Warships are more than floating platforms; they are the embodiment of a nation’s doctrine, industry and intent. When comparing China’s Type 055 destroyer with America’s Arleigh Burke class, one is not simply counting missile tubes or radars. Instead, one is peering into two distinct approaches to sea power. Both classes are formidable, but their differences reveal as much about their respective navies as the ships themselves.
In the high-stakes chessboard of modern naval warfare, the destructive potential of a warship hinges on its arsenal. China’s Type 055 destroyer and the United States’ Arleigh Burke-class destroyer are titans of the seas, each bristling with missiles, torpedoes, and air defence systems that define their combat prowess. This comparison zooms in on their weapons packages—specifically the number and types of missiles, torpedoes, and air defence systems they carry—presented in a clear, side-by-side format. Crafted in British English, this analysis avoids external references, weaving a unique narrative that highlights the raw firepower and strategic intent behind these vessels, while grounding the discussion in detailed specifications.
 |
| Type 055 class Destroyers |
Detailed Specifications of Weapons Packages :
Vertical Launch Systems (VLS): The Core Arsenal ;
->Type 055: The Type 055’s 112 universal VLS cells, based on the GJB 5860-2006 standard, are a standout feature. These larger cells (0.85 m diameter, 9 m depth) support both hot and cold launches, offering flexibility for a range of munitions. The forward 64-cell block and aft 48-cell block provide a total capacity exceeding the Burke’s, enabling sustained engagements. The system’s modularity allows rapid reconfiguration for anti-air, anti-ship, or land-attack roles, with potential for future anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) like the YJ-21.
->Arleigh Burke (Flight III): The Mk-41 VLS, with 96 cells (0.63 m diameter, strike-length), is smaller but battle-proven. Its hot-launch design is reliable, integrating seamlessly with the Aegis combat system for rapid salvoes. The Burke’s cells support a versatile mix, though the smaller cell count limits total munitions compared to the Type 055. Flight III upgrades enhance power distribution, supporting future directed-energy weapons.
 |
| Arleigh Burke Class destroyer |
Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs): Shielding the Skies ;
-> Type 055:
-HHQ-9B: A long-range SAM (~200 km, Mach 4.2) designed for area air defence, capable of engaging aircraft, cruise missiles, and potentially ballistic missiles. Estimated 80–90 cells allocated, reflecting the ship’s role as a carrier escort.
-DK-10A: A quad-packed, medium-range missile (~50 km, Mach 3) for layered defence, similar to the U.S. ESSM. Approximately 20–30 cells, allowing high-density coverage against saturating attacks.
-HQ-10: A short-range, rolling airframe missile (~9 km, Mach 2.5) launched from a dedicated 24-cell launcher, akin to SeaRAM, for point defence against close-in threats.
-> Arleigh Burke (Flight III):
- SM-2MR/ER: The backbone of U.S. naval air defence (~170 km, Mach 3.5), effective against aircraft and cruise missiles. Typically 40–50 cells allocated.
-SM-6: A multi-role missile (~370 km, Mach 3.5) with anti-air, anti-surface, and ballistic missile defence (BMD) capabilities. Around 20–30 cells, critical for BMD missions.
-ESSM: Quad-packed, medium-range (~50 km, Mach 4) for high-density engagements. ~20–30 cells, offering robust mid-range protection.
-SeaRAM: A 21-missile launcher (~9 km, Mach 2) on select ships, replacing Phalanx for enhanced point defence.
The Type 055’s larger SAM count suits prolonged fleet defence, while the Burke’s SM-6 versatility and BMD focus align with global power projection.
Anti-Ship Missiles (AShMs): Striking the Surface ;
-> Type 055:
- YJ-18A: A subsonic cruise missile with a supersonic terminal sprint (~540 km, Mach 0.8 cruise, Mach 3 terminal). Its range and speed make it a formidable carrier-killer. ~20–30 cells allocated.
-YJ-21: A hypersonic ASBM (~1,000 km, Mach 6–10), designed to overwhelm defences with speed and trajectory. Likely 5–10 cells, reflecting its strategic role.
-> Arleigh Burke (Flight III):
- Naval Strike Missile (NSM): A stealthy, subsonic missile (~185 km, Mach 0.9) for precise strikes. Typically 8–12 cells.
