055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
I understand the ambition but that has some problems of its own: cost, sensors and availability. A sub typically costs 2-3x more to build than a ship due to structural features alone. It has much higher maintenance requirements with typically ~60% availability. And it has terrible situational awareness because it can't communicate with base easily. It can only recieve orders from VLF signals which have limited bandwidth and depth reach, and cannot signal back to base. This is OK for SSBN which has a very simple mission (just order them "fire, plan N") but for a complex mission it is hard to order them around.

A hypothetical 055B with 12x large VLS (LVLS) and 64x UVLS would have advantages such as full communication capability with the rest of the fleet, a command post to act as coordinator for long range and space warfare, and large radars to light up orbital targets for ASAT and ABM if some of the LVLS were filled with ASAT missiles.
I think I may have misspoken. I don't mean I would exclusively use submarines for 4000km range ASBM. I would actually use both surface ships and also submarines. Both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses.
As for the technical specs of how big these missiles need to be, their mass, their range, the size of their warheads, should they be ASBM, HGV, Scramjet ......... that's a question that deserves its own thread.

However I believe the Type 055 is going to play a much larger role than what most people believe.
 

ashnole

New Member
Registered Member
The Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapon that's going to go on the three Zumwalt-class DDGs is 34.5-inch in diameter and weighs around 7500-pounds.

DF-21, in comparison, is over 54-inch in diameter and weighs nearly (perhaps more) twice! And also quite long.

Back in the early 2000s, the USN had a Project ArcLight under which it tried to create a long-range strike version of its SM-3 ABM|ASAT. Using a 100-pound warhead, they successfully created an MRBM version of a 21-inch diameter SM-3 that could hit targets upto 750 nautical miles! Because SM-3 was an insanely expensive missile, Project ArcLight never got beyond testing phase.

055s existing VLS cells can likely already fit a 30-inch missile. Hell, if not a 30-inch then certainly a 28-inch! If a smallish warhead (250lb) is used, a formidable long-range strike weapon is easily possible!
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
055s existing VLS cells can likely already fit a 30-inch missile. Hell, if not a 30-inch then certainly a 28-inch! If a smallish warhead (250lb) is used, a formidable long-range strike weapon is easily possible!
You can make such a swing-role SAM/MRBM from your standard HQ-9/HQ-19 missile (or it is already exactly such a missile).
I personally doubt what more than that is really necessary.
 

bjj_starter

New Member
Registered Member
If we are talking about ballistic missiles here (DF-21/26 were specifically mentioned), the idea of putting them in a major naval combatant is somewhat counter-intuitive, since a weapon of that size/class would immediately give the ship position away (to space based infrared systems).
I have no particular special insight into the capabilities of SBIRS.


For sensors of any kind whatsoever, however, it significantly increases your ability to detect something if you already know where to look. I have no doubt that there are always US SBIRS looking at PRC silos, and they could almost certainly instantly detect any launch and know exactly which silo launched i.e. exactly where the launch occurred. Maybe the US SBIRS is also able to look at the entire Pacific ocean, spot any ballistic missile plume, and instantly tell where it originated from. I don't know. I do know that that is a much, much harder problem than detecting a first strike launch from silos or the PLARF's TEL operating areas, and just because they have the capability to detect those launches does not imply they have the capability to detect ballistic missile launches throughout the Pacific ocean. I understand they have theatre surveillance as well; maybe that means they could detect any launches within the first island chain. I do doubt it means they could detect any launches in the Pacific, but again, I don't know for sure. If someone knows more about the capabilities of SBIRS please chime in, I promise not to tell anyone you told me.


If that was a likely capability of theirs, though, countermeasures might be possible. Ships are very large, especially the 055, and could potentially create very large smokescreens, opaque to infrared, through which to launch a ballistic missile. The heat would still have to get out eventually, but every extra second of expansion will dramatically decrease its temperature. Sailing while deploying a smokescreen could create a very wide and long cone of smoke, although whether it's feasible to disguise a ballistic launch with it would depend on how long a ballistic missiles boost phase lasts and its shape (if it's kilometres high, then it wouldn't be feasible).


Another possibility could be flares. Obviously suboptimal to give away real ships' positions, but if they can simulate a ballistic launch with a sufficiently realistic flare cocktail they could at least disguise which ships are actually firing at any given moment. With a large enough fleet of USVs deploying flares, they could potentially make locating real ballistic missile launches and manned surface vessels through such launches unviable. This option is definitely farther in the future than a smokescreen.


