I’m with you on looks and that’s hard to admit being from the west lol. The Burkes looks very busy, like they keep adding things here and there.. where ever they fit or just build a taller tower haha. with that we all know they are extremely capable and of there was the slightest chance that the Chinese had a major advantage over them they would be panic to get a new destroyer in the water now, with that said they are coming up with a new destroyer with the failure of the zumwalt and for the first time in along time the US navy is gonna have a very capable frigate as well. The frigate isn’t that much less capable then the new destroyers but are cheaper amd can float more ships. Be very curious what the US navy looks like in 15 years with new destroyers coming in and have new frigates. It’s also very true that with the tech of new weapons like Missiles… the actual ship it self it’s not as important, as missile tech and radar tech get better and better the ship just becomes a platform to shoot from. Gone are the days of having gun to gun battles.
The Type 055 is said to have built-in facilities for the command management of a battlegroup. Together with its large displacement of almost 13000 tonnes and heavy armament for surface strikes, this ship would be classified as a cruiser in the US or Russian Navy.
The Cruiser / Destroyer designations have become a bit murkier as of late with the Zumwalt having a displacement of 16,000 tons and the planned DDG(x) having a projected displacement of 13,500 tons. Comparatively speaking the Arleigh Burke Class has a displacement of between 8,300 and 9,700 tons depending on the flight.
@@dangilbert895 The USN is going to equip the Zumwalt's with long range hypersonic anti ship missiles, and is also looking at upgrading their air warfare suite to Arleigh Burke Block III standard. Those would be measures to transform the Zumwalt's into proper cruisers which can operate in fleet actions as well as striking out on their own.
@@tvgerbil1984 Yup! I actually commented something similar on the main feed a couple hrs ago! It's going to be a monster for sure. Especially when it gets some high powered laser ability. If I remember correctly it's going to carry 12 conversational prompt strike missiles.
@@tvgerbil1984 It is very unlikely any kind of single-ship combat would be feasible in modern warfare against any near-peer adversaries. The current proposed Zumwalt upgrades very much only return it back to its original intended use as a strike platform, which it couldn't do due to the joke that AGS turned out to be. The stealth of the Zumwalt could in some way give it additional tactical capabilities that the Burke doesn't have but with a ship that size one could easily argue the stealth would be much better utilized in a fleet setting to confuse enemy target acquisition rather than counting on a single Zumwalt to get pass all the PLAN radar.
@@muyangcheng3874 The USN probably wants to have the flexibility to deal with land or sea targets without committing a whole carrier battlegroup. The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) slated for the Zumwalts is said to have range of over 1500km. The same weapon will be installed onto the Virginia class nuclear powered attack submarines. With the range of LRHW and much better stealth profile than all other USN surface warships, maybe the Zumwalts can even supplement the Virginia's in certain missions. In any case, there may be scenarios where the targets are not necessarily PLAN warships, such as warships of the Russian Pacific Fleet.
In 1979, when a Chinese navy soldier stand on board a US warship, he had a feeling that he is in an alien starship. 40 years later, when a 055 staff stand on board a Berke, he feels that he is in a museum…..
Outstanding comparison and overall exquisite video! I’d give the nod to the 055, dual-band, larger, higher fidelity sensor suite, substantially superior VLS over the Mark 41 VLS, the larger cells provide options for many more types of larger and more capable munitions. I expect subsequent hulls of the 055 to go hypersonic and substantially improve their air defense capabilities. The 055 is much more capable in an anti-ship role or from a land attack perspective, it carries a more diverse set of munitions. One other advantage, seems small, though it’s the Type 1130 vs CIWS, the fact that the US is still using CIWS going into the year 2022 is truly surreal at this point. The larger hull, yet more stealthy design of the 055 and the much more powerful engines enable the PRC great flexibility moving forward, especially as it pertains to directed energy weapons. More importantly, the 055 is better looking, 😂!
Thanks for the support! Yes the Type 055 has other minor advantages, for example in point defence as you mentioned. The Type 1130 should offer much more protection than the rather old Phalanx CIWS. The Type 055 is also better placed to receive upgrades and future-proof against advances in technology. One notable edge the Burke 3 should have though is dedicated anti-ballistic missile interception, which is already present in some of the Burke 2a - this is not believed to be present on the Type 055 yet.
@@EurasiaNaval Good point on the ABM capabilities of the AB, I suspect that capability will arrive soon in PRC platforms. It’s great to see the USN Next-Generation DDG(X) is moving away from the woefully outdated CIWS point defense, though by the time it comes out, the PRC will push ahead with something ultimately more capable and more importantly, practical. They truly outdid themselves with the 055, imagine what’s next…
Multiple burkes have had CIWS replaced by ODIN laser dazzler already, and a 60kw laser is planned to be installed soon as well. Burke's soft kill abilities with its superior EW suite make CIWS uneccesary
@@sevrent2811 Good points, forgot about ODIN, not sure how effective it would be currently against multiple munitions in a short timespan, given its limited power and how it works. I’m certain moving forward it’ll be replaced by much more powerful systems considering they’re already looking at 600-kilowatt lasers for DDG(X), essentially a ten fold increase. It’s only a matter of time before megawatt systems become plausible.
10 years army, 50 years air force, 100 years Navy. However, this is based on the recognition of ship technology in the past. The current navy has made the battlefield more and more transparent due to the addition of space technology and other more advanced technologies. The mode of naval warfare has also surpassed the traditional methods of warfare with the change of ship technology. However, there is no doubt that the US military still has advantages in technology. We Chinese know this very well! We know better than anyone that falling behind will be beaten. We are also building a Navy capable of self-protection in front of the US military. We don't want the United States to detain any Chinese cargo ship at sea at will. With a word of regret, we can throw a few bombs at our embassy and kill several people. With a word of misundstanding, we can fly to our airspace, crash into one of our planes and swagger home. A country with a history of 5000 years has never conquered and plundered any neighboring country by force in history. But it has been made difficult and stigmatized by a country with a history of 200 years. No one knows what humiliation is better than us. We do not pursue the suppression of the United States. We hope that China's rise can defend itself and give other countries in the world the freedom of a second choice! The freedom that Americans talk about every day is also the most lacking thing in the world under American rule
You know why Chinese build things much cheaper than the US? China doesn't have coffee machines that cost $1000 each and as far as I know each chair on the US navy ship cost at least $10k. Just take a look at the spending of the defense budget.
@@potatonoodlebear8035 Is there anything wrong with that? Do you know that the French have more State-Owned-Enterprises in terms of GDP percentage than that of China?
@@DFDNDBY 80, although those don't include the new hypersonic missiles VLS they are adding. The new long range hypersonic weapon the zumwalts are getting have much longer range than any missile on your precious Type 055. Zumwalts will be a type 055 killer
One note about area air defense and magazine depth is that the Burke can also quad pack the ESSM for med range interception (apparently they've got a range of about 50km and the block 2 version also has an active radar seeker for terminal guidance) which can allow it the option to carry a higher number of missiles. For comparison if you include the Type 055's HQ-10 short range air defense missile (apparently it's got a range of roughly 9 km in a 24 missile launcher) with the larger 112 VLS cells their total available magazine depth is 136 missiles, whereas with an air defense loadout using just 14 cells quad packed with ESSMs the Burke could have an available magazine depth of 138 missiles that all can reach out to at roughly 50km. If however 26 cells are quad packed with ESSMs this then becomes an available depth of 174 missiles and has the potential to yield a substantial advantage in magazine over the Type 055 in that type of scenario. In this context I think that the capability to quad pack a missile with an active radar seeker would likely overcome any potential disadvantage in the radar array in an air defense section and push it into an overall advantage for the Burke in that section.
Thanks for viewing. The PLAN has actually recently unveiled a quad-pack naval medium range missile at the 2021 Zhuhai air-show. Granted, the official information on this missile suggest a much weaker spec than the ESSM - much lower range and slightly lower speed. PLAN is usually secretive about when new innovations become operationalised, but most of the time when they choose to unveil something it is usually close to functional. So I would assume that this quad-pack medium range SAM is already operational in the Type 055.
You are trying so hard to explain that your USA is better than China, nice try though but unfortunately for USA you guys will never stop the rise of China and you will have to live with it whether you like it or not 🇺🇸🇬🇧🤡
Hypersonic weapons fly at speeds of at least Mach 5 and are highly maneuverable and able to change course during flight. The traditional ballistic missiles have set trajectories and limited maneuverability.@@SHVRWK
Type 055 is better in basically every way except quantity, but if you compare vs just block 3, then type 055 still wins for now at least. Not to mention type 055 is like half the price or even cheaper, which is even more incredible.
I would say that both ships are very capable. But not really intended for the same roles. The Burke is the preeminent design that has ruled the waves for some time. But it’s design was at first mean’t to be a low cost, general purpose design. Only more recently has its design been invested in to make it higher quality in nature. Primarily intended for FAD and ASW purposes. In general, It seems that the US prioritizes those two roles for its surface combatants rather than anti-shipping purposes. It seems as though aircraft and submarines are more geared towards anti-shipping roles in the USN. The 055 seems to be specifically designed to outclass the Burke in anti-shipping capabilities. Likely to act as a counter to the burkes. While it can carry out both FAD and ASW, I believe it is more intended for AAAD (anti access area denial) extending the already massive AAAD umbrella China has from the mainland assets. It seems as these are more meant as offensive assests as mentioned in the video. Overall both ships are capable in their roles. But I would say that their comparison isn’t quite fair due to the doctrinal differences in their use. Also one other thing. While paper statistics are the easiest thing to analyze and compare. The soft details, such as ease of use, level of training of the crew, and maintenance are often key in defining the outcome of any engagement. These often overlooked aspects and something people often forget.
US believes the principle that "he who rules the skies wins the war". They invested greatly on aircraft carriers and jets to basically maintain air superiority anywhere they operate.
> such as ease of use, level of training of the crew, and maintenance Ease of use, who knows? Level of training, either parity or China takes the win. The US has a massive shortage of sailors, we missed our recruiting numbers by a wide margin. Maintenance, easy Chinese win. China has far more shipyards available for building and maintenance, it's not even remotely close. They have 200x the shipbuilding capacity of the US (per a recent RAND study). The US has a rather large backlog of ship maintenance, especially submarine maintenance. This isn't something you can fix and we won't be able to "Arsenal of Democracy" our way out of this. Shipyards take too long to build, and modern ships are far more complex than WW2 vessels. Plus we make barely anything here, and the few things we do for national security reasons won't scale quickly.
I think the US should revisit the DDG-1000 attributes, but with more reasonable and sustainable armament. The Mark 51 AGS was a complete flop and destroyed the development of an otherwise impressive ship.
Amazing content as always👍I always like the clean exterior of 055 and I think this ship has massive potential due to it's got spare power from the power train for future upgrade. I'm also curious about the newer 075 from PLAN can you make a video about it?
if you take Chinese stated capabilities and subtract about 1/4 you have a more accurate assessment of actual capabilities. This video never covered the revelation Chinese Naval ships have a tendency to blow out their hulls during actual operation conditions or the fact their phased arrays are cheap copies of Western design without the proper shielding. Once the type 55 operates close to a SPY Radar there is interference and it completely disables the type 55 making it dead in the water.
@@anthonyinzerillo2804 it is well documented Chinese metallurgy leave a lot to be desired and there is a tendency for their hulls to burst at flank operation. Why are you projecting your lack of adequacy upon me?
One thing is very interesting. Everyone said that the Chinese army has no experience while the US Army has a lot of experience. I don't like to mention whether the experience of the U.S. military in dealing with roadside bombs is useful. I just want to say that no soldier has served for decades, even fewer with actual combat experience in the army and may have retired. Therefore, U.S. soldiers's experience, it is mainly procedural experience, which comes from training and soldier manuals. So the interesting point is that some people think that China can easily steal the extremely complex military technology of the U.S. military (actually bullshit), but it can not steal the soldiers' training manuals of the U.S. military so that they can't follow the training, and even many of these manuals can be directly Google out.
A couple corrections. The Arleigh Burke class only has 7 more flight 3's scheduled to be built and will be pivoting to the DDG(X) program after. Also since there is only 6 Type 055s in existence so far it would probably be better to compare them to the US's 3 Zumwalt class destroyers. That would make an interesting Stealth vs firepower comparison especially when the Zumwalt's become armed with the Conventional Prompt Strike Hypersonic missile and the VLS launched version of the AGM-158C LRASM in 2025.
China's GDP per person is worse than Rominia, you know, Rominia, the Borat country. I know those chinese must be dumb F**ks being bad at math and science and lazy as F**K like all other Asians, they will never catch up to 50% of USA 's GDP per person for sure. But can we wait until the Chinese catch up at least double the current GDP per cap, like, to Lativia's GDP per capita before the comparison...?
@@jaytse3147 Right now I'm inclined to agree with you. I think the base platform of the Zumwalt matured faster than the systems needed to make it realize its potential. Thats why all 3 platforms are scheduled for total refits. Once the Zumwalt's receive their ZEUS upgrade program and Projects like HALO reach maturity then we will see a much more dangerous ship.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor It's just that they are expensive! They're better off replacing that Railguns with Hypersonic missile as a stopgap, at least it will give them a role of a fleet killer.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor yeah, Zumvalt would be great in a world where money doesn't matter. Building, weaponizing and using them is just too expensive. Even for US.
The second batch of 8 improved version of 055, called 055A, are believed to have begun the construction. They will be have all integrated electric propulsion and fitted with electromagnetic rail gun and laser weapons.
