Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
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.
Ah... my bad. I am referring to the 155mm canons with the 100km shell that was brought up first by Lion.

Anyway... even if that large naval canon was for bombardment of shore or inland targets... I fail to actually see the effectiveness of that weapon, unless there are quite a number of ships that actually could form an artillery battery by themselves.

Do note that at 150km... or lets take the Chinese 100km 155mm round for example, the CEP is at 40m. Firing 1 shot at a time, it would take plenty of shots to peppered a reasonable sized beach or inland targets. The round is not precise enough to do much harm.

As such... I would think a cruise missile would make more sense than a large naval canon.
 

Lion

Senior Member
Ah... my bad. I am referring to the 155mm canons with the 100km shell that was brought up first by Lion.

Anyway... even if that large naval canon was for bombardment of shore or inland targets... I fail to actually see the effectiveness of that weapon, unless there are quite a number of ships that actually could form an artillery battery by themselves.

Do note that at 150km... or lets take the Chinese 100km 155mm round for example, the CEP is at 40m. Firing 1 shot at a time, it would take plenty of shots to peppered a reasonable sized beach or inland targets. The round is not precise enough to do much harm.

As such... I would think a cruise missile would make more sense than a large naval canon.
Cruise missile is expensive. And naval ship doing firing support for amphibious landing is a standard practice.
 

Lion

Senior Member
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.)




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.
If PLA and PLAN can standardise their 155mm rounds. It will reduce cost ,logistic and do wonder for the whole PLA.
130mm rounds cannot. Because PLA is going to dump 130mm rounds soon. That means only Naval will be the only user. And I think PLAN is confident PJ-38 is mature and reliable. The fact, they do serial production of Type52D shows all system going to use has reach certain confident level unlike the previous case of Type52C where only 2 initial type are launched.

If PJ-38 already achieve reliability and confident level. And upgraded of PJ-38 to 155mm calibre is not too far.
 
Last edited:

joshuatree

Captain
.....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....

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?

Definitely endurance and range. I see a larger displacement arising from three realistic needs.

1) Having a need and/or wanting less reliance on UNREP/RAS when conducting lengthy deployments at sea.

2) Wanting more firepower per vessel, more VLS, etc. Not necessarily bigger individual weapons, just more of them.

3) Needing a larger platform either for space or power requirements to support even bigger and more powerful sensors. Of course miniaturization counters the need for more space and power but it's a constant tug of war on this front. It's like saying CPU die size has shrunk over the years but then makers start making dual cores and quad cores that counters the space and power needs.


And offhand, a pissing contest among navies. Remember dreadnoughts and the race to keep putting bigger caliber guns on them?
 

asif iqbal

Brigadier
The size of the vessals is decided by the requirement and overall stratedgy of the navy

For example when they were deciding on the size of the Queen Elizabeth it was set by the sortie rate requirment, the Royal Navy issued a sortie rate of around 120-140 sorties in a 24 hour period, Launch 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and recover 24 aircraft in 24 minutes

Using this metric the size of the carrier was set to 65,000+ tons or there abouts, this is why the QE is the size it is because of the requirement set aside by the navy

China is expanding, it's trading in every part of the world, it relays on trade with the worlds country's, therefore the Navy needs to ensure the line of communications are not only kept open but also safe, for this it requires more and more naval presence in many parts of the world which will ensure future trade

As such I can 100% see the requirement for a Cruiser for the PLAN, not only that also a aircraft carrier too, the cruiser would have to be say 10,000+ tons, have a dual hanger with two helicopters and a VLS of 96 cells nothing less only more

Anything else is speculation
 

Bltizo

Moderator
Staff member
If PLA and PLAN can standardise their 155mm rounds. It will reduce cost ,logistic and do wonder for the whole PLA.
No other mitaty does this. Also, I'll repeat again, a shell which works on a land gun may not work on a naval gun.

130mm rounds cannot. Because PLA is going to dump 130mm rounds soon. That means only Naval will be the only user.
I see no problem with that. USN has operated dozens of 127mm mark 45s on destroyers and cruisers independent of the army. The army and navy of countries rarely share a common logistics chain and I'd they do more often than not its for weapons like anti tank missiles.
I'll say it again, that navies and armies rarely share common ammo due to differing requirements of a naval gun versus land based artillery, and developing a gun to suit ammo is the wrong way around.

And I think PLAN is confident PJ-38 is mature and reliable. The fact, they do serial production of Type52D shows all system going to use has reach certain confident level unlike the previous case of Type52C where only 2 initial type are launched.

