Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread


Registered Member
It's not just the radar, but the fire-control available on each ship to guide missiles.

The Burke ended up with 3 fire-control illuminators for 96 VLS.
The Tico had 4 fire-control illuminators for 128 VLS.
The Type-052D has 2 fire control illuminators for 64 VLS.

You can see a clear relationship between 1 dedicated fire-control illuminators for 32 VLS cells.
NB. my understanding is that the Type-055 dispenses with dedicated fire-control illuminators and uses AESA panels instead.

In any case, 112 VLS cells would be consistent with a single mission requirement for [96 VLS cells for air-defence + 16 cells for strike]

You do realise that the Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas have to go to port to reload as well?
And that the US fleet is overwhelmingly made up of Arleigh Burkes with only 96 VLS cells.
Or that the next-gen Zumwalt only had 80 VLS cells.

So why does a Type-055 with 112 VLS cells need any more?


In a Taiwan scenario, a large number of air defence destroyers can expect to be defending the beachhead and resupply ships for weeks or months. We're looking at less than 24hours for these ships to sail to a major naval base, reload, and get back to the beachhead.

Realistically, air defence destroyers on other missions would only go as far as 1500km from Mainland China for 90% of the time.
That's a maximum of 4 days for a reload to/from a naval base.


Also note how the USA is planning for its fleet of large AEGIS ships to naturally dwindle from 80 today to 60-ish.
From the US point of view, resupply is an even bigger issue for them.

But they are still going with fewer larger ships, and more smaller ships that have fewer VLS cells.

The 052D or even the 052C doesn't have any fire control illuminators. All SAM missiles on the 052C/D are terminally active guided.


Lieutenant General
The original version in high-resolution.