@@mattia8327 American railgun may have this problem but not the Chinese one. Same way American electronic catapult system on Uss Ford has technical problem but no the Chinese on their 003 carrier. Chinese are successful in each attempt of their hypersonic missile tests and now in deployment, whilst Us failed in many attempts. Failure in Us technology does not mean same happens with Chinese one.
@@oberstleutnant787 What a joke. China is inferior in all forms of technology, stealth F-22 vastly superior to J-20. Electronic launch system on the Fuijan does not work, do not speak propaganda, the engine hasn't even been activated and is unlikely to provide enough electricity to power the launch system as only nuclear can output enough power. Fuijan burns oil. US long range hypersonic weapon will go mach 17 faster than any Chinese missile.
They aren't particularly useful. OP mistakes the US not adopting the technology as the US failing to use it. Rather, like hypersonic weapons, railguns were evaulated and deemed to be inferior to what already exists: missiles. So the USN decided to fund direct energy weapons, which is why theyre so far ahead of the CCP in that area. DE weapons basically make railguns and hypersonics useless, as neither of those can outrun or dodge light.
Well the US have had 30+ years to improve on the Burks design true and tested. The chinese destroyer seem impressive though. I’d say it could go either way but i’m leaning more on the Burks because there has been many efforts to keep the design relevant and up to date
Yes! Although the 55 looks good, chinese have a history to hype up a product to the extreme, when the opposite is true. Also bigger radar panels doesn't automatically means better system, if the efficiency is not there or HW/SW optimization is not upto the mark. And with that much cooling & the subsequent heater water being released from the side, the sensors will pick up those heat signatures pretty quick.
@@BlackHawkTejas China has always been low-key in military affairs. Don't confuse China's military equipment with its products. This is different from the transparency policy implemented by the United States, which is full of confidence in equipment, and from countries like India and South Korea that boast about giving their citizens confidence. China has been hiding parameters in military equipment and weakening itself. Perhaps only China is truly preparing for war, and exposing its strength in front of its opponents is not a wise choice. I assure you that the actual level of Chinese weapons you see is definitely more powerful than the parameters exposed on the surface
You're right, but this is also a weakness of the Burke class. The real problem is that the Burke class is already a technological product of the last century. Even though it has undergone many upgrades, the effects of modification and reproduction are completely different. The 055 is the latest new product, equipped with the most advanced technology of this century. Therefore, what you call lack of experience is actually the advantage of the 055. After all, the equipment and soldiers are different, and it is not that the longer the service, the more powerful the 055 becomes
In a conflict scenario, the Burkes are likely to be threatened by J-16, JH-7A and H-6K rather than from PLAN surface assets. Think China should modernize the 054A FFGs with YJ-12 where in the Taiwan or SCS theatre the 054A numerical superiority can pack a far bigger punch against US DDGs.
@@Lcr34 And that would be a waste of missiles, because all the destroyer defenses and their multiple layers of defense each would be focused on protecting the carriers, while carrier launched F-35s take out the missile launch sites.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Not really, China's land based anti ship missiles can engage carriers at greater distance than F-35's combat radius. Also, the only land attack weapons that can fit inside F-35's weapon bays are small diameter bombs, so F-35 need to enter China's air space to drop the bomb, which means it need to penetrate many layers of air defence, including J-20 with KJ-500 AWACS, and many other 4th gen fighters, and also different SAM systems. If the F-35 choose to carry land attack missiles under the wings, it will break the stealth, and get intercepted much earlier.
You do realize the US did a test with one of its superchargers in the early 2000s and was unable to sink it with ordinance. It had to shuttle the ship. Look up the USS America kitty hawk class carrier. What China and Russia think they'll be able to easily do is literally not possible. The amount of ordinance required would be insane.
@@maddogs1989 A 1.8 tonne DF-26 ASBM warhead coming down at Mach 10 smashing onto the deck will mean the ship's flight operation is finished at the very least and massive fires in the hanger. This is infinitely more destruction than a few sea skimmer exocet.
US SM-6 and SM-3 missile can also engage ballistic missile, which is a huge tactical advantage in my opinion. but then again with larger VLS and excess power, type 55 still got a lot of room for development
The USA and most of it's allies doesn't have medium range ballistic missiles, let alone sea targeting BMs, China have far less need of such capability compared with USN.
Very true. The Arleigh Burke hull is at its upgradability limit. I remember a huge debate on wheter to upgrade the Arleigh Burke or start a clean sheet design. The troubles with the LCS and Zumwalts hurt funding so they went with the Flight III as a stop gap measure while they start a clean sheet design for a new destroyer.
@@Honest888-e4g True. However, the Type 055 will need tracking data fed to it from some other asset. That is pretty much true for any surface target over the horizon. And the video noted thet the US Tomahawk has even greater range. The YJ-21 would be detected very quickly, being a ballistic missile, although interception would be difficult. The Tomahawk would not be detected till 20 miles or less because it is sea skimming, but being subsomic easier to intercept if the crew is alert. The big advantage of the Tomahawk over the YJ-21 is that the YJ-21 is not yet deployed. It was recently test fired this year from a Type 055. I do not know when it will become fully deployed.
I would compare the type 055 with the Ticonderoga & the Burke's with the Type52D. The 52Ds are smaller than the Burke's but the PLAN is a much more balanced force of heavy destroyers, destroyers, and frigates
I can see where you are coming from as far as displacement is concerned, but actually I would rate the Burke III to be a much stronger ship than the Tico, because the radars are much more advanced. The Tico is constructed around or slightly before the Flight 1 and 2 Burkes were built, so in some respects they still use vintage systems. So it would actually be 'more balanced' to compare the new ship, the Type 055, against a physically smaller but more advanced Burke 3. That said, it's also reasonable to compare the 052D against the Burkes - which I have actually done with less detail in the Type 052D video.
AB Flt III is more capable than Ticos so if you compare the 055 with Tico the capability gap is even wider! Lol. I would put 052D comparable with AB Flt II, with the AB with slightly better SAMs.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor There is a reason the US doesn't build it anymore. Outdated sensors can't defend the superior VLS numbers and obviously, the US didn't wanna upgrade it. So no matter how good your firepower is, you're only as good as you can see.
Sure, and look at the shape of the Zumwalt, it looks like a ship of the 2050s and is superior to the Type 055. Zumwalt has better stealth, better X band radar, and more firepower than the type 055, soon to include long range hypersonic missiles.
Arleigh Burke is the gold standard. The destroyer which all other destroyers are measured by. The sun is finally setting on this workhorse, but a new dawn is coming with the DDG(x).
@@EGvids1 they’re not really similar. A side by side comparison has been done and they’re quite different, not to mention the final design of the DDGx hasnt even been unveiled yet so your assertion is premature by a mile
Type 55 is superior In many aspects. The missiles it carries for air defence the missiles it carries for anti ship are superior in range and tech, the ciws are far superior. The radars and sensor suits are more superior. Multi missile cell capacity (very smart and impressive). Also as explained in this video the power outage capacity is clearly gearing up to host the Chinese made rail gun which we all know is in the testing and development stages. This is a seriously impressive ship.
@@EurasiaNaval thank you I find your videos very informative and I love the content and the way you present the facts. Amazing work keep it up brother.
Yeah I definitely believe that the Chinese are better at literally everything than the Americans. That’s definitely true and totally not extreme bias, propaganda, and/or wishful thinking.
Thanks. Flight 3 of the Burke is quite advanced and a huge step from flights IIa and certainly I and II. They should be considered much stronger than the larger Ticos. 052D would be best compared to Burke IIa, which was conceived in roughly the same time frame
Yeah, it felt a little odd to compare the type 055s with burke 2s, especially given the existence of the ticonderogas. I can understand a comparison with the burke 3s since they're slated to replace the ticos, but a great deal of emphasis was placed on the older flights.
Just look at the mast, man. 055 processes a sci-fi look, neat design for radar antenna informed me of Zumwalt. while burke III keeps adding more and more antennas to its already messy (at least visually) superstructure. I think there’s no doubt 055 is a sexier ship
@@iqbang9236 Bare in mind US debt in USD 30 Trillions.... Countries are now shifting away from US dollars. They rather trade in their currency. Pretty soon the "i owe you"= US Dollar needed to be cash out, need to revert to actual value. In no time, all their boats will be auction off to recover their debts.
@@Endoplexer China's debt is used for domestic infrastructure, and the United States is used for foreign wars; China provides products for the world, and the United States sucks the world's blood by printing dollars. You don't need to be an economist to know the difference unless you have your agenda.
China also plan replace the deck Gun of the Type055 with a Railgun (it's already being tested on test ship) and the CIWS with laser. does it give any advantage?
It's fair to say that the Type 055 has greater upgrade potential for future systems (e.g. railguns and lasers) due to large hull size and spare power capacity. This should increase the effective service life of each hull.
railgun tech seems too immature to be fitted to production warships at this stage. Reliability is going to be the biggest drawback. Although it would make sense to build land based artillery railguns to provide extreme long range bombardment at low cost per shot. I can see railgun batteries set up in fujian province and pointed at taiwan.
The type 055 is a cruiser with command capability, not a destroyer. It is larger, two decades newer than the Arleigh Burke IIA, and supposedly was built after China acquired technical details on the Japanese Burke derivatives and the SPY-1D. It should be better. The DD(X) program is the equivalent of the Type 055 Destroyer. It's basically a cruiser with dual band radars and 128 VLS tubes. It's going to be similar size.
Type055 is just a copy of burke III. Of course burke3 is still under design, however when burke III is in op 10 years later, we can then say in confident that todays Chinese 055 is a mere copy of the burkeIII
It's a lot to presume that larger array panels and higher electrical output equals greater performance. Without any other performance information, it's as easy to speculate that larger panels are covering fewer, physically larger emitters and the greater electrical output is needed to drive these emitters. As an analog, older semiconductor chips were larger and required more power for less processing power than newer smaller, more efficient chips.
@@Big-O43 You should be confident on every single of your words, Chuck Almighty, no need to repeat. The world will kneel in front of you. Whatever you say is correct, every alphabet you spitted count! Have faith in it, Chuck Almighty.
The last time I saw a PLAN training video on baidu was comicaly entertaining >Training in the middle of bad weather >water tight doors open inwards >said door broke its lock resulting in water going inside the ship >Damacon moves in >Poor zhang got blasted by the door after it got hit by a wave >Ship starts taking in water >No drains to pump out water >Chang starts scooping with buckets
The forward looking radar-panels of the Type 055 might be bigger than the Burkes, but the side- and aft-facing ones seem to be only ½ sized. The ones on the Burke all have the same size. Just an observation 🤷♂ .
The Type has 4 of the same radars positioned to see 360 degrees, just like Burkes. If you can't see it in this video, go see some pictures of the destroyer captured from the side or rear. Don't confuse those additional panels are its main radar.
I know for certain that no radar comes close to Raytheon Spy 6 radar. It's the only radar that could simultaneously target ballistic, cruise and jets at the same time!
Spy6 has not been installed on a large scale. Even if it is equipped, it is only at the same level as the 055's 346b radar. The previous spy-1d was one generation behind
SPY-1D(V) can already see far as 1700km. While SPY-6 with 24 RMAs on Burke Flight IIA can see as far as 4700km similar to THAAD's TPY-2 radar from the same company Raytheon. On the other hand SPY-6 with 37 RMAs on Burke Flight III will be insanely powerful. Then there is still SPY-7. Future DDG(x) may have up to 57 RMAs. Besides SPY radars, only Aegis destroyers have CWI radars that has no minimum nor maximum range but only dependent on the power its given. So one can understand why USN is not seen keen on 5th gen stealth.
There's something you might have missed. The Chinese navy uses GJB 5860-2006 standard for VLS cells which specify a 850mm by 850mm cell and comes in 9, 7, and 3.3 meter length variants. The US navy uses the Mark 41/57 standard, which specifies a (for the Mark 57, which is slightly larger than the Mark 41) 710mm by 710mm cell and comes in 5.3, 6.8, and 7.7 meters. Theoretically this is better since new, improved missiles that are larger can be put in in the future, whereas it'll be near impossible to enlarge the VLS cells after the ship is already launched. Both navies are also looking at IEPS upgrades as well, and the new US design might also feature a "super large" module for much larger missiles, but who knows if or when that will appear.
Thanks - I am aware of the fact that the Type 055 uses larger VLS cells than the Burke. In fact, I have the estimated dimension (0.86m diameter & 9m length). This outsized VLS is the reason why I believe the Type 055 can use some of the smaller anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the DF-11. The DF-11 can fit inside this VLS, because it is width 0.8m and length 8.5m. I basically just skipped mentioning the size of the VLS in the video and jumped straight to the implications. Cheers
There are around 67 operational Burke class destroyers out there China needs to match up. This has nothing to do with the number of VLC's onboard but the tactics and abilities of each ships base on experience and strategies. What can China offer to match up US long list of experience since WWII?? China is an infant compared to US naval history.
The Burkes are great ships. That is critical since they are the last truly successful surface combatant design produced by the U.S. Navy which is now in need of Cruisers and Frigates.
BMW M3 E80 and BMW M3 E30 are both called BMW M3, but there are essential differences between the two cars This is the essential difference between the 055 destroyer and the Burke destroyer
Oh, we have missiles to defend our nice fishing boat from sharks and angry whales, our lazer turrets and CIWS are used to defend against aggressive flying fish, we are definitely not going to shoot them at anyone ;)
One is a destroyer the other is a cruiser A very powerful destroyer but still a destroyer It has served our navy well It works in conjunction with a carrier strike group It has years of naval doctrine and strategy It has patrolled the worlds oceans and kept the peace how many years The other is a beautiful ship of beautiful design Similar capabilities Yet to be tested via military doctrine Have we seen this before Yes we have When Where
@@jiokl7g9t6 That is true but it will be applicable to both sides. The current built forms of both ships, it is clear 005 is superior, not only for upgrades but significantly augmentation if required for its large hangers.
