Type 055 DDG News & Discussions

[ChineseTiger1986]

Who is South Korea?

They rely on the US technologies.

Would it be possible we launch ballistic missile on Type 055?

It can launch the cruise missiles with the HGV warheads, so it is even more lethal than the regular ballistic missiles.

 

[52051]

KD-III / Sejong the Great-class destroyer

• 1 × 5 inch (127 mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun
• 1 × 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
  1 × RAM Block 1 CIWS (21 ready missiles)
  
• 80-cell Mk 41 VLS
  • SM-2 Block IIIA/IIIB/IV
• 48-cell K-VLS
  • 32 × Hyunmoo III land attack cruise missiles
  • 16 × K-ASROC Red Shark in (VLS)
• 4 × 4 SSM-700K Hae Sung anti-ship missiles
• 2 × 3 K745 LW Blue Shark ASW torpedo launchers
• 2 Super Lynx or SH-60 Seahawk helicopters

So, that's 128 VLS cells plus 16 deck mounted SSM (compared to 112 cells and no deck mounted SSM on 055). There is absolutely no reason why the Mk41 VLS couldn't or wouldn't be used for quad-packed ESSM. Also, with dual milimeter-wave and IIR seekers, and the ability to be quad-packed in either the domestic K-VLS or other conventional vertical launch system such as the MK.41 VLS, the South Korean Sea Bow SAM is close analogue of the Block II variant of Raytheon ESSM and will subsitute for the ESSM's role in lo-mid range Air Defense in the ROK Navy.

http://imgur.com/AMCvejc
http://imgur.com/XybJoBZ
http://imgur.com/qc8uVF5
http://themess.net/forum/military-d...ls-configuration-for-sea-bow-saam-interceptor

In August 2016, press reports revealed that South Korea was considering adding the SM-3 interceptor to its Sejong the Great-class ships to enable them to perform ballistic missile defense. The addition of SM-3s to the ships may require software and computer hardware upgrades. The following month, Aegis manufacturer Lockheed Martin confirmed the next three Sejong the Great vessels will be capable of performing "integrated air and missile defense" (IAMD) to supplement U.S. Army ground-based missile interceptors on the peninsula, likely being outfitted with the SM-3. While the first three destroyers are fitted with Aegis Baseline 7 based on older proprietary computers that can't carry out IAMD operations, the following three will be fitted with the Baseline 9 version of the Aegis Combat System that combines modern computing architecture to allow the AN/SPY-1D(v) radar to perform air warfare and BMD missions at the same time.

On 10 December 2013 the ROKN confirmed ordering three more vessels on the same class [for a total of 6 by 2027]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great-class_destroyer
http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...kdx-iii-aegis-destroyers-to-six-by-2027-.html

S. Korea to deploy new surface-to-air missiles for Aegis destroyers
SEOUL, June 12 (Yonhap) -- South Korea will arm its Aegis destroyers with the surface-to-air Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) starting 2016 as part of efforts to bolster its missile defense against North Korean threats, a senior government official said Wednesday.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/06/12/37/0301000000AEN20130612004900315F.HTML

SM-6 Cleared for International Sale; Australia, Japan, Korea Could Be Early Customers (January 10, 2017)
Raytheon’s Standard Missile 6 has been cleared by the Pentagon for international sales and a trio of potential Pacific nations are likely the first customers.
SM-6 — currently in limited initial production – is a key weapon in the both the Navy’s emerging distributed lethality concept and the service’s Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) for its ability to strike air, surface and limited ballistic missile targets.
Of the five international Aegis combat system operators, three are in the process to have the upgraded combat system to field the SM-6 – Australia, Japan and South Korea
Korea’s three planned new Sejong the Great-class guided missile destroyers are also being built with Baseline 9 and will also field the SM-3 ballistic missile defense interceptor.
While the three countries all could field the SM-6 its unclear if each country will be allowed to use all three modes of the missile – anti-air warfare, anti-surface and a limited ballistic missile defense capability.
While the missiles will all have the inherent capability for all three missions, the U.S. government will determine which of those features will be activated for international sales
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/sm...al-sale-australia-japan-korea-early-customers
http://navaltoday.com/2017/01/11/ra...h-australia-korea-and-japan-as-likely-buyers/

As per the fourth unit, KD-II Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class destroyer have 64 cells worth of VLS besides deck mounted SSMs.

• Mk 41 32 cells
  
• K-VLS 32 cells

• 1x 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM)
• 8 Harpoon or SSM-700K Haeseong Anti-ship missile
• 1x 30 mm Goalkeeper close-in weapon system,
  
• 1x Mk 45 Mod 4 127 mm gun,
  
• 2x triple 324 mm anti-submarine torpedo tubes.
• Super Lynx or SH-60

In principle, these can carry the same weapons in the VLSs as KDIII.

