New Chinese Type 055 Destroyer

Dilandu said:
Seems that the concept of slow, stealthy subsonic anti-ship missiles reached the dead end; big fast supersonics are the future.
Click to expand...
Both arent mutually exclusive. A stealthy 3M54 would indeed be a sight to behold, before the fiscal issues slam down.
 
Martes said:
But seriously.

8 Burkes. Each has roughly a hundred missiles. Let's say 2/3 are anti-air, so 30 per ship. My calculator suggets it's 240. Even if we leave 8 Tomahawks/LRASM per ship and the 8 Harpoons in separate launchers it's still 128 missiles. And of that they simulate a salvo of 32 and boast it?
Click to expand...
yeah, seems a bit silly.

Even if we do assume that the SM6s aren't being thrown in as near-hypersonic AShBMs, that's really the volley of maybe two Burkes, not 8. I'd found a claimed missile loadout for a Tico from 2018, and guesstimated the loadout a Burke would have from that. Came up with ~20x Tomahawks or whatever in the VLS. (Not sure if LRASMs would get stuffed into the Mk41 or would be extras like Harpoons or NSMs).

The usual "The US .gov is very displeased with your existence" Tomahawk volley/message seems to be on the order of 20 weapons.

I wouldn't expect anything less than a 50-weapon strike if we're actually intending to sink another ship, especially if it's an AAW-focused DDG!
 
yeetmahboi said:
Both arent mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Yep. A well-timed combined strike always makes things much more difficult.

Scott Kenny said:
I wouldn't expect anything less than a 50-weapon strike if we're actually intending to sink another ship, especially if it's an AAW-focused DDG!
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

And considering present escort with some kind of local air cover, and such a
Whoever planned this exercise was a little bit inattentive. :)

One way I see it - they could have launched 32 as penetration test, and the real punch would come afterwards...

Scott Kenny said:
Even if we do assume that the SM6s aren't being thrown in as near-hypersonic AShBMs,
Click to expand...

...those included.
 
Martes said:
Whoever planned this exercise was a little bit inattentive.
Click to expand...
I mean - in a purely defensive context this scenario is an equivalent of Yamato's last sortie.

055 is a capable ship, but numbers are numbers.
112 launch cells + 24 close range AA.
Let's say same 2 to 1 ratio in offensive vs. defensive missiles, we get 92 AA missiles.
Let's suppose 100% effectiveness (which never is) and add 30% to spoofing - 125.
That's the absolute maximum number of missiles she can handle without reloading.

Let's suppose each of her escorts adds the same 24 close range AA and - we can be generous - 24 more long range.
144 + 30% to spoofing = 188

Total 313. 8 Burkes have, let's say 600, including AA that can target a surface ship.
So unless the Chinese group spots them first and eliminates at least half before the attack is launched, it's toast.
 
Last edited:
Martes said:
Total 313. 8 Burkes have, let's say 600, including AA that can target surface ship.
So unless the Chinese group spots them first and eliminates at least half before the attack is launched, it's toast.
Click to expand...

At the same time, if it takes 313 missiles, or 4 full Burkes, to sink a type 055, we are toast.
 
It's ceiling numbers, but yes, when you do the US side planning, you absolutely should consider them as baseline.

However, don't forget that the Burke (+3 LCS for balance?) herself would require not much less for a confirmed kill.

Problem is, of course, this does not take any offensive air assets into account and it's rather difficult to image such surface-surface clash without some air power presence. But then with the Pacific weather it's not totally impossible.

It is a curious paradox of modern naval warfare - assuming air defense systems work, ships generally have more defensive missiles than offensive, and thus in a duel can reach a situation when the combat is down to artillery - and that's a single gun nowadays with not very large magazine - and then? Machine guns? Boarding? Pistols? Knifes? Broken chairs? The engagement may ultimately be decided by who kept a helicopter with a spare Sea Skua.
 
Last edited:
Martes said:
The engagement may ultimately be decided by who kept a helicopter with a spare Sea Skua.
Click to expand...
I imagine keeping a deployment of Tier IIs on board with a small, high speed semi-submersible. When the boat duel falls down to gunslinging, send out the boys toward the ship and ambush them. Either frogman tactics the keel or just outright board the ship.
 
yeetmahboi said:
I imagine keeping a deployment of Tier IIs on board with a small, high speed semi-submersible. When the boat duel falls down to gunslinging, send out the boys toward the ship and ambush them. Either frogman tactics the keel or just outright board the ship.
Click to expand...
That's not practical versus a fast, maneuvering warship.

Especially not one with a functioning active sonar. Humans versus 200db of sound equals flesh bags full of bone powder.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Humans versus 200db of sound equals flesh bags full of bone powder.
Click to expand...
That got a tiny chuckle out of me.

Back to topic. If the Type 055 could track and intercept 32 targets simultaneously then that's some impressive fire control channel counts, of course under the assumption that the drones only did picket duties.
 
Last edited:
Martes said:
But seriously.