If PJ-38 already achieve reliability and confident level. And upgraded of PJ-38 to 155mm calibre is not too far.
It is too far because if the PJ38 is reliable and can fire extended range guided rounds and be nearly as effective as a 155mm gun then why should te PLAN develop a new gun that probably will not share the same ammo as the army while also screwing up the PLANs own gun logistics? They already will have 130, 100, 76 mm guns in service in large numbers, adding 155mm to that is excessive at best. And you can't "base" a gun of a calibre from a gun of a smaller calibre like 155 mm to 130mm. It's basically like building a new gun.
There are little benefits for PLAN introducing a new calibre gun at this stage and very high risk and cost.




@rhino the USN claims each AGS will have the fire support power of 6 155mm howitzers.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
The US is using a 155mm gun on one class of vessel, and there are only three of those ships being built, so there will only be six such guns. They are expensive, but they will work very well shooting PGMs a long ways and directly for support of troops on land. They will be very accurate and have a very high rate of fire, being able to shoot many rounds from different angles and elevations depending on weather conditions so they all rain down on the targets at once.

That is what they are designed for. Anti-shipping duties are possible with these weapons, but with the 80 PVLS cells and the Tactical Tomahawks for anti-shipping duties, there use for that mission will probably be very limited.

For smaller, close-in boat threats, each vessel will have two, high rate of fire 57mm weapons.

And, the 155mm AGS is only a stop gap in any case. Within ten years the US will mount much more effective and longer range rail guns in their place, which are already being live-fire tested.

So, I highly doubt anyone saying that the PLAN intends a 155mm AGS look alike is accurate. What they are deploying on the 052Ds with the new 130mm guns will suffice and be more than enough.

I do not see the PLAN building a fire-support centric vessel like the Zummwalts. The Zummwalts are very neat vessels, with a lot of new technologies. There is a good likelihood that production on an anti-air centric version of those ships may come about to carry the large AMDR in full size that the Burke Flight IIIs cannot. If that happens, they may build 12-16 of those.

Anyhow, the PLAN may eventually put out a Burke III sized vessel of 10-12,000 tons. But I believe it is going to be some time before they do.

With the six 052Cs and integrating them into their fleets, and with what probably will be at least eight 052Ds (if not more) over the next 3-4 years, and longer if they build more, they are going to have their hands full building them and integrating them.

And, those 14+ vessels right there are going to give them a capability second only to the US Navy once they get them deployed. I would not be surprised to see a longer run of the 052D if they prove themselves as capable as they look, improving them as they go as the US has done with the Burkes. That would be extremely cost effective, and powerful. Those vessels will be very effective SAG Task Group leaders, and very effective escorts for the carrier(s) and amphibious vessels the PLAN is producing.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Brigadier
When it comes to principle surface combatants, the general rule of thumb is bigger is better. The balancing factors are cost and risk. The bigger the ship, the bigger the target. If you cannot protect that ship, its just a big target for the enemy to take out a big chunk of your navy at a single stroke, for example, the General Belgrano springs to mind.

As Joshuatree already pointed out, a bigger ship has many inherent advantages, and in addition to the three he has already pointed out, there are the additional advantages of:

- Futureproofing. We are hearing rumours that the reason the 052D does not use the new Type 1030 CIWS is because of power supply issues. If true, that gives us an idea if how close to the margins the 052D has pushed the basic 052 hull design and potential. For next gen weapons like laser CIWS and rail guns, the power requirements are going to be an order of magnitude higher, and to mount such weapons would require generator and capacitor surpluses in addition to just the physical deck space.

- Damage management. The same warhead will do more damage to a smaller ship than a bigger one. Just take the punishment USS America took when the USN sunk her as proof of that. A bigger ship allows for more redundancy and safety measures to help it better deal with battle damage.

- Crew comfort. This is low on the list of priorities, but bigger ships are affected less by wind and waves, so it will mean a smoother ride for their crews. In addition, bigger ships allows for more comforts and amenities to be put onboard like gyms and video rooms etc.
 

FarkTypeSoldier

Junior Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #29
Nice to see some interesting discussion among us...

AGS stands for Advance Gunnery System, is it?

This short form keeps appearing. Sorry for the Noob question
 
Last edited:

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Nice to see some interesting discussion among us...

AGS stands for Advance Gunnery System, is it?

This short form keeps appearing. Sorry for the Noob question
It stands for Advanced Gun System. Well... currently there are different schools of thought on this system.
 
Top