@@edwardtang1977 America spends almost 1 trillion on their military alone and that's like 1% of their yearly budget. America has more money than all the other countries combined well almost.
The overall manufacturing scale and speed would be the key. China has been industrialized. As far as I'm concerned, China are still being conservative to the military spending and manufacturing. These military equipment haven't really into large production yet.
Although you can no longer say that Type 055 is a copycat, you can still say that it is not battlefield proven. So Arleigh Burke is still the better one.
nah 055 is still a stolen technology from USN, chinese must have time machine. and i believe that time machine is stolen from alien. and that alien must be stolen from area 51.
Now, you need to factor in training, execution, experience and command competence of the crew. I don't care how good your equipment is, if the crew competency and command effectiveness is subpar, and for many I think it is, you don't have a complete battle system.
Your assessment of the radars is almost certainly wrong. You totally missed the fact that SPY-6 uses GaN MMICs, while it is currently still unknown which MMIC the Type 346B uses. I would guess it still uses older GaAs MMIC technology given the 346B is probably older than the SPY-6 in terms of development timeline and possibly Chinese technological capability at the time of development. This point by itself will dramatically alter the calculus in terms of both sensitivity and energy use/requirements of the main radars in favor of the GaN-based SPY-6. Also, I believe the online consensus is that the 346B as used on the Type 055 is not dual-band S/C in the same way the Type 052C was, but is now comprised of 4 S-band panels on the main superstructure and 4 X-band panels on the integrated mast. Also, a smaller point, but the HHQ-9B is not really comparable to the SM-6, which is really a super-long ranged SAM, and neither is the HHQ-16 comparable to the SM-2MR Block IIIB, the former of which is a medium-ranged SAM while the latter is definitely a long-ranged SAM. The most appropriate comparison is between the SM-2MR IIIB and the HHQ-9B, and the ESSM and the HHQ-16, while the SM-6 definitively falls outside the comparison range of any Chinese naval SAM currently deployed. You can also appropriately compare RAM and HHQ-10 as well, both being currently-deployed naval short-ranged point-defense missiles.
The better question is will the future DDGx be able to match Type 055 of 2020, considering the baseline DDGx presented so far still use spinning SPQ-9B for fire control (vs fixed AESA arrays on Type 055), has the same sized (4.2m, 14ft) main array as Type 055, still uses Mk-41 VLS limited to 25 inch/0.63m and hot fire only, and only 32 cells plus, presumably, another at most 64 mid-ship. The fact that something clearly less capable than Type 055 is considered next generation in comparison to the Burke F3 should tell you the answer to the title of the video.
And how did you manage to compare Type 055 with a ship that is not even official yet? Plus Burke and Type 055 have major doctrine differences. Type 055 is primarily an anti-ship vessel while the Burke is primarily for air defense purposes. Annother thing to consider is that the DDG(X) will be based on the needs of the Navy not necessarily to counter the Type 055. What you are suggesting is that Type 055 which is different from the DDG(X) will be superior in its intended role? Let me remind you that Type 055 cannot even hope to match the Burke in air defense so I'm pretty certain that it won't be able to beat the next gen DD in air defense role. And Type 055 is not battle tested as well.
@@ulikemyname6744 Wow congrats on getting every statement wrong. - The 12x S+X+UHF AESA arrays on Type 055 aren't there for anti-ship, being able to destroy entire fleets is a side effect of having large CCL universal VLS, which really speaks to just how obselete Mk-41 is. - The AN/SPY-1 on Burkes are PESA where a single source gets sent to (mechanical) phase shifters to form a one beam, it's 70s tech that's physically impossible to project multiple beam or null, ESM or comms beams, whereas each of Type 055's AESA element can generate it's own signal allowing arbitary number of multi-purpose beams and track an order of magnitude more targets. Flight 1 and 2 Burkes are literally analog to Type 055's digital, i.e. air defence is arguably the aspect where the Burkes are most behind Type 055 at. Even Flight 3 Burkes with its SPY-6 AESA can at most be compared to half a Type 055, as it still retains rotating SPQ-9B X-band radar vs AESA on Type 055, and lacks both UHF anti-stealth arrays nor CCL VLS nor variable depth sonar. The fact that DDGx will use the same system as Flight 3 by definition make it already obselete compared to Type 055, the fact that USN just said they can't even afford it yesturday just make it more sad. Oh and the only real world combat experience Burkes ever seen is shooting down Iran Air Flight 655
@@vlhc4642 No evidence to suggest that SPY-1 is any less capable than Type-346. After all it depends on how far in the miniaturization process China is. Meaning how far on the technological level China has moved. They might have surpassed the SPY-1 capabilities as really it is a PESA radar against their AESA radars. But to suggest that this radar is better than SPY-6 even the smaller variant as this on the Flight 3 Is actually the smaller variant of the radar cannot be a truthful statement. The main role of Type 055 is an anti ship duty while the Burke is primarily anti air. The Burke not only has more anti air missiles but also more advanced missiles. HHQ-9 cannot even hope to compare against the SM-2 and SM-6. For medium range the ESSM is also superior to anything China has. Type 055 can also somewhat defend the skies and the Burke can also destroy fleets
@@ulikemyname6744 Oh man you have zero idea how anything work do you? - Signals from PESA literally come from magnetrons and directed via mechanical phase shifters vs AESA's DSP + DACs + waveformer software, saying SPY-1 is no less capable than 346A is literally like saying a walki-talki is no less capable to a smartphone. - SPY6 might be comparable to 346A seeing its not even in service and 055 uses newer 346B. But you're missing the 4x X-band AESA on 055's mask and the 4x UHF on the sides, nevermind the integrated mast housing all the ESM/EW/Comm phased arrays. SPY-6 makes F3 Burke not obsolete 80s tech, but still a long way from comparable to 055. Finally do you have no idea what VLS are? 055 has 114 cells vs Burkes' 96, GB5860 VLS are 850mm vs Mk'41's 640mm, 5860 VLS are CCL that support both cold and hot launch vs MK-41's hot only, CCL means 5860 have dedicated exhaust per cell vs common shared by 8 on Mk-41. 055 have more missiles, each missiles can be bigger and have longer range due to both cell size and cold launch, it can support more type of missiles due to cold launch, and can be fired at much faster rate because there's no cooling limit from sharing exhaust. Not only is 055 an anti-air ship, anti-air is arguably the part where Burke is the most behind 055 at, it has inferior radar, inferior weapons (SM2 was first designed in 1967, let it go), heck most Burkes still have Mk-141 Harpoon launchers because apparently VLS ASM is just too hard. The fact that 055's side ASM job looks to you like it's main job speaks to just how obsolete Burkes are.
@@vlhc4642 You don't know where China is in the miniaturization process. That's why I'm saying the AESA on the Chinese ship might not be better than the SPY-1. One thing is for certain the SPY-6 is the most advanced radar in the world as the US is ahead of everybody in miniaturization. SPY-6 is also modular unlike the 346. Do you know what does that mean? It can be put in whatever shapes and the modules can be whatever band the USN needs them to be. The SPY-6 more than a decade newer as well so you are telling me that the most advanced nation in the world which is by far ahead in the miniaturization of technologies made a worse radar than the Chinese? Yeah I don't think so. Yes the Burke has smaller VLS and less VLS but the Burke is also a smaller ship as well. Easier to make and costs less money despite what the Chinese are claiming. A cruiser can't be less expensive than a destoryer especially when it is literally 3,000 tons heavier. Also does the Chinese have an answer to SM-6? Nope! They don't! The SM-6 can shoot down anything that is shot at the Burke. The Burke is unmatched in air defense except maybe for some of the Japanese and SK destroyers which are also Aegis but bigger with more VLS cells. Oh and speaking of Aegis the Chinese don't have anything to counter Aegis. So yeah. As for the anti-ship role the Burke is not as good. yet that is due to doctrine. The Type 055 is more of a multirole ship but the Burke is primarily anti-ship. Based on the American and the Chinese doctrines ofc.
Besides the cost differences, anyone knows that when the US shipyards can built 1.5 destroyers in 1 year (to be fair this number probably raise to 3 during war time), the Chinese can build 9 and even more? This figure only count on the capcity of the 2 major shipyards ( Shanghai and Dalian) who took most of the orders from the PLAN, but in fact there are at least 20 shipyards along the coast provinces which are capable to build 100,000 tons class vessels.
The one thing you did not compare was the experience gap between the Chinese and the U.S.. You can have the best of everything but without military experience you will loose. I believe the U.S. has a one hundred year heaad start over China when it comes to utilizing the compliment of ships that make up a carrier battle groups and tactics to fully utize there capabilities
Tesla does not seem to have much of experience when facing century old German car manufacturers like WV…… the same to the contest between PLAN and us navy! We all know US has 0 naval battle against any countries for a looooooooong time….. How come it has so much experience??? 😂😂😂😂😂
It is, people don't realize they build ships for all of the major shipping conglomerates. He'll you can say all of Asia has a chokehold. South Korea's Hyundai and Samsung builds ships as well. Very productive region of the world 👏🏾
Now 055 is not a complete scheme! The power of the 055 is 50000 horsepower higher than that of the Berke III. this is not a design error, but provides a sufficient energy source for the directional energy weapon to be tested and mature soon. Australian patrol aircraft have experienced the power of directional energy laser weapons when approaching 055. And 055 will not be the most advanced warship in China soon. Please look forward to the emergence of China's next generation of omnipotent warships. It adopts the world's most advanced medium voltage DC technology, ship stealth technology, firepower of Arsenal ships, ultra sensitive towed sonar, stronger conventional power, more advanced integrated RF system, campaign level command and management system, more advanced non decipherable quantum communication encryption system, more advanced missiles, anti satellite, hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles for ships with longer range, and more advanced electronic warfare system, More advanced anti submarine UAVs and helicopters, more advanced fire reconnaissance aircraft, AI UAVs and hound type high perception AI unmanned boats are equipped with four AI intelligent submarines. The total displacement is expected to be 20000-25000 tons.
I agree the Type 055 is not a completed design in respect of future upgrade. I guess I was trying to support the conclusion that the power input going into the radar system is greater than the Burke, together with the large liquid flow used in the cooling system
@@yukinagato4969 the point is, it got where it is today due to the theft of billions in intellectual property. It's an evil and blatantly immoral regime
The 055 has that huge price advantage, two Chinese for one American, it will not be long before the Chinese navy is the biggest. I think China should stop at four or five carriers, because the more missiles improve, the more redundant the carriers are. Those big destroyers with the vertical launch tubes would do a lot of damage to other ships or shore targets.
China will always have the price advantage given that their development and shipbuilding are government owned compared to the U.S. where the development and shipbuilding process is different private contractors vying for contracts.
@@cripple9860 There is no price advantage, its just wonky exchange rate sillyness. Private companies will always be more efficient than state owned organizations with bureaucrats who have no incentive to innovate.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Very true, which means that in nearly all cases American warships are far superior quality. The only drawback is that American ships cost more to produce because of private companies and superior quality. However, I'm personally not ready to believe that the Type 055 is all it's made out to be, as there have been many instances recently of nations seeming like they have incredible power at their disposal yet during actual combat / testing it fails fantastically (*Cough* Russia *Cough*), so I want to wait and see how the ships actually performs when not being touted in propaganda campaigns.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor No they are using dollars for comparison, not dollars on one hand and Chinese currency on the other. So the exchange rate has nothing to do with it.
Keep in mind, these ships arent meant to go head to head. US naval doctrine prioritizes the use of carrier strike groups launching stand-off munitions. This is why the Chinese destroyers have a larger magazine capacity.
Carriers are next to useless in modern warfare. They are outranged by long-range missiles. They will hide outside the second island range in the event of war such as over Taiwan. Not to mention that our carrier planes have the shortest ranges they've ever had. This was exactly what Zumwalt warned about in the 70's but got blocked by the "Pilot Trade Union".
Nice video about comparing the two destroyers, but you forgot to mention ESSM on Burke-class destroyer, which can be quad pack (4 each 1 vls cell). Although type 055 has more vls, in theory, burke can carry more missiles with ESSM quad packed in each cell (for example, burke can carry a total of 144 missiles which are 80 is long to medium sm 6 and sm 2er and 64 ESSM in 16 vls cell). But I think the Chinese navy will soon deploy their own short-medium range missile, which can also be quad-packed. And although spy-1 radar on burke flights 1 and 2 is still PESA, they had evolved through numerous upgrades which make it a reliable system until the modern era. And you also forgot to mention the combat system between each class, which in my opinion, burke still has a better combat system with its AEGIS because it has through numerous upgrades called baseline (and now baseline 10). For type 055, we still didn't know what kind of combat system is used, but I think it still less comparable with AEGIS BMD, not because the Chinese can't build a better system, but it's because US Navy has more experience with other AEGIS BMD than Chinese System. And with it, the higher power Type 055 combat system will improve through so many improvements in the next year when the Chinese navy gains more experience with their combat system.
Thanks for your support, sir. I am actually of the view that the Type 055's medium-range SAM can already be quad packed - perhaps I should have said that explicitly, so it is a variable that I didn't factor as an advantage for either side. China has already revealed a quad-packed FC-3000N medium-range SAM missile at the 2021 Zhuhai air-show, and if there's a platform to use it, it's the air defence destroyers. On the CMS, there is as you say no concrete info on the Type 055 with which to make a fact-based comparison, and honestly the new CMS on the Burke III is also heavily classified. It is reasonable to argue the US has a more reliable system because of past experience, but similarly someone can make the claim that China must have an equivalent system based on other circumstantial reason. You can't really expect to convince the other side with this line of contextual argument, and this point is often missed in my view. So I think it is better to just leave that with people's own inidivual opinions.