- LRASM: A long-range, stealthy missile (~500 km, Mach 0.9) with autonomous targeting. ~4–8 cells, replacing older Harpoons.
- Harpoon: Legacy missile (~125 km, Mach 0.9) on older ships, phased out in Flight III. Limited use (~4–8 cells).
The Type 055’s YJ-21 gives it a hypersonic edge, potentially outranging and outpacing the Burke’s AShMs, though the LRASM’s stealth and autonomy counterbalance this.
Land-Attack Missiles: Striking Ashore ;
-> Type 055:
- CJ-10: A long-range cruise missile (~1,500 km, Mach 0.8) for precision land strikes, comparable to the Tomahawk. ~20–30 cells, enabling deep power projection.
-> Arleigh Burke (Flight III):
- Tomahawk Block V: A versatile cruise missile (~1,600 km, Mach 0.8) with enhanced navigation and mid-course retargeting. ~20–30 cells, proven in conflicts like Iraq and Syria.
Both ships match closely in land-attack capacity, with the Burke’s combat experience giving it a slight edge in operational reliability.
Anti-Submarine Missiles (ASROCs): Hunting Below ;
- Type 055:
- Yu-8: A rocket-assisted torpedo (~50 km, carrying a lightweight torpedo) for standoff ASW. ~10–20 cells, complementing helicopter-delivered torpedoes.
- Arleigh Burke (Flight III):
- VL-ASROC: A rocket-launched Mk 54 torpedo (~22 km, Mach 0.9). ~10–20 cells, integrated with advanced sonar for precise targeting.
- Yu-8: A rocket-assisted torpedo (~50 km, carrying a lightweight torpedo) for standoff ASW. ~10–20 cells, complementing helicopter-delivered torpedoes.
- VL-ASROC: A rocket-launched Mk 54 torpedo (~22 km, Mach 0.9). ~10–20 cells, integrated with advanced sonar for precise targeting.
The Type 055’s longer-range Yu-8 offers an advantage in open-ocean ASW, but the Burke’s integrated ASW suite, including MH-60R helicopters, ensures competitive subsurface lethality.
Torpedoes: Close-Range Submarine Killers ;
- Type 055:
- Yu-7: 6 × 324 mm torpedoes (2 triple launchers, ~14 km, 45 knots), designed for short-range ASW. Active/passive homing ensures versatility.
- Arleigh Burke (Flight III):
- Mk 54: 6 × 324 mm torpedoes (2 triple Mk 32 launchers, ~15 km, 43 knots). Advanced sensors and lightweight design enhance effectiveness.
- Yu-7: 6 × 324 mm torpedoes (2 triple launchers, ~14 km, 45 knots), designed for short-range ASW. Active/passive homing ensures versatility.
- Mk 54: 6 × 324 mm torpedoes (2 triple Mk 32 launchers, ~15 km, 43 knots). Advanced sensors and lightweight design enhance effectiveness.
Both ships carry identical torpedo counts, with marginal differences in range and speed, making ASW capabilities closely matched.
Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS): Last Line of Defence ;
- Type 055:
- H/PJ-11 30 mm: An 11-barrel Gatling gun (10,000 rounds/min), effective against missiles and small craft. Paired with HQ-10 missiles for layered defence.
- Type 726 Decoys: Chaff, flares, and active jammers to spoof incoming threats.
- Arleigh Burke (Flight III):
- Phalanx 20 mm: A 6-barrel Gatling gun (7,000 rounds/min) for point defence. Select ships carry SeaRAM for missile-based protection.
- Mk 36/Nulka Decoys: Chaff, infrared decoys, and hovering active decoys for robust countermeasures.
- H/PJ-11 30 mm: An 11-barrel Gatling gun (10,000 rounds/min), effective against missiles and small craft. Paired with HQ-10 missiles for layered defence.
- Type 726 Decoys: Chaff, flares, and active jammers to spoof incoming threats.
- Phalanx 20 mm: A 6-barrel Gatling gun (7,000 rounds/min) for point defence. Select ships carry SeaRAM for missile-based protection.
- Mk 36/Nulka Decoys: Chaff, infrared decoys, and hovering active decoys for robust countermeasures.
The Type 055’s H/PJ-11 offers higher firepower, but the Burke’s SeaRAM and Nulka decoys provide advanced missile defence.
