Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@ lion
The Navy and the Ground forces of most nations do not share common logistics and no navies have purposefully desired a type of weapon or aircraft or calibre of gun just to have commonality with another service arm -- in fact it tends to be the opposite, partly due to competition of funding, and partly because each service has its own unique needs.
A 155mm shell that works in a PLZ05 probably won't work onboard a naval ship very well.

Besides, consider this, the USN has had dozens of warships equipped with 127mm calibre guns for decades, and has for the same time had a large number of 155mm and 105mm artillery.


130mm gun was developed, probably because they had samples of AK130s to work with from the sovremenny's they purchased, and so managed to produce a modernized version from a proven product, reducing risk and cost. Developing a new 155mm gun from the ground up, which will not provide much if any commonality with the PLA Ground forces will have high risk and cost. All to produce a gun which probably will not be able to be much more capable than the 130mm gun with its range of smart munitions, and an 155mm gun will only be fit aboard a small number of 055s anyway. I'm calling it now, 130mm is the new generation of large naval gun for the PLAN for the forseeable future.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
I know this is a stupid question, but I am burning with curiosity. In modern warfare whereby anti-ship missiles are much more effective, why are we still so keen in developing massive canon the like of a 155mm canon that could be fitted with a round that had a 100km range. Note that the ALTM that developed that round did mentioned that the CEP is around 40m. While it is consider pretty accurate on land... it is not that accurate in the sea (with the same 40m CEP).
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
I still wonder what exactly is the benefit of a much larger Destroyer/Cruiser over the size of Destroyer the PLAN currently operates. As I have said before, a century ago it made sense as your hull size was directly proportional to the size and range of your main armament.
This of course is no longer true and Cruise Missiles give an 022 or an 056 the same range as Heavy Cruiser.

So aside for just packing more missiles, what real "extra" would a 12,000 tonne vessel offer?
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
It should also that it has a much better ASW helicopter.

Z-9 and Ka-27 is far exceeded by NH-90 NFH, MH-60R and EH-101.

In more many US combat ships use 2 helo, in PLAN only 3 DD !
 
Last edited:

Lion

Senior Member
@ lion
The Navy and the Ground forces of most nations do not share common logistics and no navies have purposefully desired a type of weapon or aircraft or calibre of gun just to have commonality with another service arm -- in fact it tends to be the opposite, partly due to competition of funding, and partly because each service has its own unique needs.
A 155mm shell that works in a PLZ05 probably won't work onboard a naval ship very well.

Besides, consider this, the USN has had dozens of warships equipped with 127mm calibre guns for decades, and has for the same time had a large number of 155mm and 105mm artillery.


130mm gun was developed, probably because they had samples of AK130s to work with from the sovremenny's they purchased, and so managed to produce a modernized version from a proven product, reducing risk and cost. Developing a new 155mm gun from the ground up, which will not provide much if any commonality with the PLA Ground forces will have high risk and cost. All to produce a gun which probably will not be able to be much more capable than the 130mm gun with its range of smart munitions, and an 155mm gun will only be fit aboard a small number of 055s anyway. I'm calling it now, 130mm is the new generation of large naval gun for the PLAN for the forseeable future.
PJ-38 130mm naval gun are specifically designed to fire many type of ammunition and reduces logistic. I will not be surprised if a 155mm newly design based on PJ-38 is designed capable of firing WS-35 ammo.

A naval gun capable of firing 155mm rounds at 100km will be the idea bombardment for a modern warfare.
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I know this is a stupid question, but I am burning with curiosity. In modern warfare whereby anti-ship missiles are much more effective, why are we still so keen in developing massive canon the like of a 155mm canon that could be fitted with a round that had a 100km range. Note that the ALTM that developed that round did mentioned that the CEP is around 40m. While it is consider pretty accurate on land... it is not that accurate in the sea (with the same 40m CEP).
Large naval guns these days have an emphasis on fire support and line-of-sight anti ship use.
The LRLAP used aboard AGS will not be used for the latter role, but rather the former, and AGS was designed specifically with an emphasis on fire support.