@@EurasiaNaval Very good opinion. Yeah, I agree with you about so much classified information from both CMS and our general knowledge. It is fair if we just serve the information based on what exists in open-source intelligence, keep up your good work. I liked how your presentation without exaggerating each side of the system.
Sorry, I don't remember what experience the Burke class has in sea warfare with foreign navies, and even less in actual combat experience with air defense systems and radars. After World War II, the only air defense system to fight against incoming missiles was the navy of the British empire against the anti-ship missiles launched by Argentina, and the result of the battle was very sad.
Also I would take into account that this is China’s newest and current generation of destroyer, The US is using A destroyer designed in the 1980s which in itself is crazy that we are even able to compare these two ships separated by 40 years. The next US destroyer will most definitely be designed to be an offensive ship to combat these Chinese destroyers. in my honest opinion it doesn’t really matter how good your destroyer is it matters how good your hypersonic missiles are and your global network of targeting capabilities. The US currently has multiple programs designing different types of hypersonic missiles and hypersonic aircraft delivery methods
Just came across this video... amazing and detailed analysis....it's just disappointing to note from available information that the USN LCS and the troubled ZumeWalts have terribly sunk much needed financial resources to generate advancements in USN naval technology and standing. I seriously hope the UK's Navy can raise up to the task. My concerning thoughts.
America has the same problem Japan had in WW2, its manufacturing capacity is dwarfed by China. Anyone who visits Chinese industrial areas, comes awy feeling as Yamamoto felt; that extended conflict with such a nation is impossible. America knows this, so is trying to provoke conflict in the short term. Their window of opportunity will close by 2025. Even now, every American trigger event has been successfully neutered, to the point where Sullivan seeks nuclear arms reduction talks..upon deaf Chinese ears..
Good thing the Zumwalts are superior to the type 055...better stealth shape, superior firepower and better X band radar. Not to mention Zumwalts will have long range hypersonic missiles for ship killing in 2023.
The carrier task force is an offensive weapon with air crafts as main weapon. However, the Chinese type 055 are main attack weapon with 1500 nm supersonic misses as the main weapon. Different concepts of the US and Chinese Navies.
problem for the Burke III is that they aren’t even in service yet whilst the Type 055 already has at least 6 in service. additionally, Type 055 would typically operate together with smaller Type 054 frigates.
Well There are around 70 burke class destroyers in service. They may not be the newer model that's about to come out but they can put up a good fight to anything china has. I really don't care about the Burk III's they are really just being built to keep the shipyards working till the new constellation class ships come out to replace them. After that the Burk class ships will be obsolete as well as the American Cruisers who directly compare to the Chinese 055 cruisers.
There has been long and serious discussions of whether to upgrade teh Arleigh Burke or go with a completely new design. It was decided to upgrade the Arleigh Burke, to the Flight IIIs as a stop-gap emasure, while starting a clean sheet design for a future destroyer. While I can not say you said anything wrong, I would not be so quick to assume power consumption means the radar is more powerful. It may simply mean the system is less energy efficient and needs more cooling. China's electronics is not at teh same level as that of the US. While China can produce low ened semiconductors and some medium end semiconductors, they have no capability for high end conductors. And even the medium semiconductors they do produce tend to be on the low side and manufactured with imported machines. Also, there is another factor, the integration of sensors and firecontrol. How fast does the system process the data and coordinates the communication between sensor and fire control, as well as how well the data is process and presented to the human operators. This is difficult to assess because the system is a black box (or a series of grey boxes if you want to literal lol). I really do not disagree with your conclusion, but I think the ships are much closer than you presented.
The big unknown is how well the Chinese technology actually works. China does not share actual test and performance data and has much less experience with the critical technologies. You are assuming the Chinese applications are as mature and refined as the American which may or may not be true.
I understand that the US Navy is contemplating upgrading the Flight IIa ships' SPY-1 with a smaller variant of the SPY-6. Has a commitment been made and if yes how do you think it would affect the overall fleet comparison?
It's not a perfect historical analogue, but I feel like the Arleigh Burke Class with it's many iterative improvements placed into each Flight is sort of a call-back to the old US Navy Standard Battleship classes. The Standards encompassed several "classes" where each new class was really more like an iterative evolutionary improvement over the preceding class of ships. Each class took advantage of new technological developments as they matured, while still retaining similar handling characteristics across the entire battle line. They were not the best ships on their own, and were even outclassed by many other Battleships of other Navies on a 1 to 1 comparison. However, the Naval doctrine was to never deploy them on their own, they always worked together in a massive battleline, and the idea was consistent handling and superior co-ordination was desired to achieve victory in engagements. The Arleigh Burkes were trend setters when they first appeared, and each Flight builds upon and addresses some of the short comings of the prior ones, while taking advantage of new technologies as they mature. Today, they aren't the best destroyers in the world on an individual basis, but the US Navy has ALOT of pretty good early Flight Burkes to excellent modern Flight Burkes. They are generally not deployed on their own, as they are doctrinally intended to work together in a large Carrier Battle Group. The Burkes form the shield around the carrier, while the jets do the real killing.
Very interesting comparison - I enjoyed reading that. I basically agree with what you said, although with my own thoughts thrown in. I am not at all an expert on US battleships, but my impression is that, compared to other treaty-era battleships, the US Standard battleships are actually quite strong. This has to do with when they were constructed relative to the timing of the Washington Naval Treaty. Most of the battleships that were kept in service after 1922 by other navies, as part of the treaty tonnage allowance, are of generally older design (e.g. the Japanese Kongo and Fuso, French Courbet and Bretagne, Italian Andrea Doria, and Britain's Queen Elizabeth). Compared to these ships, the US Standard battleships were larger, generally better armed, and much better armoured, partly because they were built years later (which is a big deal given the fast pace of naval tech advancements). Of course, if you compare with the post-treaty capital ships, like a Bismark, or Littorio, or North Carolinas (and the Yamato), the Standard battleships would not stand much of a chance. But compared with other treaty battleships, they are newer and generally can win in a solo engagement, I think. Anyway - I fully agree with your point on the role of the Burke's. The USN's doctrine is centred around the striking power of the carrier aircrafts, while the Burkes are there to provide protection. Cheers
as always, top qual analysis. arleigh burke asw sonars tech likely to be superior (my guess but wek now so little about plan asw tech capabilities inl their asw torpedoes)? worth pointing out how far |& how quickly plan has come.
Thanks. I agree the Burke 2a and 3's bow sonar has a high reputation for being very good, and if I was comparing with the Type 52D I would probably weight it more highly. It's just that the Type 055 supposedly have a outsizedly large bow sonar, so the hydrophone might be much more sensitive than previous Chinese iterations. Moreover, at least in regards to the Burke 2a, an excellent bow sonar is quite unlikely to make up for the lack of stern sonars in terms of the overall detection range.
@@EurasiaNaval was looking at sub brief on type 055 and was so disappointed at his negativity /bias (2 b fair, he is clearly usn/usa centric - which is his privilege- & i always factored that in but his analysis and research was worth reading) and just repeated the tropes about pla (n) copying everything. 2 b sure, the pla did copy but they have moved to next level esp with type 055 and perhaps that is to0 challenging for sub-brief and many us-based defence websites/analysts to digest/comprehend/assess, so they revert to tropes. ur reply to his analysis is mentioned but apparently deleted. any chance u could repeat ur points here?
All western bias aside, the Type 55 is the most beautiful ship I've ever seen.
Agree, and no problem with biased - we all are!
ur so delusional and stupi* and that's all...
I’m with you on looks and that’s hard to admit being from the west lol. The Burkes looks very busy, like they keep adding things here and there.. where ever they fit or just build a taller tower haha. with that we all know they are extremely capable and of there was the slightest chance that the Chinese had a major advantage over them they would be panic to get a new destroyer in the water now, with that said they are coming up with a new destroyer with the failure of the zumwalt and for the first time in along time the US navy is gonna have a
very capable frigate as well. The frigate isn’t that much less capable then the new destroyers but are cheaper amd can float more ships. Be very curious what the US navy looks like in 15 years with new destroyers coming in and have new frigates. It’s also very true that with the tech of new weapons like Missiles… the actual ship it self it’s not as important, as missile tech and radar tech get better and better the ship just becomes a platform to shoot from. Gone are the days of having gun to gun battles.
@@camerondening6683 these ship are 20 30 years old
Until the DDGX came
Berke III looks pretty practical. Type 055 just looks so slick and clean. I love the engineering design of Type 055.
I think it has something to do with stealth design
it china shit dont wont work china is a propaganda machine nothing works thats why no one buys it. all they are good at is genocide, slavery and worse
The Zumwalts look even more slick, and have better stealth.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor so says who?
@@shawn8690 Literally military expert.
The Type 055 is said to have built-in facilities for the command management of a battlegroup. Together with its large displacement of almost 13000 tonnes and heavy armament for surface strikes, this ship would be classified as a cruiser in the US or Russian Navy.
The Cruiser / Destroyer designations have become a bit murkier as of late with the Zumwalt having a displacement of 16,000 tons and the planned DDG(x) having a projected displacement of 13,500 tons. Comparatively speaking the Arleigh Burke Class has a displacement of between 8,300 and 9,700 tons depending on the flight.
@@dangilbert895 The USN is going to equip the Zumwalt's with long range hypersonic anti ship missiles, and is also looking at upgrading their air warfare suite to Arleigh Burke Block III standard. Those would be measures to transform the Zumwalt's into proper cruisers which can operate in fleet actions as well as striking out on their own.
@@tvgerbil1984 Yup! I actually commented something similar on the main feed a couple hrs ago! It's going to be a monster for sure. Especially when it gets some high powered laser ability. If I remember correctly it's going to carry 12 conversational prompt strike missiles.
@@tvgerbil1984 It is very unlikely any kind of single-ship combat would be feasible in modern warfare against any near-peer adversaries. The current proposed Zumwalt upgrades very much only return it back to its original intended use as a strike platform, which it couldn't do due to the joke that AGS turned out to be. The stealth of the Zumwalt could in some way give it additional tactical capabilities that the Burke doesn't have but with a ship that size one could easily argue the stealth would be much better utilized in a fleet setting to confuse enemy target acquisition rather than counting on a single Zumwalt to get pass all the PLAN radar.
@@muyangcheng3874 The USN probably wants to have the flexibility to deal with land or sea targets without committing a whole carrier battlegroup. The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) slated for the Zumwalts is said to have range of over 1500km. The same weapon will be installed onto the Virginia class nuclear powered attack submarines. With the range of LRHW and much better stealth profile than all other USN surface warships, maybe the Zumwalts can even supplement the Virginia's in certain missions. In any case, there may be scenarios where the targets are not necessarily PLAN warships, such as warships of the Russian Pacific Fleet.
In 1979, when a Chinese navy soldier stand on board a US warship, he had a feeling that he is in an alien starship. 40 years later, when a 055 staff stand on board a Berke, he feels that he is in a museum…..
Outstanding comparison and overall exquisite video! I’d give the nod to the 055, dual-band, larger, higher fidelity sensor suite, substantially superior VLS over the Mark 41 VLS, the larger cells provide options for many more types of larger and more capable munitions. I expect subsequent hulls of the 055 to go hypersonic and substantially improve their air defense capabilities. The 055 is much more capable in an anti-ship role or from a land attack perspective, it carries a more diverse set of munitions. One other advantage, seems small, though it’s the Type 1130 vs CIWS, the fact that the US is still using CIWS going into the year 2022 is truly surreal at this point. The larger hull, yet more stealthy design of the 055 and the much more powerful engines enable the PRC great flexibility moving forward, especially as it pertains to directed energy weapons. More importantly, the 055 is better looking, 😂!
Thanks for the support! Yes the Type 055 has other minor advantages, for example in point defence as you mentioned. The Type 1130 should offer much more protection than the rather old Phalanx CIWS. The Type 055 is also better placed to receive upgrades and future-proof against advances in technology. One notable edge the Burke 3 should have though is dedicated anti-ballistic missile interception, which is already present in some of the Burke 2a - this is not believed to be present on the Type 055 yet.
@@EurasiaNaval Good point on the ABM capabilities of the AB, I suspect that capability will arrive soon in PRC platforms. It’s great to see the USN Next-Generation DDG(X) is moving away from the woefully outdated CIWS point defense, though by the time it comes out, the PRC will push ahead with something ultimately more capable and more importantly, practical. They truly outdid themselves with the 055, imagine what’s next…
Multiple burkes have had CIWS replaced by ODIN laser dazzler already, and a 60kw laser is planned to be installed soon as well. Burke's soft kill abilities with its superior EW suite make CIWS uneccesary
@@sevrent2811 Good points, forgot about ODIN, not sure how effective it would be currently against multiple munitions in a short timespan, given its limited power and how it works. I’m certain moving forward it’ll be replaced by much more powerful systems considering they’re already looking at 600-kilowatt lasers for DDG(X), essentially a ten fold increase. It’s only a matter of time before megawatt systems become plausible.
