Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A head-to-head comparison of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and China's Type 055 cruiser. We break down the weapons systems, sensors, doctrine, and real-world combat capability of both platforms — and deliver a clear verdict on which has the edge.
Military intelligence analysis and defence commentary. Threat assessments, platform comparisons, and strategic briefings from a military intelligence specialist.
Welcome to the video and what I'm sure is gonna be quite a hotly contested conversation, which is ultimately the Arleigh Burke versus the type zero five five, which is the better destroyer. Now my name is Ben Brand, and I'm a former military intelligence analyst. And welcome to Iron Command where we do all things military related, be that sort of real time news and or comparisons. And, yeah, this is what I'm enjoying and we're looking forward to, rather, recording because these are two very awesome platforms, different strengths and weaknesses, and I'll be keen to get your views as I go through, on the comparison that I've made. So starting off with the early Burke, kind of some headline figures here.
Speaker 1:The current most modernized version is the Flight three. Now upgrades are ongoing, so some versions are preceding that. But the most modern version we're talking about today is the flight free, which is a guided missile destroyer. Currently, there are 74 ships in service, and as I said, some of them are actually at the flight free status. Others are being upgraded.
Speaker 1:Now one of the most important, components of both of these vessels is their VLS or vertical launch system. They do many other things, but arguably the most important thing they both do is carry lots of missiles. And so the important headline statistic for the Arleigh Burke is it has a capability of 96 cells. That's not 96 missiles necessarily, but 96 cells. Now another really important headline fact about this ship is that it is combat proven.
Speaker 1:It's been in service for a very long time, and arguably, there's thirty five years worth of history of this ship being successfully used in combat. It is arguably the most combat tested destroyer afloat, and the reason for that is, well, it was originally built primarily to counter Soviet threats, but has been used in a wide array of situations, including, as of the time of filming, being involved in the conflict with Iran. However, the caveat is that being that it was designed to counter Soviets originally, it's not been designed from the ground up to counter Chinese hypersonic missiles. So let me move on to the relatively speaking new kid on the block, which is the type zero five five Renhai class. Now this is the Chinese call this a destroyer.
Speaker 1:By Western classification, it is a cruiser primarily based upon its intended role, which is as a command ship, and also its size, which is significant even in comparison to the Arleigh Burke. Now as it currently stands, there are 10 in active service, with more on the way. The headline figure for this ship is actually it has a 112 VLS cells, so significantly more than the Arleigh Burke. However, it is fairly new. And realistically speaking, in terms of what one would equate real combat to, it has zero combat experience as a as a sort of platform, and doctrine, etcetera.
Speaker 1:Arguably, the only sort of kinetic activity it's had predominantly to date is sort of scrapping with Philippines coast guard, a bit of boat ramming, etcetera. But, yes, this main point is in comparison to the Arleigh Burke, this platform is very, very untried and untested where it counts. But on paper, it is, in many ways, the most powerful destroyer dash cruiser in the world currently. So now we go head to head between the two of them. So in terms of displacement, as kind of alluded to already, the type zero five five is significantly heavier at 13,000 tons versus the Arleigh Burke at 9,700.
Speaker 1:We've already mentioned the VLS cells, and, again, that's 96 mark 41 cells for the Burke. And for the type zero five five, that's a 112 universal. So just in terms of raw missile capability, the type zero five five wins. In terms of anti ship range, and the air prime primary anti ship missiles, the Burke via the s m six is 250 nautical miles, and the type zero five five using its hypersonic y j 20 ones, which travel at Mach 10, is 540 nautical miles. So, clearly, there's a significant capability, difference there between the two platforms.
Speaker 1:However, in terms of the current active fleet size, there are 74 Birks active as mentioned and only ten zero five fives. However, already, what's worth mentioning here is while the US Navy is undergoing bit of an overhaul in terms of the attention to increase the tempo of ship production, they are in no way, shape, or form gonna be able to outproduce the Chinese. And the Chinese, on the other hand, have significantly enhanced capabilities to produce ships, full stop. Arguably, they have 50 times x capability to produce ships compared to The US I've seen figures as high as. So the disparity between the two fleet sizes for destroyers is likely to change significantly.
Speaker 1:And, also, what's worth mentioning is there are other platforms, within the Chinese navy already. They're older destroyer types, which they have a lot more of. They're nowhere near as capable, but the yeah. They've got more than just a type zero five five, whereas the US navy is all in on the Arleigh Burke as its primary, destroyer platform. And then there's a cost per hull.
