tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3767720709811036800..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Type 055 Cruiser vs. BurkeComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10098941163089029142023-03-11T05:30:38.398-08:002023-03-11T05:30:38.398-08:00"type-044"
There is no Type 044. There..."type-044"<br /><br />There is no Type 044. There is a Type 054 frigate and a Type 055 destroyer which is what I suspect you're referring to.<br /><br />Assuming you mean Type 055, logic would strongly suggest that the 055 is NOT intended to be a coastal vessel. The ship's size (ocean going) and firepower suggest that it is intended to be a 'battleship' with the mission of engaging US surface groups. A group of 055s would have sufficient offensive and defensive firepower to have a reasonable chance of successfully engaging US carrier and surface groups. If the intent was coastal operations, much smaller designs would be more appropriate.<br /><br />Further, China's expanding overseas bases demand a global vessel which, again, would be the Type 055 with the size, endurance, and firepower to operate away from home waters and land based air support.<br /><br />In addition, as China builds its carrier force they will require a high end, anti-air escort which the Type 055 would perfectly fit the role.<br /><br />Do you have some reference or logic to support your contention that the 055 is a coastal vessel?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79045020321333214622023-03-11T05:01:52.968-08:002023-03-11T05:01:52.968-08:00While the Burke has a global blue water mission, t...While the Burke has a global blue water mission, type-044 were designed to respond to calls along and close to China' Pacific coastal lines. The design reflects this trade off. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6373109895589297192021-04-28T21:09:57.846-07:002021-04-28T21:09:57.846-07:00It's size and capability is more on par with t...It's size and capability is more on par with the Ticonderoga class cruiser.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709881858108348378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78414359471573856022021-03-08T23:05:39.073-08:002021-03-08T23:05:39.073-08:00Finally, I saw Americans discussing Chinese warshi...Finally, I saw Americans discussing Chinese warships.teafoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14924072600861020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83359024699498935392019-01-17T20:17:47.916-08:002019-01-17T20:17:47.916-08:00"You do know when the bulk of the US fleet wa..."You do know when the bulk of the US fleet was built, right?"<br /><br />Yes, throughout the 90s. I get the feeling that the USN doesn't have as much of a sense of urgency because it used to be steadily building and launching multiple ships every year; in a sense, the US has already had its naval buildup, spread out over a longer period of time. <br /><br />Meanwhile the impression I get is that PLAN planners basically looked at things and went "our ships, built in the same era as the USN's Burkes, will not cut it, we need to first figure out what we want our new ships to be, and then we need to do a crash program to recapitalise the fleet as much as possible, as fast as possible."<br /><br />It doesn't really detract from what I'm saying though, in that I see the PLAN having a greater sense of urgency vs the USN.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68669893074856395122019-01-17T11:25:36.689-08:002019-01-17T11:25:36.689-08:00"Bear in mind that range for a Chinese ship i..."Bear in mind that range for a Chinese ship is almost irrelevant"<br /><br />That is what I thought. But they are expensive ships effectively cruisers and clearly built to be comparable to the top flight ships of other navies.<br />If they can only limb along at 12 knots to make maximum ranger then... Your point is probably valid that they simply don't care about range now. But its possible that its also comparable to fairly well recorded issues China has with aircraft engines. China can posture a lot more easily than the Pentagon because they control the info in a way that is not always possible/desirable in the US. Do they have a rail gun on a test ship that does anything? Maybe and maybe there is simply not an active press willing to talk to insiders who are not likely to suffer worse than firing (not a squad)for talking.<br /><br />Obviously arrogance gets you nowhere and USN should know that - re Perl Harbor. But I think the US should not fall into the trap of letting hype from Russia or China drive decisions. <br /><br />In this case I can't see why all the Ticonderoga are not simply going to get the upgrades that were planning on a faster pace vs retire. Since the new FF is clearly going to be a mini Burke no matter what the base hull... why build more Burkes? I mean if you want distributed leathity build more mini Burkes. The latest price estimate looks like almost 2-1.7:1. Just build mini Burkes and spend the savings on crew training. Even if the mini Burke is not a clean slate I'd rather have them and well trained crews if the navy can produce them fast. Does every ship need a bow sonar? Save some money and simply build three variants (primary role, vs secondary(s))from the start and no pretending you can swap in pieces.Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33216530199689739372019-01-17T10:16:00.688-08:002019-01-17T10:16:00.688-08:00Bear in mind that range for a Chinese ship is almo...Bear in mind that range for a Chinese ship is almost irrelevant since they don't do world wide deployments and in a war in the foreseeable future would operate inside the first island chain which means any range is more than sufficient.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74156368675780964812019-01-17T08:47:32.299-08:002019-01-17T08:47:32.299-08:00Calcification - I meant 16 knots is the highest cr...Calcification - I meant 16 knots is the highest cruising speed I found for the 055 published max range. I did not mean to imply top speed.Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83452040337452811772019-01-17T08:44:24.259-08:002019-01-17T08:44:24.259-08:00I Forgot I meant to revisit my comment on range.