重要的是，好看！
10 years army, 50 years air force, 100 years Navy. However, this is based on the recognition of ship technology in the past. The current navy has made the battlefield more and more transparent due to the addition of space technology and other more advanced technologies. The mode of naval warfare has also surpassed the traditional methods of warfare with the change of ship technology. However, there is no doubt that the US military still has advantages in technology. We Chinese know this very well! We know better than anyone that falling behind will be beaten. We are also building a Navy capable of self-protection in front of the US military. We don't want the United States to detain any Chinese cargo ship at sea at will. With a word of regret, we can throw a few bombs at our embassy and kill several people. With a word of misundstanding, we can fly to our airspace, crash into one of our planes and swagger home. A country with a history of 5000 years has never conquered and plundered any neighboring country by force in history. But it has been made difficult and stigmatized by a country with a history of 200 years. No one knows what humiliation is better than us. We do not pursue the suppression of the United States. We hope that China's rise can defend itself and give other countries in the world the freedom of a second choice! The freedom that Americans talk about every day is also the most lacking thing in the world under American rule
There are many wrong sentences
@@朱弘宇-j2n I'm 40 years old. I studied Russian before. I have studied English for four years and translated it with Google
@@zhanxu125 又看了一遍。是我看错了。你说的很棒！没带眼镜的锅。抱歉
写得很漂亮
英语写得好，我同意您的看法。
我是个住在中国的巴勒斯坦人。学过一年中文
You know why Chinese build things much cheaper than the US? China doesn't have coffee machines that cost $1000 each and as far as I know each chair on the US navy ship cost at least $10k. Just take a look at the spending of the defense budget.
The Shipyard is state owned in China, while the USA's is owned by capitalist company
We all know that money was used to fund some hidden projects.
Nor do they have corporates that hold you ransome with overcosts.
Also the ship production company in China are mostly state-owned. It is literally government producing government-used warship.
@@potatonoodlebear8035 Is there anything wrong with that? Do you know that the French have more State-Owned-Enterprises in terms of GDP percentage than that of China?
DF-21D was resently launched from 055 destroyer. Type 055 will have its new YJ-21 soon.
How can that missile fit in a vls of 110, when the missile is over 22 ft. long
@@virginccyy7645 the yj21? It is now fitted and launched!
@@virginccyy7645 no he's saying it's like a df-21... YJ are cruise missiles
No way 055 can fit a df21
055 is a beast.
A beautiful one
And the Zumwalt is a bigger beast.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor a bigger bust.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor How much VLS does your beloved Zumwalt have?
@@DFDNDBY 80, although those don't include the new hypersonic missiles VLS they are adding. The new long range hypersonic weapon the zumwalts are getting have much longer range than any missile on your precious Type 055. Zumwalts will be a type 055 killer
One note about area air defense and magazine depth is that the Burke can also quad pack the ESSM for med range interception (apparently they've got a range of about 50km and the block 2 version also has an active radar seeker for terminal guidance) which can allow it the option to carry a higher number of missiles.
For comparison if you include the Type 055's HQ-10 short range air defense missile (apparently it's got a range of roughly 9 km in a 24 missile launcher) with the larger 112 VLS cells their total available magazine depth is 136 missiles, whereas with an air defense loadout using just 14 cells quad packed with ESSMs the Burke could have an available magazine depth of 138 missiles that all can reach out to at roughly 50km. If however 26 cells are quad packed with ESSMs this then becomes an available depth of 174 missiles and has the potential to yield a substantial advantage in magazine over the Type 055 in that type of scenario.
In this context I think that the capability to quad pack a missile with an active radar seeker would likely overcome any potential disadvantage in the radar array in an air defense section and push it into an overall advantage for the Burke in that section.
Thanks for viewing. The PLAN has actually recently unveiled a quad-pack naval medium range missile at the 2021 Zhuhai air-show. Granted, the official information on this missile suggest a much weaker spec than the ESSM - much lower range and slightly lower speed. PLAN is usually secretive about when new innovations become operationalised, but most of the time when they choose to unveil something it is usually close to functional. So I would assume that this quad-pack medium range SAM is already operational in the Type 055.
@@EurasiaNaval nice catch! i am impressed with your knowledge of Chinese weapon systems! i also closely watch chinese developments as well
Risingtoneofthemojo. Lots of 'ifs', 'coulds' and 'potentials' in your comment, bro..
@@a.m.armstrong8354It is relatively easy to quad pack a missile, the important metric in this case is the performance. And ESSMs are great.
You are trying so hard to explain that your USA is better than China, nice try though but unfortunately for USA you guys will never stop the rise of China and you will have to live with it whether you like it or not 🇺🇸🇬🇧🤡
For the cost of each Arleigh Burke, two to three 055s will be built.
And better
Type 55 such a good looking ship
Last month, 055 just tested the new hypersonic ballistic missile.
Bro ballistic missiles are hypersonic by nature lol hypersonic has become a buzzword.
@@SHVRWK yh but hyper can move at high speed, we don't know if theirs can i guess
Hypersonic weapons fly at speeds of at least Mach 5 and are highly maneuverable and able to change course during flight. The traditional ballistic missiles have set trajectories and limited maneuverability.@@SHVRWK
@@sc8916 correct... the YJ 21 is more like a cruise missile. it strikes at hypersonic speed
Type 055 is better in basically every way except quantity, but if you compare vs just block 3, then type 055 still wins for now at least. Not to mention type 055 is like half the price or even cheaper, which is even more incredible.
@Anon emous 8 not 7.
不是055便宜，是你们的军火资本家太贪婪了！
Can't claim "best ship in the world" until it is proven. For now, it's propaganda vs propaganda.
你应该反问，为什么美国造的武器这么贵，因为钱很多都被贪污了
not to mention 055 is so beautiful
type 55 all the way, from looks to everything else.
True, the US destroyer looks and acts from a older generation of ships and Chinese destroyer looks cleaner and effective
13:47 what a beautiful ship
I would say that both ships are very capable. But not really intended for the same roles.
The Burke is the preeminent design that has ruled the waves for some time. But it’s design was at first mean’t to be a low cost, general purpose design. Only more recently has its design been invested in to make it higher quality in nature. Primarily intended for FAD and ASW purposes. In general, It seems that the US prioritizes those two roles for its surface combatants rather than anti-shipping purposes. It seems as though aircraft and submarines are more geared towards anti-shipping roles in the USN.
The 055 seems to be specifically designed to outclass the Burke in anti-shipping capabilities. Likely to act as a counter to the burkes. While it can carry out both FAD and ASW, I believe it is more intended for AAAD (anti access area denial) extending the already massive AAAD umbrella China has from the mainland assets. It seems as these are more meant as offensive assests as mentioned in the video.
Overall both ships are capable in their roles. But I would say that their comparison isn’t quite fair due to the doctrinal differences in their use.
Also one other thing. While paper statistics are the easiest thing to analyze and compare. The soft details, such as ease of use, level of training of the crew, and maintenance are often key in defining the outcome of any engagement. These often overlooked aspects and something people often forget.
As well as the battle group and logistics above, behind and below the Burke!!
And don't forget seaworthiness! Can she fight in a seaway? Can she "fire three rounds a minute in any weather"?
Yep the 055 is better compared to cruisers who have the same armaments not any destroyers.
US believes the principle that "he who rules the skies wins the war". They invested greatly on aircraft carriers and jets to basically maintain air superiority anywhere they operate.
> such as ease of use, level of training of the crew, and maintenance
Ease of use, who knows?
Level of training, either parity or China takes the win. The US has a massive shortage of sailors, we missed our recruiting numbers by a wide margin.
Maintenance, easy Chinese win. China has far more shipyards available for building and maintenance, it's not even remotely close. They have 200x the shipbuilding capacity of the US (per a recent RAND study). The US has a rather large backlog of ship maintenance, especially submarine maintenance. This isn't something you can fix and we won't be able to "Arsenal of Democracy" our way out of this. Shipyards take too long to build, and modern ships are far more complex than WW2 vessels. Plus we make barely anything here, and the few things we do for national security reasons won't scale quickly.
I think the US should revisit the DDG-1000 attributes, but with more reasonable and sustainable armament. The Mark 51 AGS was a complete flop and destroyed the development of an otherwise impressive ship.
Nope!
Amazing content as always👍I always like the clean exterior of 055 and I think this ship has massive potential due to it's got spare power from the power train for future upgrade.
I'm also curious about the newer 075 from PLAN can you make a video about it?
Thanks! I think I was treading on thin ice with this one lol. Will eventually do 075
076is the future
if you take Chinese stated capabilities and subtract about 1/4 you have a more accurate assessment of actual capabilities. This video never covered the revelation Chinese Naval ships have a tendency to blow out their hulls during actual operation conditions or the fact their phased arrays are cheap copies of Western design without the proper shielding. Once the type 55 operates close to a SPY Radar there is interference and it completely disables the type 55 making it dead in the water.
@@davidporter7051Not a single true word. Cope harder mate!
@@anthonyinzerillo2804 it is well documented Chinese metallurgy leave a lot to be desired and there is a tendency for their hulls to burst at flank operation. Why are you projecting your lack of adequacy upon me?
if type 55 is half the cost, I think the 55 should get at least 8 orange blocks.
It is definitely not cheaper by any means
One thing is very interesting. Everyone said that the Chinese army has no experience while the US Army has a lot of experience. I don't like to mention whether the experience of the U.S. military in dealing with roadside bombs is useful. I just want to say that no soldier has served for decades, even fewer with actual combat experience in the army and may have retired. Therefore, U.S. soldiers's experience, it is mainly procedural experience, which comes from training and soldier manuals.
So the interesting point is that some people think that China can easily steal the extremely complex military technology of the U.S. military (actually bullshit), but it can not steal the soldiers' training manuals of the U.S. military so that they can't follow the training, and even many of these manuals can be directly Google out.
American soldiers learn Sun Tzu's art of war, but they forget that Sun Tzu's art of war was written by the Chinese
Not true at all, the .... the US has the most operational experience of any army or navy in the world.
@@emacstac against whom?
@@amos325 Would you like a list alphabetically, chronologically or in order of significance
@@emacstac how about rankings in military strength ？let’s see if any of those experiences were gained from a meaningful enemy
A couple corrections. The Arleigh Burke class only has 7 more flight 3's scheduled to be built and will be pivoting to the DDG(X) program after. Also since there is only 6 Type 055s in existence so far it would probably be better to compare them to the US's 3 Zumwalt class destroyers. That would make an interesting Stealth vs firepower comparison especially when the Zumwalt's become armed with the Conventional Prompt Strike Hypersonic missile and the VLS launched version of the AGM-158C LRASM in 2025.
China's GDP per person is worse than Rominia, you know, Rominia, the Borat country. I know those chinese must be dumb F**ks being bad at math and science and lazy as F**K like all other Asians, they will never catch up to 50% of USA 's GDP per person for sure. But can we wait until the Chinese catch up at least double the current GDP per cap, like, to Lativia's GDP per capita before the comparison...?
All 8 of the first batch 055 entered service now. The second batch with improvements, maybe even EM naval gun are under construction.
Zumwalt is a white elephant.
@@jaytse3147 Right now I'm inclined to agree with you. I think the base platform of the Zumwalt matured faster than the systems needed to make it realize its potential. Thats why all 3 platforms are scheduled for total refits. Once the Zumwalt's receive their ZEUS upgrade program and Projects like HALO reach maturity then we will see a much more dangerous ship.
The zumwalt is so good, that the navy has to phase it out. Well done.
Type-055 is a much better platform with more rooms to put new systems.
And the Zumwalts are a much better platform than the type 055, with better stealth, more firepower and better radar.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor It's just that they are expensive! They're better off replacing that Railguns with Hypersonic missile as a stopgap, at least it will give them a role of a fleet killer.
@@joshuaraewa-ay9684 They actually are adding hypersonic missiles to the Zumwalts in 2023. The Long Range Hypersonic Weapon.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor yeah, Zumvalt would be great in a world where money doesn't matter. Building, weaponizing and using them is just too expensive. Even for US.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor yes and that's why we are worried about it
The second batch of 8 improved version of 055, called 055A, are believed to have begun the construction. They will be have all integrated electric propulsion and fitted with electromagnetic rail gun and laser weapons.
Are rail guns useful like what range they have 150km
@@mattia8327 American railgun may have this problem but not the Chinese one. Same way American electronic catapult system on Uss Ford has technical problem but no the Chinese on their 003 carrier.
Chinese are successful in each attempt of their hypersonic missile tests and now in deployment, whilst Us failed in many attempts. Failure in Us technology does not mean same happens with Chinese one.
@@oberstleutnant787 What a joke. China is inferior in all forms of technology, stealth F-22 vastly superior to J-20. Electronic launch system on the Fuijan does not work, do not speak propaganda, the engine hasn't even been activated and is unlikely to provide enough electricity to power the launch system as only nuclear can output enough power. Fuijan burns oil. US long range hypersonic weapon will go mach 17 faster than any Chinese missile.
@@oberstleutnant787 I'm sure they wouldn't hide their test results just like Russia does with their S400's. All claims and no proof. 🤣🤣🤣
They aren't particularly useful. OP mistakes the US not adopting the technology as the US failing to use it. Rather, like hypersonic weapons, railguns were evaulated and deemed to be inferior to what already exists: missiles.
So the USN decided to fund direct energy weapons, which is why theyre so far ahead of the CCP in that area.
DE weapons basically make railguns and hypersonics useless, as neither of those can outrun or dodge light.
type055 is eerily similar to the next generation ddgx class that america is gonna build in the near future.
不，我们偷了他的技术
China invented a Time Machine n stole the design from US 😂
作为中国人 对不起，我们跨越了时间超越了他
Well the US have had 30+ years to improve on the Burks design true and tested. The chinese destroyer seem impressive though. I’d say it could go either way but i’m leaning more on the Burks because there has been many efforts to keep the design relevant and up to date
Yes! Although the 55 looks good, chinese have a history to hype up a product to the extreme, when the opposite is true.
Also bigger radar panels doesn't automatically means better system, if the efficiency is not there or HW/SW optimization is not upto the mark. And with that much cooling & the subsequent heater water being released from the side, the sensors will pick up those heat signatures pretty quick.
