055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Iron Man]

A difference of 16 missiles may not be *that* big a deal. If they really wanted to pack in one more row it wouldn't have been that difficult to fit in. If the 055 really only has 112 cells the PLAN probably have their reasons.

Well of course they have their reasons; this is not a point anyone is debating, nor is anyone saying that 16 cells is "*that* big a deal", however big a deal you are trying to portray here. In the overall scheme of things, it's a small deal, just enough to make a passing mention of, which is what I did.

 

[J16B MRF]

From Henri K blog
According to the spotters in Shanghai, the first destroyer Type 055 (12000t) could be launched by the end of June, the 2nd will follow before the end of 2017.

The news can't surprise me at all…Many things and development like this have been "common" for those are familiar in following and concluding traces of PLAN in these years.

 

[latenlazy]

Well of course they have their reasons; this is not a point anyone is debating, nor is anyone saying that 16 cells is "*that* big a deal", however big a deal you are trying to portray here. In the overall scheme of things, it's a small deal, just enough to make a passing mention of, which is what I did.

Don't need to take the comment so personally. I thought it worth mentioning that "it's not that big a deal" because many have made a bigger deal out of it before than you.

 

[antiterror13]

Unfortunately from my perspective, because I was hoping for 128. As for Type 45, Horizon, and FREMM, it's interesting that you mention these types because IMO all three of them are undergunned for their displacement, especially the FREMM and most especially the Italian FREMM with only 16 VL cells for 16 Aster 15/30 missiles to show for its 6,700t displacement. That's only 800t less than the 052D but with one quarter of the missile carrying capacity.

Larger is only more useful IMO if there is a quad-packing MRSAM in the works for the PLAN (for which there is no confirmation or even rumor currently), otherwise a larger cell is still only a single cell for a single missile.

well, larger also useful as it can use bigger SAM hence longer range

 

[Blitzo]

I hope we can quickly get satellite pictures of this thing once it launches. I'm very curious to confirm what its amidships and aft areas look like.

 

[Iron Man]

I hope we can quickly get satellite pictures of this thing once it launches. I'm very curious to confirm what its amidships and aft areas look like.

Not sure why you think it will look anything other than like this:

This CGI is apparently coming from a "spotter", not some random internet artist.

 

[Lethe]

Unfortunately from my perspective, because I was hoping for 128. As for Type 45, Horizon, and FREMM, it's interesting that you mention these types because IMO all three of them are undergunned for their displacement

Yet as modern, clean-sheet designs they point to the standard for 21st century warships moreso than derivatives of older designs such as Arleigh Burke Ft. III or 052D do.

Even within USN and across a compressed timescale you can see this trend, with the older CG-47 being more missile-dense than DDG-51, this despite the fact that CG-47 also has extra facilities that DDG-51 lacks, and a second 5" gun to boot. A crude comparison would suggest that DDG-51 is "underarmed" when of course this is not true: it is simply a more modern design.

Needless to say, 055 is a rather more modern design than even DDG-51 and as such we would expect it to reflect the trend towards reduced missile density relative to displacement.

 

[antiterror13]

Yet as modern, clean-sheet designs they point to the standard for 21st century warships moreso than derivatives of older designs such as Arleigh Burke Ft. III or 052D do.

Even within USN and across a compressed timescale you can see this trend, with the older CG-47 being more missile-dense than DDG-51, this despite the fact that CG-47 also has extra facilities that DDG-51 lacks, and a second 5" gun to boot. A crude comparison would suggest that DDG-51 is "underarmed" when of course this is not true: it is simply a more modern design.

Needless to say, 055 is a rather more modern design than even DDG-51 and as such we would expect it to reflect the trend towards reduced missile density relative to displacement.

Please educate me why is the trend of modern DDG is to have less VLSs?

 

[Iron Man]

Yet as modern, clean-sheet designs they point to the standard for 21st century warships moreso than derivatives of older designs such as Arleigh Burke Ft. III or 052D do.

Even within USN and across a compressed timescale you can see this trend, with the older CG-47 being more missile-dense than DDG-51, this despite the fact that CG-47 also has extra facilities that DDG-51 lacks, and a second 5" gun to boot. A crude comparison would suggest that DDG-51 is "underarmed" when of course this is not true: it is simply a more modern design.

Needless to say, 055 is a rather more modern design than even DDG-51 and as such we would expect it to reflect the trend towards reduced missile density relative to displacement.

Sorry, I just don't buy your trend-setting claims about the 055 here, not least because the PLAN universal VLS is far larger than a Mk 41 cell. The Daring class is designed for 16 additional VLS cells but due to cost they did not install them, just like they didn't initially install any antiship missile launchers. And if you think 16 cells on a 6,700t ship represents some kind of new naval trend then you've gone completely off the deep end.

Please educate me why is the trend of modern DDG is to have less VLSs?

LOL there is no such trend.

 

[Lethe]

Please educate me why is the trend of modern DDG is to have less VLSs?

I don't think there is a trend to have fewer VLS, but there is a trend towards increasing displacement without increasing VLS cells by the same proportion, resulting in reduced density of VLS.

I believe this trend (of increasing displacement) is a function both of more capabilities being integrated into ships over time, and also -- perhaps even primarily -- increased automation attempting to drive down crew numbers to reduce operating costs and increase endurance and operational availability. Compare CG-47 (380) to DDG-51 (300) to Type 45 (190) crew requirement.

Sorry, I just don't buy your trend-setting claims about the 055 here, not least because the PLAN universal VLS is far larger than a Mk 41 cell.

So why are you disappointed that it only has 112 cells?

P.S. Do we know how much larger than Mk. 41 PLAN's universal VLS actually is?

As for 055 setting trends ... it's funny, because you can identify both of the trends I've spoken about (increasing displacement and reduced VLS density) from USN examples alone. That those trends are broadly replicated across European and other navies around the world and match what we are seeing with 055 is just polishing off the argument.

And if you think 16 cells on a 6,700t ship represents some kind of new naval trend then you've gone completely off the deep end.

Obviously there are going to be outliers in any trend.