055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[Tomboy]

A Type 052D successor likely won't have 96 cells and doesn't need to anyway. China's VLS is larger, and also uses frigates. If they are developing some larger 950mm VLS for their next-generation DDGs, it's likely an 052D successor would have 80-85 max, as it could fit more with less. Maybe even lower in the 70s. 80-85 950mm cells would equate to 181-193 Mk.41 VLS cells (if one Mk. 41 cell is 559mm), or 141-149 Mk. 41 VLS cells (if one Mk. 41 cell is 635mm; unsure of its exact diameter so I used these two).

80 950mm or 1200mm VLS is good enough with multipacking AA missiles IMO.

 

[doggydogdo]

80 950mm or 1200mm VLS is good enough with multipacking AA missiles IMO.

They can already multipack, HHQ-9C can most likely be quad packed already. A bigger VLS is not needed.

 

[TheWanderWit]

They can already multipack, HHQ-9C can most likely be quad packed already. A bigger VLS is not needed.

I'm not sure if it can be quadpacked. From measurements by others it should be able to be dual-packed at most, which is still good.

 

[AndrewS]

Its just that the larger each cell is the more efficient the packing is, if you managed to solve the technical difficulties coming from larger individual cells. While each current 850mm cell can only fit 2 HQ9C or HQ19, a 950mm cell can fit 4, which means that actual missile count is far larger than before. Also, the current 055 is far from being an overloaded hull form like 052DL and Arleigh Burke mk3, fitting more into the ship is still highly viable.

So let's say they go with the Type-055 hull and put in 96 of the 950mm VLS cells. We could call this a Type-055A

---

Fundamentally, destroyer SAM loadouts are defensive, and no Navy wins by focusing on defence.

The question is, how many HQ-9C or HQ-19 does a destroyer need?

In existing carrier groups, we see 2 Type-055, that would be a total of 192 HQ-9 as standard? That sounds like a reasonable loadout which should be able to handle realistic salvoes

Let's say you start replacing them with the Type-055A. If each has 64 cells which are quad-packed, that is 288 HQ-9. So now you have a total of 576 SAMs, which is triple the previous setup. Do you really need that many?

---

In contrast, let's load up a Type-055A with a larger version of the YJ-21 antiship ballistic missile, which would have a longer range, say 2000km.

It looks like China is currently producing about 100 DF-26 missiles per year, which have a range of 4000km? These missiles are far more expensive than a notional 2000km range ASBM (in a 950mm VLS cell) on a Type-055A.

But you can achieve the same overall range - if you sail the Type-055A into the ocean, and launch closer to the target. This also has the benefit of a shorter flight time, which matters for moving targets.

---

It would also be realistic for a Type-055A to launch those 2000km range hypersonic missiles at land targets such as Guam, Australia, Diego Garcia, etc etc

 

[ismellcopium]

I'm not sure if it can be quadpacked. From measurements by others it should be able to be dual-packed at most, which is still good.

I thought it's not even dual packable, source?

 

[henrik]

A Type 052D successor likely won't have 96 cells and doesn't need to anyway. China's VLS is larger, and also uses frigates. If they are developing some larger 950mm VLS for their next-generation DDGs, it's likely an 052D successor would have 80-85 max, as it could fit more with less. Maybe even lower in the 70s. 80-85 950mm cells would equate to 181-193 Mk.41 VLS cells (if one Mk. 41 cell is 559mm), or 141-149 Mk. 41 VLS cells (if one Mk. 41 cell is 635mm; unsure of its exact diameter so I used these two).

If Chinese VLS could fit more with less, why not fit even more with more? Does that increase the cost by too much?

 

[qwerty3173]

If Chinese VLS could fit more with less, why not fit even more with more? Does that increase the cost by too much?

For an efficient destroyer design ship size follows radar size, not the other way around, so a revolutionary ship size without a revolutionary radar is just a waste of resources.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If Chinese VLS could fit more with less, why not fit even more with more? Does that increase the cost by too much?

Yes. Because missiles aren't firecrackers or fireworks.

 

[TheWanderWit]

I thought it's not even dual packable, source?

There's many other people on here who've commented on it, but based on the measured dimensions of HHQ-9C and the diameter of the UVLS cells, HHQ-9C should be able to be dual-packed at the most.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

80 950mm or 1200mm VLS is good enough with multipacking AA missiles IMO.

They can already multipack, HHQ-9C can most likely be quad packed already. A bigger VLS is not needed.

I'm not sure if it can be quadpacked. From measurements by others it should be able to be dual-packed at most, which is still good.

It's very much likely that the HHQ-9C can only be dual-packed inside the 850mm VLS cell.

This video by 水雷屋 on Bilibili explains very well on the multi-packability of the HHQ-9C inside the 850mm VLS cell:
【【水雷屋】海红旗-9C能一坑几弹？】

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On the other hand, quad-packing the HHQ-9C inside a 950mm VLS cell should be possible.

There's also the potential of being able to dual-pack the HHQ-9B (which has a larger diameter than the HHQ-9C) in the 950mm VLS cell, in contrast to the 850mm VLS which can only fit one HHQ-9B per cell.

As for the 1200mm VLS cell - Those cells are better off reserved for long-range strike missiles (e.g. navalized DF-16B/C or DF-17) and strategic anti-ballistic/anti-hypersonic missiles (e.g. navalized HQ-29) only.