...I Forgot I meant to revisit my comment on range. <br /><br />You did indeed post the range for the 055 and the Burke from wiki. From other sources the range of the Burke is widely claimed to be exactly the same you noted at 20 knots. My argument for overstatement of range for the 055 is that the source is Jane's and that is 5000 nmi at only 12 knots. Global security gives a whole mess of range guessing but at only 16 knots tops.<br /><br />Now the 055 is a big ship closer to the Spurance. Its range via Global Security was [wiki agrees on the first 2]<br /><br />3300 nmi @ 30 knots<br />6000 nmi @ 20 knots<br />8000 nmi @ 17 Knots<br /><br />Napkin graphing puts the Spurance at some 11000 nmi at 12 knots.<br /><br />The 055 is a big ship but seems to have far less range at 12 knots than one would expect. Conversely at either 12 or 16 knots the Burke would seem likely to have more range than its 20 knot rating. The same gain of Spurance at 17 Knots puts the Burke at more faster than any cruising speed I have seen for the 055 (12 or 16 knots).<br /><br />Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8240838313327012312019-01-16T11:12:12.183-08:002019-01-16T11:12:12.183-08:00I think this point is about command and control an...I think this point is about command and control and intended roles. The CVBG's escorts were centered around a CGN or two with DDGs subordinated for AAW tasks and DDs and FFGs for ASW tasks. Since the CGN had the superior sensors and was data-linked to the rest of the escorts, this made sense. Plus specialization of duties and such.<br /><br />The point that often comes up with the Burke's is that they are a compromise design that is sort of a super DDG that tries to fills all of the CVBG escort roles (AAW, ASW and escort TG leader), but is really only optimized for AAW.Jay Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07162380848814642382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48661861854542033082019-01-15T15:51:02.739-08:002019-01-15T15:51:02.739-08:00basically, what I mean is that unlike in WW2, toda...basically, what I mean is that unlike in WW2, today the difference between a cruiser and a destroyer is a lot closer. Look at the Burkes and Ticos: in terms of systems and weapons they're outfitted the same way. The only firepower difference is that a Tico has 1/3rd more VLS cells than a Burke, but the weapons and sensor fitout is basically the same.<br /><br />when I say flagship facilities, the context I'm talking about is the flotilla leader function, for escort desrons or SAGs on independant duties. Essentially the split between cruiser and destroyer, for me, is not based on firepower, but on function (although there's nothing keeping a clean sheet new cruiser from having more VLS cells than a burke).<br /><br />Although I think reusing the older term Destroyer Leader would be more accurate, prticularly when one recalls the DLGs that were reclassed as cruisers because of the Cruiser Gap panic.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41309988633394449452019-01-15T06:27:43.072-08:002019-01-15T06:27:43.072-08:00"a sense of urgency because a lot of its ship..."a sense of urgency because a lot of its ships are of 80s & 90s vintage"<br /><br />You do know when the bulk of the US fleet was built, right?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82168915692019827282019-01-15T06:19:55.922-08:002019-01-15T06:19:55.922-08:00"IMO what really differentiates a cruiser tod..."IMO what really differentiates a cruiser today, vs a destroyer, is flagship facilities."<br /><br />Why? When would a 'cruiser' be the flagship when carriers are the centerpiece of US naval strategy and operations? Are you saying that a Cyclone class patrol vessel, if it had room for flag facilities, would be a cruiser? Are you envisioning cruisers as independent operators rather than with a carrier/amphib group? How do flag facilities make the destroyer - now a cruiser - more lethal or is there no difference in lethality between a destroyer and cruiser?<br /><br />I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just trying to understand how you see flag facilities transforming a destroyer into a cruiser. Expand on your thesis.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17144484211931549792019-01-15T01:43:22.732-08:002019-01-15T01:43:22.732-08:00It should also be noted that China is under a cras...It should also be noted that China is under a crash program to recapitalise its Navy, as opposed to the US which used to be building a Burke a year. China has a sense of urgency because a lot of its ships are of 80s & 90s vintage and it wants as many modern ships as it can get, now.<br /><br />Also, if you look at previous Chinese shipbuilding, it looks very much like they build a few ships of varying classes and fitouts in order to throw things at the wall and see what sticks, then when they're satisfied with/finalise the design they want, they go into large scale production of that ship. Perhaps the US should take a page out of that book.