Most of the missile silos in KDIII has been empty, and there are lots integration problem with their system.

Basically KDIII now has the same or lower combat power than China's 054 FFG.

Thats what happen for US's small allies when most of their military techs are from US.

 

[Penguin]

Most of the missile silos in KDIII has been empty, and there are lots integration problem with their system.

Says who? > indicate relevant authoritative sources please.

It doesn't matter per se if missile silo's are empty now. Not being the US navy and not facing significant immediate threats from North Korea, why would all cellos need to be filled at all times? Is that necessary? Is it even common? Do you have any idea whether this is the case for European navies e.g Dutch, German, Norwegian, Danish and Spanish ships? Further, it would susprise me very much if there were any problems with integrating US Mk41 VLS with US missiles and a US AEGIS combat system.

Basically KDIII now has the same or lower combat power than China's 054 FFG.

Really? Even if you discounted all South Korean equipment, there is no reason for the Mk41/Standard SM2 IIIA/B and IV/Aegis combo to not function with AN/SPY-1D(V) multi-function radar and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar and have only 32 SM2s in 80 cells. And there should also not be any trouble using the 127mm gun. Likewise the 21 cell RAM. Or SH-60s. Also, I doubt integrating Goalkeeper instead of Phalanx is very challenging.

Thats what happen for US's small allies when most of their military techs are from US.

That *may* be the case for KD-III, but certainly is not the case with other destroyers, which are packed with European systems, notably from Thales and BAE Systems

They have 112 silos, but 055's missile silos are quite flexible in design, one silo can accomodate up to 4 missiles of various types.

Which Chinese missiles specifically can be quad packed? And which currently are?

 

[Brainsucker]

are we still talking about 055 here? I'm surprise that now we talk about a Korean Destroyer. Unless I'm at a wrong thread

 

[Penguin]

Yep, it is bigger than the MK 57. Therefore, it is more capable to quad-pack longer range missiles.

Which of these missiles quadpacked currently or in near future?

are we still talking about 055 here? I'm surprise that now we talk about a Korean Destroyer. Unless I'm at a wrong thread

See #535, #536, #541, #542: some compare 055 with - and make claims about - the KDIII. Which may or may not be correct. And so that becomes part of the discussion, if you don't mind.

Type-052D DDG vertical launch system (VLS) model
http://errymath.blogspot.com/2014/06/type-052d-multi-purposed-destroyer.html#.WKCFPX_-WYA

 

[cnleio]

Type055

KD-III / Sejong the Great-class destroyer

• 1 × 5 inch (127 mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun
• 1 × 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
  1 × RAM Block 1 CIWS (21 ready missiles)
  
• 80-cell Mk 41 VLS
  • SM-2 Block IIIA/IIIB/IV
• 48-cell K-VLS
  • 32 × Hyunmoo III land attack cruise missiles
  • 16 × K-ASROC Red Shark in (VLS)
• 4 × 4 SSM-700K Hae Sung anti-ship missiles
• 2 × 3 K745 LW Blue Shark ASW torpedo launchers
• 2 Super Lynx or SH-60 Seahawk helicopters

So, that's 128 VLS cells plus 16 deck mounted SSM (compared to 112 cells and no deck mounted SSM on 055). There is absolutely no reason why the Mk41 VLS couldn't or wouldn't be used for quad-packed ESSM. Also, with dual milimeter-wave and IIR seekers, and the ability to be quad-packed in either the domestic K-VLS or other conventional vertical launch system such as the MK.41 VLS, the South Korean Sea Bow SAM is close analogue of the Block II variant of Raytheon ESSM and will subsitute for the ESSM's role in lo-mid range Air Defense in the ROK Navy.

http://imgur.com/AMCvejc
http://imgur.com/XybJoBZ
http://imgur.com/qc8uVF5
http://themess.net/forum/military-d...ls-configuration-for-sea-bow-saam-interceptor

In August 2016, press reports revealed that South Korea was considering adding the SM-3 interceptor to its Sejong the Great-class ships to enable them to perform ballistic missile defense. The addition of SM-3s to the ships may require software and computer hardware upgrades. The following month, Aegis manufacturer Lockheed Martin confirmed the next three Sejong the Great vessels will be capable of performing "integrated air and missile defense" (IAMD) to supplement U.S. Army ground-based missile interceptors on the peninsula, likely being outfitted with the SM-3. While the first three destroyers are fitted with Aegis Baseline 7 based on older proprietary computers that can't carry out IAMD operations, the following three will be fitted with the Baseline 9 version of the Aegis Combat System that combines modern computing architecture to allow the AN/SPY-1D(v) radar to perform air warfare and BMD missions at the same time.

