055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[TK3600]

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.

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.

Problem is the platform is pricy. 055 needs to be protected. The swarm tactics dont translate into naval in this sense.

This should be done by cheaper more disposable specialist vehicles.

 

[Gogurt4ever]

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

CIWS and ECM would be a bigger concern for such UAVs

 

[BoraTas]

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.

Ideally yes, but it is ultra-unlikely that you will disable or even substantially degrade air defense networks that fast. In a realistic scenario there would be limits to prioritization and ISR, therefore you have to plan for attacking defended things.

 

[charles18]

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).

I agree.

Fuel accounts for 70% of the total weight of a missile.
For aircraft it's 35% or half as much.
Since missiles have more fuel (relative to weight) they can always be optimized to have longer range compared to aircraft if that's their intended role.
So...
If there's going to be a "Pissing contest" to see who can shoot longer range, missiles will win against aircraft.
There's no two ways about it.

In a future confrontation, The job of actually sinking ships is going to be played primarily by the Type 055 / 052D and not the Type 001 / 002 / 003.

 

[by78]

Self-explanatory.

 

[Temstar]

Also, why not ma boi Zumwalt?

Zumwalt is like a modern day Courageous class - designed for a narrow purpose that became irrelevant after their construction. Fitting too for the historical example Zumwalt's hypersonic weapon refit could very well end up like Courageous carrier refit and end up getting some value out of those hulls.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I agree with Orca’s comment that Arleigh Burke is the original dreadnought whereas Type 055 is more of a super dreadnought.

 

[TK3600]

I agree with Orca’s comment that Arleigh Burke is the original dreadnought whereas Type 055 is more of a super dreadnought.

Ticonderoga is more like original dreadnought due to being first aegis ship

 

[DDG181]

I agree with Orca’s comment that Arleigh Burke is the original dreadnought whereas Type 055 is more of a super dreadnought.

 

[DDG181]

No, you cannot compare these two ships in a totally different doctrine or strategy.

Arleigh is not even a captital ship in NATO System.

055 is dreadnought due to YJ21. It is something like a YJ21 (the naval cannon) to determine whether it is a dreadnought or not. You can say before YJ21 055 is just a AA-ship copy, but after YJ21 it became a dreadnought.

Kirov is likely a pre-dreadnought, and Type 83, ASEV will only be a dreadnought-copy, unless they change their doctrine and can carry something big.

The standard of dreadnought is to change the way of sea battle. Did Arleigh Brukr change something fundamental? It remained to be a AA ship, where anti-ship capability are neglectible in nowadays.

Sea battles are winned by sinking ships, unfortunately it has nothing to do with Arleigh Bruke.