@@BlackHawkTejas China has always been low-key in military affairs. Don't confuse China's military equipment with its products. This is different from the transparency policy implemented by the United States, which is full of confidence in equipment, and from countries like India and South Korea that boast about giving their citizens confidence. China has been hiding parameters in military equipment and weakening itself. Perhaps only China is truly preparing for war, and exposing its strength in front of its opponents is not a wise choice. I assure you that the actual level of Chinese weapons you see is definitely more powerful than the parameters exposed on the surface
You're right, but this is also a weakness of the Burke class. The real problem is that the Burke class is already a technological product of the last century. Even though it has undergone many upgrades, the effects of modification and reproduction are completely different. The 055 is the latest new product, equipped with the most advanced technology of this century. Therefore, what you call lack of experience is actually the advantage of the 055. After all, the equipment and soldiers are different, and it is not that the longer the service, the more powerful the 055 becomes
@@YEYE-je6ff i disagee, something that has been tested in battle is far more valuable than something that has been tested on paper.
The 055's were made more recently, designed and engineered to beat the Arleigh Burkes !
Many Chinese language domestic sources report HHQ-9B to be active homing, while HHQ-16B is indeed semi-active homing.
True, sir
hq9 is an active homing system.
In a conflict scenario, the Burkes are likely to be threatened by J-16, JH-7A and H-6K rather than from PLAN surface assets. Think China should modernize the 054A FFGs with YJ-12 where in the Taiwan or SCS theatre the 054A numerical superiority can pack a far bigger punch against US DDGs.
Burkes are secondary targets, the main target would be the carrier.
@@Lcr34 And that would be a waste of missiles, because all the destroyer defenses and their multiple layers of defense each would be focused on protecting the carriers, while carrier launched F-35s take out the missile launch sites.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Not really, China's land based anti ship missiles can engage carriers at greater distance than F-35's combat radius. Also, the only land attack weapons that can fit inside F-35's weapon bays are small diameter bombs, so F-35 need to enter China's air space to drop the bomb, which means it need to penetrate many layers of air defence, including J-20 with KJ-500 AWACS, and many other 4th gen fighters, and also different SAM systems. If the F-35 choose to carry land attack missiles under the wings, it will break the stealth, and get intercepted much earlier.
You do realize the US did a test with one of its superchargers in the early 2000s and was unable to sink it with ordinance. It had to shuttle the ship. Look up the USS America kitty hawk class carrier. What China and Russia think they'll be able to easily do is literally not possible. The amount of ordinance required would be insane.
@@maddogs1989 A 1.8 tonne DF-26 ASBM warhead coming down at Mach 10 smashing onto the deck will mean the ship's flight operation is finished at the very least and massive fires in the hanger. This is infinitely more destruction than a few sea skimmer exocet.
Typ 055 my favorit !
US SM-6 and SM-3 missile can also engage ballistic missile, which is a huge tactical advantage in my opinion. but then again with larger VLS and excess power, type 55 still got a lot of room for development
Remember, type 055 can launch Y21 supersonic missile with over 1000 km
And America has no supersonic anti ship missiles
The USA and most of it's allies doesn't have medium range ballistic missiles, let alone sea targeting BMs, China have far less need of such capability compared with USN.
Very true. The Arleigh Burke hull is at its upgradability limit. I remember a huge debate on wheter to upgrade the Arleigh Burke or start a clean sheet design. The troubles with the LCS and Zumwalts hurt funding so they went with the Flight III as a stop gap measure while they start a clean sheet design for a new destroyer.
@@Honest888-e4g
True. However, the Type 055 will need tracking data fed to it from some other asset. That is pretty much true for any surface target over the horizon.
And the video noted thet the US Tomahawk has even greater range. The YJ-21 would be detected very quickly, being a ballistic missile, although interception would be difficult. The Tomahawk would not be detected till 20 miles or less because it is sea skimming, but being subsomic easier to intercept if the crew is alert.
The big advantage of the Tomahawk over the YJ-21 is that the YJ-21 is not yet deployed. It was recently test fired this year from a Type 055. I do not know when it will become fully deployed.
I would compare the type 055 with the Ticonderoga & the Burke's with the Type52D. The 52Ds are smaller than the Burke's but the PLAN is a much more balanced force of heavy destroyers, destroyers, and frigates
I can see where you are coming from as far as displacement is concerned, but actually I would rate the Burke III to be a much stronger ship than the Tico, because the radars are much more advanced. The Tico is constructed around or slightly before the Flight 1 and 2 Burkes were built, so in some respects they still use vintage systems. So it would actually be 'more balanced' to compare the new ship, the Type 055, against a physically smaller but more advanced Burke 3. That said, it's also reasonable to compare the 052D against the Burkes - which I have actually done with less detail in the Type 052D video.
AB Flt III is more capable than Ticos so if you compare the 055 with Tico the capability gap is even wider! Lol.
I would put 052D comparable with AB Flt II, with the AB with slightly better SAMs.
How can PLAN be a more balanced force when the US actually has a mix of destroyers, cruisers, litoral ships, while China only has destroyers?
@The Mythbuster but Arleigh Burke will have lasers, also tichonderoga may be old but they have more missiles than type 055
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor There is a reason the US doesn't build it anymore. Outdated sensors can't defend the superior VLS numbers and obviously, the US didn't wanna upgrade it. So no matter how good your firepower is, you're only as good as you can see.
The cost of the new Berke III is $3.5B, 4 times of the cost of a new 055.
just like iphone vs xuawei phone .. iphone is expesive and popular .. xuawei phone is cheap and more functions
Slave labor
Look at the shape the Burke flight,look like a ship of 90 or 2000 decades
Sure, and look at the shape of the Zumwalt, it looks like a ship of the 2050s and is superior to the Type 055. Zumwalt has better stealth, better X band radar, and more firepower than the type 055, soon to include long range hypersonic missiles.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Zumwalt total No of ship is 3🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@jetli740 what, compared to China's 5 type 055?
Arleigh Burke is the gold standard. The destroyer which all other destroyers are measured by. The sun is finally setting on this workhorse, but a new dawn is coming with the DDG(x).
DDGX is a US copy of the Type 55. Shame on the US
@@EGvids1 they’re not really similar. A side by side comparison has been done and they’re quite different, not to mention the final design of the DDGx hasnt even been unveiled yet so your assertion is premature by a mile
@@EGvids1 LOL. Didn't you see all the copy and paste on the type 55?
@@targetaps well said....and nailed it.
Type 55 is superior In many aspects. The missiles it carries for air defence the missiles it carries for anti ship are superior in range and tech, the ciws are far superior. The radars and sensor suits are more superior. Multi missile cell capacity (very smart and impressive). Also as explained in this video the power outage capacity is clearly gearing up to host the Chinese made rail gun which we all know is in the testing and development stages. This is a seriously impressive ship.
You make some good points, sir
@@EurasiaNaval thank you I find your videos very informative and I love the content and the way you present the facts. Amazing work keep it up brother.
Yeah I definitely believe that the Chinese are better at literally everything than the Americans. That’s definitely true and totally not extreme bias, propaganda, and/or wishful thinking.
@@n.s689 Would it be possible for you to explain to me how chinese ciws are superior to the American ciws
The Chinese ship is knock off stolen tech, they would be overwhelmed from the start of a conflict.
a fairer comparison would be Burkes vs. 052D in terms of their role and numbers of ships build
Thanks. Flight 3 of the Burke is quite advanced and a huge step from flights IIa and certainly I and II. They should be considered much stronger than the larger Ticos. 052D would be best compared to Burke IIa, which was conceived in roughly the same time frame
052D is much lighter than Burke
Yeah, it felt a little odd to compare the type 055s with burke 2s, especially given the existence of the ticonderogas. I can understand a comparison with the burke 3s since they're slated to replace the ticos, but a great deal of emphasis was placed on the older flights.
Just look at the mast, man. 055 processes a sci-fi look, neat design for radar antenna informed me of Zumwalt. while burke III keeps adding more and more antennas to its already messy (at least visually) superstructure. I think there’s no doubt 055 is a sexier ship
Well with the same cost, China can have 2 DG55 against one arleigh Burke. That is already a winner.
But China's defense budget is much smaller than that of America.
@@iqbang9236 Bare in mind US debt in USD 30 Trillions.... Countries are now shifting away from US dollars. They rather trade in their currency. Pretty soon the "i owe you"= US Dollar needed to be cash out, need to revert to actual value. In no time, all their boats will be auction off to recover their debts.
China gdp debt ratio: 69%. US gdp debt ratio 65%. By that argument China would also have to sell ships to pay off debts.
@@Endoplexer China's debt is used for domestic infrastructure, and the United States is used for foreign wars; China provides products for the world, and the United States sucks the world's blood by printing dollars. You don't need to be an economist to know the difference unless you have your agenda.
@@Endoplexer domestic debts vs foreign debts
China also plan replace the deck Gun of the Type055 with a Railgun (it's already being tested on test ship) and the CIWS with laser. does it give any advantage?
It's fair to say that the Type 055 has greater upgrade potential for future systems (e.g. railguns and lasers) due to large hull size and spare power capacity. This should increase the effective service life of each hull.
railgun tech seems too immature to be fitted to production warships at this stage. Reliability is going to be the biggest drawback. Although it would make sense to build land based artillery railguns to provide extreme long range bombardment at low cost per shot. I can see railgun batteries set up in fujian province and pointed at taiwan.
@@hughmungus2760 China can fit rail guns on high speed trains in Fujian province firing at Taiwan
Looks like leaks caused by the Navy and their contractor by hiring questionable MBA and non STEM people again....
The type 055 is a cruiser with command capability, not a destroyer. It is larger, two decades newer than the Arleigh Burke IIA, and supposedly was built after China acquired technical details on the Japanese Burke derivatives and the SPY-1D. It should be better.
The DD(X) program is the equivalent of the Type 055 Destroyer. It's basically a cruiser with dual band radars and 128 VLS tubes. It's going to be similar size.
Yep the type 055 is a cruiser but I think they are trying to classify it as a destroyer to make it seem better than what it really is.
I think the title should be "Can Arleigh Burke 3 match Type 055"
055 is at least one generation ahead of Burke 3.
As a large fishing ship capable of transporting thousand tons of fishes, 055 is indeed beautifully designed.
So happy that anti-China animals like you are so stupid.
@@天佑中华-r8r im just contributing a little to SFA's work. sorry it was too subtle.
但别人是真的以为你在讽刺中国军舰，认真讨论的贴不玩梗，尤其是这种愚蠢的梗。
@@qingwan1883煞笔而已
Type055 is just a copy of burke III. Of course burke3 is still under design, however when burke III is in op 10 years later, we can then say in confident that todays Chinese 055 is a mere copy of the burkeIII
I had to read twice then realized your sarcasm...
The United States should put this antique in a museum
It's a lot to presume that larger array panels and higher electrical output equals greater performance. Without any other performance information, it's as easy to speculate that larger panels are covering fewer, physically larger emitters and the greater electrical output is needed to drive these emitters.
As an analog, older semiconductor chips were larger and required more power for less processing power than newer smaller, more efficient chips.
But no radar is analog in this case. And China does sell its radar on export market, with no significant difference in emitter sizes
They look equally good on paper until you get to the cost department, I'll take 2 type 055 over one Burke anytime of the day.
Arleigh Burke is a 32 year old design. Yeah, the III is modernized-but it's still an older design.
This comparison has so many variables off the Chinese coastline the US will get done like a dinner!
The 055 could actually be considered a cruiser based on size and firepower.
@@Big-O43 The PLA didn't fail you in the Korean War, lol. Better pray they will next time when they come to you.
@@Big-O43 Whatever you say is right, Chuck Almighty.
@@Big-O43 Of course no, Chuck Almighty. It seems nobody knows PLA better than you, lol. Whatever you say is right, Chuck Almighty.
@@Big-O43 You should be confident on every single of your words, Chuck Almighty, no need to repeat. The world will kneel in front of you. Whatever you say is correct, every alphabet you spitted count! Have faith in it, Chuck Almighty.
@@Big-O43 All Hail Chuck Almighty!
The last time I saw a PLAN training video on baidu was comicaly entertaining
>Training in the middle of bad weather
>water tight doors open inwards
>said door broke its lock resulting in water going inside the ship
>Damacon moves in
>Poor zhang got blasted by the door after it got hit by a wave
>Ship starts taking in water
>No drains to pump out water
>Chang starts scooping with buckets
The forward looking radar-panels of the Type 055 might be bigger than the Burkes,
but the side- and aft-facing ones seem to be only ½ sized.
The ones on the Burke all have the same size. Just an observation 🤷♂ .
The Type has 4 of the same radars positioned to see 360 degrees, just like Burkes. If you can't see it in this video, go see some pictures of the destroyer captured from the side or rear. Don't confuse those additional panels are its main radar.
Type 55 is the most advanced battleship in the world. There’s no comparison.
are for real ?😅 dont be a dog and use your brain
@@Thor_Asgard_ LMFAO projecting is real. Dog brain, please tell me, which ship is better and why?
Nice work
I know for certain that no radar comes close to Raytheon Spy 6 radar. It's the only radar that could simultaneously target ballistic, cruise and jets at the same time!
Spy6 has not been installed on a large scale. Even if it is equipped, it is only at the same level as the 055's 346b radar. The previous spy-1d was one generation behind
SPY-1D(V) can already see far as 1700km. While SPY-6 with 24 RMAs on Burke Flight IIA can see as far as 4700km similar to THAAD's TPY-2 radar from the same company Raytheon. On the other hand SPY-6 with 37 RMAs on Burke Flight III will be insanely powerful. Then there is still SPY-7. Future DDG(x) may have up to 57 RMAs. Besides SPY radars, only Aegis destroyers have CWI radars that has no minimum nor maximum range but only dependent on the power its given. So one can understand why USN is not seen keen on 5th gen stealth.