On 10 December 2013 the ROKN confirmed ordering three more vessels on the same class [for a total of 6 by 2027]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great-class_destroyer
http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...kdx-iii-aegis-destroyers-to-six-by-2027-.html

S. Korea to deploy new surface-to-air missiles for Aegis destroyers
SEOUL, June 12 (Yonhap) -- South Korea will arm its Aegis destroyers with the surface-to-air Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) starting 2016 as part of efforts to bolster its missile defense against North Korean threats, a senior government official said Wednesday.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/06/12/37/0301000000AEN20130612004900315F.HTML

SM-6 Cleared for International Sale; Australia, Japan, Korea Could Be Early Customers (January 10, 2017)
Raytheon’s Standard Missile 6 has been cleared by the Pentagon for international sales and a trio of potential Pacific nations are likely the first customers.
SM-6 — currently in limited initial production – is a key weapon in the both the Navy’s emerging distributed lethality concept and the service’s Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) for its ability to strike air, surface and limited ballistic missile targets.
Of the five international Aegis combat system operators, three are in the process to have the upgraded combat system to field the SM-6 – Australia, Japan and South Korea
Korea’s three planned new Sejong the Great-class guided missile destroyers are also being built with Baseline 9 and will also field the SM-3 ballistic missile defense interceptor.
While the three countries all could field the SM-6 its unclear if each country will be allowed to use all three modes of the missile – anti-air warfare, anti-surface and a limited ballistic missile defense capability.
While the missiles will all have the inherent capability for all three missions, the U.S. government will determine which of those features will be activated for international sales
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/sm...al-sale-australia-japan-korea-early-customers
http://navaltoday.com/2017/01/11/ra...h-australia-korea-and-japan-as-likely-buyers/

As per the fourth unit, KD-II Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class destroyer have 64 cells worth of VLS besides deck mounted SSMs.

• Mk 41 32 cells
  
• K-VLS 32 cells

• 1x 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM)
• 8 Harpoon or SSM-700K Haeseong Anti-ship missile
• 1x 30 mm Goalkeeper close-in weapon system,
  
• 1x Mk 45 Mod 4 127 mm gun,
  
• 2x triple 324 mm anti-submarine torpedo tubes.
• Super Lynx or SH-60

In principle, these can carry the same weapons in the VLSs as KDIII.

Most KD-III / Sejong DDG weapon & radar systems come from U.S techs including Mk41 VLS / SM-2 / AN/SPY-1 / CIWS/ RAM purchased from foreign weapon supporters, 4x LM2500 turbine engines from America General Dynamics. China type055 each systems 100% built by domestic supporters, building without any restrictions from outside. Soon u see China type055 numbers will more than 3x KD-III. PLAN can building type055 as many as we need, but ROKN not they need American ~!

 

[Penguin]

Most KD-III / Sejong DDG weapon & radar systems come from U.S techs including Mk41 VLS / SM-2 / AN/SPY-1 / CIWS/ RAM purchased from foreign weapon supporters, 4x LM2500 turbine engines from America General Dynamics. China type055 each systems 100% built by domestic supporters, building without any restrictions from outside. Soon u see China type055 numbers will more than 3x KD-III. PLAN can building type055 as many as we need, but ROKN not they need American ~!

I am fully aware of what China is capable of, just as I am aware of what South Korea makes at home and imports, that was never the point. I was addressing specific things some people here alledge about KDIII, which are only partially correct at best. You know this very well. Numbers are irrelevant at this point, since we were discussing capabilities of individual ships. How many 055 will be produced remains to be seen. Incidentally, what does the propulsion plant of the 055 consist of? QC280 / QD280 [GT25000]?

 

[waja2000]

Says who? > indicate relevant authoritative sources please.

Really? Even if you discounted all South Korean equipment, there is no reason for the Mk41/Standard SM2 IIIA/B and IV/Aegis combo to not function with AN/SPY-1D(V) multi-function radar and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar and have only 32 SM2s in 80 cells. And there should also not be any trouble using the 127mm gun. Likewise the 21 cell RAM. Or SH-60s. Also, I doubt integrating Goalkeeper instead of Phalanx is very challenging.

Not big deal or serious on it, In china media and forum member always ridiculed or look down other navy, specially have issue like KORN, Japan or India even Europe warship , and praise there warship capability. that is normal you can see in china forum.

