055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[BoraTas]

If Ukraine War taught us anything, that is cruise missile saturation strike makes quick work of good air defense networks. That said, land attack is very low priority of PLAN, so don't be expected if there is nothing geared for it. If there ever needs to ground strike saturation is more important.

I disagree. One of the major themes of the Russo-Ukranian war has been the extreme survivability of air defenses. Russia has been unable to suppress a few dozen S-300 batteries. 50%+ Kalibr shoot-down rates are likely real considering that the Ukrainian electricity grid survived (At low capacity but it wasn't big and Russia had a big arsenal).

I agree with the second assertion. IMO naval subsonic missiles, especially ones from surface ships, are the most impotent way of attacking a country. You are limited to a few dozen non-replenishable missiles. The assets are limited to ~20 knots over large distances so looong times pass before they can launch a few more dozen missiles again. Carriers can at least carry a lot more munitions and subs can go to dangerous places. Subsonic and non-stealthy missiles mean at least half of them will get shot down, which throws a wrench into planning. The 055 could at least use the YJ-21 to have a bite. China is lucky that the US procurement went so bad that the country is unable to move away from 40 year old designs.

 

[charles18]

I hypothesise that future land strike missions by the PLAN would be fulfilled by hypersonic missiles instead of subsonic cruise missiles, unless if such subsonic cruise could be stealthier than JASSM while still be more affordable.

High cost missiles like the YJ-21 will be fired first to destroy enemy radar installations. Without radar the enemy is "blind". Subsonic non-stealth missiles like the CJ-10 (which probably cost 25% as much, therefore more can be purchased ) can finish the job.

In a WW3 scenario perhaps China will mass produce 10,000 CJ-10 missiles. (or something technologically comparable)
However there will Never be 10,000 YJ-21's produced.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

What an astonishing statement! Describing 055 as a new age dreadnought is a bit exaggerated for me.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is it really suitable to compare with Japan's new warships? The new large Aegis ship of Japan is a very extreme design.

Frankly speaking - The 055 DDG of the PLAN is the first ever serial-built, heavily-armed surface combatant in the world that is over 10000 tons in displacement. No other surface combatants elsewhere have been built to such dimension in such scales until recently.

(The Kirov battlecruisers are more like one-off design than being a serial-built model (only 4 out of 5 completed, with no obvious successor to the class in similar dimension-&-dimension category), hence they don't really count.)

Back to the 055 - Only after the first 055 appeared, we see more surface combatants in the similar displacement-&-dimension category coming out as WIP in other navies elsewhere:
1. DDG(X) of the US Navy, ~13000 tons
2. DDX of the Italian Navy, ~10000 tons
3. Type 83 of the Royal Navy, ~12000 tons
4. Project 18 of the Indian Navy, ~13000 tons
5. ASEV of the JMSDF, ~15000 tons

Therefore, seeing the current development is some kind of parallel to how the HMS Dreadnought set the universal new standards on how future dreadnoughts, super-dreadnoughts and fast battleships were designed and built for the 4 decades following her introduction - I don't think that Yazhou's statement is really an exaggeration. Not exact, but close.

But that's just my personal view on the matter. Feel free to interpret otherwise.

 

[lcloo]

Frankly speaking - The 055 DDG of the PLAN is the first ever serial-built, heavily-armed surface combatant in the world that is over 10000 tons in displacement. No other surface combatants elsewhere have been built to such dimension in such scales until recently.

(The Kirov battlecruisers are more like one-off design than being a serial-built model (only 4 out of 5 completed, with no obvious successor to the class in similar dimension-&-dimension category), hence they don't really count.)

Therefore, seeing the current development is some kind of parallel to how the HMS Dreadnought set the universal new standards on how future dreadnoughts, super-dreadnoughts and fast battleships were designed and built for the 4 decades following her introduction - I don't think that Yazhou's statement is really an exaggeration. Not exact, but close.

But that's just my personal view on the matter. Feel free to interpret otherwise.

You might want to re-phrase your first and second sentences...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[yeetmyboi]

Frankly speaking - The 055 DDG of the PLAN is the first ever serial-built, heavily-armed surface combatant in the world that is over 10000 tons in displacement. No other surface combatants elsewhere have been built to such dimension in such scales until recently.

Relativity is important, and context is king. WW2 heavy cruisers for example.

