Is it just me or is this image far too low quality to draw any solid conclusions on what it is?
055 Large Destroyer Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
lcloo
Major
I'm very sorry but you cannot seriously tell me you can conclusively determine that that object is a crane. It could very well be a crane but that is definitely not clear enough to say that for sure.
It seems to me to be behind ship, not on the ship.
We've seen that crane aboard 052D in the past. It's for loading the VLS, and it's not new.
It also isn't a permanent fixture on the ship, but rather something that is emplaced atop the ship (that is to say, it's not like the Mk-41 reloading crane in early Mk-41s where they are folded and enclosed within multiple VLS canister equivalent spaces below deck).
I'll see if I can find some pictures, but they were fairly obvious from back in the day.
Edit:
Found them, courtesy of Henri K's old website, I strongly recommend have a read of it
Last edited:
Is there a chance at sea reloads are possible with it, with reloads stored on supply ships maybe?We've seen that crane aboard 052D in the past. It's for loading the VLS, and it's not new.
It also isn't a permanent fixture on the ship, but rather something that is emplaced atop the ship (that is to say, it's not like the Mk-41 reloading crane in early Mk-41s where they are folded and enclosed within multiple VLS canister equivalent spaces below deck).
I'll see if I can find some pictures, but they were fairly obvious from back in the day.
Edit:
Found them, courtesy of Henri K's old website, I strongly recommend have a read of it
The chance in theory is greater than zero but I wouldn't rate it high at all.
The anchor points between the base of the crane and the VLS module is not particularly suited to reloading at realistic sea state conditions.
At sea reloading is such a niche and specialized capability that it's almost not worth taking too seriously.
Tbh I'm not sure why it's often spoken of this way when it seems a rather decisive capability to me, if realized. Given that if a fleet has to contend against even a single large AShM salvo (the kind US airpower can easily generate), depleting nearly all their interceptors, or similarly participate in a large strike salvo, those vessels would be almost combat ineffective until they return to port to rearm. Being able to do so immediately at sea instead would be no small advantage.
The idea of at sea reloading has a lot of obvious desirable traits, on paper.
But it's niche and specialized and not worth taking too seriously because it's so difficult to do and it's going to look like a viable at sea reloading system will really need a rather comprehensive dedicated infrastructure vessel for it, particularly in rough sea states, and will also have to be done in a manner where you can do at sea reloads where you are not at risk of the enemy targeting you during said reloading (versus just going a bit further back to a friendly port instead).
The complexity, maritime geography requirements, and the dedicated vessels/infrastructure to enable it, means you can't really half-measure it.
It shouldn't be treated as a desirable capability for the sake of it, but rather should be treated as a huge headache.
IMO, for the PLA in a westpac conflict whether an at sea reloading capability would be that useful (versus say, just going back to port which is under friendly IADS, CAP and AEW&C cover, to reload) is an open question, especially given the distances involved. The at sea reloading option in many ways is somewhat more important for the US where availability of naval ports in wartime is much more questionable.