055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[Dante80]

Aren't the Burkes capable of launching LRASM from their Mark 41 VLS as well?

The company has done a couple of tests showing viability of fielding the weapon on the Mk41 with minimum changes ship-side (the weapon needs a booster of course).

My understanding is that all LRASM weapons produced and fielded right now are air-launched exclusively. The NAVY is moving to HALO instead for its VLS stock.

We are grossly off-topic.

 

[Inque]

Airplanes are the primary anti-ship weapon of the modern age, not ship-launched missiles.

 

[DDG181]

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.

Tomahawk is too slow. Decent anti-ship shall go at least 3 mach.

 

[DDG181]

Airplanes are the primary anti-ship weapon of the modern age, not ship-launched missiles.

Obviously not, you are still using missiles on the plane to do anti-ship.
Missiles are always the core, airplanes and cruisers are just a platform.

If cruiser-launched ASBM exceeds the range of airplanes, what is the point of letting the pilots go Kamikaze?

 

[Gloire_bb]

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.

Surface ships aren't the main threat to naval operations.
Not even the second one - and at their distant third, for most of it they're just a subset of the air/missile threat.

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.

052D+055 are doing the exact same mission the Burkes do.
Sure, Burkes also do 054a work(and just about any work the US Navy encounters, because they don't have much between them and the recently decommissioned cyclones).
JMSDF is sorta the same.

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.

SM-6 is a de-facto light AsBM/ASM(depending on range and chosen profile).
It's very much hypersonic. Soon-to-come SM-6 IB will specifically boost warhead for the ASM mission.

By virtue of being a multi-purpose weapon, it gives full-depth mk.41 combatants an incredible potential depth of magazine, usable against all targets. The only downsides here are really price and production capability.

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.

Dreadnought is a sea superiority platform. If there is any ship capable of taking their mantle in modern navies - it's indeed large AEGIS combatants(US, US-provided, or Chinese) with large DP stocks.

Anti-ship cruise missile capability isn't a sea superiority capability, it's a strike capability. In evolutionary terms, it's a direct replacement/evolution of shipborne torpedoes.
In this sense, even the huge Kirovs are at most "super cruisers", not battlecruisers as they are often called.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Obviously not, you are still using missiles on the plane to do anti-ship.
Missiles are always the core, airplanes and cruisers are just a platform.

If cruiser-launched ASBM exceeds the range of airplanes, what is the point of letting the pilots go Kamikaze?

Planes have an extreme advantage at finding targets and engaging them again and again until they're within a radius of strike and there are ASCMs to launch.

 

[DDG181]

Surface ships aren't the main threat to naval operations.
Not even the second one - and at their distant third, for most of it they're just a subset of the air/missile threat.

Threat depends on where the battle is, 055 is designed for decisive battle outside the 2nd island chain, which exceeds the range of DF-26. Surface ships or aircraft form the basis of missiles, they are the platform, not the subset.

052D+055 are doing the exact same mission the Burkes do.
Sure, Burkes also do 054a work(and just about any work the US Navy encounters, because they don't have much between them and the recently decommissioned cyclones).
JMSDF is sorta the same.

No, Burkes don't do what 052D/055 do in terms of anti-ship. Here's a comparison -
Anti-ship - Nimitz/Ford ~ 055/052D
Anti-aircraft - Burke ~ 003/052D/054A/054B
Anti-sub - 054A/054B

Burke is comparable to 052D, both are do-everything ships. But Burke abandoned anti-ship to get more VLS to do more anti-air.

SM-6 is a de-facto light AsBM/ASM(depending on range and chosen profile).
It's very much hypersonic. Soon-to-come SM-6 IB will specifically boost warhead for the ASM mission.

The range of SM-6 is merely ~ 300km, if it comes that close Bruke will already be in serious danger.
Mk.41 is classical but still too small, if not then why PowerPointed DDG(X) are planning large VLS to insert something more?

Anti-ship cruise missile capability isn't a sea superiority capability, it's a strike capability. In evolutionary terms, it's a direct replacement/evolution of shipborne torpedoes.

Ship presence is the basis for all sea superiority capability, if all ships got sunk, you then argue nothing.

 

[Gloire_bb]

No, Burkes don't do what 052D/055 do in terms of anti-ship. Here's a comparison -
Anti-ship - Nimitz/Ford ~ 055/052D
Anti-aircraft - Burke ~ 003/052D/054A/054B
Anti-sub - 054A/054B

Burke is comparable to 052D, both are do-everything ships. But Burke abandoned anti-ship to get more VLS to do more anti-air.

Nimitz/Ford - 001(A)/003 - carrier aviation(reconnaissance/domain control; anti-air, anti-surface, land strike);
Burke - 052D/055 - Destroyers(fleet combatants, aaw/asw/asuw);
Constellation - 054a/b - frigates(secondary/non-fleet missions).

All Burke VLS are single-length VLS(strike cells); moreover, their high number(96) is specifically a result of land strike mission (cruiser replacement).
AAW mission by itself doesn't need anywhere near this many.

