Type 055 DDG News & Discussions

[Penguin]

According to SIPRI general (arms) trade register:

• 110 Standard Missile-2MR SAM ordered in 2000. Deliveries 2003-2005. All 110 delivered. $159 m deal; SM-2 Block-3A version; for KDX-2 destroyers
• 159 Standard Missile-2MR SAM ordered in 2004. Deliveries 2006-2008. All 159 delivered. SM-2 Block-3A version; for KDX-2 destroyers
• 48 Standard Missile-2MR SAM ordered in 2006.Deliveries in 2008. All 48 delivered. $111 m deal; SM-2 Block-3B version; for KDX-3 destroyers
• 210 Standard Missile-2MR SAM ordered in 2008. Deliveries 2009-2015. All 210 delivered. $372 m deal; SM-2 Block-3A and SM-2 Block-3B version; for KDX-3 destroyers
• 62 Standard Missile-2MR SAM ordered 2010. Deliveries 2012. All 62 delivered. $67 m deal; SM-2 Block-3A and SM-2 Block-3B versions; for KDX-3 destroyers
• 19 Standard Missile-2MR SAM ordered 2011. Deliveries 2015. All 19 delivered. SM-2 Block-3B version.

That makes 269 SM2 Block 3A available for KDX-2s. There are 6 KDX-2 with 32 Mk41 cells each (192 cells total). So that means 1.4 full loads available.
In addition, there are at most 210 SM2 Block 3A plus at least 129 SM2 Block 3B for KDX-3s (total 339). There are 3 KDX-3 with 80 cells each (240 cells). That too means 1.4 full loads available.

Why exactly would South Korean ships not carry these in their Mk41 VLSs?

 

[ArkRoyal]

Sorry for the slight derail, but I'd like to chip into Penguin's argument.

The KDX-III's K-VLS cells are more comparable to MK-56's in terms of gas ejection rate and volume, and are not watered-down MK-41's (not to mention the K-VLS block 2's, which can cold launch MRBM's, and are used on the KSS-III class submarine). They also carry Hyunmu-3C's (1500 KM range TLAM's), supersonic AShM's (500 KM range, and still not publicly showcased because of the ROK defense ministry -_-), quad-packed K-SAAM's (the ESSM block 2 analogues with IR / radar seekers for surface engagement capability), and are slated for the M-SAM PIP (analog to the SM-2 with ABM capability). All of those weapons are integrated with the K-VLS, in order to give the ROK total control over their weapons and integration (while negating the need to share their weapons' performance data with other MK-41 users through the software integration process, which is why the Japanese never deployed their ships with their own ESSM analog). The K-VLS will also be the main weapon launch system for the KDDX series destroyers, integrated with the domestic Korean phased array AESA MFR and integrated mast.

But seriously, can't we all just be proud that Asian navies in general are becoming comparable to (and now surpassing) their Western counterparts (other than the USN, if Trump doesn't do something retarded)?

 

[Brainsucker]

Which of these missiles quadpacked currently or in near future?

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

So what do you think about the limitation of 052D VLS that will be addressed and expand in the 055 VLS? I heard about the 7 metre limitation from some forum post (maybe SDF, maybe in here, I forgot)

 

[Penguin]

So what do you think about the limitation of 052D VLS that will be addressed and expand in the 055 VLS? I heard about the 7 metre limitation from some forum post (maybe SDF, maybe in here, I forgot)

From the source from the earlier post:

What is also confirmed by semi-official sources in China is that the VLS on Type 052D is built to GJB 5860-2006 standard (GJB = Guo-jia Jun-yong Biao-zhun, 国家军用标准 meaning National Military Standard), so that different types of missiles can be launched by a single launching system.
According to some of the publicized examples of GJB 5860-2006 requirement, there are 3 types of VLS that differs in length: 9 meter, 7 meter and 3.3 meter respectively (section 5.1.3), but the diameter is same for all, 850 mm maximum (section 6.1.2), with each launching tube filled with either dry air or nitrogen inside (section 6.1.4), and with higher internal pressure. (section 6.1.4).
Similar to U.S. Navy's MK 41, a launching module includes 8 launching tubes (section 5.2.4), and each tube can house 1 - 4 missiles (section 5.2.4). Each launching model has a launching control unit (section 5.3.7), which can simultaneously launch up to 4 missiles of different kind (section 5.3.6). The launching control unit must have build-in test/diagnostic function (section 5.3.8).
These publicized portions of GJV 5860-2006 are surprisingly similar to that of Mk 41 VLS, which prompt some Chinese internet sources to claim that there are potential future export of such system so that it has to comply to Mk 41 VLS, the most widely used VLS in the world.

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2014/06/type-052d-multi-purposed-destroyer.html#.WKHSjH_-WYB

Which means that 055 could be using the same VLS as 052D but because it has greater hull depth (because its bigger) it can house the 9m version, while the smaller 052D can at best handle the 7m version. Wonder which missile(s) the 3.3m version is intended for... (PL12/SD10 is 4m already)

 

[cnleio]

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?

About quad-packing VLS ... i think we can consult FM-3000 missile system, there'r quad-packing VLS on ZhuHai AirShow.

