USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

[Scott Kenny]

Fail to understand your point that the ASEV is not a totally new platform, the basic Burke design hull/platform dates back 1980's, a 40+ year old design, a dubious record for the longest of any Navy ship class in build.

The Japanese Aegis ships are not Burkes. Their hulls are a completely different shape, wider and shallower. Their superstructures look like Burkes because that's how the radars have to be mounted, but even then they have a whole additional deck added!

 

[Josh_TN]

Perhaps, but if the new ships adopt a similar hull and propulsion, they won’t be especially more modern in design than Burke’s, even if they don’t share the same design features. Depends on what the final design is.

 

[Cordy]

@Moose "The most recent new large combatants both countries have built, and can point to as data rather than hopes and dreams, do not support the idea that American ship builders are incapable."

Not saying American ship builders are incapable but would suggest Asian shipyards productivity twice that of US, one example

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) October 10, 2019 signed a US$565 million contract with the South Korean MOD for the first of three new KDX-III Batch II class Aegis destroyers, Jeongjo the Great, light displacement: 8,300mt; full displacement > 10,000mt; length 170m; beam 21m, a 700t light displacement increase over the previous three Batch 1 Aegis Sejong the Great class.

Equivalent Burke Flight III figures, light displacement 7,700mt; full displacement 9,900mt: length 155.4m; beam 18m

The HHI shipyard in the southeastern port city of Ulsan began construction of Jeongjo the Great February 16, 2021, keel was laid October 5, 2021, launched 8 Jul 2022.

Ingalls Pascagoula, Mississippi, began construction of the USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125) May 7, 2018, keel laid November 7, 2019 and launched June 6, 2021

Beginning of construction to the launch of Jeongjo the Great was 1 year 5 months, whereas for the Jack H. Lucas it was 3 years 1 month, just over twice as long. One must always be very careful in making comparisons e.g. what is unknown if the ships were in a equivalent state of completion on launch, covid pandemic etc, but as say it would suggest at first glance Asian shipyards productivity for whatever reason twice that of US.

 

[donnage99]

@Cordy: the length of building for the burke is dictated by the rate of buy, not the production capacity. So not at all a relevant comparison IMO

 

[sferrin]

America will not re-industrialize without a massive shift in our domestic political culture. Our self-image of middle class success is The Office, not the hard work of manual labor bending steel.

The recent wave of re-industrialization is already causing a backlash, as people bitch and moan that fast food workers (a job I have held, and is harder than aerospace engineeringemailing) are getting paid too much.

No way in hell flipping a burger is harder than designing and building aircraft.

 

[Cordy]

@Cordy: the length of building for the burke is dictated by the rate of buy, not the production capacity. So not at all a relevant comparison IMO

My impression is the opposite as shipyards are way behind on deliveries, one atricle

Bath Iron Works plays catch-up on ship delivery after years of upheaval

Defense News traveled to Maine to meet with shipyard and union leaders, who spoke about the state of the company, its workforce and its future.

www.defensenews.com

Wikipedia at one time listed each ship dates but no longer, so could track numbers of Burkes commissioned by year, anyone know of another source for the numbers?

Also in the same vein the two submarine shipyards are currently only at a pace to deliver about 1.2 a year, Navy officials told USNI News its estimated it will be 5 more years for Virginia attack sub production to hit 2 boats a year, no SSNs were authorized in the five fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1997 and combined with current low production operational submarines will fall in the 2030's.

https://news.usni.org/2023/03/31/navy-estimates-5-more-years-for-virginia-attack-sub-production-to-hit-2-boats-a-year#:~:text=Boats%20a%20Year-,Navy%20Estimates%205%20More%20Years%20for%20Virginia%20Attack%20Sub,Hit%202%20Boats%20a%20Year&text=It%20will%20take%20five%20years,estimates%20of%20the%20production%20schedule.

