055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[Deleted member 30364]

Can this destroyer be deployed to the Australian coastline and take out certain critical infrastructure targets like power-plants, telecommunications etc??
How does this compare with the latest Arliegh Burke class destroyer or latest Australian Hobart ?

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Can this destroyer be deployed to the Australian coastline and take out certain critical infrastructure targets like power-plants, telecommunications etc??
How does this compare with the latest Arliegh Burke class destroyer or latest Australian Hobart ?

You should ask this question to ChatGPT and see what it says. Its too amateurish of a question to be answered by a human.

A destroyer like type 055 is a defensive ship who's primary mission should be air defense of a larger fleet. It should be the leader of a fleet of destroyers escorting capital ships like an Aircraft Carrier or amphibious assault ships.

If China wants to Bomb Australia, they will not be sending one destroyer. They will be sending a fleet of atleast 2-3 carriers, 2 dozen destroyers, another 2 dozen frigates and countless support ships to form a massive "Combined Fleet". See Japanese WW2 tactic of a Combined Fleet composed of multiple Carriers. US also did the same. That's how Navys will be fighting in a distant battle.

Although conventional naval thinking is that the carrier should be offensive arm of such a fleet and Carrier planes should be the one striking land targets. But that kind of doctrine may change in the modern battlefield where Carriers might be too vulnerable to a lucky shot anti-ship missile. Moreover, air defense might be too strong around a country like Australia to attack with planes.

So, planes from carriers might work as defensive escorts and it might be the type 055 and other destroyers that actually work on the land attack role. This is a still evolving technological evolution happening that could change conventional naval thinking.

 

[tygyg1111]

Can this destroyer be deployed to the Australian coastline and take out certain critical infrastructure targets like power-plants, telecommunications etc??
How does this compare with the latest Arliegh Burke class destroyer or latest Australian Hobart ?

Yes. In fact, it's overcapacity of state-subsidized missiles make it able to completely kill all anglo installations, including military, dual-use and civilian facilities.
Further, it's CCP spy radars can see everything on your hard drives, paper records and even in your mind, rendering state secrets into public domain information on the secretive Chinese internet.
Therefore, it is imperative for AUKUS to formulate a robust response in concert with its indo-pacific allies. Such is the Chinese threat.

 

[para80]

The difference is that SPY-radars are usually found in conjunction with the AEGIS CMS.

 

[lcloo]

Is a spy radar different from normal radars? Asking for a friend...

That depends on what you mean by a Normal Radar.

The AN/SPY-1 radar is an S-band, multi-function passive electronically scanned array (PESA) with four fixed array faces. The radar provides 360° air surveillance, detection, tracking, and discrimination of air, surface, and missile threats, and supports a variety of missile interceptors.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Can this destroyer be deployed to the Australian coastline and take out certain critical infrastructure targets like power-plants, telecommunications etc??
How does this compare with the latest Arliegh Burke class destroyer or latest Australian Hobart ?

Yes, it can.
It compares very straightforwardly - 112 cells vs 96 cells(Burke) vs 48 cells(Hobart).
Given that ships tend to allocate a reasonable minimum of cells to self- and squadron defense, the difference in actual strike cell allocation may be more pronounced than that - for example, if we use 32 cells for doing our part(32=multi-purpose optimum), 055 will still have 80, Burke - 64, Hobart - just 12.

 

[antiterror13]

Yes, it can.
It compares very straightforwardly - 112 cells vs 96 cells(Burke) vs 48 cells(Hobart).
Given that ships tend to allocate a reasonable minimum of cells to self- and squadron defense, the difference in actual strike cell allocation may be more pronounced than that - for example, if we use 32 cells for doing our part(32=multi-purpose optimum), 055 will still have 80, Burke - 64, Hobart - just 12.

Also UVLS (850x850 mm) is significantly bigger than MK-41 (650x650 mm), roughly 70% bigger area

 

[Deleted member 30364]

Yes, it can.
It compares very straightforwardly - 112 cells vs 96 cells(Burke) vs 48 cells(Hobart).
Given that ships tend to allocate a reasonable minimum of cells to self- and squadron defense, the difference in actual strike cell allocation may be more pronounced than that - for example, if we use 32 cells for doing our part(32=multi-purpose optimum), 055 will still have 80, Burke - 64, Hobart - just 12.

When it comes to naval warfare, if a destroyer were to face off against a single destroyer hypothetically speaking(Burke vs 55), does a destroyer only used its anti-ship missiles against a ship, or does it use all of its other missiles like anti air etc? I've read somewhere the burke only has 8 anti ship missiles whilst the rest are either anti air or land attack?

 

[Gloire_bb]

When it comes to naval warfare, if a destroyer were to face off against a single destroyer hypothetically speaking(Burke vs 55), does a destroyer only used its anti-ship missiles against a ship, or does it use all of its other missiles like anti air etc? I've read somewhere the burke only has 8 anti ship missiles whilst the rest are either anti air or land attack?

Anti-air missiles are dual-purpose missiles, moreover, they're the main "brawling" firepower even against surface targets.

Names are a bit deceiving here.

 

[charles18]

When it comes to naval warfare, if a destroyer were to face off against a single destroyer hypothetically speaking(Burke vs 55), does a destroyer only used its anti-ship missiles against a ship, or does it use all of its other missiles like anti air etc? I've read somewhere the burke only has 8 anti ship missiles whilst the rest are either anti air or land attack?

Ships are larger targets than aircraft, therefore a missile needs a larger warhead if it's going to be effective at neutralizing a ship. Anti-ship missiles have larger warheads than anti-air missiles. To answer the question technically yes, an anti-air missile can hit a ship but it will not be an effective weapon.

In a hypothetical 1 on 1 scenario a Type 055 ship would have an extreme advantage (due to its longer ranged anti-ship missiles) against an Arleigh Burke.
However there are currently 73 active Burkes and only 8 Type 055 ships so in this scenario it would be a very interesting face off.