Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Discussion in 'Navy' started by FarkTypeSoldier, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. by78
    Offline

    by78 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,446
    Likes Received:
    32,181
    AeroEngineer, Aniah, Yodello and 4 others like this.
  2. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    I'm not saying they would follow that scenario.

    In the South China Sea, it's a lot easier to have a single Divine Eagle cover the entire area in a single sweep.
    But of course, you need air superiority to do this.
     
  3. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    4,207
    Of course. The Type 055 isn't following the Russian philosophy which is to preempt ship based targets or the American philosophy which is to preempt land based targets. Its there to protect to protect carriers, other ships and the coast. However, it doesn't mean it would not have antiship missiles of its own. It has two helicopters to assist in the spotting, and also for ASW.

    MOTH active based on Type 366 and Mineral ME specifications would give you 250km based on active mode, up to 450km based on passive mode. That is enough for the YJ-83, YJ-12, YJ-62 and YJ-18, which is why the 054A and 052C/D runs these radars. However unless Type 366 functionality are subsumed into the new radars, the Type 055 lacks the Type 366. It could have the capability or it could not have the capability, and there seems to be good reasons going either way. Compared to the radar equipment of the 052C/D, the 055 is far less transparent, leaving you to make more guesses and assumptions of its functionality.

    I already pointed out that 055 might have CEC. The likely suspects for it are four small rectangular shaped phase arrays at the top of the ship's four faced X-band radar and four panels of ESM on the integrated mast. Its matched to a similar set of panels you will see on the top mast of 002, these panels are underneath the Type 382 search radar. These panels are similar in shape and size to the USG-3 CEC the USN uses.

    You might as well strip out and modify Type 071 LPD instead. The hull seems way cheaper on this. A 20,000 to 25,000 ton ship would do more nicely than a 12,000 ton one.

    I am not comfortable with the idea of arsenal ships as they appear to be putting too many eggs in one basket. I like a much more distributed order of battle that consists of a large number of more dispensible and expendable multirole ships that can cover a wider area and engage a wider variety of missions. This is why I think ships ranging from the 054A to the 052D's size should be the bread and butter of the PLAN. Never mind the arsenal ships. The 055Xs either act as escorts to carriers or act as flotilla leaders to the 052X, 054X and 057X formations.
     
    Pika likes this.
  4. FriedRiceNSpice
    Offline

    FriedRiceNSpice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    327
    Arsenal ships would be much cheaper than destroyers and carriers. Wouldn't filling out a fleet with some arsenal ships actually be in line with the distributed lethality doctrine? A 15,000-20,000 ton arsenal ship shouldnt cost that much more than a 054A or Type 71.
     
  5. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Just a few points

    I'd say CEC for a destroyer is a must-have these days.
    ---
    It goes back to why would you want an arsenal ship.

    For the 1st Island Chain, shore-based missiles work out better for cost and survivability.
    But for the 2nd Island Chain, the distances are too far from mainland China (1500+ KM), so missile cost and flight times go up dramatically.
    So it makes sense to sortie missile carrying platforms closer to the targets in the 2nd Island China.

    But a Chinese SAG approaching the 2nd Island Chain (which is beyond the range of most air/missile support from mainland China) is a risky proposition.
    So most of the Chinese destroyer VLS cells would be loaded out with SAMs for defence, with only a few VLS cells available for antiship or land-attack.
    So a SAG would be be dashing in to deliver a missile strike, then rapidly withdrawing.

    That argues for a fairly powerful surface group with at least 4 destroyers for air defence.
    And for arsenal ships able to keep with such a SAG.

    ---
    China can be expected to build a fleet of 50+ multi-role destroyers (Type-52D and Type-55)
    That is enough to cover the entire wartime mission set with at least a few destroyers in every surface group.

    So building a subclass of say 6 arsenal ships is justified, because those ships will always have a role in complementing the destroyers.
    Primarily by carrying lots of missiles, but also offering additional ASW helicopter support like a frigate.
    ---

    A Type-71 is cheaper than a destroyer yes.
    But is it fast enough to keep up with Destroyers on a dash to the 2nd Island Chain?
    Nor is a Type-71 built to the same standards as a Destroyer. Remember that it is facing the same threat level as the other ships.
    Plus a Type-71 could have 250+ VLS cells, which does seem like too much risk and cost in a single ship.

