I would have said that myself.
I only stated "somebody said so" because I did not want to take other people's credit, not like I tried to hide behind somebody.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
I only stated "somebody said so" because I did not want to take other people's credit, not like I tried to hide behind somebody.
For incoming anti-ship missiles, what is better? 4x MR-SAMs or 1x LR-SAM in a VLS cell?
And remember that even a salvo of 2x MR-SAMs like the ESSM is still $2M
Lethe
Captain
Obviously the question of PLAN's 'ultimate' (i.e. relatively stable) fleet structure will not be resolved for another 20 years at the earliest. While speculation in the interim is interesting, I think we should refrain from becoming attached to any particular outcome to the extent that the quality of discussion suffers.
That said, there is a nearer term measure that could hint at future outcomes, namely annual production rate. If a commissioning rate of three or more destroyers per year is sustained for three or more consecutive years, I think it would be reasonable to say that PLAN is 'on track' for a fleet of 90+ destroyers. Even in that scenario, the claim should only be 'lightly held', but it would nonetheless have a degree of plausibility that it does not in a world where PLAN has yet to record such a rate for even two successive years, let alone thirty
Both. Ideally you want to destroy the incoming missile with LR SAM before it enters MR SAM range.
And if the anti-ship missile is targeting another ship, LR SAM offers a much better engagement envelope.
That said, there is a nearer term measure that could hint at future outcomes, namely annual production rate. If a commissioning rate of three or more destroyers per year is sustained for three or more consecutive years, I think it would be reasonable to say that PLAN is 'on track' for a fleet of 90+ destroyers. Even in that scenario, the claim should only be 'lightly held', but it would nonetheless have a degree of plausibility that it does not in a world where PLAN has yet to record such a rate for even two successive years, let alone thirty
Both. Ideally you want to destroy the incoming missile with LR SAM before it enters MR SAM range.
And if the anti-ship missile is targeting another ship, LR SAM offers a much better engagement envelope.
Last edited:
That is where number is better than range. But longer range is better to take out the platform that deliver this missiles, such as aircraft 200 km away?
It is all about balance and doctrine. Besides, there will always be more 054s than 055 in a battle groups who carries lots of mid range missiles that you suggested.
The reason that there is the trend you talked about is because those countries who prefer it has a smaller navy, not able to put up a full range battle group. The very reason of 055 is to build a large battle group with 054 types of ships in formation. Only USN can put such kind of force and China is trying to do the same, nobody else is trying that.
A three-year construction record is enough to predict the next 30 years? LOL I don't think so. They're actually constructing FOUR 055s at a time right now, but unless you're a rabid fanboi you're not going to make assumptions about long term 055 projections based on this. More likely they will build these first 4 (or possibly 8, depending on what you believe) and test them out for a few years before committing to a longer term sustained build rate of maybe 1 or 2 a year. The confirmation of 112 VL cells IMO compresses the 'VL cell range' of PLAN's ship classes and may possibly indicate a dual-class ship fleet structure in the future rather than a triple-class structure (i.e. DDG/FFG vs CG/DDG/FFG), especially if the 055 turns out to have a much smaller displacement than we have been assuming, but we will have to see how this plays out in the next several years.
Ships (especially large fleet air defense ships) are used for 'power projection' in the form of sea control/area denial, except that they do it with their air defense missiles, ASCMs, and ASW missiles/helicopters. A 200km LRSAM is the primary means of power projection for a ship like the 055. A 50km range MRSAM is possibly not even enough to protect a ship in a different screen within the same CBG. So while there are certainly tradeoffs between power projection and maximizing self/local air defense, it is certainly ludicrous IMO to claim loadouts of 60 or more MRSAMs for a ship as large as the 055 just because they can. I think a far more reasonable MRSAM loadout for the 055 is 4 x 8 = 32 or even 4 x 4 = 16 MRSAMs depending on the mission, assuming as we all are that such a quad-packing missile is either in the works or already deployed. Incidentally, a non-quad-packing MRSAM like the HHQ-16 is not likely going to be seen on the 055; such a missile would be wasting space that an HHQ-9 could be taking up instead.
What did the procurement of the 052D look like?
I assume you're trying to ask a rhetorical question.
Why do you think the 055's 112 VLS count, or a smaller than expected displacement, make a dual class vs triple class structure more likely?
I'm asking because the Type 052D's pattern of procurement might tell us a lot about how the PLAN might approach the 055's.
- Status