To be fair, that has not been proven wrong yet. The CV is/was "on hold" per Yankee.
Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
To be fair, that has not been proven wrong yet. The CV is/was "on hold" per Yankee.
Well, SOYO did mention an IPS (Integrated Power System) joint/integrated testing, evaluation, and debugging project corresponding to a ship with a displacement of 60000–80000 tons, where the lead organization for this project even constructed a dedicated testing facility some years ago. The most suitable (if not the only viable) warship with such a propulsion system at such displacements would be conventionally-powered CVs.
So that's something to observe, I suppose.
I would thing a modified 076 design would work for this, if the conventional CV proceeds.
Tbh, whether it is a 9000 ton destroyer or a 15-16k 055B or a 30-40k battleship, one thing I wish to see is what the PLAN will do when it comes to anti-drone warfare.
1. I think there's little doubt that once a 052D or 055 is underway in high alert there will be very little chance of a drone getting through. But when engagements drag on for months it will no longer be feasible to lob a HQ-9 toward every little Shahed coming their way. So I think the argument for the quadpackable 555 missile has gotten a lot stronger.
2. For CIWS, the current 1130 in the front and HQ-10 at the back configuration still feels like it's likely sufficient, but I think there's also a chance they try to beef it up somehow. Lasers would probably be a step too far for now.
3. I think we've seen quite a few cases of ships in port or not in full readiness getting hit because weapons were not ready. Since it's impossible for a a ship to be perpetually running its weapons systems at high alert, maybe a RCWS located at the sides of the ship with its own independent TV/IR tracking would be useful as a last line of defence even if CIWS or radars are not activated. Reaction time and ability to react would improve significantly if something like Corsair USV gets through undetected
1. I think there's little doubt that once a 052D or 055 is underway in high alert there will be very little chance of a drone getting through. But when engagements drag on for months it will no longer be feasible to lob a HQ-9 toward every little Shahed coming their way. So I think the argument for the quadpackable 555 missile has gotten a lot stronger.
2. For CIWS, the current 1130 in the front and HQ-10 at the back configuration still feels like it's likely sufficient, but I think there's also a chance they try to beef it up somehow. Lasers would probably be a step too far for now.
3. I think we've seen quite a few cases of ships in port or not in full readiness getting hit because weapons were not ready. Since it's impossible for a a ship to be perpetually running its weapons systems at high alert, maybe a RCWS located at the sides of the ship with its own independent TV/IR tracking would be useful as a last line of defence even if CIWS or radars are not activated. Reaction time and ability to react would improve significantly if something like Corsair USV gets through undetected
Last edited:
For ships at port just have better port defenses.
Argument for 555 predates drones; HQ-9 is a large and not very accurate down low missile (this is a big reason the warhead is so big) with very big Dmin. Traditional sea skimmers alone justify 555.
The argument now goes that much more is necessary. Good first step is probably a guided 130mm round, but at very least, additional RCWS to cover blind angles are necessary.
The main problem is the optimization point. CIWS tries to throw out as much ammo as possible, while keeping the mount without unnecessary weight up (inertia problem). I.e. it's built for high-rate automatic fire, but doesn't have all that much ammo.
Furthermore, specific installation limits angles dead ahead.
Yes, absolutely. Moreover, ideally, they should have the capability to be independently powered, even if ship lights went down for one reason or another.
The HQ-9 lineage was originally from Soviet SAMs, which did have less advanced radar electronics, so they compensated with a larger warhead and therefore larger missile.
But we can see that the H/HQ-9C is a significantly smaller missile.
And we also know that China does have world-class radar seekers on its AAMs.
Last edited:
As previously written on the matter of what a "not-too-exotic" organic shipborne defense system against one way attack drones and USVs may be, I again posit that a navalized version of the gun/mini-missile setup would fit the bill quite well.
Autocannon with fuzed AHEAD shells and guided mini-missiles, with onboard FCR+EO set, integrated and cued with the ship's own onboard sensors and combat management system.
Two sets, one each side amidships, complementing the rest of a ship's main DP gun, CIWS sets and manually trained HMGs.
Until something more exotic comes along this is probably as straight forward as it gets while offering optimal capability with minimal risk.
Autocannon with fuzed AHEAD shells and guided mini-missiles, with onboard FCR+EO set, integrated and cued with the ship's own onboard sensors and combat management system.
Two sets, one each side amidships, complementing the rest of a ship's main DP gun, CIWS sets and manually trained HMGs.
Until something more exotic comes along this is probably as straight forward as it gets while offering optimal capability with minimal risk.
I would say defence in depth is a better strategy for mass saturation attacks against affordable drones and missiles.
That means a lot more layers.
But instead of cramming everything onto a single ship and making it even larger, distribute this onto smaller destroyers and then even smaller DDCs (which have minimal crews and cost).
For long-range ASBM and ASCMs, I think dedicated offboard missile carriers are a better option than putting this onto a single larger ship.