055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[tamsen_ikard]

It is a matter of requirements and needs. You procure based on what you need. US faces a ballistic missile threat from their adversaries, so it makes sense for them to have missiles such as the SM-3 and SM-6 for BMD defense. All these platforms already exists in China bar an SM-6 all-in-one like missile, which really isn't needed anyway. China doesn't face any ballistic missile threat so there's no need for an SM-3 or SM-6 like missile. It's not unlikely that they may make a naval BMD missile in the future, but it isn't currently needed or a priority.

What about defeating supersonic or hypersonic cruise missile strike against ships in the high seas? Are Chinese type 055 ships only expected to fight within the first island chain?

In a war, US is most likely to saturate First island chain choke points into Gibralter like fortresses with enough shore based firepower that chinese ships cannot get outside without significant damage. Just breaking that blockade needs very strong defense against missiles.

 

[totenchan]

What about defeating supersonic or hypersonic cruise missile strike against ships in the high seas? Are Chinese type 055 ships only expected to fight within the first island chain?

Excepting notional or not-yet-in-service systems, what supersonic or hypersonic cruise missile strikes could they possible face? Have you thought these problems through? Its not a particularly novel statement to suggest that the PLA and USN have taken very different focuses in the anti-ship role, and if you can't see why that would affect how this would effect what munitions these ships would have, no one can help you.

In a war, US is most likely to saturate First island chain choke points into Gibralter like fortresses with enough shore based firepower that chinese ships cannot get outside without significant damage. Just breaking that blockade needs very strong defense against missiles.

Since when has the approach to shore based firepower to sail ships into them?

 

[Gloire_bb]

In a war, US is most likely to saturate First island chain choke points into Gibralter like fortresses with enough shore based firepower that chinese ships cannot get outside without significant damage. Just breaking that blockade needs very strong defense against missiles.

They would. That's what amphibious capability is for.

 

[siegecrossbow]

 

[Inque]

Again, consider which munitions are fielded by the US—overwhelmingly subsonic and/or stealthy cruise missiles—which are far more easily intercepted in transit by say, land-based air cover, than ballistic or hypersonic equivalents. Maybe, just maybe, you would see greater emphasis on land-based AEW&C to detect such threats (wow, I wonder why KJ-700 was spotted in PLAN colours) instead of VLS interceptors.

USN procures systems to counter the threats it faces. Which are emphatically not the same threats PLAN faces.

Is the HQ series all the PLAN needs in terms of missile defense, then?

 

[iewgnem]

What about defeating supersonic or hypersonic cruise missile strike against ships in the high seas? Are Chinese type 055 ships only expected to fight within the first island chain?

In a war, US is most likely to saturate First island chain choke points into Gibralter like fortresses with enough shore based firepower that chinese ships cannot get outside without significant damage. Just breaking that blockade needs very strong defense against missiles.

PLAN has Type 054A/B with HHQ-16 for short range intercepts, not to mention HHQ-9 is fully capable of intercepting supersonic threats, infact simultaneous interception of multiple incoming LO supersonic threat is literally part of every new hull's commissioning process

It's also moot because all island chain islands are within strike range of PLA's land based missiles and stealth drones, and they just need to take out any Patriots batteries on the island so PLA can put a MALE drone orbit over it to wipe out everything else. All is fair in love and war, when an island become contested, its ownership is entirely based on one's ability to contest it.