Strike weapon doesn't matter here.
Even a small USV can be made to carry YJ-21.
055 Large Destroyer Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Even a small USV can be made to carry YJ-21.
If mounted properly, a fish boat can also carry Yamato's 460mm Naval Gun.
It couldn't, that was the whole point.
smallest boat for a 18" gun was Lord Clive class monitor, and it's single gun was functionally useless for naval engagement (far below fire control minimum of 3/4).
Nor it had any speed,or corresponding staying power, making it capable of contesting sea superiority and providing use of the sea to its owner. Just a single floaty gun, and even that was already >6000t.
in modern era, this border is exactly Aegis system, i.e. combination of FCS, data environment and defensive/offensive capability. Preferably with big DP SAM system with ARH, as it provides the best means to match information environment with kinetic capability and with maximum number of shots.
Unlike the gun era, missiles are nothing more than a means here. Any offboard USV (or even shore truck) technically can do the launch for you.
Overall, oversized, self-propelled strike system is never (and never was) a sign of a capital ship, dreadnought, or anything.
If you want to find a gun-era analogy to modern ships with big, long range missiles - it's IJN WW2 cruisers with their 610mm torpedoes.
The logic is, the main purpose of capital ship or dreadnought is to sink enemy ships not just anti-aircraft, it plays the center role of fleet. And to be more accurate, additionaly it shall require some tonnage. Now, find me a AEGIS Bessel with decent anti-ship capability?
Are Arleigh Brukes (DDG 51-199) capital ships? Do they play a center role? Could these ships sink enemy vessels? - The answer is all NO.
Are Ford Nimitz class CV capital ships? Do they play a center role? Could these ships sink enemy vessels? - The answer is all YES. (that's why US Navy's CV replaced BB positions)
Are Type 055 capital ships? Do they play a center role? Could these ships sink enemy vessels? - The answer is all YES.
Why we call 055 a dreadnought? Because dreadnoughts are supposed to sink enemy vessels! That's apparently exceeding Arleigh Brukes' capability.
This is a dangerous path.
The main purpose of Jeune ecole torpedo boats was to 'sink enemy ships', too. As it was for the Japanese 2nd fleet (night strike force), which was specifically cruiser/destroyer formation - meant to sink (battle)ships. Submarines always were and are meant to sink enemy ships. Even coastal aviation could/can be easily purposed to do this. The difference isn't this purpose and meaning, it's the sea superiority - i.e. choice between strike ships(only capable of sea denial) and "battle ships"(not battleships in a narrow sense) - those aimed at contesting and achieving sea control, i.e. use of the sea for our purposes.
First of all, it's perhaps important to note that 'capital ship' isn't a definition of tactical purpose, it's a definition of investment.
A capital ship is such a ship(any type, really) that is expensive and time-consuming enough to build as to ensure the long-term advantage of the power which built it.
Capital ships may or may not be central to the fleet; Main surface force is. But is the role of sinking ships central to naval operations of later 20th/21 century?
Burke-class aren't 'capital ships' in a narrow sense(it's quite fast to build them). But they certainly play a central role, and they're certainly highly capable of sinking enemy vessels. Moreover, while Burkes themselves are relatively replaceable, "destroyer force"(with its larger battle environment) is 100% a capital investment few other nations(read: only China) can even hope to match.
In a sense, they're indeed "dreadnoughts" of the modern US navy (same with other 1st tier navies - i.e. Chinese and Japanese ones - even if the latter can do it only because the US paid for the larger system and provides access to its advantages, and thus only for goals aligned with the US).
So are torpedo boats.
Btw, there are few technical limitations preventing, say, Russian karakurt class corvettes from being built with Zirkon missile capability.In a way, [battle] capability of all modern destroyers with large DP SAM system is close enough to one another. And in a large doesn't really depend that much on individual ship capability as on the capability of the overall system.
We shall discuss the standard of dreadnought-like ships first, two conditions shall be satisfied below -
1. It has good anti-ship capability. (excluded Arleigh Burkes, Type 002)
2. It plays the center role in its own fleet, and might requires some tonnage. (excluded torpedo gunboats, Karakurt class)
1. It has good anti-ship capability. (excluded Arleigh Burkes, Type 002)
2. It plays the center role in its own fleet, and might requires some tonnage. (excluded torpedo gunboats, Karakurt class)
Probably add surface ship (so no subs).
PS. It's also kind of like, it has quite a lot better anti-ship capabilities compared to it's peers, and should be 'up there' at the top (so today in 2020s, it should be to rival or potentially beat Carriers).
And, this anti-ship capabilities is against it's peers (so don't say, go with Burke having strong anti-ship capabilities against a ship that is say 40 years old and not peer/near peer).
Of course it is, and it always is. You can argue A2/AD (eg. Taiwan Strait) is also a task, but it will never be done without ships.
No, don't add China here, the doctrine is different, Bruke can't insert YJ-21 and 052D+054A/B plays Bruke's role. Furthermore, JSMDF is an incomplete fleet, it shall be viewed as the anti-submarine branch of the US 7th Fleet.
Unfortunately, not even close due to different doctrines adopted. Up to today, an AEGIS ship that can launch super/hypersonic SSM does not exist, because its doctrine implies it is unnecessary to do so.
In terms of anti-ship, Arleigh Burke is only comparable to 054A FFG.
In terms of anti-air, Arleigh Burke do have its decent place.
Arleigh Burke is basically the dreadnought's guard, not the dreadnought itself.
Modern dreadnoughts' role is played by either a large aircraft carrier or a large missile cruiser, the anti-ship capability shall exceed at least 1000km.
Eh, don't Tomahawks exceed 1000km?
Anyways, apart from range, an important part was and is about lethality, and in that department, the subsonic Tomahawk is a big LMAO when used against a peer ship (say 052D).
Sure there can be saturation, but that's not that different from a Dreadnought fighting alone against many frigates and torpedo boats surrounding it.
Aren't the Burkes capable of launching LRASM from their Mark 41 VLS as well? The LRASM should have a larger strike range than the Harpoons, with figures varying from ~400 to 900+ kilometers.