055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[taxiya]

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.

Or, there is no other information nor anything changed, but simply those US writers (NOT US scientists) who were bullshitting for propaganda and budget purposes.

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.

I won't spend any more time on a "If" that is based on a claim of unqualified book writers.

 

[vincent]

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.

My point is in term of costs-benefits analysis, load a 055 full of anti-air missiles is a much better use of its expensive sensors. For anti-surface warfare, all one need is a ship that can keep up with the fleet, a communication suite that can receive targeting data (in the future all anti-surface sensors will be off-board anyways) and lots of UVLS.

 

[lzmfVw]

Or, there is no other information nor anything changed, but simply those US writers (NOT US scientists) who were bullshitting for propaganda and budget purposes.


I won't spend any more time on a "If" that is based on a claim of unqualified book writers.

The book's skepticism is partly from the test results from the August 26th, 2020 test of DF-21D and DF-26. So if we, as critical readers, want to confirm or refute these views, then it's a matter of determining whether those tests succeeded.

"When interviewed about it (sic. the August 26th tests) in November 2020,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... Months later, Vice Admiral Jeffery Trussler, the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, implied that the US Navy was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

."

So you can collate different sources, assess their credibility, then draw your conclusion. And viola, a way to assess the validity of these views. No one said that it would be trivial.

 

[taxiya]

The book's skepticism is partly from the test results from the August 26th, 2020 test of DF-21D and DF-26. So if we, as critical readers, want to confirm or refute these views, then it's a matter of determining whether those tests succeeded.

"When interviewed about it (sic. the August 26th tests) in November 2020,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... Months later, Vice Admiral Jeffery Trussler, the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, implied that the US Navy was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

."

So you can collate different sources, assess their credibility, then draw your conclusion. And viola, a way to assess the validity of these views. No one said that it would be trivial.

The authors are member of the US intelligence. What you are asking is a tactic of intelligence gathering by provoking the enemy to tell the truth to verify (confirm or refute) the unverified gathering. We have all played such game "I dare you" in our childhood. Nobody is going to tell you the truth. You just have to make a choice of who to believe.

 

[lzmfVw]

The authors are member of the US intelligence. What you are asking is a tactic of intelligence gathering by provoking the enemy to tell the truth to verify (confirm or refute) the unverified gathering. We have all played such game "I dare you" in our childhood. Nobody is going to tell you the truth. You just have to make a choice of who to believe.

I think the reality here is probably more prosaic. The results are more than likely captured by U.S. ISR capabilities in real time. And we plebs are the ones don't have the answer. So as you say, we "just have to make a choice of who to believe."

 

[latenlazy]

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.

I don’t know tbh. I’m just pointing out that physics being the same for everyone doesn’t absolve the accuracy of those assessments, because while the physics are the same for everyone the engineering solutions are not and require quite a lot of detail and precision to assess accurately.

 

[latenlazy]

I think the reality here is probably more prosaic. The results are more than likely captured by U.S. ISR capabilities in real time. And we plebs are the ones don't have the answer. So as you say, we "just have to make a choice of who to believe."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’ve heard US generals insist the J-20 is technologically only at the same level as the F-117. Sometimes the authority figures don’t really have answers either.

 

[Andy1974]

My point is in term of costs-benefits analysis, load a 055 full of anti-air missiles is a much better use of its expensive sensors. For anti-surface warfare, all one need is a ship that can keep up with the fleet, a communication suite that can receive targeting data (in the future all anti-surface sensors will be off-board anyways) and lots of UVLS.

Isn’t the UVLS also expensive? Are the 055s sensors that expensive, and do you not want them pushed out? (It’s also the most capable of defending itself.)

What is better: 1 low end arsenal ship with 256 cells, or 4 low cost 052Ds networked destroyers with 256 cells between them? I prefer the decentralized approach, but I am a blockchain proponent.

Taking it a step further, what do you prefer: a 256 cell arsenal ship in the core of the group, or 32 USVs with 8 cells each on the periphery?

Alternatively, why not just put some PCL191s on civilian or militia ships for the lowest cost

 

[tphuang]

Does the 055s 2 hangers not give it a huge advantage in ASW compared to other destroyers and frigates? I am talking about triangulation.

Doesn’t this simple fact alone make it the best ASW ship in the fleet?

Paradoxically, does this mean that 055 should be the outer screen in a Carrier Group and have 052s be the inner?

Also, what is the deal with SURTASS ships? Shouldn’t they also be part of a carrier group?

In general, using surface ships to hunt quiet submarines is a huge losing battle. So even if 055 has the most tools, ASW is just an additional capability it has. It's main usage is to load up and attack targets really far away.

What makes their ASW effort work around first island chain and SCS is just the sheer number of sensor nodes and networking that they can throw at the problem in the nearby waters. Keep in mind that for something like SURTASS to be effective, it needs to be away from noisy things and move slowly. I wouldn't think they can be part of any carrier group. They just happen to be in the region to help find advanced subs.

My point is in term of costs-benefits analysis, load a 055 full of anti-air missiles is a much better use of its expensive sensors. For anti-surface warfare, all one need is a ship that can keep up with the fleet, a communication suite that can receive targeting data (in the future all anti-surface sensors will be off-board anyways) and lots of UVLS.

055 is versatile. Sure if it's protected entirely by 052D/054s for the MR/LRSAM, then it can just load up with 112 strike missiles. But in reality, it really can't rely on those ships being there at all times. That really reduces operational flexibility. It needs to operate as the focal point of area defense and provide ABM. It needs to be jack of all trades. It needs to be a heavy strike power kind of warship. It needs to be able to seamless perform sensor fusion and providing targeting data to other ships.

I mean, if you were to build a ship with a lot of UVLS, powerful sensors, stealth and speed, 055 is pretty ideal.

The book's skepticism is partly from the test results from the August 26th, 2020 test of DF-21D and DF-26. So if we, as critical readers, want to confirm or refute these views, then it's a matter of determining whether those tests succeeded.

"When interviewed about it (sic. the August 26th tests) in November 2020,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... Months later, Vice Admiral Jeffery Trussler, the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, implied that the US Navy was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

."

So you can collate different sources, assess their credibility, then draw your conclusion. And viola, a way to assess the validity of these views. No one said that it would be trivial.

Again, I wouldn't take that book very seriously. The only confusing one is Jeff Trussler's comment. That made me think that DC is not taking hypersonic missiles seriously. But it actually also contradicts their concerns with hypersonic missiles elsewhere. It contradicts with how confident Chinese sources. It also contradicts with what @Patchwork_Chimera have said.

 

[taxiya]

I think the reality here is probably more prosaic. The results are more than likely captured by U.S. ISR capabilities in real time. And we plebs are the ones don't have the answer. So as you say, we "just have to make a choice of who to believe."

US intelligence told US secretary of defence that China won't have an operational stealthy fighter before 2025. We plebs are not alone in the dark. I won't say they are as incompetent this time as last time, but I won't be as confident as you in them.