There's something you might have missed. The Chinese navy uses GJB 5860-2006 standard for VLS cells which specify a 850mm by 850mm cell and comes in 9, 7, and 3.3 meter length variants. The US navy uses the Mark 41/57 standard, which specifies a (for the Mark 57, which is slightly larger than the Mark 41) 710mm by 710mm cell and comes in 5.3, 6.8, and 7.7 meters. Theoretically this is better since new, improved missiles that are larger can be put in in the future, whereas it'll be near impossible to enlarge the VLS cells after the ship is already launched. Both navies are also looking at IEPS upgrades as well, and the new US design might also feature a "super large" module for much larger missiles, but who knows if or when that will appear.
Thanks - I am aware of the fact that the Type 055 uses larger VLS cells than the Burke. In fact, I have the estimated dimension (0.86m diameter & 9m length). This outsized VLS is the reason why I believe the Type 055 can use some of the smaller anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the DF-11. The DF-11 can fit inside this VLS, because it is width 0.8m and length 8.5m. I basically just skipped mentioning the size of the VLS in the video and jumped straight to the implications. Cheers
@@EurasiaNaval Ah, that's good! Great Video! Hope to see more!
There are around 67 operational Burke class destroyers out there China needs to match up. This has nothing to do with the number of VLC's onboard but the tactics and abilities of each ships base on experience and strategies. What can China offer to match up US long list of experience since WWII?? China is an infant compared to US naval history.
The Burkes are great ships. That is critical since they are the last truly successful surface combatant design produced by the U.S. Navy which is now in need of Cruisers and Frigates.
It is possible that the production of high-end chips in China could lead to cost reductions and potentially result in more affordable chips.
BMW M3 E80 and BMW M3 E30 are both called BMW M3, but there are essential differences between the two cars This is the essential difference between the 055 destroyer and the Burke destroyer
Interesting comparison lol
The thing is, there is not an E80 m3. It is F80 m3......
There is a fine reason why burkes' price tag is much higher..
🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂Our 055 is just for fishing. . He is a fishing boat. . Don't take it too seriously bro.
😄no more strategic fooling
这些西方人自己吓自己，我们中国人很善良的，我们的船只是渔船！
Oh, we have missiles to defend our nice fishing boat from sharks and angry whales, our lazer turrets and CIWS are used to defend against aggressive flying fish, we are definitely not going to shoot them at anyone ;)
One is a destroyer the other is a cruiser
A very powerful destroyer but still a destroyer
It has served our navy well
It works in conjunction with a carrier strike group
It has years of naval doctrine and strategy
It has patrolled the worlds oceans and kept the peace how many years
The other is a beautiful ship of beautiful design
Similar capabilities
Yet to be tested via military doctrine
Have we seen this before
Yes we have
When
Where
I would not compare the ships based on their current missiles as these can change drastically as new missiles are introduced.
updating missiles=might as well buy a new ship. US has no money.
@@edwardtang1977 you can install updated missiles simply with a software upgrade.
@@jiokl7g9t6 That is true but it will be applicable to both sides. The current built forms of both ships, it is clear 005 is superior, not only for upgrades but significantly augmentation if required for its large hangers.
@@edwardtang1977 We still spend over .5 trillion dollars in defense but no money eh? 🤣🤣🤣
@@edwardtang1977 America spends almost 1 trillion on their military alone and that's like 1% of their yearly budget. America has more money than all the other countries combined well almost.
The overall manufacturing scale and speed would be the key. China has been industrialized. As far as I'm concerned, China are still being conservative to the military spending and manufacturing. These military equipment haven't really into large production yet.
Although you can no longer say that Type 055 is a copycat, you can still say that it is not battlefield proven. So Arleigh Burke is still the better one.
It is copy cut from British one
@@vinothmuthiah1666 Go inform the FBI to find out who did the leaking.
When was the burke battleproven
Not being battle tested is a positive thing unlike war nation US who engages in wars just to test their weapons.
nah 055 is still a stolen technology from USN, chinese must have time machine. and i believe that time machine is stolen from alien. and that alien must be stolen from area 51.
Now, you need to factor in training, execution, experience and command competence of the crew.
I don't care how good your equipment is, if the crew competency and command effectiveness is subpar, and for many I think it is, you don't have a complete battle system.
And another thing is how these ships actually plays in the doctrine.
Your assessment of the radars is almost certainly wrong. You totally missed the fact that SPY-6 uses GaN MMICs, while it is currently still unknown which MMIC the Type 346B uses. I would guess it still uses older GaAs MMIC technology given the 346B is probably older than the SPY-6 in terms of development timeline and possibly Chinese technological capability at the time of development. This point by itself will dramatically alter the calculus in terms of both sensitivity and energy use/requirements of the main radars in favor of the GaN-based SPY-6. Also, I believe the online consensus is that the 346B as used on the Type 055 is not dual-band S/C in the same way the Type 052C was, but is now comprised of 4 S-band panels on the main superstructure and 4 X-band panels on the integrated mast. Also, a smaller point, but the HHQ-9B is not really comparable to the SM-6, which is really a super-long ranged SAM, and neither is the HHQ-16 comparable to the SM-2MR Block IIIB, the former of which is a medium-ranged SAM while the latter is definitely a long-ranged SAM. The most appropriate comparison is between the SM-2MR IIIB and the HHQ-9B, and the ESSM and the HHQ-16, while the SM-6 definitively falls outside the comparison range of any Chinese naval SAM currently deployed. You can also appropriately compare RAM and HHQ-10 as well, both being currently-deployed naval short-ranged point-defense missiles.
For the first time, I feel that American ships are not as advanced as Chinese ones.
The better question is will the future DDGx be able to match Type 055 of 2020, considering the baseline DDGx presented so far still use spinning SPQ-9B for fire control (vs fixed AESA arrays on Type 055), has the same sized (4.2m, 14ft) main array as Type 055, still uses Mk-41 VLS limited to 25 inch/0.63m and hot fire only, and only 32 cells plus, presumably, another at most 64 mid-ship.
The fact that something clearly less capable than Type 055 is considered next generation in comparison to the Burke F3 should tell you the answer to the title of the video.
And how did you manage to compare Type 055 with a ship that is not even official yet? Plus Burke and Type 055 have major doctrine differences. Type 055 is primarily an anti-ship vessel while the Burke is primarily for air defense purposes.
Annother thing to consider is that the DDG(X) will be based on the needs of the Navy not necessarily to counter the Type 055. What you are suggesting is that Type 055 which is different from the DDG(X) will be superior in its intended role? Let me remind you that Type 055 cannot even hope to match the Burke in air defense so I'm pretty certain that it won't be able to beat the next gen DD in air defense role. And Type 055 is not battle tested as well.
@@ulikemyname6744
Wow congrats on getting every statement wrong.
- The 12x S+X+UHF AESA arrays on Type 055 aren't there for anti-ship, being able to destroy entire fleets is a side effect of having large CCL universal VLS, which really speaks to just how obselete Mk-41 is.
- The AN/SPY-1 on Burkes are PESA where a single source gets sent to (mechanical) phase shifters to form a one beam, it's 70s tech that's physically impossible to project multiple beam or null, ESM or comms beams, whereas each of Type 055's AESA element can generate it's own signal allowing arbitary number of multi-purpose beams and track an order of magnitude more targets. Flight 1 and 2 Burkes are literally analog to Type 055's digital, i.e. air defence is arguably the aspect where the Burkes are most behind Type 055 at.
Even Flight 3 Burkes with its SPY-6 AESA can at most be compared to half a Type 055, as it still retains rotating SPQ-9B X-band radar vs AESA on Type 055, and lacks both UHF anti-stealth arrays nor CCL VLS nor variable depth sonar.
The fact that DDGx will use the same system as Flight 3 by definition make it already obselete compared to Type 055, the fact that USN just said they can't even afford it yesturday just make it more sad.
Oh and the only real world combat experience Burkes ever seen is shooting down Iran Air Flight 655
@@vlhc4642 No evidence to suggest that SPY-1 is any less capable than Type-346. After all it depends on how far in the miniaturization process China is. Meaning how far on the technological level China has moved. They might have surpassed the SPY-1 capabilities as really it is a PESA radar against their AESA radars. But to suggest that this radar is better than SPY-6 even the smaller variant as this on the Flight 3 Is actually the smaller variant of the radar cannot be a truthful statement.
The main role of Type 055 is an anti ship duty while the Burke is primarily anti air. The Burke not only has more anti air missiles but also more advanced missiles. HHQ-9 cannot even hope to compare against the SM-2 and SM-6. For medium range the ESSM is also superior to anything China has. Type 055 can also somewhat defend the skies and the Burke can also destroy fleets
@@ulikemyname6744 Oh man you have zero idea how anything work do you?
- Signals from PESA literally come from magnetrons and directed via mechanical phase shifters vs AESA's DSP + DACs + waveformer software, saying SPY-1 is no less capable than 346A is literally like saying a walki-talki is no less capable to a smartphone.
- SPY6 might be comparable to 346A seeing its not even in service and 055 uses newer 346B. But you're missing the 4x X-band AESA on 055's mask and the 4x UHF on the sides, nevermind the integrated mast housing all the ESM/EW/Comm phased arrays. SPY-6 makes F3 Burke not obsolete 80s tech, but still a long way from comparable to 055.
Finally do you have no idea what VLS are? 055 has 114 cells vs Burkes' 96, GB5860 VLS are 850mm vs Mk'41's 640mm, 5860 VLS are CCL that support both cold and hot launch vs MK-41's hot only, CCL means 5860 have dedicated exhaust per cell vs common shared by 8 on Mk-41. 055 have more missiles, each missiles can be bigger and have longer range due to both cell size and cold launch, it can support more type of missiles due to cold launch, and can be fired at much faster rate because there's no cooling limit from sharing exhaust.
Not only is 055 an anti-air ship, anti-air is arguably the part where Burke is the most behind 055 at, it has inferior radar, inferior weapons (SM2 was first designed in 1967, let it go), heck most Burkes still have Mk-141 Harpoon launchers because apparently VLS ASM is just too hard. The fact that 055's side ASM job looks to you like it's main job speaks to just how obsolete Burkes are.
@@vlhc4642 You don't know where China is in the miniaturization process. That's why I'm saying the AESA on the Chinese ship might not be better than the SPY-1. One thing is for certain the SPY-6 is the most advanced radar in the world as the US is ahead of everybody in miniaturization. SPY-6 is also modular unlike the 346. Do you know what does that mean? It can be put in whatever shapes and the modules can be whatever band the USN needs them to be. The SPY-6 more than a decade newer as well so you are telling me that the most advanced nation in the world which is by far ahead in the miniaturization of technologies made a worse radar than the Chinese? Yeah I don't think so.
Yes the Burke has smaller VLS and less VLS but the Burke is also a smaller ship as well. Easier to make and costs less money despite what the Chinese are claiming. A cruiser can't be less expensive than a destoryer especially when it is literally 3,000 tons heavier. Also does the Chinese have an answer to SM-6? Nope! They don't! The SM-6 can shoot down anything that is shot at the Burke. The Burke is unmatched in air defense except maybe for some of the Japanese and SK destroyers which are also Aegis but bigger with more VLS cells. Oh and speaking of Aegis the Chinese don't have anything to counter Aegis. So yeah. As for the anti-ship role the Burke is not as good. yet that is due to doctrine. The Type 055 is more of a multirole ship but the Burke is primarily anti-ship. Based on the American and the Chinese doctrines ofc.
Besides the cost differences, anyone knows that when the US shipyards can built 1.5 destroyers in 1 year (to be fair this number probably raise to 3 during war time), the Chinese can build 9 and even more? This figure only count on the capcity of the 2 major shipyards ( Shanghai and Dalian) who took most of the orders from the PLAN, but in fact there are at least 20 shipyards along the coast provinces which are capable to build 100,000 tons class vessels.
才20家？ 你是不是太小看了？ 明面上低于50家都是保守的，23年的数据中国造船业占世界造船总量的49%.
@@白也-m4c can't you see "at least"?
The one thing you did not compare was the experience gap between the Chinese and the U.S.. You can have the best of everything but without military experience you will loose. I believe the U.S. has a one hundred year heaad start over China when it comes to utilizing the compliment of ships that make up a carrier battle groups and tactics to fully utize there capabilities
Yes, the United States will win
No the last naval battle of usa was in ww2
@@zhongxina228 And the US kept those experiences and advanced them. China has none.
Tesla does not seem to have much of experience when facing century old German car manufacturers like WV…… the same to the contest between PLAN and us navy! We all know US has 0 naval battle against any countries for a looooooooong time….. How come it has so much experience??? 😂😂😂😂😂
you are right. Cant fight with US in terms of experience. They are warmongers afterall lmao
The Type 055 is more like an upgraded Ticonderoga cruiser than the Arleigh Burkes.
China is indisputably the best ship building country in the world.
It is, people don't realize they build ships for all of the major shipping conglomerates. He'll you can say all of Asia has a chokehold. South Korea's Hyundai and Samsung builds ships as well. Very productive region of the world 👏🏾
In NAVAL Warfare ... If you CAN'T SEE ( Radars) and You CAN'T Intercept ( Hypersonic Anti Ship Missiles ) ... You have LO ST the Battle.
crazy to think that type 055 are almost half as cheap as arleight burke class
i have read a news, even a coffee pot worth $2000 in USAF. unbelievable…
Must be a good coffee pot!