I still wonder what exactly is the benefit of a much larger Destroyer/Cruiser over the size of Destroyer the PLAN currently operates. As I have said before, a century ago it made sense as your hull size was directly proportional to the size and range of your main armament.
This of course is no longer true and Cruise Missiles give an 022 or an 056 the same range as Heavy Cruiser.

So aside for just packing more missiles, what real "extra" would a 12,000 tonne vessel offer?

Well I think a larger ship not only provides greater endurance and range, but it also offers more facilities for commanders to plant their flag and wage a war from, which a smaller ship may not offer.
Ship size also limits the size of the radar you can carry, which can be seen as the modern equivalent of heavy multi inch cannons of a century ago in some respects. Size is one of the big controversies regarding the development of burke flight iii, as some argue it is too small to accomodate the new generation AMD Radar.

In 055's case, assuming it carries the same APAR as 052D, it offers more command facilities, greater endurance/range/comfort, and also provides a hull which can be further developed or refitted upon in future with emerging technologies. I think the kidd class hull reached its limit with the ticonderoga, the burke hull will reach its limit with flight iii, and they probably can't squeeze much more out of 052 beyond what they have in 052D.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
PJ-38 130mm naval gun are specifically designed to fire many type of ammunition and reduces logistic. I will not be surprised if a 155mm newly design based on PJ-38 is designed capable of firing WS-35 ammo.
Developing a gun to fire an existing munition is the wrong way round. The current PJ-38 will probably be able to fire precision guided extended range rounds too. (for instance the Mk 45, 127mm gun's ERGM was to be able to travel 120km. The oto melara 127mm vulcano guided round has a 100-120km range too.)

A naval gun capable of firing 155mm rounds at 100km will be the idea bombardment for a modern warfare.

I'll say it again, the current gun will be able to do much of what an 155mm gun will be able to do. Developing another 155mm gun so early after PJ38 hasn't even entered service is premature and unnecessary and I think it'd be a surprise and a waste of resources.
 
Last edited:

duncanidaho

Junior Member
I know this is a stupid question, but I am burning with curiosity. In modern warfare whereby anti-ship missiles are much more effective, why are we still so keen in developing massive canon the like of a 155mm canon that could be fitted with a round that had a 100km range. Note that the ALTM that developed that round did mentioned that the CEP is around 40m. While it is consider pretty accurate on land... it is not that accurate in the sea (with the same 40m CEP).
Maybe the quantity of amunnition?
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Large naval guns these days have an emphasis on fire support and line-of-sight anti ship use.
The LRLAP used aboard AGS will not be used for the latter role, but rather the former, and AGS was designed specifically with an emphasis on fire support.
Hmm... if that is the case, then there really is no need for a 155mm canon that could fire a round at a range of 100km and with a 40m CEP. I mean... on land, that type of weapon would be devastating especially with an entire battery of it. However on a boat, the boat can at the most carried 1 or 2 of such weapon... and at such a high CEP + the ship is moving in 3 dimension, forward/ backward, up and down (due to the wave), hitting enemy ship is difficult.

And if it is for line of sight, you wouldn't need 100km range and no need for 155mm calibre, current canon is good enough...

Oh... wait... you are not the one mentioning that 155mm with the 100km range round. Sorry ;)
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Hmm... if that is the case, then there really is no need for a 155mm canon that could fire a round at a range of 100km and with a 40m CEP. I mean... on land, that type of weapon would be devastating especially with an entire battery of it. However on a boat, the boat can at the most carried 1 or 2 of such weapon... and at such a high CEP + the ship is moving in 3 dimension, forward/ backward, up and down (due to the wave), hitting enemy ship is difficult.

And if it is for line of sight, you wouldn't need 100km range and no need for 155mm calibre, current canon is good enough...

Oh... wait... you are not the one mentioning that 155mm with the 100km range round. Sorry ;)
Wait, were you talking about AGS or something else entirely?

Anyway the AGS with its 150km range LRLAP shelll is designed for fire support (fire support as in bombarding shore or inland targets), not long range and ship duties. The AGS uses a conventional, "short range" shell for normal anti ship duty.
 

Top