China & U.S Navy ESSM missile development for quad-packing VLS

China DK-10 (ESSM) revolution: PL-12 => SD-10A => DK-10 => HHQ-xxx

 

[Akasa]

From the source from the earlier post:

What is also confirmed by semi-official sources in China is that the VLS on Type 052D is built to GJB 5860-2006 standard (GJB = Guo-jia Jun-yong Biao-zhun, 国家军用标准 meaning National Military Standard), so that different types of missiles can be launched by a single launching system.
According to some of the publicized examples of GJB 5860-2006 requirement, there are 3 types of VLS that differs in length: 9 meter, 7 meter and 3.3 meter respectively (section 5.1.3), but the diameter is same for all, 850 mm maximum (section 6.1.2), with each launching tube filled with either dry air or nitrogen inside (section 6.1.4), and with higher internal pressure. (section 6.1.4).
Similar to U.S. Navy's MK 41, a launching module includes 8 launching tubes (section 5.2.4), and each tube can house 1 - 4 missiles (section 5.2.4). Each launching model has a launching control unit (section 5.3.7), which can simultaneously launch up to 4 missiles of different kind (section 5.3.6). The launching control unit must have build-in test/diagnostic function (section 5.3.8).
These publicized portions of GJV 5860-2006 are surprisingly similar to that of Mk 41 VLS, which prompt some Chinese internet sources to claim that there are potential future export of such system so that it has to comply to Mk 41 VLS, the most widely used VLS in the world.

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2014/06/type-052d-multi-purposed-destroyer.html#.WKHSjH_-WYB

Which means that 055 could be using the same VLS as 052D but because it has greater hull depth (because its bigger) it can house the 9m version, while the smaller 052D can at best handle the 7m version. Wonder which missile(s) the 3.3m version is intended for... (PL12/SD10 is 4m already)

The 3.3 m variant is likely for the CY-5 (Yu-8) ASROC.
The 7 m variant (used on 052D?) will house the CJ-10, YJ-18, HQ-9, HQ-16, DK-10A/SD-10, and CY-5.
The 9 m variant (on 055?) will house everything the 052D does but in addition to the HQ-26 (see below).

The HQ-26 is allegedly close to 9 meters based on pixel measurements of the GIFs below:

 

[cnleio]

The 3.3 m variant is likely for the CY-5 (Yu-8) ASROC.
The 7 m variant (used on 052D?) will house the CJ-10, YJ-18, HQ-9, HQ-16, DK-10A/SD-10, and CY-5.
The 9 m variant (on 055?) will house everything the 052D does but in addition to the HQ-26 (see below).

The HQ-26 is allegedly close to 9 meters based on pixel measurements of the GIFs below:
View attachment 376790
View attachment 376789

Looks like a new missile, i don't know that's cold-VLS launch.


Just hear, China version "SM-3" or "SM-6" launch out ~! Both look same ?

Continue above post of FM-3000

 

[Penguin]

About quad-packing VLS ... i think we can consult FM-3000 missile system, there'r quad-packing VLS on ZhuHai AirShow.

I beg to differ. The FM-3000 TEL carries a total of 8 missile container-launcher tubes. The missile containers arrangement is two separate banks of four. Each set of four containers shares a ground support plate. This is not quadpacking, where there are 4 missiles in 1 container-launcher tube, fitting in 1 VLS cell. Like so:

Try estimating the size of each container, by relating it e.g. to the truck width. THat Beiben truck is probably about 2.5m wide. Then see the quote on post #559: the diameter of the VLS system is the same for all lengths, namely 850 mm maximum. Quad-packing means stuffing 4 missiles into a round canister with 850 mm diameter (or possible a square 85x85 cm space).

Lets look at the missile. HQ-17. This missile is a derivative of the Russian Tor, known in the West as SA-15 or Gauntlet.
9M330, 9M331 missile
Length 2900 mm
Diameter 235 mm
Wingspan 650 mm

As is clear from the picture, the winglets fold. That means the space needed is less than the wingspan but, given where they fold, more than the missile diameter. It might be possible to quad pack this missile. It would fit the length of the shortest VLS variant (3.3m) Then again, if possible, then why was this pareticular arrangement chosen on the ground launch vehicle, rather than a true quad-pack? It clearly takes up more space.

 

[Penguin]

Is there an actual DK10 quadpack ? At easily 4m, possibly 5 with boosterstage for surface launch (above pic shows it nearly same length as BUK-based HQ-16 of about 5m), DK-10 would be unsuitable for the 3.3m VLS version...

 

[艹艹艹]

 

[帅的一匹]

China is rising, 055 is simply amazing!

 

[cnleio]

Is there an actual DK10 quadpack ? At easily 4m, possibly 5 with boosterstage for surface launch (above pic shows it nearly same length as BUK-based HQ-16 of about 5m), DK-10 would be unsuitable for the 3.3m VLS version...

I think China type052D & type055's VLS is totally difference with America MK-41 ... why DK-10 quad-missiles must suitable for MK-41 ?

 

[Penguin]

I think China type052D & type055's VLS is totally difference with America MK-41 ... why DK-10 quad-missiles must suitable for MK-41 ?

I've not said it should be. It is not why I quoted that particular text: that I quoted for the lengths and diameter. So, don't sidetrack (and leave the main questions unanswered ;-).

Do you agree 052D and 055 VLSs belong to the same family?

 

[j20blackdragon]

How come no mention of the 055's four X-band arrays providing 360 degree coverage...just like the AMDR?

AMDR

055

Meanwhile, Sejong the Great-class destroyer has three obsolete SPG-62 fire control radars for missile terminal guidance.

I would say this attribute alone puts the 055 far ahead of traditional AEGIS ships. It's not about how many missiles you have. It's about how many missiles you can provide terminal guidance for.

 

[j20blackdragon]

055 mast

360 degree coverage X-band AESA.
360 degree coverage electronic warfare.