055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[kwaigonegin]

It's not so puzzling when you consider that the 052D is the all-around best destroyer for its tonnage, which is still significant smaller than the 055's. In other words, you don't need a 10,000-ton large destroyer for everything. In many cases, a 7,500-ton multirole destroyer will suffice, and its lower operating costs and upgradeability is also likely a major attraction for its continued usage.

It would seem that the PLAN is pursuing a fleet structure not unlike the USN's - the 055 is akin to the Ticonderogas as the 052Ds to the Spruances (or the Burkes, if you prefer). The key difference is that these Chinese destroyers are significantly more capable than their American contemporaries. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN eventually settles on a 052D/E:055/A ratio of around 2:1.

It's only sensible, and more flexible, to employ a healthy mix of more medium-value, medium-capability ships and fewer high-value, high-capability ships, than to focus production purely on the latter.

I wouldn't necessarily say 052Ds are significantly more capable than Burkes especially Flt II and certainly the Flt III ones. LOL. I would say at best they are atpar. I would say they are likely of lesser capability than the Burkes Flt IIAs.

 

[Mirabo]

They can be called more modern because they have been designed after the US counterparts but it's hard to say they are more capable, let alone significantly so. Both 052 and 055 hold fewer VLS than respective counterparts for one thing. PLAN would benefit from fielding better SAMs for its destroyers. Ideally also more models and variants for layered defences. HHQ9 and 16s don't seem to be able to match specs of SM-2 and ESSMs. PLAN currently also don't have a fielded SM-3 equivalent. New missiles will be a great addition to the rest of 055's modern gear. Surprised we haven't seen tests for new SAMs for both PLAN and PLA. Although it has to be said, HQ-9 and radars have been constantly upgraded and improved. Perhaps PLAN is focusing more on submarines and anti-sub. They could be happy with SAM performance for now.

All fair points, but there are some crucial facts that are often overlooked. For example, yes, Chinese DDGs have fewer cells, but the Chinese VLS cells are much larger than the American Mark 41. The 9m CUVLS has almost 3 times the volume of the longest 7.7m Mk 41, allowing for much heavier missiles to equipped. All the more impressive considering that the 055 has 112 of them.

The PLAN is also more or less the only navy in the world that has a supersonic, VLS-launched AShM, the YJ-18A, until the USN rolls out the VLS-launched variant of the LRASM, which is still a couple of years away.

This isn't even considering the dual-band AESA radars on the 052Cs, 052Ds, and 055s, which allows them to pick up on and target hundreds of targets simultaneously if they work as advertised. The USN only has one sensor suite with similar capabilities - the Ford's DBR - which is now a cancelled program because even the USN deemed it 'overkill', and too expensive. Only the AB Flight III's SPY-6 will be

It is true though, that Chinese SAMs are somewhat lackluster - or at the least, yet unproven. The PLAN is probably hard-pressed to develop short and medium-range missiles that can quad-packed or dual-packed, which would free up a lot of missile capacity for other munitions. Also, as you've mentioned, the 055 doesn't have a SM-3 equivalent.

I wouldn't necessarily say 052Ds are significantly more capable than Burkes especially Flt II and certainly the Flt III ones. LOL. I would say at best they are atpar. I would say they are likely of lesser capability than the Burkes Flt IIAs.

Yes, no, maybe. Unless we get our hands on the design's exact specifications, we won't know for sure.

However, it is undeniable that the 052Ds are superior to the Burke Flight IIAs in most regards, especially when it comes to anti-surface firepower, point-defense, and sensor suite. Where the 052D lags behind is in air defense and and ABM capabilities.

By the time the Flight IIIs come out, who knows? Maybe the 052D will have received a Chinese SM-3 and quad-packed SAMs by then, which would put them squarely above the Burke IIAs.

 

[Blitzo]

@Higgle, the RuN and IN do both have Onyx, Brahmos, Sizzler missiles which are VLS launched supersonic AShMs but of course they aren't launched from fully universal VLS like the PLANs VLS, as their SAMs require a separate VLS type.


But agree with other things.

Edit: I do also think though that the larger VLS count of Burkes, even with larger CUVLS volume and a potentially superior sensor suite on 052D Vs a Burke IIA, will make it difficult to argue an 052D is squarely above an IIA. The two thousand ton different in displacement does count for something.