 

[Brainsucker]

See #535, #536, #541, #542: some compare 055 with - and make claims about - the KDIII. Which may or may not be correct. And so that becomes part of the discussion, if you don't mind.

I understand that you're not the one who start it, but I consider that you're a mature person. Older than those Chinese fanboys (at least in maturity), so please become an adult who face young people instead to become a youngsters and join the unnecessary mouth fight like that.

 

[Penguin]

I understand that you're not the one who start it, but I consider that you're a mature person. Older than those Chinese fanboys (at least in maturity), so please become an adult who face young people instead to become a youngsters and join the unnecessary mouth fight like that.

Would you kindly explain what about my previous post is 'immature'? Personally, I feel my replies were rather factual. But if it is considered offensive here to voice any dissenting opinion, then I'll leave so folks here can continue to delude themselves and others and feel good about themselves.

Good day.

ps: do report any offensive posts on my part to management.

ps: I posed a number of specific questions regarding propulsion of 055 and quad-packing its VLS, bringing discussion back to 055, to which I am not seeing any answer. That offensive too?

 

[Brainsucker]

Would you kindly explain what about my previous post is 'immature'? Personally, I feel my replies were rather factual. But if it is considered offensive here to voice any dissenting opinion, then I'll leave so folks here can continue to delude themselves and others and feel good about themselves.

Good day.

ps: do report any offensive posts on my part to management.

ps: I posed a number of specific questions regarding propulsion of 055 and quad-packing its VLS, bringing discussion back to 055, to which I am not seeing any answer. That offensive too?

It is me who have to ask you for forgiveness and cause miss understanding about this. The immaturity part was because to derailed this thread into Korean destroyer discussion, which should be discussed in another thread. Not here. So I'm sorry if you think that I do some offensive post that make you miss understand me

You're not wrong if you write an offensive post to me because of the miss understanding between us. So I'm apology. It is a part of my immaturity

PS I hope this post can clear the miss understanding between us

 

[52051]

Type055
Most KD-III / Sejong DDG weapon & radar systems come from U.S techs including Mk41 VLS / SM-2 / AN/SPY-1 / CIWS/ RAM purchased from foreign weapon supporters, 4x LM2500 turbine engines from America General Dynamics. China type055 each systems 100% built by domestic supporters, building without any restrictions from outside. Soon u see China type055 numbers will more than 3x KD-III. PLAN can building type055 as many as we need, but ROKN not they need American ~!

It is really pointless to discuss this.

With or without KDIII korea navy is a joke to China, not to mention KDIII's silo has not been filled with missiles yet, so there is little point to discuss which ship get more missile silos, not to mention 055's missile silos are far larger and far more advanced than this Korea excuse of joke. And there are many other problems to make all the subsystems of KDIII work properly, so it is just floating rust now.

I would be suprised if koreans's KDIII has more combat value than China's 054A now.

 

[Brainsucker]

It is really pointless to discuss this.

With or without KDIII korea navy is a joke to China, not to mention KDIII's silo has not been filled with missiles yet, so there is little point to discuss which ship get more missile silos, not to mention 055's missile silos are far larger and far more advanced than this Korea excuse of joke. And there are many other problems to make all the subsystems of KDIII work properly, so it is just floating rust now.

I would be suprised if koreans's KDIII has more combat value than China's 054A now.

Inferior or not, it is pointless to play compare game between 055 destroyer with KDIII and other. We discuss about 055 destroyer here. Not whose stronger between China and other country.

 

[Penguin]

It is really pointless to discuss this.

With or without KDIII korea navy is a joke to China, not to mention KDIII's silo has not been filled with missiles yet, so there is little point to discuss which ship get more missile silos, not to mention 055's missile silos are far larger and far more advanced than this Korea excuse of joke. And there are many other problems to make all the subsystems of KDIII work properly, so it is just floating rust now.

I would be suprised if koreans's KDIII has more combat value than China's 054A now.

Not to mention that the first 055 isn't even in the water yet. In fact, there are no VLS fitted yet, let alone that these would be filled with any missiles, let alone quad packed ....

 

[ArkRoyal]

Sorry if this was asked before, but are there any major differences between the Type-052D and Type-055 in terms of sensors and processing systems (other than the obvious integrated mast)?

Also, are there any english sources on a Chinese SM-3 analog (I recall seeing a GIF of a purported Chinese ASAT/ABM launch from a Type-052D, though it could've just been an over-excited blogger - I understand that this question is more for the missile developments thread, but I was curious if the Type-055 might employ a SM-3 analog)?