My overall suggestion is just that SBIRS doesn't inherently kill the viability of ballistic missiles on surface vessels, there are possible countermeasures to be explored even if the system's capabilities are good enough to detect ballistic missile launches anywhere in the Pacific.
 

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
I have no particular special insight into the capabilities of SBIRS.
.....
My overall suggestion is just that SBIRS doesn't inherently kill the viability of ballistic missiles on surface vessels, there are possible countermeasures to be explored even if the system's capabilities are good enough to detect ballistic missile launches anywhere in the Pacific.
I agree:
Just because a weapon system has an undesirable feature ( being highly detectable by the enemy ) that does not automatically make it a bad choice. It can compensate by bringing a lot of desirable features to the battle field. ASBM are fast, long range, and expensive to counter.

There's no such thing as a perfect weapon. Everything must have at least one flaw. You have to decide which one you want to go to war with.
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese PLA's two newly commissioned large destroyers 'ready for combat' with latest drills

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Published: Aug 21, 2022 08:08 PM


Two Type 055 large destroyers, the <em>Nanchang</em> and the <em>Lhasa</em>, are moored at a naval port in 2021. File photo: Courtesy of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy

Two Type 055 large destroyers, the Nanchang and the Lhasa, are moored at a naval port in 2021. File photo: Courtesy of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy

Two of China's newly commissioned Type 055 10,000 ton-class large destroyers, the Anshan and the Wuxi, recently carried out a series of drills involving a wide variety of training objectives, prompting analysts to suggest that the powerful warships are expected to achieve proper combat capability by the end of the year and join their sister ships in island chain-breaking far sea operations like encircling Japan and patrolling near Alaska.

A vessel training center affiliated with the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Northern Theater Command Navy recently organized a warship flotilla consisting of the Anshan, Wuxi and Baotou to conduct a series of maritime exercises under complex weather conditions for several consecutive days, the PLA Navy said in a press release on Saturday.

The drills featured dozens of training objectives, including maneuvering in formation, formation change, live-fire main gun shooting at both daytime and nighttime against targets at sea and on land, joint air defense, anti-submarine warfare, reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance, torpedo defense as well as joint search and rescue in coordination with vessel-based helicopters, according to the press release.

The exercises are designed to simulate real battlefield environments, and the training objectives are intended to be difficult, dangerous and complicated, so that the individual warships and the flotilla as a whole can improve, the PLA Navy said.

Both the Anshan and Wuxi are Type 055 large destroyers. This ship class has a displacement of more than 12,000 tons, is equipped with 112-cell missile vertical launch units and is endowed with the capability to gain strong situational awareness, making it one of the most powerful warships in the world, analysts said.

The Baotou, on the other hand, is a Type 052D destroyer, a PLA Navy utility destroyer considered to be comparable to the US' Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

All three ships were announced to have entered service with the PLA Navy around April 23 this year, the 73rd anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy.

Judging from official media reports covering the progress of the ships' training since their commissioning, they will likely achieve initial operational capability within this year, a Chinese military expert who requested anonymity told the Global Times on Sunday.

The complexity of the training courses is becoming increasingly realistic and combat oriented, and applying the experience gained by previous warships of the same classes will also accelerate the process, the expert said.

The continued commissioning and capability forming of warships, particularly the Type 055s, will contribute to the PLA Navy's combat capabilities, analysts said.

Both the Nanchang and the Lhasa, the first two Type 055 large destroyers, have conducted far sea exercises that broke the first island chain. The Nanchang reportedly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2021, and the Lhasa reportedly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in June this year.

The Anshan and Wuxi are expected to follow the Nanchang and the Lhasa in similar missions once they reach operational capability, observers said.

In addition to the above-mentioned four Type 055s in service with the PLA Northern Theater Command Navy, two more Type 055s, the Dalian and the Yan'an, are reportedly in service with the PLA Southern Theater Command Navy, taking the total number of Type 055 in service to six.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think I may have misspoken. I don't mean I would exclusively use submarines for 4000km range ASBM.

A 4000km ASBM launched by a submarine is overkill.

A submarine should easily be able to evade detection even if it is detected at a distance of 1000km when the missile launches.

So you can use a much smaller ASBM which has less range, costs less and the submarine can fit more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top