055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

Don’t think I ever suggested a single-role loadout, which is why I inquired about land-attack missiles in addition to AShMs. I’ve repeatedly emphasized that the strike (deep) cells offer the greater variety of load options.

Well, your reply to Latenlazy when I quoted you, didn't include the edit about adaptability and versatility of longer VLS cells, so I could only reply to what I saw at the time.

Unless I’m mistaken, that is, and strike-cells can’t accommodate defensive loads? However, as far as single-role loads are concerned, before one offers axiomatic pronouncements, one might look into those scenarios in which USN destroyers were front-loaded and re-loaded with single-role (strike) loadouts in order to fulfill a specific function within a larger Task/Strike-Force engaging specific situational contingency. Despite personal sympathies, they are the ones who’ve done this most and done it best. Therefore, it’s to them one might look for examples of how it’s done. But then, China may never achieve the level of numbers that would allow this type of mission specificity.

The critical factor is not how a ship is front-loaded, but it’s reload speed and reload capacity. Or, are we expecting PLAN to engage solely in single load out exchanges? I know it’s fun to theorize about ideal approaches to this and that. But knowing what this and that actually are is the determining factor in deciding any approaches. In other words, the specific situational circumstances of each mission dictate the approaches to be taken, not any idealized, theorized, one-size fits-all set-up. That’s rules of engagement 101, SMEAC!

When sailing in a general state of preparation, sure, a balanced mix is the obvious choice, as there is no specific mission. In this state you’re equally prepared for whatever. Alternatively, when there is, or are, a specific objective, or objectives, and when there are specific, known obstacles and challenges, those ratios may be skewed, and heavily, to one or the other emphasis.

Yes, it absolutely goes without saying that having more and longer VLS cells enables a variety of other large payloads that can fit into the 9m cells beyond only AShMs or LACMs. VLR SAMs, BMD, and other yet to be developed large payloads will likely only be capable of being launched from the 9m VLS.

In theory -- and this is my reply to @latenlazy as well -- if you can have all of your VLS be the longest possible length on a ship, that would be "ideal," because it maximizes the payload flexibility for your ship. But in the real world, there are limits to hull dimensions and topweight and internal subsystem and machinery placement which may limit how many VLS you can accommodate of the longest length.


As for loading a ship heavily with a dedicated loadout -- there can certainly be situations whereupon a heavily skewed strike or antiship loadout "might" be viable, but in your average "high intensity air-naval-warfare" loadout, I cannot see that being a common loadout (taskforce included)

 

[james smith esq]

Well, your reply to Latenlazy when I quoted you, didn't include the edit about adaptability and versatility of longer VLS cells, so I could only reply to what I saw at the time.




Yes, it absolutely goes without saying that having more and longer VLS cells enables a variety of other large payloads that can fit into the 9m cells beyond only AShMs or LACMs. VLR SAMs, BMD, and other yet to be developed large payloads will likely only be capable of being launched from the 9m VLS.

In theory -- and this is my reply to @latenlazy as well -- if you can have all of your VLS be the longest possible length on a ship, that would be "ideal," because it maximizes the payload flexibility for your ship. But in the real world, there are limits to hull dimensions and topweight and internal subsystem and machinery placement which may limit how many VLS you can accommodate of the longest length.


As for loading a ship heavily with a dedicated loadout -- there can certainly be situations whereupon a heavily skewed strike or antiship loadout "might" be viable, but in your average "high intensity air-naval-warfare" loadout, I cannot see that being a common loadout (taskforce included)

A “high-intensity air-naval” engagement would be a specific mission profile, and this would be the ‘task’ of that ‘force’, to be prepared to achieve victory in a “high-intensity air-naval” environment. A Task Force intended to address this contingency probably wouldn’t load any land-attack missiles (and thus, a completely balanced inventory) on board, as they’d serve no tactical function.

Remember, “Task-Force” isn’t just a generic military term, or, at least, it wasn’t, although it might have fallen into that type of usage. It’s a specific descriptor for the objective of a formation’s composition. Those bases used to be included in Task-Forces’ names. Maybe I’m living in the past.

 

[Blitzo]

A “high-intensity air-naval” engagement would be a specific mission profile, and this would be the ‘task’ of that ‘force’, to be prepared to achieve victory in a “high-intensity air-naval” environment. A Task Force intended to address this contingency probably wouldn’t load any land-attack missiles (and thus, a completely balanced inventory) on board, as they’d serve no tactical function.

Remember, “Task-Force” isn’t just a generic military term, or, at least, it wasn’t, although it might have fallen into that type of usage. It’s a specific descriptor for the objective of a formation’s composition. Those bases used to be included in Task-Forces’ names. Maybe I’m living in the past.

Certainly, a "high intensity air-naval" engagement is only "a specific mission profile" -- but that mission profile IMO is also the singular most important and highest risk and highest demanding mission profile, and IMO for the PLAN at least, is the mission profile that they are most cognizant of.
So when I say "high intensity air-naval" loadout, I am very much speaking from the perspective that this is the most important scenario for the PLAN (and arguably many other navies as well).

In such an engagement scenario, the number of dedicated LACMs will likely be small to zero, however a number of AShMs will likely be carried to retain a degree of offensive capability in each ship.


Naturally there are some alternative scenarios where it might make sense to load your 055 with a heavy load of LACMs, perhaps in certain scenarios where you are against and opponent of lesser capability or at a stage of a conflict where the enemy has limited to now naval and aerial threats.
But I also don't think that's what Latenlazy had in mind when he was talking about "practical combat" because those are such niche specific scenarios.