    ---

    Also the words "expendable and multi-role" don't go really go together in warship.
    Multi-role means more capabilities and higher cost, along with fewer numbers.
    Expendable means fewer capabilities and lower cost.

    An expendable arsenal ship would look like a faster version of a Makassar LPD with say 80 VLS cells, costing say $150M?
     
  6. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Yes, a 15K-20K tonne ship should cost $300M-$500M, but it's the missiles which account for the bulk of risk/cost.

    Do you really want a single ship carrying 200 missiles, which might be 5-10% of all antiship missiles?

    Anyway, I think it's time to go back to the Type-55
     
  7. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    4,207

    CEC itself should not be taken as a silver bullet for everything. What happens if you have EW aircraft involved trying to jam or interfere with your links? It becomes useless. So does you arsenal ship. You go back to the reason why its better to have self contained fire control systems.

    In addition to this, the Arsenal ship will need its own close range defenses. CIWS, short ranged missiles like HQ-10 and the like. Your costs go up along with sensor systems that need to support them. You will need at least a Type 364 radar or equivalent.

    I see a better need for an even larger surface combatant, but not an arsenal ship. There is a difference between the two. Maybe something more akin to what the USN is proposing as the LSC or Large Surface Combatant.

    https://whitefleet.net/2019/09/05/l...-rfi-issued-place-in-force-structure-unclear/

    This will even include a new VLS design.


    Why does the Arsenal Ship need to keep up with the destroyer? Its more the other way around. Some arsenal ship concepts are centered around converting existing commercial ships.

    Indeed that is why an arsenal ship comes with hidden costs. Among which is deploying frigates and destroyers dedicated to protect it.

    Tell that to every modern frigate.

    Not necessarily as modern frigates have shown. Look at the versatility of the 054A versus destroyers of the older generation, 051B, 052B, 051C, Sovs.

    Why would an arsenal ship have only 80 VLS? That's not an arsenal ship. If you want a ship with only 80 VLS you might as well make a destroyer.

    What I see is larger combatants are becoming the trend. Frigates are now the size of cruisers in WW2, destroyers are becoming cruiser sized. After some years, the 055 may not look so big after all, and there maybe bigger surface combatants as part of this trend.

    I don't see building more 056 like ships in the future, unless the PLAN goes to the Russian route of building corvettes with a few large anti ship missiles.

    Setting the bar is like working on a sliding bar scale. You have to know where exactly you want to slide the bar in the middle between the two extreme ends.

    I still see the need for a frigate, which can be defined as the smaller size that you can make and cost, and still be regarded as fully ocean going, blue water, capable of carrier escort, is capable of ASW, ASuW and AAW operations. It may not be the best in AAW operations versus a destroyer or a dedicated AAW vessel, but it should still have a respectable and potent capability of it, even if diminished compared to larger ships.

    This is followed by an upper tier where you can have dedicated AAW ships, or ships that can contain enough VLS for everything else.

    Naval history lesson has shown you do not neglect the importance of the Escort. They do most of the fighting and dying like they did in WW2. Of course, our idea of the Escort keeps going bigger and bigger, and in fact the 055 can be considered an escort. If mega ship trends continue, we will see larger and larger surface combatants. But not necessarily arsenal ships.
     
  8. by78
    Offline

    by78 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,446
    Likes Received:
    32,181
    Another magazine scan.

    (2048 × 1365)
    [​IMG]
     
    Neutral Zone, Aniah and Jura like this.
  9. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,538
    Likes Received:
    27,617
    another Andy's construct:
    eighty-tubes "arsenal"
     
  10. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Yes. Remember the ship might only cost $150M

    Build 3 of them, then you get 240 VLS for $450M - which is still really cheap, but you don't concentrate as much risk in a single ship.
     
Loading...

Share This Page