Speaker 1:So this is an interesting, bit of couple of numbers here. So on paper, the Arleigh Burke costs 2 and a half billion dollars, whereas a type zero five five is only $900,000,000. However, there's a bit of, a dis yeah. An interesting talking point there because the Arleigh Burke ultimately is built by private companies for, for the US military. The type zero five five, on the other hand, due to the state owned nature of Chinese, shipbuilding, is built by the state for the state.
Speaker 1:So a lot of their costs, such as labor, etcetera, ship ride usage, is a lot cheaper. There aren't third parties. There aren't massive defense corporations. So on paper, the cost looks significantly different, but that's in part very much due due to the way in which both the countries are set up sort of capitalist versus a more socialist structure. So let's talk about firepower now, let's get back to the missiles because as I said, these platform these platforms do a lot, but arguably, the missile capability is what is their primary, loadout.
Speaker 1:So the Mark 41 VLSL is very flexible. It's not limited to one kind of missile. So the kind of headline, missile is the s m six, which is an anti air but also anti ship missile with a massive, massive range of 250 nautical miles. Arguably, it's the most versatile missile afloat capable of doing a serious damage at serious range to both ships and aircraft. The s m three block two a is the next, asset that this has, and this is for ballistic missile defense.
Speaker 1:This has been tested and actually has a range of 1,500 nautical miles, and this is one of, again, the most tested ballistic missile capabilities, currently no. Well, essentially, around around the world. Definitely not so much of a it's a bit more of a niche, capability of the ship. You then got the s m two block three c, which is, an area air defense missile. 167 nautical miles.
Speaker 1:It's a fleet workhorse, and the s m twos have been around a very long time, but have been significantly upgraded. And, again, that's a significant range and capability. You then have the Tomahawk, which, again, has been around a very long time but upgraded over time, and that's a land attack cruise missile. So that's specifically designed to go off to ground based targets, primarily, sort of fixed locations, and the round range of a thousand nautical miles. This gives the Arleigh Burke the capability to ultimately be used not just as a defensive but as a offensive strategic platform.
Speaker 1:So when it comes to conflicts such as Iranian conflict or proceeding conflicts before that, essentially anywhere with coastline and a thousand within a anything with a coastline and a thousand nautical miles range comes up for grabs. So the Arleigh Burke, not only defensive asset using Tomahawks can be that become very much offensive. And then finally, have the ESSM block two, which is a point defense missile. Now they're all smaller, and as a result, you can actually quad pack them. So that's four per cell.
Speaker 1:In theory, you could take 96 mark 41 VLS cells and put four ESSMs in each one of them. Realistically, the beauty of the VLS system is the, yeah, missiles taken can be tailored towards the mission. And depending on, like, the intention, it'd be, obviously, more air to air missiles in defensive role versus more Tomahawks, for example, in a more offensive role. Yeah. 96 sales is pretty significant, and compared to a lot of other destroyers is very good.
Speaker 1:However, at the end of the day, it's still a finite amount. And the reality is the US Navy's doctrine especially is they tend to operate quite far away from their own naval bases. So as a direct consequence, logistics is always gonna be an issue, and the VLS cells like this typically are best dealt well, best best reloaded ultimately by coming into port. So once the VLS are gone, the capability of the Arleigh Burke is degraded, and quite often, they normally have quite a long distance to go and get reloads. So let me talk about firepower for the type zero five five.
Speaker 1:Now a 112 universal v VLS cells, again, reconfigurable, so nice and flexible. The kind of standout missile of interest is the y j 21 hypersonic. Now this is a specific anti ship ballistic missile, which can travel at Mach 10 and has a one and a half thousand kilometers range. As it currently stands, there's been no proven Western ship based intercepts, e g, at the moment. While in theory, the West has cape the capability to, yeah, interdict and intercept this missile, it's not been proven.
Speaker 1:And this is a massive gray area, which I'm sure many western countries have spent a lot of time already thinking about how they can deal with this because, ultimately, this is a very, very significant threat at a very long range. The next is the y j one eight a anti ship cruise missile, and that's MAC three terminal, and that has a range of 5,370 kilometers. Now this isn't probably the more standard LODET missile, whereas the y j 21 is probably more bespoke. But, again, this is still a very capable missile and significantly outranges the Arleigh Burke in the same category. The next is the h h q nine b, an area air defense missile with 200 kilometers range.