 

[uk 75]

The underlying problem is that in the 1980s it was clear that US Naval forces had to win the Battle of the North Atlantic /Mediterranean against the Soviet Union to get enough forces to Europe before the war went nuclear. At the same time it had to protect its own SSBNs and kill Soviet ones.

The Far East was the secondary theatre which is why Japan built up such a large force. China had a poorly equipped navy and was more hostile to the USSR than to the USA.

Much of the present US Navy is still designed to fight the Cold War. The units that came later seem to have been largely a waste of time and effort.

Putin's Russia cannot even take on a neighbour with no Navy at all so it is hardly the USSR.

Iran and N Korea have negligible navies but can deploy large ground and air forces.

Which leaves China.

Assuming the US is now prepared to treat Taiwan like it once treated West Germany and West Berlin and regard an invasion by China as grounds for war, it has two alternatives.
As in West Berlin it can rely on tripwire of a few deployed forces (a Brigade?) and the credible use of nuclear weapons.
Alternatively it has to prepare to reinforce Taiwan with conventional air and ground forces either based there in peacetime or brought by sea across the Pacific.
China seems to take this threat seriously and is building a navy which can deny the US and its allies access to Taiwan.
China is getting to a position similar to the USSR in many respects. Its missiles can destroy US carriers as the USSR was able to with Backfire and sub launched missiles.
So in a war to access Taiwan or S Korea what units does the US need?
It has the ability to design heavier air and sub launched non nuclear missiles.
Its carriers lack deep strike aircraft (A6 or A12) but would such aircraft be anything more than missile launchers.
Assuming US.Marine and Army forces are committed to Taiwan (not a given as yet) the US Navy will want to use its carrier groups in the wide ocean and not close to China. They will need to keep the route clear across the Pacific. They will need a good mix of AA and ASW assets for this role.
An updated DX/DXG programme is more essential than a cruiser. Though as the RN found with the County, T82 and T45 the DLG gets pretty close to a CLG.
A new Spruance class with plenty of powerplant and large good seakeeping hull would be my starting point.

 

[Dilandu]

Alternatively it has to prepare to reinforce Taiwan with conventional air and ground forces either based there in peacetime or brought by sea across the Pacific.

The second is most likely impossible. Any significant amount of troops would require far too long to transport and landing fleet would be far too vulnerable. At most you could maybe airlift something like marine coastal defense missile batteries.

 

[bobbymike]

And now back to actual news on the LSC?

 

[zevets]

No way in hell flipping a burger is harder than designing and building aircraft.

from personal experience: not really?

 

[Kat Tsun]

No way in hell flipping a burger is harder than designing and building aircraft.

Not if you look at turnover rates. Any job is easy, if you're good at it, and some people are just good at math and coding in ansys.

People will talk how we don't have shipyards or factories or whatever anymore, then talk about the people who work in them like this, lol. The main reason shipyards are having trouble producing ships at all, let alone fulfilling Navy requirements for hull production, is because American society just generally devalues this sort of menial-but-vital work and the people who do it. It's why they don't have enough welders, why the welders leave, and why they can't find people to fill the positions they need to fill.

 

[starviking]

The second is most likely impossible. Any significant amount of troops would require far too long to transport and landing fleet would be far too vulnerable. At most you could maybe airlift something like marine coastal defense missile batteries.

Move troops from Japan, fill the Japanese vacancies from Guam or just fly them over.

 

[Dilandu]

Move troops from Japan, fill the Japanese vacancies from Guam or just fly them over.

Same problem - how would they reach Taiwan without being massacred by Chinese missiles and drones?

 

[sferrin]

from personal experience: not really?

?????

 

[starviking]

Same problem - how would they reach Taiwan without being massacred by Chinese missiles and drones?

They’d be under the umbrella of the JSDF missile base on Yonagumi Island, a little over 100 km from Taiwan.

 

[Kat Tsun]

They’d be under the umbrella of the JSDF missile base on Yonagumi Island, a little over 100 km from Taiwan.