To "just" carry ASBMs around surface ships is a weird idea - it's visible and vulnerable. Surface ships are better coordinated, sure, but it matters when you're doing coordinated distributed salvoes, and this is Soviet/Russian playbook.

The range of SM-6 is merely ~ 300km, if it comes that close Bruke will already be in serious danger.
Mk.41 is classical but still too small, if not then why PowerPointed DDG(X) are planning large VLS to insert something more?

AA range(and, strictly speaking, way more than 300). It's a range where SM-6 still ensures given Pk against a normal set of air targets in given conditions(EW, target maneuver).
The range against surface targets on the ballistic trajectory is well over twice that and perhaps can reach 1000km with the new 21" booster. Seeker head is fully capable of surviving reentry heating&filtering out ships against sea surface even when falling down.

DDG(X) goes for the same large caliber payload modules Virginias and Zumwalts do - to do theater strike.
This will indeed turn them into a sort of reincarnation of Soviet missile cruisers with their huge, 6-8t kamikaze planes "missiles". Irony.

Ship presence is the basis for all sea superiority capability, if all ships got sunk, you then argue nothing.

Nope, it's sea denial.

Even removing all enemy ships from a given part of the ocean won't help you ensure a safe passage of a single Junk - because not only your side can play sea denial and strike.
You need to not just sink the enemy (you don't really care about him at all if it isn't around you when you do your operations), but to project your presence in such a way that you can use the sea for your benefit. This is "command of the seas".
This is the reason why we need specifically surface ships - as those （1）interact with both airspace and depth of the sea, and (2)travel together with other surface assets(landing, merchant, whatever), which just happen to be the normal way we use the sea.

 

[DDG181]

To "just" carry ASBMs around surface ships is a weird idea - it's visible and vulnerable. Surface ships are better coordinated, sure, but it matters when you're doing coordinated distributed salvoes, and this is Soviet/Russian playbook.

This is one possible way to kill a CSG in the 21st century, the current situation is now an ASBM's range is comparable to a CSG's range, and ASBM is much faster.
From one previous exercise of PLAN -
The ballistic missiles come with some decoy ones, and there are multiple strike waves, basically making a ballistic missile rain above the CSG.

Nimitz/Ford - 001(A)/003 - carrier aviation(reconnaissance/domain control; anti-air, anti-surface, land strike);
Burke - 052D/055 - Destroyers(fleet combatants, aaw/asw/asuw);
Constellation - 054a/b - frigates(secondary/non-fleet missions).

No, this is US Navy's doctrine. How many times do I have to argue the doctrine of PLAN is different.
The captain's rank of 055 equals 003.

However, no matter what doctrine a navy adopts, missiles are always the core, the difference is the launching platform.

You need to not just sink the enemy (you don't really care about him at all if it isn't around you when you do your operations), but to project your presence in such a way that you can use the sea for your benefit. This is "command of the seas".

The best defense is attack, it will be quick, we'll see. And suppose both sides receive heavy losses, then it's the game for ship-building capacity.

 

[Gloire_bb]

This is one possible way to kill a CSG in the 21st century, the current situation is now an ASBM's range is comparable to a CSG's range, and ASBM is much faster.
From one previous exercise of PLAN -
The ballistic missiles come with some decoy ones, and there are multiple strike waves, basically making a ballistic missile rain above the CSG.

There a many ways to kill CSGs (and honestly it fascinates me that so much propaganda is devoted to their invulnerability, given the WW2 experience). Weapon to do the strike isn't even the main concern, targeting data is. In a way, provided you have the data, SM-6/HQ-19 type LBM strike from PLAN destroyers will be just as effective at putting the deck out of commission as a dedicated ASM weapon.

Simply because of the number of cells available.

No, this is US Navy's doctrine. How many times do I have to argue the doctrine of PLAN is different.

Well, because it is unsubstantiated.
From shipbuilding and visible exercise practices, PLAN is indeed quite close to USN and other major Asiatic fleets in its planning.
The difference in carrier approaches is temporary - (1)PLAN is geographically operating within coastal air cover/area where a sequential offensive is possible (2)Carrier branch is simply not ready for mass production (arguably a mistake, but who am I).
This isn't as much about firepower(thou carriers are superb in this regard) as it is about survivable Situational awareness(and reconnaissance/strike complexes) away from own coasts.

However, no matter what doctrine a navy adopts, missiles are always the core, the difference is the launching platform.

Missiles are but a means of execution. The key in naval warfare is getting the engagement; everything else is secondary.
And, by the way, modern PLAN isn't really "strike optimized". In the past it was, but thousands of unified, reasonably-sized VLS really limit all the weapons to more or less similar dimensions.

The best defense is attack, it will be quick, we'll see. And suppose both sides receive heavy losses, then it's the game for ship-building capacity.

No amount of 'attack' will give you the ability to force a single Junk with cans of meat so your landed soldiers will eat something.
This is sea control.
And if there is a type of attack 055 potentially provides and PLAN really lacks - that's actually land attack; someone has to at least somewhat suppress all those US airbases in the region for actual shaping operations to proceed.