Speaker 1:It's kind of an s m two equivalent. We then have the c j 10 land attack cruise missile. Funny old thing, 1,500 kilometers range, and their Tomahawk equivalent. And what you will find is a bit of a running theme about not just this Chinese ship, but a lot of Chinese equipment. There's there's quite a lot of similarities with US kits and equipment and capabilities.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And far be it from me to make any assumptions or make any, allegations, but, yeah, you can probably, like, join two and two and maybe figure out why, a lot of Chinese equipment looks and sounds and acts quite a lot like US equipment. Finally, there's a type one one, three zero SeaWiZ, which 11 barrels, 10,000 rounds a minute, world's fastest. Just for notes, the Arleigh Burke does have the Phalanx, SeaWiZ as well. So and SeaWiZ standing for close in weapon system, I.
Speaker 1:E, kind of a weapon of last resort, a normally gun that will fire rounds to try and defeat incoming missiles. The y 21 really does change everything. That's my assessment from this slide. The MAC 10 terminal gives defenders less than fifteen seconds typically to react. Yeah.
Speaker 1:This is like a massive massive, game of one upmanship at the moment where the west is obviously heavily pushing to, match hypersonic missile capability, and, obviously, all navies currently trying to work on what are effective defenses against missiles that move so rapidly. So next, we'll talk about the other elements of firepower outside of the missiles. So we've got the categories of main gun, which is still valid and viable in in modern day, close in defense, torpedoes, helicopters, and then sonar slash ASW. So both vessels have similar main guns, five inch versus a 30 130 millimeter and the joy of imperilometric. Similar rates of fire and similar ranges.
Speaker 1:In terms of close in defense then, already kinda slightly covered, but the type 55 has their own version of CIWS and SAM, which is, good in terms of they actually have short range missiles as well as a, more conventional sort of, chain gun. Close in defense for the Burke, however, is either and or, so typically, remounting phalanx CIWS or, in some exceptions, CRAM. Ultimately, there's a weakness there because that's single layer, and more often, the phalanx sink tends to be the preferred configuration. We then got torpedoes, and, again, quite similar. We have the mark 32, triple torpedo tubes for the Burke with the mark 54 lightweights.
Speaker 1:And then on the Chinese side, 324 millimeter triple tubes and their y u seven lightweight, which is again incredibly similar to the mark 54. Similarities continue with the helicopters. So two Seahawks or up to two Seahawks on the Arleigh Burke with dipping sonar and mark 54 torpedo capability. On the type zero five five, you have one to two zed 20 f's, which look exactly like Seahawks, and also have dipping sonar and the capability to carry torpedoes. Finally, have sonar on ASW, but there is actually a bit of, a difference.
Speaker 1:So the Arleigh Burke has both hull and towed array, and quite capable, whereas the type 55 has hull, towed array, and VDS or variable depth sonar. The variable depth is something the Burke actually lacks, which especially when you're dealing with kinda trying to find targets either above or below the thermal incline layer can become a bit of an issue. So on paper, in terms of secondary assets, the zero five five, again, has arguably more capable abilities overall. However, a lot of this, again, comes down to kind of is this is this combat proven? Is this tested?
Speaker 1:And the reality is, especially with regards to helicopters, ASW is a game all about experience, knowledge, and doctrine. And, yeah, the significant amount of experience that is layered into the US military will really tell in terms of how capable the Seahawks are for ASW, etcetera. So let me move on to air defense and radar. So this is an area where the Arleigh Burke's gone through many iterations. It now has the ANSPY six v one.
Speaker 1:As said there, it's 30 times more sensitive than its predecessor, and it's a, yeah, very capable system using the Aegis kind of backup in terms of integration integration and very much one of the world's premier air defense systems. It is combat proven heavily and it's been shown to be very capable in terms of, dealing with intercepting incoming missiles, as well as tracking aircraft, etcetera. On the type, 055, you have the type three four six b dual band. On paper, I actually have even more capable radar than that on the Arleigh Burke. However, not tested in combat, to date, and capability is slightly unknown just due to the sort of more secretive nature of the Chinese.
Speaker 1:On paper, the SP y six is a superior radar. And, again, that's more due to the fact that capabilities, also battle tested. But the r four six b may be narrowing the gap. Again, we have to kinda be transparent here. Look.
Speaker 1:We aren't fully aware of its capabilities, but, we're probably gonna give this still to the Arleigh Burke for now. Then we've EW, and which is this is often an overlooked asset, that many modern naval ships will have, that is ultimately the ability to use electronic warfare to actually, jam incoming missiles, spoof, etcetera. So the Arleigh Burke has a CWIP block three, first filled in 2023, so fairly new version. It's got both passive and active components, and primarily designed to deal with incoming missile seekers, comms, and has an auxiliary radar. Arguably, the most advanced shipborne EW system in service.