Helicopters: Extending the Reach ;
- Type 055: Carries 2 × Z-20F or Z-9C helicopters, equipped with dipping sonars, Yu-7 torpedoes, and anti-ship missiles. The large flight deck supports extended ASW operations.
- Arleigh Burke (Flight III): Carries 2 × MH-60R Seahawks, fitted with torpedoes, Hellfire missiles, and advanced ASW sensors. Proven in global deployments.
Both ships leverage helicopters for ASW and surface targeting, with the Burke’s MH-60R slightly ahead due to its combat-tested avionics.
Analysis: Firepower in Context ;
The Type 055’s 112 VLS cells give it a numerical edge, allowing a higher missile count across all roles—roughly 10–20% more SAMs, AShMs, and land-attack missiles than the Burke. Its hypersonic YJ-21 and long-range YJ-18A position it as a potent offensive platform, particularly for anti-ship warfare in contested regions like the South China Sea. The larger cells and dual-launch capability suggest future-proofing for advanced munitions, such as electromagnetic railguns or lasers, aligning with China’s rapid technological push.
The Arleigh Burke, with 96 cells, compensates with versatility and proven performance. The SM-6’s multi-role capability (AAW, ASuW, BMD) and Tomahawk’s combat record provide operational flexibility. The Aegis system’s integration with allied networks enhances situational awareness, making the Burke a force multiplier in coalition operations. Its smaller size limits raw capacity but ensures agility and global deployability, backed by a vast logistics network.
In air defence, the Type 055’s HHQ-9B and DK-10A offer robust layered protection, but the Burke’s SM-6 and ESSM, paired with the SPY-6 radar, provide superior BMD and multi-target engagement. For ASW, both are evenly matched, with the Type 055’s longer-range Yu-8 offset by the Burke’s advanced sonar and helicopter synergy. Torpedo and CIWS capabilities are comparable, though the Type 055’s H/PJ-11 delivers higher raw firepower.
Design Philosophy: Big Hulls versus Incremental Evolution :
The Type 055 was conceived as a leap forward. The People’s Liberation Army Navy wanted a true blue-water surface combatant capable of escorting carriers and projecting power in distant seas. Its designers opted for size: a hull large enough to house a vast missile magazine, advanced sensors, and the growth potential for future technologies. In many respects, it resembles the cruiser concept of the Cold War — a ship built not just to defend itself but to dominate the battlespace around a fleet.
The Arleigh Burke, by contrast, is the epitome of incrementalism. Born at the end of the Cold War as a successor to the Ticonderoga cruisers, it was built around the Aegis combat system and the Mk-41 launcher. Over more than three decades, the Burke has evolved through successive “Flights”. Flight I and II introduced the basic design, Flight IIA added helicopter hangars and improved sensors, and the current Flight III incorporates the powerful SPY-6 radar and enhanced power generation. Instead of building a new class from scratch, the United States Navy chose to refine an existing design, keeping it relevant through upgrades.
Anti Ship/Land Attack Missiles
Sensors and Combat Systems :
Modern naval warfare is dictated by what a ship can see and process.
Type 055: The Chinese vessel carries large phased-array radar panels built into its superstructure. The system appears to combine different frequency bands, enabling both wide-area search and precise fire control. Its integrated mast design reduces radar cross-section and consolidates sensors. Complementing this are advanced electronic warfare suites and sonar arrays, suggesting that the ship is meant to serve as a sensor hub for a task force.
Arleigh Burke: The American destroyer’s defining feature is the Aegis combat system. Earlier flights employ the SPY-1D(V) phased-array radar, which revolutionised naval air defence in its day. The latest Flight III introduces the SPY-6, a scalable active array with significantly greater sensitivity, able to track more and smaller targets simultaneously. Beyond raw hardware, the Burke benefits from decades of software refinement, interoperability with allied navies, and integration into wider networks such as Cooperative Engagement Capability.
Both ships have modern radar and electronic suites, but their philosophies diverge: the Type 055 emphasises magazine depth and all-in-one coverage, while the Burke invests in networked defence and proven integration with a global fleet.
Weapons: The Business End -
Vertical Launch Systems :
The clearest difference lies in the missile silos.
The Type 055 boasts 112 universal launch cells. These can host long-range surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, land-attack weapons, and anti-submarine rockets. The capacity reflects a Chinese emphasis on raw volume — the ability to sustain combat and overwhelm adversaries with salvoes.
