055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[by78]

Dalian update.

(1600 × 1200)

 

[Tam]

You hardly get a picture from this point of view. At the upper right corner you can see the cranes of the 'destroyer' dry dock, so this gives you some location relationship between the 'carrier' dry dock and the 'destroyer' dry dock.

 

[Iron Man]

I am not alone in that opinion those bricks above the main radars are IFF.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Let's get real: he is totally speculating. Just like we are.

The smaller units to my eyes have thick backs. Not to mention there is something behind them. That looks more like a full radar set to me.

View attachment 56453

View attachment 56454

They unequivocally do NOT have thick backs.


The smaller ones on the 055 are far closer in size to the IFF units on the 052D.

 

[Brumby]

At the level of an individual ship, a larger VLS inventory does lower the cost of each launch.

But not if missiles are expensive, you have a budget to work to, and we look at a strategic level
Eg.

Option A. Type-55 with 4 reloads. Missile Cost = $2M
Ship cost: $857M
Missile cost $896M (448missiles @ $2M)
Total Cost = $1753M

In comparison, for the same money, you can buy:

Option B. Type-52D with 9-10 reloads. Same missile cost
Ship cost $500M
Missile cost $1252M (626missiles @ $2M)

Your cost per missile is significantly lower with a smaller Type-52D, if you expect a longer campaign.

NB. 4 reloads is based on the PLARF estimates of launchers and missiles.

AFAIK, reload at sea is technically not feasible based on USN assessment. Has the PLAN figured out how to do it?.

 

[Tam]

Let's get real: he is totally speculating. Just like we are.


They unequivocally do NOT have thick backs.
View attachment 56485 View attachment 56483 View attachment 56484

The smaller ones on the 055 are far closer in size to the IFF units on the 052D.

It DOES

The problem of your pictures is that those bars were not the actual arrays, but placeholders.


They do have thick backs. Take a look again on the ship that is actually running.






You can see three things behind of the three arrays.


This CGI expresses that in more detail.




These strips are also thicker. They look like the tops of this.





Another thing, IFF has a segmented form in the array.




In the 052D's IFF, this segmentation is betrayed towards the bottom of the array. Each segment represents an element to itself.


On the 055's IFF, the segmentation is hidden from the front but visible from the back.

 

[Tam]

Here is another picture.




Close up.





You can see the smaller array has a back end while the larger ones have a segmented construction.


Here is an IFF antenna.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Imagine a ship fires off all its missiles and has to reload the VLS in port.

Call it one sortie per week from mainland China.

why
#7351 AndrewS, Yesterday at 8:38 PM
do you have Type-55 with 4 reloads
and
Type-52D with 9-10 reloads
??

in other words, why does your "sortie per week from mainland China"
#7355 AndrewS, Yesterday at 9:32 PM
significantly differ between Type 55 and Type 052D, Andy

 

[AndrewS]

why
#7351 AndrewS, Yesterday at 8:38 PM
do you have Type-55 with 4 reloads
and
Type-52D with 9-10 reloads
??

in other words, why does your "sortie per week from mainland China"
#7355 AndrewS, Yesterday at 9:32 PM
significantly differ between Type 55 and Type 052D, Andy

It was a discussion on "cost per missile launch"

For a FIXED budget, the same money buys you either:

Option A. Type-55 and 448 missiles. That allows for 4 reloads.
Option B. Type-52D and 626 missiles. That allows for 9-10 reloads.

So which has the lowest "cost per missile launch"?

Of course, the Type-55 is a bigger and better platform with better sensors, but that has to be balanced against the lower cost of a Type-52D.

 

[AndrewS]

AFAIK, reload at sea is technically not feasible based on USN assessment. Has the PLAN figured out how to do it?.

PLAN destroyers doesn't need to bother with reload at sea.

It's only 1-2days sailing time from Chinese ports to their operating areas in the Western Pacific.

 

[AndrewS]

Only because your comparison is using a different ship with an inferior radar and sensor layout.

Assuming theoretically, you managed to fit the full sensor suite of the 055 into a 052X hull, making in effect, a mini-055 with 64 cells, the cost to launch each missile would be higher.

The electronics suite on the 055 is more than just for the SAMs. Additional X-band AESA. Phase arrays for the datalinks. Massive ECM arrays. LPI surface radars. This is a ship that is more undetectable, more survivable, more able to integrate data from a networked environment.

All very true.

But it doesn't change the fact that over a campaign, a Type-52D has a lower cost per launch than a Type-55.

And for missiles which rely on offboard targeting anyway, it doesn't matter whether they are launched from a Type-52D or Type-55 or any other ship.
Hence the DDC concept which is a Destroyer-sized Arsenal Ship with a minimal crew of 20.

Plus the disadvantages of the Type-52D can be covered by the Type-55, if you have a large enough fleet to operate mixed groups.