Speaker 1:On the other hand, the type zero five five has an integrated ESA EW. Again, a mixture of passive and active components, but fundamentally sits in a similar position where it's unproven based upon what is known. The Arleigh Burke, system is still, superior currently. So then we have networking in c two, and that's where while I've been trying to compare these ships kinda like for like, the reality is there are fleets, there are capabilities, there are a lot more ways in which these vessels kind of can can can ultimately be utilized and add value. So I've mentioned already The US Aegis system.
Speaker 1:The the integration of The US has pushed especially, and wider NATO into the Aegis system and its fleet is significant to say the least. And as an example, the f 35 jets has direct integration through other systems into, the picture that the Arleigh Burke can see. This means that ultimately the Arleigh Burke can take targeting information from other ships, other platforms, and this can be linked together to provide a cohesive kind of situational awareness piece and enable the Arleigh Burke to use weapons against targets it can't see, but equally defend against targets it wouldn't be able to typically see. On the zero five five side, given that the it is in a command role, it has a lot of active assets as well. It can coordinate subs.
Speaker 1:It can coordinate fleets and aircraft, and, again, is able to fuse radar and satellite data. It has a Relay Node two, which is for the d f two six kill chain. This allows it to actually, yeah, extend its reach and do targeting far beyond beyond kind of its its own sensor capabilities. And as mentioned there, a thousand plus miles it can actually network into. Again, Aegis, heavily proven.
Speaker 1:PLAN, side network and c two, not so much. Realistically, what's the primary role of the Arleigh Burke is to defend carriers from missiles. The Chinese zero five five, on the other hand, has a more offensive intention in mind. While it is definitely a fleet ship, the way it's set up is also more offensive arguably. So combat record.
Speaker 1:Well, the Arleigh Burke, let's start with that. Thirty five years, we've got Iraq, The Red Sea, fighting the Hoofies, currently operation Eric Fury, and definitely proven under fire and has ultimately taken fire in some instances, including, in when docked in the Port Of Aden in Yemen quite many years ago, whereas a tip type zero five five, every system and every bit of doctrine is all theoretical at the moment, and this is the massive gap that the Chinese military, would benefit from closing. The reality is with The US and the current US foreign policy is that the, the US military is kept very busy and kept constantly training and constantly going into actual conflicts, which keeps the sword fairly sharp, whereas China does not have that go well, ultimately, China is not involved in that level of intensity of conflicts. And, yeah, combat experience is not a small advantage. To be honest, it's the massive distinguisher between both these assets.
Speaker 1:So we now get to the I the Iron Command scorecard where I kind of rate firepower, air defense, electronic warfare, network and c two, strike range, and combat record to come out with scores. Now in terms of firepower, on paper, the zero five five wipes the floor, nine out of 10 compared to the Arleigh Burke, seven out of 10. For air defense, on the other hand, due to, the Aegis system, among other components and just the tried and tested nature, arguably, the Arleigh Burke is nine out of 10 versus the type zero five five at six out of 10. EW, again, and network and c two, the Arleigh Burke edges ahead just in terms of known sophistication and combat, the fact that these have actually persisted, been tried and tested in combat. In terms of strike range, however, the type zero five five takes the lead again at nine out of 10 from, my view because of, yeah, use of hypersonic missiles and just clearly having a far greater reach if necessary.
Speaker 1:And then combat record, and, really, the Arleigh Burke, again, it couldn't really be much more tested. Arguably, this platform is slightly over tested. It's being constantly upgraded beyond the point where, arguably, it should be in service still. There are there is a new sort of program coming underway for The US, but, yeah, it's been around a long time, had a lot of upgrades, whereas the type zero five five still really has yet to reap kind of, yeah, be be proven in a conflict. And what does that kinda give us?
Speaker 1:So total scores on the doors out of 60 for both. The Arleigh Burke sits at 50 out of 60, whereas the type zero five five lags of 36 out of 60, which is interesting for a vessel that's significantly larger. As I mentioned already, they both arguably have quite different roles, and the Arleigh Burke's very much been defensive in nature from the ground up. I think Donald Trump actually commented negatively on that recently, to be frank, words the effect of moaning that The US Fleet were all the vessels in The US Fleet, and I think he was talking about the Arleigh Burke, were too defensive and conservative in nature. But regardless, its role is as to shield.
