055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[by78]

The best image yet of 108, the last ship of the first batch.

 

[kentchang]

Yeah, but you also get all the disadvantages, like increased power requirements, new electrics, and the general unreliability of railguns to fire accurately due to significantly increased "barrel" wear due to how modern high-power railguns work.

I wouldn't call them 'disadvantages', more like 'significant engineering challenges'. Clearly not ready for prime time but worthy of a team or three to continue the development simultaneous with DEWs. The only conclusion I would draw is that it is good to be rich to afford playing with different toys.

 

[antiterror13]

Yeah, but you also get all the disadvantages, like increased power requirements, new electrics, and the general unreliability of railguns to fire accurately due to significantly increased "barrel" wear due to how modern high-power railguns work.

There is no such thing all are advantages, there are always some disadvantages .. just decide which suit the party

I believe Railgun is the way to go ... I wouldn't be surprised if China could be the one that master it first

 

[Kich]

Size wise, the HQ-16 is similar in size to the early SM-2. However, the early SM-2s had a range of 74km, while the early HQ-16 only had a range of 40-45 km. Now most PLA units are getting HQ-16Cs, which have a range of 70 km, so similar to the early SM-2s. As with SM-2ERs and SM-6, Raytheon added rocket boosters to the original missile, allowing them to have ranges of 240km and 370km respectively. The newest version of HQ-16 has a declared range of 160km WITHOUT added rocket boosters, demonstrating China's advancement in solid propellants. The original HQ-16 came from the Russian Buk system, but the newest HQ-16 variants are clearly far more advanced than its Russian grandfather.

Now, I would imagine if you add a second stage rocket booster to the HQ-16C, you will have similar performance like SM-2ER or SM-6. However, this is not necessary because the PLA already have another long-range SAM called the HQ-9. The original HQ-9 (or HHQ-9 for the PLAN) had a range of 125km, but the new versions have ranges of 200-260km (some argued 290 km), depending on sources. At least the export variant of the HQ-9B has a range of 260km. The HQ-9 system comes from the S-300 series, but with China's continuing advances in solid propellant, I would imagine future HQ-9 variants to have ranges similar to those of S-400 (400km).

The HQ-16 family appears to be marginally better than HQ-9 in intercepting low-altitude incoming cruise missiles. So for HQ-16, range is not so important as to be able to intercept future subsonic and supersonic sea skilling missile (LRASM and Brahmos flying at altitudes of less than 30 meters). The HQ-9's job is mainly regional aerial defense, such as knocking out enemy aircraft (fighters, tankers, bombers, and AWACS) from more than 200km away. It may even have limited anti-ship capabilities (just like the SM-2 and SM-6).

SM-3 is a whole different story. It is anti-space weapon for hitting enemy ballistic missiles and satellites. China may have deployed a version of HQ-19/26 on ships, but we have no imagery confirmation so far. China's equivalent to SM-3s or THAADs (for hitting incoming targets in space) are classified to the point where everyone has to speculate, but we know China has such weapons because the PLA has tested them multiple times.

It should be noted that HQ-16 only exist on 054A and that both 052C,D and 055 employ HQ-9 and HQ-10. (Except 052C which doesn't have HQ-10).

So PLAN main destroyers don't have a dedicated mid-range SAM

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

It should be noted that HQ-16 only exist on 054A and that both 052C,D and 055 employ HQ-9 and HQ-10. (Except 052C which doesn't have HQ-10).

So PLAN main destroyers don't have a dedicated mid-range SAM

So that means Chinese destroyers and frigates must always stick together in order to have a complete coverage of all three far, mid and close-range SAMs?

Besides, is China working on mid-range SAMs for their destroyers? (And close-range SAMs for their frigates, for that matter?)

 

[gongolongo]

So that means Chinese destroyers and frigates must always stick together in order to have a complete coverage of all three far, mid and close-range SAMs?

Besides, is China working on mid-range SAMs for their destroyers? (And close-range SAMs for their frigates, for that matter?)

PLAN demonstrated they can make quad pack VLS. I'm not sure why they don't on their current destroyers. Maybe there's no need.

 

[asif iqbal]

Well because what you have heard possibly from Zumwalt-class destroyer which I understood had many issues with railgun

Chinese railgun could be more successful (well, we are hopeful here)

btw Railgun has many advantages
1. Higher velocity and longer range and better accuracy
2. No cartridge is required, it means reduced the size of the projectiles .. it can carry much more and cheaper
3. No explosive charge, it means safer and cheaper
etc

I believe the railgun is cancelled after billons spent for Zumwalt

they are planning on refitting the Zumwalt's now

it would cost something like $1 million a shell

total disaster of a program

 

[BoraTas]

It should be noted that HQ-16 only exist on 054A and that both 052C,D and 055 employ HQ-9 and HQ-10. (Except 052C which doesn't have HQ-10).

So PLAN main destroyers don't have a dedicated mid-range SAM

So that means Chinese destroyers and frigates must always stick together in order to have a complete coverage of all three far, mid and close-range SAMs?

Besides, is China working on mid-range SAMs for their destroyers? (And close-range SAMs for their frigates, for that matter?)

There is no need for a medium-range missile unless it increases magazine depth (read double or quad packable). There are no rules saying you can't use a long-range missile for short-range engagements. Even with a single missile, you can engage a target multiple times if you have enough time. Layers in air defence are about cost and magazine depth optimization. Otherwise, there are no layers.

Why China didn't rush a quad packable missile is likely the same as European ships having 24-64 anti-aircraft missiles. There are very few cases in which you would launch more than 64 anti-aircraft missiles per ship and still survive. If the enemy can engage you with multiple 150+ missile salvos you are in a very bad position regardless.

 

[Kich]

So that means Chinese destroyers and frigates must always stick together in order to have a complete coverage of all three far, mid and close-range SAMs?

Besides, is China working on mid-range SAMs for their destroyers? (And close-range SAMs for their frigates, for that matter?)

I believe they are working on a quad pack mid-range SAM that the rumor mill has dubbed 555. It will be equivalent to US RIM-ESSM (seasparrow).

This missile will fit the U-VLS and thus filled the role of mid-range SAM for the DDGs and maybe the new FFG 05X.

There have been some mid-range SAM that have been appeared in Chinese military expo shows that makes me believe a 555 missile isn't far off in the future.
Like the FM-3000N that can

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I believe there's another one called the SD-30.

 

[Kich]

There is no need for a medium-range missile unless it increases magazine depth (read double or quad packable). There are no rules saying you can't use a long-range missile for short-range engagements. Even with a single missile, you can engage a target multiple times if you have enough time. Layers in air defence are about cost and magazine depth optimization. Otherwise, there are no layers.

Why China didn't rush a quad packable missile is likely the same as European ships having 24-64 anti-aircraft missiles. There are very few cases in which you would launch more than 64 anti-aircraft missiles per ship and still survive. If the enemy can engage you with multiple 150+ missile salvos you are in a very bad position regardless.

There are more benefits for having a dedicated mid-range SAM on a platform like DDG than not having one since a SAM suited for mid range (roughly 50km+) will be small and nimble to sustain higher G-turns than a big long range missile. It thus increases the PK for close-mid range engagements. Of course being able to quad-packed is doable for mid-range missiles due to their inherent size.

US Navy certainly see a benefit which is why they've invested heavily into the ESSM and have an extended range version I believe.
PLAN not having one on their DDGs is shortfall.