1. DDG(X) of the US Navy, ~13000 tons

DDGX has still not transitioned to a program of record so irrelevant. It's not even WIP, it's literally just a powerpoint image.

2. DDX of the Italian Navy, ~10000 tons

Refer to above.

3. Type 83 of the Royal Navy, ~12000 tons

Refer to above.

4. Project 18 of the Indian Navy, ~13000 tons

Actually relevant and could be capable if Indian shipbuilding experience is taken into account. Their attempt to nationalize everything can ruin it though.

5. ASEV of the JMSDF, ~15000 tons

Refer to 1,2 and 3.

Also, why not ma boi Zumwalt?

Therefore, seeing this is some kind of parallel to how the HMS Dreadnought set the universal new standards on how future dreadnoughts, super-dreadnoughts and fast battleships were designed and built for the 4 decades following her introduction - I don't think that Yazhou's statement is really an exaggeration. Not exact, but close.

Disagree. 10k+ class LSC were widely experimented with during the Cold War ( CBGL, for example). Arleigh Burke also set the common layout for post-CW vessels with its superstructure-mounted radars, hull form (until La Fayette), armanent and sensors. I dont really see how revolutionary Type 055 is tbh, it's just a super-capable but also super-normal semi-cruiser with 100+ oversized VLS, intergrated combat management, advanced sensors and stealthy hull form. All of which has been pioneered by other nations.
A dreadnought of the 21st century would have to introduce a novel hull form, propulsion, armanent, sensor, manning, etc that completely separate it from the category of "incremental advance". So something like the Chinese Zumwalt posted on the nextgen DD thread, but with Mogami level of manning, railguns, periscope-fired lasers, and a compact fusion engine. Or a semi-submersible destroyer to hide from sats.

Realistically speaking it's much easier to completely revamp existing doctrines and start to build C3 cruisers alongside arsenal ships, 20kton SCS vessels and a lighter FFG for support than trying to build a revolutionary destroyer tbh. Because, like MBTs, destroyers have reached a point where trying to introduce a new concept is pointless, because it's nearly impossible. Modern conventional destroyers peaked after SC-21. Everything after that is "convergent design".

 

[snake65]

I disagree. One of the major themes of the Russo-Ukranian war has been the extreme survivability of air defenses. Russia has been unable to suppress a few dozen S-300 batteries. 50%+ Kalibr shoot-down rates are likely real considering that the Ukrainian electricity grid survived (At low capacity but it wasn't big and Russia had a big arsenal).

I agree with the second assertion. IMO naval subsonic missiles, especially ones from surface ships, are the most impotent way of attacking a country. You are limited to a few dozen non-replenishable missiles. The assets are limited to ~20 knots over large distances so looong times pass before they can launch a few more dozen missiles again. Carriers can at least carry a lot more munitions and subs can go to dangerous places. Subsonic and non-stealthy missiles mean at least half of them will get shot down, which throws a wrench into planning. The 055 could at least use the YJ-21 to have a bite. China is lucky that the US procurement went so bad that the country is unable to move away from 40 year old designs.

Just now a LST and submarine damaged in Sevastopol by cruise missiles, most probably Storm Shadow.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

You might want to re-phrase your first and second sentences...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Relativity is important, and context is king. WW2 heavy cruisers for example.

Agree. I should have added "after WW2" or "after the Cold War".

DDGX has still not transitioned to a program of record so irrelevant. It's not even WIP, it's literally just a powerpoint image.

Refer to above.

Refer to above.

Actually relevant and could be capable if Indian shipbuilding experience is taken into account. Their attempt to nationalize everything can ruin it though.

Refer to 1,2 and 3.

Let's agree to disagree. Maybe we can come back to this discussion after 10-15 years.

Also, why not ma boi Zumwalt?

Sorry to be blunt, but Zumwalt is such a combination of "I see no God up here but me"-type of failures that it deserves no mention.

Also, the Zumwalt program was ended after only 3 units completed from the original 30+, so there's that.