@@EurasiaNaval right???
Type 055 is not only the dream of the Chinese Navy, it's also the dream of all Navy including American. Americans are just hard to admit.
Now 055 is not a complete scheme! The power of the 055 is 50000 horsepower higher than that of the Berke III. this is not a design error, but provides a sufficient energy source for the directional energy weapon to be tested and mature soon. Australian patrol aircraft have experienced the power of directional energy laser weapons when approaching 055. And 055 will not be the most advanced warship in China soon. Please look forward to the emergence of China's next generation of omnipotent warships. It adopts the world's most advanced medium voltage DC technology, ship stealth technology, firepower of Arsenal ships, ultra sensitive towed sonar, stronger conventional power, more advanced integrated RF system, campaign level command and management system, more advanced non decipherable quantum communication encryption system, more advanced missiles, anti satellite, hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles for ships with longer range, and more advanced electronic warfare system, More advanced anti submarine UAVs and helicopters, more advanced fire reconnaissance aircraft, AI UAVs and hound type high perception AI unmanned boats are equipped with four AI intelligent submarines. The total displacement is expected to be 20000-25000 tons.
I agree the Type 055 is not a completed design in respect of future upgrade. I guess I was trying to support the conclusion that the power input going into the radar system is greater than the Burke, together with the large liquid flow used in the cooling system
So, who did the Chinese steal their tech from this time lol? You guys have a habit of doing that.
@@emacstac In the future, whoever owns this technology will be stolen by China
@@emacstac when China Navy become one of the greatest navy, they maybe have no enemy to steal
@@yukinagato4969 the point is, it got where it is today due to the theft of billions in intellectual property. It's an evil and blatantly immoral regime
The design of the Type 55 looks so much more clean and modern. $1.9B for a Burke...probably half of the cost goes to profits.
The 055 has that huge price advantage, two Chinese for one American, it will not be long before the Chinese navy is the biggest. I think China should stop at four or five carriers, because the more missiles improve, the more redundant the carriers are. Those big destroyers with the vertical launch tubes would do a lot of damage to other ships or shore targets.
China will always have the price advantage given that their development and shipbuilding are government owned compared to the U.S. where the development and shipbuilding process is different private contractors vying for contracts.
The price advantage has more to do with exchange rates than any real thing.
@@cripple9860 There is no price advantage, its just wonky exchange rate sillyness. Private companies will always be more efficient than state owned organizations with bureaucrats who have no incentive to innovate.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Very true, which means that in nearly all cases American warships are far superior quality. The only drawback is that American ships cost more to produce because of private companies and superior quality. However, I'm personally not ready to believe that the Type 055 is all it's made out to be, as there have been many instances recently of nations seeming like they have incredible power at their disposal yet during actual combat / testing it fails fantastically (*Cough* Russia *Cough*), so I want to wait and see how the ships actually performs when not being touted in propaganda campaigns.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor No they are using dollars for comparison, not dollars on one hand and Chinese currency on the other. So the exchange rate has nothing to do with it.
Keep in mind, these ships arent meant to go head to head. US naval doctrine prioritizes the use of carrier strike groups launching stand-off munitions. This is why the Chinese destroyers have a larger magazine capacity.
Carriers are next to useless in modern warfare. They are outranged by long-range missiles. They will hide outside the second island range in the event of war such as over Taiwan. Not to mention that our carrier planes have the shortest ranges they've ever had. This was exactly what Zumwalt warned about in the 70's but got blocked by the "Pilot Trade Union".
Nice video about comparing the two destroyers, but you forgot to mention ESSM on Burke-class destroyer, which can be quad pack (4 each 1 vls cell). Although type 055 has more vls, in theory, burke can carry more missiles with ESSM quad packed in each cell (for example, burke can carry a total of 144 missiles which are 80 is long to medium sm 6 and sm 2er and 64 ESSM in 16 vls cell). But I think the Chinese navy will soon deploy their own short-medium range missile, which can also be quad-packed.
And although spy-1 radar on burke flights 1 and 2 is still PESA, they had evolved through numerous upgrades which make it a reliable system until the modern era.
And you also forgot to mention the combat system between each class, which in my opinion, burke still has a better combat system with its AEGIS because it has through numerous upgrades called baseline (and now baseline 10). For type 055, we still didn't know what kind of combat system is used, but I think it still less comparable with AEGIS BMD, not because the Chinese can't build a better system, but it's because US Navy has more experience with other AEGIS BMD than Chinese System.
And with it, the higher power Type 055 combat system will improve through so many improvements in the next year when the Chinese navy gains more experience with their combat system.
Thanks for your support, sir.
I am actually of the view that the Type 055's medium-range SAM can already be quad packed - perhaps I should have said that explicitly, so it is a variable that I didn't factor as an advantage for either side. China has already revealed a quad-packed FC-3000N medium-range SAM missile at the 2021 Zhuhai air-show, and if there's a platform to use it, it's the air defence destroyers.
On the CMS, there is as you say no concrete info on the Type 055 with which to make a fact-based comparison, and honestly the new CMS on the Burke III is also heavily classified. It is reasonable to argue the US has a more reliable system because of past experience, but similarly someone can make the claim that China must have an equivalent system based on other circumstantial reason. You can't really expect to convince the other side with this line of contextual argument, and this point is often missed in my view. So I think it is better to just leave that with people's own inidivual opinions.
@@EurasiaNaval Very good opinion. Yeah, I agree with you about so much classified information from both CMS and our general knowledge. It is fair if we just serve the information based on what exists in open-source intelligence, keep up your good work. I liked how your presentation without exaggerating each side of the system.
Thanks again - hope you stick around for a while!
Sorry, I don't remember what experience the Burke class has in sea warfare with foreign navies, and even less in actual combat experience with air defense systems and radars. After World War II, the only air defense system to fight against incoming missiles was the navy of the British empire against the anti-ship missiles launched by Argentina, and the result of the battle was very sad.
Also I would take into account that this is China’s newest and current generation of destroyer, The US is using A destroyer designed in the 1980s which in itself is crazy that we are even able to compare these two ships separated by 40 years. The next US destroyer will most definitely be designed to be an offensive ship to combat these Chinese destroyers.
in my honest opinion it doesn’t really matter how good your destroyer is it matters how good your hypersonic missiles are and your global network of targeting capabilities.
The US currently has multiple programs designing different types of hypersonic missiles and hypersonic aircraft delivery methods
Just came across this video... amazing and detailed analysis....it's just disappointing to note from available information that the USN LCS and the troubled ZumeWalts have terribly sunk much needed financial resources to generate advancements in USN naval technology and standing.
I seriously hope the UK's Navy can raise up to the task.
My concerning thoughts.
This guy spent a lot of time in New Zealand.
The title is completely wrong, it should be "Can Arleigh Burke III matches Type 055"
055 looks much better than Burke!
The Chinese shipbuilding industrial base can out build the US shipbuilding industrial base at a rate of 3 to 1.
Why the media refused to report that US copying 055 ?
True it looks like a poorly re-created DDG frame the Japanese Atago Class hits the nail in terms of accuracy
America has the same problem Japan had in WW2, its manufacturing capacity is dwarfed by China. Anyone who visits Chinese industrial areas, comes awy feeling as Yamamoto felt; that extended conflict with such a nation is impossible. America knows this, so is trying to provoke conflict in the short term. Their window of opportunity will close by 2025. Even now, every American trigger event has been successfully neutered, to the point where Sullivan seeks nuclear arms reduction talks..upon deaf Chinese ears..
Do you prefer 055 or burke?
I prefer 055. Long story short it's just better XD
Let's just say the Burke needs to be much cheaper for me to consider it!
@@EurasiaNaval ic
Good thing the Zumwalts are superior to the type 055...better stealth shape, superior firepower and better X band radar. Not to mention Zumwalts will have long range hypersonic missiles for ship killing in 2023.
The carrier task force is an offensive weapon with air crafts as main weapon. However, the Chinese type 055 are main attack weapon with 1500 nm supersonic misses as the main weapon. Different concepts of the US and Chinese Navies.
problem for the Burke III is that they aren’t even in service yet whilst the Type 055 already has at least 6 in service.
additionally, Type 055 would typically operate together with smaller Type 054 frigates.
Well There are around 70 burke class destroyers in service. They may not be the newer model that's about to come out but they can put up a good fight to anything china has. I really don't care about the Burk III's they are really just being built to keep the shipyards working till the new constellation class ships come out to replace them. After that the Burk class ships will be obsolete as well as the American Cruisers who directly compare to the Chinese 055 cruisers.
There has been long and serious discussions of whether to upgrade teh Arleigh Burke or go with a completely new design. It was decided to upgrade the Arleigh Burke, to the Flight IIIs as a stop-gap emasure, while starting a clean sheet design for a future destroyer.
While I can not say you said anything wrong, I would not be so quick to assume power consumption means the radar is more powerful. It may simply mean the system is less energy efficient and needs more cooling. China's electronics is not at teh same level as that of the US. While China can produce low ened semiconductors and some medium end semiconductors, they have no capability for high end conductors. And even the medium semiconductors they do produce tend to be on the low side and manufactured with imported machines.
Also, there is another factor, the integration of sensors and firecontrol. How fast does the system process the data and coordinates the communication between sensor and fire control, as well as how well the data is process and presented to the human operators. This is difficult to assess because the system is a black box (or a series of grey boxes if you want to literal lol).
I really do not disagree with your conclusion, but I think the ships are much closer than you presented.
Thanks, great and balanced comment
even 052D is better than Arleigh, .055 outclassed Arleigh
No. Arleigh Burke is superior to 052D. Zumwalt is superior to 055.
The big unknown is how well the Chinese technology actually works. China does not share actual test and performance data and has much less experience with the critical technologies. You are assuming the Chinese applications are as mature and refined as the American which may or may not be true.
I understand that the US Navy is contemplating upgrading the Flight IIa ships' SPY-1 with a smaller variant of the SPY-6. Has a commitment been made and if yes how do you think it would affect the overall fleet comparison?
It’s been fielded I think, we can kinda tell by how many SPY6 has been made.
Arleigh Burke is an older destroyer class! U.S. Littoral is the replacement for this class but ran in to big problems! LOL!
It's not a perfect historical analogue, but I feel like the Arleigh Burke Class with it's many iterative improvements placed into each Flight is sort of a call-back to the old US Navy Standard Battleship classes.
The Standards encompassed several "classes" where each new class was really more like an iterative evolutionary improvement over the preceding class of ships. Each class took advantage of new technological developments as they matured, while still retaining similar handling characteristics across the entire battle line. They were not the best ships on their own, and were even outclassed by many other Battleships of other Navies on a 1 to 1 comparison. However, the Naval doctrine was to never deploy them on their own, they always worked together in a massive battleline, and the idea was consistent handling and superior co-ordination was desired to achieve victory in engagements.
The Arleigh Burkes were trend setters when they first appeared, and each Flight builds upon and addresses some of the short comings of the prior ones, while taking advantage of new technologies as they mature. Today, they aren't the best destroyers in the world on an individual basis, but the US Navy has ALOT of pretty good early Flight Burkes to excellent modern Flight Burkes. They are generally not deployed on their own, as they are doctrinally intended to work together in a large Carrier Battle Group. The Burkes form the shield around the carrier, while the jets do the real killing.
Very interesting comparison - I enjoyed reading that. I basically agree with what you said, although with my own thoughts thrown in.
I am not at all an expert on US battleships, but my impression is that, compared to other treaty-era battleships, the US Standard battleships are actually quite strong. This has to do with when they were constructed relative to the timing of the Washington Naval Treaty. Most of the battleships that were kept in service after 1922 by other navies, as part of the treaty tonnage allowance, are of generally older design (e.g. the Japanese Kongo and Fuso, French Courbet and Bretagne, Italian Andrea Doria, and Britain's Queen Elizabeth). Compared to these ships, the US Standard battleships were larger, generally better armed, and much better armoured, partly because they were built years later (which is a big deal given the fast pace of naval tech advancements).
Of course, if you compare with the post-treaty capital ships, like a Bismark, or Littorio, or North Carolinas (and the Yamato), the Standard battleships would not stand much of a chance. But compared with other treaty battleships, they are newer and generally can win in a solo engagement, I think.
Anyway - I fully agree with your point on the role of the Burke's. The USN's doctrine is centred around the striking power of the carrier aircrafts, while the Burkes are there to provide protection. Cheers
@@EurasiaNaval and DF 21 says hi lmao
as always, top qual analysis. arleigh burke asw sonars tech likely to be superior (my guess but wek now so little about plan asw tech capabilities inl their asw torpedoes)? worth pointing out how far |& how quickly plan has come.
Thanks. I agree the Burke 2a and 3's bow sonar has a high reputation for being very good, and if I was comparing with the Type 52D I would probably weight it more highly. It's just that the Type 055 supposedly have a outsizedly large bow sonar, so the hydrophone might be much more sensitive than previous Chinese iterations. Moreover, at least in regards to the Burke 2a, an excellent bow sonar is quite unlikely to make up for the lack of stern sonars in terms of the overall detection range.
@@EurasiaNaval was looking at sub brief on type 055 and was so disappointed at his negativity /bias (2 b fair, he is clearly usn/usa centric - which is his privilege- & i always factored that in but his analysis and research was worth reading) and just repeated the tropes about pla (n) copying everything. 2 b sure, the pla did copy but they have moved to next level esp with type 055 and perhaps that is to0 challenging for sub-brief and many us-based defence websites/analysts to digest/comprehend/assess, so they revert to tropes. ur reply to his analysis is mentioned but apparently deleted. any chance u could repeat ur points here?