The Arleigh Burke typically carries 90–96 Mk-41 cells. While fewer in number, these are highly versatile, able to fire Standard Missiles for air defence, Tomahawks for land attack, and ASROC for anti-submarine warfare. The US approach relies less on sheer cell count and more on the fleet’s collective depth, supported by carriers, cruisers, and allies.
Guns and Point Defence :
The Chinese ship mounts a 130 mm naval gun, slightly larger than the Burke’s 127 mm Mark 45. Both are suitable for naval gunfire support, though in an age of missile combat, these are secondary.
For close-in defence, the Type 055 employs modern missile-based and gun-based systems along with soft-kill decoys. The Burke class varies: many carry Phalanx CIWS, others SeaRAM, and all integrate layered soft-kill and hard-kill measures.
Propulsion and Endurance :
The Type 055’s size translates into endurance. With a full-load displacement over 12,000 tonnes, it carries ample fuel, stores, and power generation capacity. Its designers appear to have left growth margins for future high-demand systems such as lasers or railguns. The larger hull also promises better stability in heavy seas, an important consideration for extended blue-water operations.
The Arleigh Burke uses four LM2500 gas turbines, a tried-and-tested arrangement giving the class excellent speed and manoeuvrability. Its endurance is sufficient for global deployments, proven over decades of service. Where the Type 055 offers growth potential, the Burke offers reliability and a maintenance infrastructure spread worldwide.
Survivability and Redundancy :
Survivability goes beyond armour; it is about system redundancy, damage control, and electronic warfare.
The Type 055 incorporates stealth shaping and signature reduction, along with compartmentalisation and decoy systems. Its newness means its resilience in combat remains unproven, but design choices suggest a modern appreciation of survivability.
The Arleigh Burke, meanwhile, has a long history of operational service. Its design emphasises shock resistance, redundancy in power and command spaces, and crew training in damage control. Importantly, survivability for the Burke also comes from numbers: with more than 70 in active service, the US Navy can afford attrition in a way that a fleet with fewer large combatants cannot.
Type 055 is based on newer design and hence is more stealthier than Arleigh burke class.
Cost and Industrial Strategy :
Cost figures are notoriously opaque, but patterns are visible. Chinese yards have produced Type 055s at a steady pace, benefitting from lower labour costs and centralised industrial planning. This suggests an emphasis on building capability rapidly and at scale.
The United States, by contrast, has produced Arleigh Burkes for over thirty years, refining the supply chain and maintaining consistency. The unit cost is higher, but the advantage lies in sustainment, interoperability, and a fleet already accustomed to operating and maintaining the type.
Roles in the Fleet :
Type 055: Best understood as a capital escort. It provides long-range air defence for carriers, can deliver land-attack or anti-ship strikes, and serves as a flagship for task groups. Its sheer missile capacity makes it a threat in its own right, even outside a carrier group.
Arleigh Burke: The backbone of the US Navy. It performs escort duties, independent patrols, ballistic missile defence, and power projection. Its ubiquity means that wherever the US operates, a Burke is likely nearby.
Comparisons based purely on visible specifications can be misleading. A larger VLS count is useful only if the missiles are stocked, maintained, and supported by doctrine. Radar performance depends as much on software and operator skill as on raw antenna size. Crew training, logistics, and alliance support can turn paper specifications into real capability — or undermine them.
Thus, while the Type 055 looks formidable, its combat effectiveness will depend on the PLAN’s ability to integrate it into fleet operations, maintain it at high tempo, and keep it supplied in distant waters. The Arleigh Burke, for its part, faces the limits of an ageing design, even if constant upgrades keep it relevant.
Conclusion: Two Faces of Sea Power :
The Type 055 represents China’s determination to project naval power with fewer but larger, heavily armed escorts. It is a symbol of confidence and ambition, giving the PLAN a tool to contest blue-water spaces.
The Arleigh Burke embodies American pragmatism: a proven design, upgraded repeatedly, produced in large numbers, and embedded in a global network of allies and bases. It is less flashy, perhaps, but immensely reliable and versatile.
In the end, the question is not which ship is “better” in isolation, but how each fits into the wider naval strategy. The Type 055 strengthens China’s push for a carrier-centred fleet, while the Burke continues as the bedrock of American seapower. Each is effective in its own context, and both illustrate how numbers on a specification sheet translate into doctrine at sea.