Disagree. 10k+ class LSC were widely experimented with during the Cold War ( CBGL, for example). Arleigh Burke also set the common layout for post-CW vessels with its superstructure-mounted radars, hull form (until La Fayette), armanent and sensors. I dont really see how revolutionary Type 055 is tbh, it's just a super-capable but also super-normal semi-cruiser with 100+ oversized VLS, intergrated combat management, advanced sensors and stealthy hull form. All of which has been pioneered by other nations.
A dreadnought of the 21st century would have to introduce a novel hull form, propulsion, armanent, sensor, manning, etc that completely separate it from the category of "incremental advance". So something like the Chinese Zumwalt posted on the nextgen DD thread, but with Mogami level of manning, railguns, periscope-fired lasers, and a compact fusion engine. Or a semi-submersible destroyer to hide from sats.

Realistically speaking it's much easier to completely revamp existing doctrines and start to build C3 cruisers alongside arsenal ships, 20kton SCS vessels and a lighter FFG for support than trying to build a revolutionary destroyer tbh. Because, like MBTs, destroyers have reached a point where trying to introduce a new concept is pointless, because it's nearly impossible. Modern conventional destroyers peaked after SC-21. Everything after that is "convergent design".

Much thanks for the explanation!

 

[DDG181]

I dont really see how revolutionary Type 055 is tbh, it's just a super-capable but also super-normal semi-cruiser with 100+ oversized VLS, intergrated combat management, advanced sensors and stealthy hull form. All of which has been pioneered by other nations.

Your military equipment shall always match your military doctrine, and 055 or PLAN adopts a different doctrine other than US Navy.

USN basically counts everything on its CSG, and the function of the DDG is mainly air defense, which protects the carrier.
Why USN or other navies' DDG doesn't have decent anti-ship missiles? Because anti-ship is F/A-18 or F-35B/C's job, not DDG!
Why Mk.41 is small? Because it is already capable of launching SM-2/3/6 etc.

PLAN counts on anti-ship ballistic missiles, and 055/052D is the platform. The role of DDG/CG and CV/CVN are opposite compared to USN. In this case, CV/CVN protects 055 by intercepting F/A-18 or F-35B/C, and 055/052D launches YJ-21, which is a ship-launched DF-26 ASBM, to destory a US CSG. This answers why GJB 5860-2006 is large, because it has to insert YJ-18/21 etc.

Now suppose YJ-21 (~1500km) surpasses the operational range of a US CSG (~1200 km), then it might change the game unless US pilots go Kamikaze. The reason is the same when carriers (ranger > 1000km) replaced battleships (range < 50km).

You can argue how SM-6 can intercept ballistic missiles, but that's another story. Suppose it intercepted 99 YJ-21s but 1 got away, the result still remains the same.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

If Ukraine War taught us anything, that is cruise missile saturation strike makes quick work of good air defense networks. That said, land attack is very low priority of PLAN, so don't be expected if there is nothing geared for it. If there ever needs to ground strike saturation is more important.

Another lesson Ukraine war has taught us is that cheap subsonic cruise missiles/decoys with high RCS (not the million dollar Tomahawks or CJ-10) could be launched en masses (ideally in the hundreds) to deplete enemy air defense munitions. This could done via affordable loitering munitions to attract enemy air defenses or simply decoys with cheap turbojet engines. Once the enemy’s SAM sites run out of munitions or need hours to reload, then you launch the more expansive weapons line CJ-10, Tomahawks, Kh-101s, DF-21s, etc. to take out high-value targets and infrastructures. An idea weapon in this case would be hundreds of cheap loitering cruise missiles with some ARM capabilities (ideally focusing on S, X, C, L, K, and other commonly used military bandwidths) , so if they don’t get shoot down, they do strait toward SAM sites and airport radars.

 

[tankphobia]

Another lesson Ukraine war has taught us is that cheap subsonic cruise missiles/decoys with high RCS (not the million dollar Tomahawks or CJ-10) could be launched en masses (ideally in the hundreds) to deplete enemy air defense munitions. This could done via affordable loitering munitions to attract enemy air defenses or simply decoys with cheap turbojet engines. Once the enemy’s SAM sites run out of munitions or need hours to reload, then you launch the more expansive weapons line CJ-10, Tomahawks, Kh-101s, DF-21s, etc. to take out high-value targets and infrastructures. An idea weapon in this case would be hundreds of cheap loitering cruise missiles with some ARM capabilities (ideally focusing on S, X, C, L, K, and other commonly used military bandwidths) , so if they don’t get shoot down, they do strait toward SAM sites and airport radars.

Honestly if your UAV flies slow enough, it may legitimately be indistinguishable from a large migratory bird.