about how existing carrier group in ocean would pick up hgv before re entry.

Anyhow, another tweet from Lyle on 055. I would have to disagree with him on the last part. I think you must have the ships ready before the conflict. Any ship you build in the middle of a conflict aren't going to enter service until it is over.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546585791811444738

In an active war if both sides have depleted their current stock of assets and weapons it becomes a race for whoever can replenish their stock and get back out on the battlefield fastest. In those situations you don’t continue the usual procedure of taking your time to vet a ship operationally. The acceptable risk profile changes so that new ships are made operational as soon as possible, and you try to get whatever mix of experienced and newly recruited sailors you can to maximize the speed at which you can man these new ships. This isn’t ideal, but once you’ve hit the point where a war becomes an attrition battle showing up becomes 90% of the fight. This btw is also where increasing the automation of ship systems can help, provided that you’ve built your automated systems with enough manual redundancies in the event that you can’t get every system as thoroughly due to increased tempo of new deployments. Of course, it always helps to have built up a large stock of weapons and assets first, but if a war drags you can’t count on that alone taking you past the finish line.

 

[lzmfVw]

What a joke of calculation? Do the authors have engineering degrees to be able to know how to calculate? I have seen published HGV control algorithms, I am well trained in mathematics in university and I was still very lost.

The algorithms are published in a book in 2014 by National Defence Publish House. This is before DF-21D and DF-17 were publicly revealed. The book categorized DF-21D as symmetric glider same as AHW, DF-17 is waverider like HTV. The book regards waverider as the natural next step after symmetric glider. The book discusses the terminal guiding algorithm without differentiating the two body shapes (irrelevant).

Their simulation and live tests presented the following conclusions:

• For fixed target
  1. Single shot simulation, with fixed parameters of terminal phase, the theoretical accuracy is 0.26 meter.
  2. CEP<=10m, calculated by 4000 times.
• For moving target, target moving at 15m/s (29 knots that is a ship)
  1. Single shot simulation, with fixed parameters of terminal phase, the theoretical accuracy is 2, 18 and 36 meters depending on the target's vectors. The target is only able to escape in certain moving direction.
  2. To cover those escape directions, only Five shots are needed.

It is worth asking this question: since physics works the same way in China and in the U.S., what other information does the U.S. have about China's AshBM capabilities that changed its attitude from caution to an almost

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

? Is it growth in U.S. capabilities in matching the threat? Or some fundamental until now uncovered deficiency in China's AShBM capability? Or both? Those are the more tantalizing and interesting avenues to explore rather than dismissing a high number ammunition analysis out of hand.

Finding the answer to those questions influences armament layout and procurement for 055s. If equipping it with AShBM does not make it more of a dynamic threat, then it should "just" carry more YJ-12 and YJ-18s.

 

[latenlazy]

It is worth asking this question: since physics works the same way in China and in the U.S., what other information does the U.S. have about China's AshBM capabilities that changed its attitude from caution to an almost

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

? Is it growth in U.S. capabilities in matching the threat? Or some fundamental until now uncovered deficiency in China's AShBM capability? Or both? Those are the more tantalizing and interesting avenues to explore rather than dismissing a high number ammunition analysis out of hand.

Finding the answer to those questions influences armament layout and procurement for 055s. If equipping it with AShBM does not make it more of a dynamic threat, then it should "just" carry more YJ-12 and YJ-18s.

Physics being the same doesn’t guarantee that your understanding of someone else’s or even your own engineering solution is accurate. Physics doesn’t guarantee accurate intelligence assessments.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

It is worth asking this question: since physics works the same way in China and in the U.S., what other information does the U.S. have about China's AshBM capabilities that changed its attitude from caution to an almost

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

? Is it growth in U.S. capabilities in matching the threat? Or some fundamental until now uncovered deficiency in China's AShBM capability? Or both? Those are the more tantalizing and interesting avenues to explore rather than dismissing a high number ammunition analysis out of hand.

Finding the answer to those questions influences armament layout and procurement for 055s. If equipping it with AShBM does not make it more of a dynamic threat, then it should "just" carry more YJ-12 and YJ-18s.

The answer is disinformation and psychological warfare.

 

[lzmfVw]

Physics being the same doesn’t guarantee that your understanding of someone else’s or even your own engineering solution is accurate. Physics doesn’t guarantee accurate intelligence assessments.

If you are drawing the conclusion that U.S. intelligence assessments are wrong about China's AshBM capabilities and are satisfied with that answer, then there's not much more to be said.

To me personally, it's a bit too easy and facile. U.S. defense opinion seems to have changed, over a period of time, from caution to dismissal of the AShBM threat. That, to me, must reflect some change in capability in countering AShBMs.