 

[gelgoog]

Now that the Chinese have purchased the S-400 system they are bound to reverse engineer it. The system is similar enough to the S-300 (HQ-9) that the Chinese might just need to reverse engineer the new missiles that the S-400 uses. The newest S-400 missiles have some ABM capabilities, some have twice the range (400 km), others are higher velocity and thus have a better interception probability. I think it is a question of time until we see some such system, or an even better Chinese missile system, on their destroyers.

 

[Blitzo]

Now that the Chinese have purchased the S-400 system they are bound to reverse engineer it. The system is similar enough to the S-300 (HQ-9) that the Chinese might just need to reverse engineer the new missiles that the S-400 uses. The newest S-400 missiles have some ABM capabilities, some have twice the range (400 km), others are higher velocity and thus have a better interception probability. I think it is a question of time until we see some such system, or an even better Chinese missile system, on their destroyers.

There was almost certainly a long range SAM project (either an HQ-9 successor or a new HQ-9 variant) in advanced development before S-400 arrived.

I'm not even sure if the Chinese S-400 purchase includes 40N6.

 

[gelgoog]

If China's S-400 purchase won't include the new missiles it doesn't make much sense. But yes we have not heard which missiles were acquired.

 

[Interstellar]

Now that the Chinese have purchased the S-400 system they are bound to reverse engineer it.

Why is that?

The system is similar enough to the S-300 (HQ-9) that the Chinese might just need to reverse engineer the new missiles that the S-400 uses.

You must have quite a bit of misunderstanding on the HQ-9 system

 

[reservior dogs]

I think the Chinese still need the type 52 along with the type 55 for the following reasons,

1. By now, production of the type 52 should be matured and has a lot of capacity to build them, where as type 55 is currently still limited to two shipyards.

2. The Chinese has a lot of potential adversaries in its own backyard, the East China Sea, South China Sea and to a lesser extend, the Indian Ocean.Here, the relatively shorter range of the type 52 is less of a factor. Nor is the 64 cell launchers a limitation (say, compared to the Burkes). That is because the type 52D, with a very good radar system, can act as "eyes" for target acquisition and tracking. If needed, they can take eight type 22 missile boats along, or called upon the newly constructed islands for additional fire power.

3. Further afield, say to the Middle East or Africa, the type 55 will come in. Here too, the type 52-D could act as the outer ring of defense for the fleet. It provides a very flexible combo for the PLAN.

 

[ougoah]

HQ-9 system is more similar with Patriot/PAC system than it is with S-300. The resemblance is the Chinese program thought the vertical launch and mobility of S-300 was far superior to Patriot and worth copying. HQ-9 is not simply a 1:1 S-300 PMU copy and has been developed into many different versions. For one thing, HQ-9 trial in Turkey was claimed by the trial to be the only system that hit every target. If S-300 is the same, it would have achieved the same results but none of the others managed it.

For PLAN, 052D+ and 055 (if not also 052C and 054A) do need to catch up to ESSM/SM-2/SM-3. Navalising S-400 will give PLAN destroyers an SM-2 equivalent if current HHQ-9 variants do not perform to S-400 level. Honestly China doesn't really need an SM-3 equivalent for now because it doesn't need to worry about rogue nuclear nations attacking it. SM-3s are pretty much only effective against NK or the like, so PLAN may want to focus on better anti-sub and anti-surface weapons rather than a ship based BMD.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The key difference is that these Chinese destroyers are significantly more capable than their American contemporaries.

?
Burkes can do all the stuff 052d can, and more(ABM). They're arguably worse at some of it(less potent munitions), but better at others(larger and superior asw helicopter, EW options), outright more flexible(essms, tomahawks, sm-6s) and operate in a far more integrated maritime environement. For a 30 years old ship class it's an incredible ldvel of adaptability.
The main area 052d wins outright is what it does most essential tasks in a much smaller hull. But it's the burkes who are more numerous, not 052s. And it won't change for quite some time.

055, on the other hand, is larger still... In the end it is a clearly larger ship than the burke. But still w/o abm. Not a problem at the moment, but US army and USAF global prompt strike can change it.

The Kirov is a nuclear powered capital battlecruiser in what is now essentially a greenwater littoral protection navy :/

Green water littoral protection navy still operates far more globally than "blue water" PLANAF.
Don't let trends overtake facts.