 

[no_name]

Yes, and in any such task force, it is more likely that all ships in the taskforce with multirole VLS (i.e.: the UVLS) will have mixed loadouts of varying priorities, and very unlikely for a ship to be fully equipped with an all single role loadout.



====




I don't like this question because:
1. We don't know how many 9m length VLS the 055 has on its current 112 cells to begin with. I personally believe it is anywhere from 32 to 64 of the 9m length, but we don't know the real number at this point in time, so any such comparison is invalid in the first place when we don't know the true state of it.
2. More importantly, it makes it seem like the decision between 112 UVLS and 128 UVLS has any sort of major relationship with the percentage of cells that are 9m in length, whereas in reality that is more reflective of the length of the ship and the arrangement of internal subsystems of the ship, which is not a simple matter of "configuration".
3. Also, your choice of number -- 128 cells -- again makes it seem like there is some kind of important role for 128 VLS. Why not 144 or 112 or 96 instead?


If you are trying to ask whether it is better for a surface combatant (in general) to carry a slightly lower total VLS count of all strike/longer length VLS versus carrying a slightly higher total VLS count of mixed strike/longer length and medium length VLS, then that is a more reasonable question but that is still dependent on the design of the ship and the hull and internal subsystem arrangements and also the role/mission and cost of the ship.
In short -- there's no clear answer, because it's not just a matter of "reconfiguring" a ship.

I used 128 because I remembered people were hoping that being the number of VLS cells that the 055 would have when we first got wind of her existence (to match Sejong in their mind, or whatever). But yeah it does seem like an arbitrary and not meaningful question on further inspection.

Perhaps the longer VLS cells would be useful if they ever developed a future long range AAM that makes full use of the length?

 

[Gloire_bb]

Yes, it absolutely goes without saying that having more and longer VLS cells enables a variety of other large payloads that can fit into the 9m cells beyond only AShMs or LACMs. VLR SAMs, BMD, and other yet to be developed large payloads will likely only be capable of being launched from the 9m VLS.

In theory -- and this is my reply to @latenlazy as well -- if you can have all of your VLS be the longest possible length on a ship, that would be "ideal," because it maximizes the payload flexibility for your ship. But in the real world, there are limits to hull dimensions and topweight and internal subsystem and machinery placement which may limit how many VLS you can accommodate of the longest length.

There is one more to that, though.
VLR SAMs themselves are becoming viable strike(ASuW/Land Attack) weapons, permitting potentially more homogenous loads.
So going "all big" may actually become a sufficient reason to justify a clearly larger ship.
With this in mind - I, however, don't personally think that PLAN for some time will go for such a missile that won't fit in normal 052Ds, as even "current" size is clearly big as it is(it allows for 40n6-class weapons).

So, for now:
1. Flexibility of loads(any empty cell can take anything you like).
2. Future-proofing.
3. Wastly increased strike capability(perhaps equivalent to a whole flotilla of smaller combatants).

 

[nlalyst]

(2)"Strike length" doesn't refer just to land attack missiles. For example, SM-3 and SM-6 only fit into "strike cells" of mk.41.
i.e. new Constellation is apparently limited to ESSM and SM-2.

The vice president of Fincantieri Marine Group confirmed that the ships will have strike length VLS. After all, the Constellation class (7400 tons) frigates are comparable in displacement to the Type 052D destroyers. And they are designed to take on over 400 tons more in displacement through their lifetime.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The vice president of Fincantieri Marine Group confirmed that the ships will have strike length VLS. After all, the Constellation class (7400 tons) frigates are comparable in displacement to the Type 052D destroyers. And they are designed to take on over 400 tons more in displacement through their lifetime.

Requirement states only normal ones, though - and it was dropped later in the design process.
We'll see the answer this year, hopefully.

 

[nlalyst]

Requirement states only normal ones, though - and it was dropped later in the design process.
We'll see the answer this year, hopefully.

FWIW, in this video, Rear Adm Chuck Goddard, senior vice president of FMG, explains that their design has strike length VLS:

 

[Gloire_bb]

FWIW, in this video, Rear Adm Chuck Goddard, senior vice president of FMG, explains that their design has strike length VLS:

Thanks!
I saw it, but it's seriously old.

 

[james smith esq]

In such an engagement scenario, the number of dedicated LACMs will likely be small to zero, however a number of AShMs will likely be carried to retain a degree of offensive capability in each ship.

Although an unpopular observation, it’s my opinion that, when engaging a USN Carrier Strike Force, even PLAN ship-borne AShMs (YJ-18s) would be of little use. As I’ve suggested, regarding coastal-defense AShM batteries, I see it as being unlikely that a USN CSF would close inside of the combat radius of the F-18E, ~700 km. And, with the LRASM (range ~ 500 km) in the pipes and the fact that Carrier escorts Tomahawks have a range, supposedly, ~1700 km, this range could be extended out farther, especially in the initial stages of an engagement. As such, PLAN “high-intensity naval-air warfare” Task-Forces could, in fact, be reduced to single-role platforms, albeit AD2. This same limitation might obtain in engagements with future JMSDF Carrier Strike Forces, as well, as the combat radius their F-35B is ~ 800 km.

In order to address this, I’d like to see the development of an AShBM/Hypersonic Vehicle platform minimized to fit these deep/strike cells and an air-launched supersonic AShM with a range of ~480 km. Although inferior to the proposed-range of the LRASM, this range, combined with supersonic speed, should be sufficient to constitute an equalizing threat.