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14039998242974254062019-01-14T19:11:39.264-08:002019-01-14T19:11:39.264-08:00Note that while the JMSDF does use the Atago-class...Note that while the JMSDF does use the Atago-class DDGs, their own take on the Flight II Burke, as flotilla leaders, the superstructure is larger to accomodate 2 additional decks for flagship facilities.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74432439721322379412019-01-14T19:09:31.977-08:002019-01-14T19:09:31.977-08:00Greater range sounds good in theory, but the probl...Greater range sounds good in theory, but the problem with that is that in many cases, as noted in an earlier blogpost on this blog, your weapon outranges your sensors, meaning that to fully exploit the range of your weapons you need offboard sensors feeding you targeting data. <br /><br />What I am more interested in is what sort of CIC setup the Type-055 ships have; IMO what really differentiates a cruiser today, vs a destroyer, is flagship facilities. Burkes make poor flotilla leaders because of how the CIC has only 2 large displays and no space for additional operators, so the CIC crew must juggle fighting the ship with fighting the flotilla. On a Tico, there are 4 large displays and more operator stations, so you can have a portion of the CIC crew on handling flotilla things and supporting the desron commander, while the rest of the CIC crew focuses on fighting the ship.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73885534107186760282019-01-14T13:28:05.673-08:002019-01-14T13:28:05.673-08:00If you have no bias then you have to acknowledge t...If you have no bias then you have to acknowledge that laser weapons are an inevitable development. The only question is the time frame. As I said, we shouldn't be designing them into ships yet since they're clearly still solidly in the development stage but their eventual use is inevitable. All new technologies are plagued with seemingly unsolvable problems which eventually, inevitably, get solved. The early steam engines had nothing going for them and seemed unlikely to ever displace sail - and yet they eventually did. And so on, with endless examples throughout history.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57370656431705431722019-01-14T13:00:47.399-08:002019-01-14T13:00:47.399-08:00I have no bias against lasers, I'm just a conc...I have no bias against lasers, I'm just a concerned taxpayer first and a military sci-fi nerd second ;)Tanguy Pluchetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20475879819058811192019-01-14T12:38:22.245-08:002019-01-14T12:38:22.245-08:00The Chinese VLS cells are also significantly large...The Chinese VLS cells are also significantly larger than the Mk 41 and Mk 57 cells. This conceivably allows them to carry weapons with greater range compared to their US counterparts and possibly weapons like a tactical ballistic missile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17158744483984938782019-01-14T09:07:20.321-08:002019-01-14T09:07:20.321-08:00Lasers today can down UAVs and possibly damage sma...Lasers today can down UAVs and possibly damage small boats. That's equivalent to the barely airworthy aircraft of WWI. Your bias against lasers is stopping you from seeing that steady progress is being made. No one is claiming that Star Wars lasers are a reality yet but they are progressing, if slower than we'd like. It's important to be objective.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77711710148670230582019-01-14T08:37:37.998-08:002019-01-14T08:37:37.998-08:00Aircrafts were very much a practical weapon by the...Aircrafts were very much a practical weapon by the end of WWI. Notably, the french 1st Air Division, comprising nearly a thousand fighters and bombers, played a decisive role in stopping the last german offensives in 1918, especially during the Second Battle of the Marne.Tanguy Pluchetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77020450097629529672019-01-14T06:24:02.087-08:002019-01-14T06:24:02.087-08:00Flight III - according to Navy pdf, now withdrawn,...Flight III - according to Navy pdf, now withdrawn, quoted 10,600t, presuming EOL displacement.<br /><br />Ships inevitably get heavier and become less stable, as new equipment and systems are added above the center of gravity and exacerbated by undocumented weight growth during life, all new/variants of Navy ships designed to accommodate growth throughout their lives without exceeding original weight and stability limits, except when Admirals change the rules eg LCS and FFG(X), the Navy combatants/destroyer standard is 10% of full load departure weight margin and 1 foot of full load departure KG margin. <br /><br />With all the weight of the new top heavy SPY-6 radar and associated equipment said only able to achieve 8" KG and 8% growth margin, so would expect FLD to be ~9,800t, they changed the hull form in the stern, its slightly wider above the waterline and slightly less flared that gives a little more volume that the ship will displace for another few hundred tons in service life (not mentioned in relation to the wider stern beam was that when accelerating from nominal cruise speed to full power the stern dug in and helicopter washed overboard from flight deck which only at 13 feet above sea level with the loss of its two pilots 2013, Congress later refused to authorize the Captain promotion to Admiral). To bring the ship’s center of gravity back down they made the hull with thicker plates in some places and thickened the scantlings with the added advantage of creating a more survivable hull in the event of an underwater explosion. My understanding is that they also raised the level of the V-line of the ships hull, the height of the hatches/openings.