Speaker 1:Its job is to protect aircraft carriers, which then allow the aircraft carriers to project offensively. All the offensive capabilities of Arleigh Burke are arguably secondary. The zero five five, on the other hand, is, yeah, the opposite to the shield. It is the spear. So it's built to kill carriers and protect them at the same time.
Speaker 1:So far more offensive, and more of an a two slash EAD disruptor. It has the ability to strike beyond the Arleigh Burke's range. So arguably, they're in a head on head competition, the Arleigh Burke would really struggle. To give you a couple of examples of, like, most likely use these Taiwan Strait is clearly an area of significant contention, and the two asset the two vessels have almost been well, arguably, two of the most likely tasks for them to deal with in another war would be, the Taiwan Strait. The zero five five's advantage is ultimately that it's operating right next to the Chinese shoreline, for the majority of any potential conflict around Taiwan, and, also, its extended range of missiles means that it can pose a credible threat to US carrier strike groups.
Speaker 1:The Arleigh Burke, the other hand, is, in that conflict, primarily defensive in nature, but having to deal with a integrated network. I'm sort of backing up the Chinese fleet while providing sort of defense against hypersonic missiles. So, yeah, the zero five five's defen offensive capability, is significant and will be a significant component of any potential conflict around Taiwan. That's why The US are arguably working on the DGX, which we'll come into onto in a minute, which will potentially sort of deal with some of these issues. And then there's the magazine problem.
Speaker 1:So if you do some basic maths on VLS, and just for reference, the sort of most prolific, actual Chinese PLN surface fleet destroyer at the moment is the zero five two d, which has a VLS of 50 missiles. If you still stack up how many VLS missiles are available on all Chinese destroyers versus US destroyers, the contrast is quite stark. So in theory, there are 7,104 VLS cells currently available to US destroyer fleets, whereas there are only just over 4,000 to the Chinese fleet. However, given that the Chinese fleet is likely to operate more in a defensive role, their ability to resupply but also get support from shore based assets is significantly higher. So while on paper, there's a big disparity, that gap quickly gets filled.
Speaker 1:And in most likely scenarios where it would be these two ships will come into conflict, Once the Arleigh Burke's fired off their missiles, they've got a long way home to go get resupplied, whereas the, Chinese plat PLAN assets would have a far shorter return time. So what's the real answer for the US Navy? Well, I've alluded to already. It's the DGX, which is their current next generation destroyer. You've got an image of it there, and it's as far it's a significantly larger asset.
Speaker 1:So it's about one third So it's it's an additional one third in size in terms of tonnage at 1,500 plus tons. It's built with a far larger power plant, to incorporate direct energy weapons, which are gonna be a well, are already becoming a critical component. The UK Navy is actually already successfully testing Dragonfire, on some of their ships. And, ultimately, this is likely to have a significantly larger VLS capability plus a far greater ability to defend against hypersonics. The big issue, it doesn't exist yet.
Speaker 1:We're talking mid twenty thirties at the earliest before this even the first ships of this launch. And by that point, the type zero five five will be prolific in numbers, more than likely and probably already going for a second generation upgrade. So this is the answer, but it's not the answer today. And depending on your synopsis of when if and when conflicts between The US and Chinese is likely to happen, arguably, it might come in too late. So what's the overall verdict?
Speaker 1:I can't say enough. The r the the the Arleigh Burke is combat proven, arguably too combat proven, which is both a positive and negative. It's an old platform older platform now, but at least it's kind of yeah. The capability is known and tried and tested. The type zero five five is not and, obviously, yeah, with it not being tested, with it not being doctrine, with it not being, or tested doctrine, training, etcetera, the Burke can definitely hedges ahead there.
Speaker 1:The YJ 21, however, fundamentally does outrage everything in the Burke's arsenal. So when comparing the two like for like, the zero five five definitely has the advantage there. China can build these ships far quicker and on paper far cheaper than The US. It's partly how the companies the country's rather structured, but it's also just a practicality of, yeah, shipbuilding capability and efficiencies. The DGX is The US's answer to kinda try and resolve the current disparity, but arguably, a good solution in the future is a terrible solution right now.
Speaker 1:So there we go. That is a canter through the Arleigh Burke versus the zero five five, for the PAN. This has been Iron Command, intelligence led military analysis. If you've enjoyed the video today, please do consider subscribing to the channel. It'd be much appreciated.
Speaker 1:Also, you can hit a bell because I'm gonna be uploading tons more of these videos, so hit a bell if you want notifications. And if you disagree with me or agree, please feel free to drop a comment below and like, and I'll see you on the next video. Thank you very much.