055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tam said:
Launch what exactly. We don't know the ratio of 7 meter to 9 meter VLS the 052D has versus the 055, but the 055 may have a higher ratio of 9 meters cells from its 112 cells. That may enable the 055 to carry more of longer ranged, more offensive missiles. The 7 meter cells is used to launch SAMs and ASROCs, but with the potential for smaller subsonic cruise missiles, while the 9 meters cells have the potential for YJ-12 and YJ-18 caliber ASMs, larger, longer ranged cruise missiles and maybe even ballistic hypersonics.

That is why I am looking at this arsenal ship idea more closely.

An 80 cell arsenal ship may not sound much when you have a 64 cell and a 112 destroyer, but what if everyone of these 80 cells is a 9 meter deep VLS, versus the destroyers that carry a ratio of 7 vs. 9 meter deep cells with the ratio heavily in favor of the 7 meter. If the 055 has all 9 meter deep cells, then there is no need for this ship and the 055 itself is already a quasi arsenal ship.
Click to expand...

Yes, the multipurpose VLS means all sorts of missiles can be fired, and we don't know the exact lengths.
But many things being equal, a Type-52D should have a lower "cost per launch" than a Type-55 given a fixed budget.

I would expect an Arsenal Ship or DDC to be using the longest VLS cells possible, because it will be primarily used to carry large offensive missiles.
Alternatively, they suggest standard container units could carry even bigger missiles.
 
Last edited:
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Andy your drivel
#7351 AndrewS, Yesterday at 8:38 PM
Type-55 with 4 reloads.
Type-52D with 9-10 reloads.

claims a Type 55 getting missiles refiled once in about forty hours, on average, during one week going on in your keister,
and a Type 052D getting missiles refiled once in about twenty hours, on average, during one week going on in you keister,
as your "reload" = "sortie per week from mainland China" #7355 AndrewS, Yesterday at 9:32 PM

but I still can't grasp a connection (no matter how foolish your connection would be) to:
AndrewS said:
@Jura

It's the box on the right hand side, which says "PLARF conventional missiles."
Click to expand...
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Jura said:
Andy your drivel
#7351 AndrewS, Yesterday at 8:38 PM
Type-55 with 4 reloads.
Type-52D with 9-10 reloads.

claims a Type 55 getting missiles refiled once in about forty hours, on average, during one week going on in your keister,
and a Type 052D getting missiles refiled once in about twenty hours, on average, during one week going on in you keister,
as your "reload" = "sortie per week from mainland China" #7355 AndrewS, Yesterday at 9:32 PM

but I still can't grasp a connection (no matter how foolish your connection would be) to:
Click to expand...

I'll try again.

Let's say a Type-52D and Type-55 both perform 1 sortie per week, and use up all their missiles.
But they are going to run out of missiles very quickly because missiles are expensive and in short supply.
I'm guessing that there might be 4 reloads (lasting 4weeks) for a Type-55, based on what we see with PLARF.

So a Type-55 with 112VLS with 4 reloads costs XXX.
But for the same amount, you can buy a cheaper Type-52D with significantly more missiles. But with only 64 VLS, it can to be reloaded 9-10 times

You can play around with the input numbers however you like, but they all illustrate the same point, which is an overall lower cost per missile launch for a Type-52D.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Jura said:
specifically what is it you "see with PLARF" related to your "4 reloads (lasting 4weeks) for a Type-55"
:
Click to expand...

Look at how many missiles we see for each launcher type. Then calculate the number of salvoes for each missile type.
You get 4-5 reloads for the smaller missile types, but only 1-2 reloads for the larger missile types.

I just used 4 reloads for my example, because it doesn't matter how many reloads you actually use in the example.
You could pick 2 or 10 reloads, but still get the same conclusion.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Yes, the multipurpose VLS means all sorts of missiles can be fired, and we don't know the exact lengths.
But many things being equal, a Type-52D should have a lower "cost per launch" than a Type-55 given a fixed budget.

I would expect an Arsenal Ship or DDC to be using the longest VLS cells possible, because it will be primarily used to carry large offensive missiles.
Alternatively, they suggest standard container units could carry even bigger missiles.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples vs. oranges to get your "lower cost per launch". Have you factored operating costs? Both ships should have about 300 crewmen, for instance, so the cost of crewmen per launch is lower for the 055. Another factor is that the 055 has solid state radars all around. It is not subject to the mechanical stress, wear and tear all the other secondary radars on the 052D would be subjected to. As you have more ships, that means more ships to feed, fuel, house and maintain, such as stripping the hull for barnacles and repainting them. Then during the course of war, the 055 would be more survivable, due to its greater stealth, a more advanced ECM suite, a more advanced data communication system, and having more LPI radars. Hence its apples vs. oranges.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tam said:
You are comparing apples vs. oranges to get your "lower cost per launch". Have you factored operating costs? Both ships should have about 300 crewmen, for instance, so the cost of crewmen per launch is lower for the 055. Another factor is that the 055 has solid state radars all around. It is not subject to the mechanical stress, wear and tear all the other secondary radars on the 052D would be subjected to. As you have more ships, that means more ships to feed, fuel, house and maintain, such as stripping the hull for barnacles and repainting them. Then during the course of war, the 055 would be more survivable, due to its greater stealth, a more advanced ECM suite, a more advanced data communication system, and having more LPI radars. Hence its apples vs. oranges.
Click to expand...

Yes, a Type-52D is less capable than the Type-55, but it would be extremely surprising if a Type-52D had higher operating costs than a Type-55.

Yes, I did consider operating costs, but still judged upfront costs as indicative of operating costs. In the PPP discussion, I broke down the cost elements, and labour was immaterial. And that upfront construction costs were correlated with ongoing maintenance costs.

It's a similar argument to having a less capable arsenal ship or DDC to complement a larger high-end destroyer.

Anyway, we'll just have to see what gets built in the future
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
AndrewS said:
Look at how many missiles we see for each launcher type. Then calculate the number of salvoes for each missile type.
You get 4-5 reloads for the smaller missile types, but only 1-2 reloads for the larger missile types.

I just used 4 reloads for my example, because it doesn't matter how many reloads you actually use in the example.
You could pick 2 or 10 reloads, but still get the same conclusion.
Click to expand...
... pulled out of your keister
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top