<br /><br />Flight IIA range quoted at 4,400nm at 20 knots, powered by one of its four GTs on a single shaft, the second shaft unpowered in the trailing mode. Assuming the max range requirement was set by transit from Pearl Harbor to Japan ~3,300nm and with minimum 5th and 7th fleet fuel safety levels set at 60% and in extremis 30%, that would give an operational range of only 1,760 nm at 60% reserve and 3,080nm at 30%, so in neither case could Burkes make transit at 20 knots without an oiler. Navy planned to update to Flight IIAs with Hybrid Electric Drive powered by its GT gensets to extend its relatively short range during the same time period as designing Flight IIIs, which required 50% new drawings by both Ingalls and BIW as unable to reach a common design, HED was not included in Flight IIIs as unable to take the weight. <br /><br />HED - Why Flight IIA and III needed HED for lower speeds is that though its four propulsion GTs have big advantages over diesels, with compactness, very high power density, quietness, acceleration and low start-up time, a GT is only most efficient at maximum power output, at lower rotational speed the pressure of the compressed air drops and thus thermal and fuel efficiency drop dramatically and GTs become gas guzzlers.<br /><br />PS Flight IIA HED upgrade cancelled last year, only the one ship to be upgraded <br /><br />Another indication of the limitations of the Burke hull is that an accommodation block has had to be installed on the aft weapons deck on the Flight III as accommodation displaced from the mid hull where ship is most stable and usual position due to the need for additional space required for the new radar.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34644020326668101392019-01-14T05:40:02.608-08:002019-01-14T05:40:02.608-08:00The first airplane flight was in 1903. It wasn...The first airplane flight was in 1903. It wasn't until WWII, forty years later, that aircraft advanced beyond the curiosity stage and became practical weapons. It also took the prompting of two real wars to push the development even that quickly. Lasers are currently at the WWI "curiosity" stage and there have been no world wars to push development. So, I have no problem with the pace of development. Nothing indicates that lasers can't, someday, become practical weapons.<br /><br />That said, lasers should be left in the realm of R&D until they're ready and the Navy should not be designing non-existent laser capacity into ships. <br /><br />I have no problem with 'endlessly' researching lasers. R&D costs nothing on a relative basis.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46662983773665269992019-01-14T05:31:00.106-08:002019-01-14T05:31:00.106-08:00"should you go with good enough, or go with p..."should you go with good enough, or go with perfection?"<br /><br />I'm a big believer in good enough. However, I don't believe that a Zumwalt meets even the good enough criteria. Here's the attributes I listed for a cruiser:<br /><br />-greatly enhanced stealth - Z may have this; there is no data to indicate whether the Z stealth is effective<br /><br />-greatly enhanced power systems - Z has this<br /><br />-significantly more short range AAW weapons - Z completely lacks short range AAW<br /><br />-significant UAV facilities - Z lacks this but the existing hangar/flight deck could be converted<br /><br />-redesigned exhaust systems to greatly reduce IR signature - no idea about Z IR signature<br /><br />-enhanced ECM - lacking, as far as I know<br /><br />-heavier and multiple guns - none<br /><br />-incorporation of armor - none<br /><br />-designed in acoustic isolation - unknown<br /><br />So, a cruiser Z would have a couple of the cruiser attributes but lacks several others. That's not "good enough" in my book. Combine that with the compromised open ocean seakeeping and a limited radar suite and it doesn't make a strong case for the Z as a basis for a cruiser.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83148946780332201212019-01-14T00:35:42.180-08:002019-01-14T00:35:42.180-08:00The USN doesn't seem to be making many good de...The USN doesn't seem to be making many good decisions in the last 20 years. I think they're making AB's because at least it's a known quantity that can still be built without delays.<br /><br />The USN did built ships to counter 055's- the Zumwalt. In some ways it's quite successful- the stealth seems to be amazing, and no one has disputed the improvements from using the peripheral missile cells- one hit doesn't knock out every missile in the normally clustered missile cells (remember the German ship last year?), and a hit disperses the explosive force outwards away from the innards of the ship.<br /><br />I have no engineering knowledge, so to me, imho as an armchair amateur, remove the 2 155mm guns, and replace them with 2 x 64 cells VLS's, and place 1-2 3/5 inch guns. There was a commenter last year, who said he thought there'd be room for such a set up- he helped design the Zumwalt.<br /><br />So there you are- The USN does have a cruiser design. Again- should you go with good enough, or go with perfection?<br /><br />AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com