common hull to cut down on cost and as the centerpiece of a surface strike group the way Zumwalts are likely to be used.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
The type 55 is still a very expensive ship to build and operate. The very large missiles are fired at targets either very far away or even up in space. This reduces the usefulness of the other features of the type 55. You really don't need a command center and a very large set of radars. Maybe a new arsenal ship for that types of missiles?
you definitely need a large radar for space tracking and having a command center for PLASSF coordination with PLAN as part of an integrated space warfare network would be very useful.
The idea of a wider VLS cell for ultra long range ABM or hypersonic/ballistic missiles is fine, but not my first choice. The current hypersonic missiles like YJ-21 probably has to sacrifice on warhead size to achieve 1000+ km range.
For me, if they can add 2 other heights for VLS, 5m and 11m, that would be perfect here. You can use 5m for 054B for 3-5s and 11m on 055 for long long range hypersonic/ballistic missile. That would add 20 to 25% to range.
I am waiting for something like LRASM to appear on UVLS. That seems like something that will give defense another 1000 km+ missile to worry about that flies a different profile.
For me, if they can add 2 other heights for VLS, 5m and 11m, that would be perfect here. You can use 5m for 054B for 3-5s and 11m on 055 for long long range hypersonic/ballistic missile. That would add 20 to 25% to range.
I am waiting for something like LRASM to appear on UVLS. That seems like something that will give defense another 1000 km+ missile to worry about that flies a different profile.
Last edited:
055 doesn't need a IRBM in its arsenal. It's such a luxury weapon and unnecessary for a ship. Plus you need a third party sensor to use a ballistic missiles against a moving a target from a extreme ranges and that would be hard to achieve in wartime.
Just because US is putting them on their Zumwalt, their experimental vessels doesn't mean PLAN needs to follow. Unless PLAN wants to waste money into pointless avenues like the US does then sure, go right ahead.
I promise you that IRBM on Zumwalt will probably never reach fruition even. Ever realize that sometimes new weapons systems/capabilities are announced by one party to trick their rivals into wasting resource and time?
Just because US is putting them on their Zumwalt, their experimental vessels doesn't mean PLAN needs to follow. Unless PLAN wants to waste money into pointless avenues like the US does then sure, go right ahead.
I promise you that IRBM on Zumwalt will probably never reach fruition even. Ever realize that sometimes new weapons systems/capabilities are announced by one party to trick their rivals into wasting resource and time?
If we are talking about ballistic missiles here (DF-21/26 were specifically mentioned), the idea of putting them in a major naval combatant is somewhat counter-intuitive, since a weapon of that size/class would immediately give the ship position away (to space based infrared systems).
Last edited:
None of the proposed ballistic missiles are real ballistic, but boost-glider such as YJ-21. The speculated shape of YJ-21 is axisymmetric, same as DF-21D. DF-26's anti-ship variant is certainly a boost-glider too.
All boost-gliders have a much shorter powered ascent phase and have a much lower max altitude. They are much less detectable than a true ballistic missile. However if the range is increased, so is the powered phase burn time and max altitude, this will increase the possibility of being detected by IR satellites. So the design choice of flight pattern is a key.
Another thing, a wave-rider glider (DF-17) has longer range than a asymmetric glider if the boost phase is the same. In other words, a lower max altitude (flatter trajectory) for the same range.
Back to your concern, if YJ-21 is on the ship, any other boost-glider "ballistic" can be too. If YJ-21 with its shape can reach 1000km, a DF-17 derivative can go much longer than 1000km. Or put a downsized DF-17 with the same range as YJ-21, but less detectable by IR satellite.
firing any weapon gives your position away. Ships have engines. In the case of the 055, it has very powerful gas turbine engines.
The enemy response time also matters. If the enemy only has cruise missiles to respond, then it takes hours at the relevant ranges to do anything. In 1 hour, a gas turbine ship traveling at 30 knots (55 kph) can be within an area of 9503 km2.
If it was up to me I'd put such (ASBM) missiles on a submarine, maybe on the upcoming Type 096. A sub with the capacity to sink surface ships from 4,000km away would definitely cause any opponent a lot of anxiety.
I understand the ambition but that has some problems of its own: cost, sensors and availability. A sub typically costs 2-3x more to build than a ship due to structural features alone. It has much higher maintenance requirements with typically ~60% availability. And it has terrible situational awareness because it can't communicate with base easily. It can only recieve orders from VLF signals which have limited bandwidth and depth reach, and cannot signal back to base. This is OK for SSBN which has a very simple mission (just order them "fire, plan N") but for a complex mission it is hard to order them around.
A hypothetical 055B with 12x large VLS (LVLS) and 64x UVLS would have advantages such as full communication capability with the rest of the fleet, a command post to act as coordinator for long range and space warfare, and large radars to light up orbital targets for ASAT and ABM if some of the LVLS were filled with ASAT missiles.
- Status