8 Burkes. Each has roughly a hundred missiles. Let's say 2/3 are anti-air, so 30 per ship. My calculator suggets it's 240. Even if we leave 8 Tomahawks/LRASM per ship and the 8 Harpoons in separate launchers it's still 128 missiles. And of that they simulate a salvo of 32 and boast it?
Click to expand...
There are zero LRASMs on a Burke and no antiship variant of Tomahawk. (The old one was repurposed and the "new" one isn't in service yet to my knowledge.) Oh, and most don't have any Harpoons.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
There are zero LRASMs on a Burke and no antiship variant of Tomahawk. (The old one was repurposed and the "new" one isn't in service yet to my knowledge.) Oh, and most don't have any Harpoons.
Click to expand...
Even if LRASM-A is only a stopgap, I wish the USN has pursued a VLS-based variant to replace TacTom instead of fiddling around with a 40yrs old design. At least the JASSM airframe is VLO.
 
sferrin said:
There are zero LRASMs on a Burke and no antiship variant of Tomahawk. (The old one was repurposed and the "new" one isn't in service yet to my knowledge.) Oh, and most don't have any Harpoons.
Click to expand...
I think we can quite safely suggest that in a case of hot war something would be fitted very fast. And then there are dual-purpose SMs. They are not stealthy, but they are fast as hell and shooting them requires the defender to expend their - finite - AA missiles. And they saturate the tracking channels.
 
Last edited:
yeetmahboi said:
When the boat duel falls down to gunslinging, send out the boys toward the ship and ambush them.
Click to expand...
One of the situations where gunslinging duel fails is in heavy ocean swell. I am not sure boarding by boats is something you would want to attempt in those conditions.

yeetmahboi said:
If the Type 055 could track and intercept 32 targets simultaneously then that's some impressive fire control channel counts
Click to expand...
Seems rather modest by contemporary requirements, but what would I know. Also one should suppose that the escort ships do their part in tracking.
 
I am not sure I see why the Chinese type 055 is considered to be such a grave threat. I don’t think they actually bring any capability that the Chinese Navy currently doesn’t already have with type 052D destroyer. The only difference seems to me to be that type 055 may combine the fire power of two type 052 destroyers on a single, larger hull. This may have some additional value if the Chinese are in the business of conducting expeditionary sorties far from their basis. But I don’t believe it confer any additional capability for any kind of confrontation in the first or second island chains. In fact, given that the close in defense capability of a type 055 seems to be identical to that of a type 052D, one would think for a near shore or intermediate green/blue water engagement, it was a mistake for the Chinese to build the type of 55 rather than more type 052D because two type 052D are probably marginally more survivable than a single type 055 because they have twice as much close in defensive firepower
 
Last edited:
chuck4 said:
I am not sure I see why the Chinese type 055 is considered to be such a grave threat. I don’t think they actually bring any capability that the Chinese Navy currently doesn’t already have was type 052D destroyer. The only difference seems to me to be that type 055 may combine the fire power of two type 052 destroyers on a single, larger hull. This may have some additional value if the Chinese are in the business of conducting expeditionary sorties far from their basis. But I don’t believe it, confer any additional capability for any kind of confrontation in the first or second island chains. In fact, given that the close in defense capability of A type 055 seems to be identical to that of a type 052D one would think for a near shore or intermediate green/blue water engagement, it was a mistake for the Chinese to build the type of 55 rather than more type 05 2-D because two type 052D are probably marginally more survivable than a single type 055 because they have twice as much close in defensive firepower
Click to expand...
They have much larger cells allowing much larger / more capable missiles.
 
052d and 055 use cells of same width and length.
Allegedly, some but not all 052d cells are of shorter length, but even if that were true, it's again not all the cells. Plus the difference in length would likely be 7m for hhq9 SAM and 9m for strike missiles.

055 has a stronger aircraft component and a different radar. Arrays are not of same size and likely not of same power either.
Plus there are a bunch of other arrays present on 055, likely for better ESM work and possibly even jamming.
 
totoro said:
052d and 055 use cells of same width and length.
Allegedly, some but not all 052d cells are of shorter length, but even if that were true, it's again not all the cells. Plus the difference in length would likely be 7m for hhq9 SAM and 9m for strike missiles.

055 has a stronger aircraft component and a different radar. Arrays are not of same size and likely not of same power either.
Plus there are a bunch of other arrays present on 055, likely for better ESM work and possibly even jamming.
Click to expand...
Current understanding is that only 16 cells (out of 64) on 052D are strike length, compared to 112(all) on 055.
Yes, indeed, 055 sensor suit is massively different(not just superior, but also covering different bands).

Plus it's just much later, larger design, with significantly more onboard power, facilities/accomodations and almost certainly processing - not an update of 1990s hull predating much of China's progress, but thoroughly new.

Is it enough to just replace 052D? We know the answer, it's no. But construction on both continues.
 
Ainen said:
Current understanding is that only 16 cells (out of 64) on 052D are strike length, compared to 112(all) on 055.
Yes, indeed, 055 sensor suit is massively different(not just superior, but also covering different bands).

Plus it's just much later, larger design, with significantly more onboard power, facilities/accomodations and almost certainly processing - not an update of 1990s hull predating much of China's progress, but thoroughly new.

Is it enough to just replace 052D? We know the answer, it's no. But construction on both continues.
Click to expand...
In fact, 055 destroyers and aircraft carriers, as well as nuclear submarines, are of the same class. It is truly special.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom