Judging from the bridge window configuration and lack of funnel cowl over the front funnel, it is one of the first 4 ships (101-104) from the first batch. The lack of pennant number painted on the hull suggest it was taken during trials, before the ship was commissioned.
055 Large Destroyer Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
by78
General
Not that we don't already know or suspect, but it's nice to have a confirmation: Type 055 has cooperative engagement capability. In a recent exercise, it communicated with an early warning aircraft, which provided the ship with over-the-horizon, long-range targeting information on both surface and aerial targets.
Is china still behind when it comes to the array of missiles available on the UVLS? US has SM-3 for missile defense, SM-6 for air def l, they also have SM-2 and ESSM. China only has HQ-9. That seems like a gap in capabilities. They do have better anti-ship, but air and missile defense it seems is still behind.
Comparing capabilities 1:1 is completely the wrong approach. Instead of asking, for example, why PLAN has not rushed to field robust BMD capabilities, ask why the US has emphasized BMD so heavily in the first place. Might it have something to do with the threats they expect to face? Prioritizing ballistic missile defense makes perfect sense if you expect to see lots of them heading your way.
Then consider what threats PLAN is expected to face, how they expect to counter them, and what the best approach would be. Which threat is the most likely, and why is it not ballistic missiles?
It is a matter of requirements and needs. You procure based on what you need. US faces a ballistic missile threat from their adversaries, so it makes sense for them to have missiles such as the SM-3 and SM-6 for BMD defense. All these platforms already exists in China bar an SM-6 all-in-one like missile, which really isn't needed anyway. China doesn't face any ballistic missile threat so there's no need for an SM-3 or SM-6 like missile. It's not unlikely that they may make a naval BMD missile in the future, but it isn't currently needed or a priority.
lcloo
Major
Geography plays a big part on decision making. China does not required sea based air defense on its cities and bases as much as US for its bases around China. Land based HQ9, HQ19 and HQ29 were acquired instead of ship based startegic air defense.
Pure speculation - HQ39 might appear after 2030, who knows? LOL!
Again, consider which munitions are fielded by the US—overwhelmingly subsonic and/or stealthy cruise missiles—which are far more easily intercepted in transit by say, land-based air cover, than ballistic or hypersonic equivalents. Maybe, just maybe, you would see greater emphasis on land-based AEW&C to detect such threats (wow, I wonder why KJ-700 was spotted in PLAN colours) instead of VLS interceptors.
USN procures systems to counter the threats it faces. Which are emphatically not the same threats PLAN faces.