What is going to stop the PLANMC from occupying this island? Or just destroying the SAM battery they intend to place there?

There's no practical way to resupply Taiwan without breaking the blockade of the PLAN. If you break the PLAN, you've won the war, so there's no more reason to resupply Taiwan. So there's little point to sending troops to Taiwan, because it's not Korea, so they would need to already be there.

If troops aren't already stationed there, they probably won't fight in Taiwan. Taiwan would/will be an aeronaval war, with limited ground action except between two Chinese countries, and the bulk of the fighting will be done by submarines and strategic bombers from the U.S. perspective.

Sinking the U.S. Navy's forward deployed assets is merely a prerequisite to launching the invasion of Taiwan.

 

[Dilandu]

There's no practical way to resupply Taiwan without breaking the blockade of the PLAN. If you break the PLAN, you've won the war, so there's no more reason to resupply Taiwan. So there's little point to sending troops to Taiwan, because it's not Korea, so they would need to already be there.

It would MAYBE be possible to send some troops on Taiwan using V-22's (with aerial refueling) flying from helicopter carriers staying at safe distance.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would MAYBE be possible to send some troops on Taiwan using V-22's (with aerial refueling) flying from helicopter carriers staying at safe distance.

I'm not sure that's a good use of V22s. Those only hold 24 troops each.

I'd sooner send in a half dozen C-17s full.

 

[Kat Tsun]

It would MAYBE be possible to send some troops on Taiwan using V-22's (with aerial refueling) flying from helicopter carriers staying at safe distance.

Absolutely brutal. The Marines would cover the ships with vomit love it.

POMCUS depot of a Marine Littoral Regiment or something in Taiwan would make more sense, but this would make PRC really mad, so...

I'm not sure that's a good use of V22s. Those only hold 24 troops each.

I'd sooner send in a half dozen C-17s full.

TFW 82nd Airborne beats the Marines to Taiwan. Dies immediately upon entering the PRC's ADIZ but the Marines are still 30 minutes behind. Songs will be written about the Globemaster Death Ride, or the airborne do what the rangers did in Grenada and strap up for a combat jump instead of an airlanding yee haw. Either way, a Total Hooah Victory.

The Air Force will be utterly appalled by the tremendous loss of life and machinery. The Army will just be happy it got to participate.

 

[Scott Kenny]

POMCUS depot of a Marine Littoral Regiment or something in Taiwan would make more sense, but this would make PRC really mad, so...

At this point, my attitude is "fuck the PRC"

TFW 82nd Airborne beats the Marines to Taiwan. Dies immediately upon entering the PRC's ADIZ but the Marines are still 30 minutes behind. Songs will be written about the Globemaster Death Ride, or the airborne do what the rangers did in Grenada and strap up for a combat jump instead of an airlanding yee haw. Either way, a Total Hooah Victory.

The Air Force will be utterly appalled by the tremendous loss of life and machinery. The Army will just be happy it got to participate.

Pretty much.

 

[Kat Tsun]

At this point, my attitude is "fuck the PRC"

Poking an industrially stronger nation into a war you've barely prepared for yourself is rarely a good strategy.

 

[Dilandu]

I'd sooner send in a half dozen C-17s full.

And Chinese fighters would make a short work out of it. Or even cut them out and force to land on Chinese mainland. Imagine headlines: "US marine brigade captured without a single shot fired"

 

[Scott Kenny]

Poking an industrially stronger nation into a war you've barely prepared for yourself is rarely a good strategy.

Yup, it is a terrible strategy.

Given that the US has said that the only way China will take Taiwan by force is over the burning wrecks of the 7th Fleet, however, I'm expecting it to go nuclear.

And Chinese fighters would make a short work out of it. Or even cut them out and force to land on Chinese mainland. Imagine headlines: "US marine brigade captured without a single shot fired"

C-17s are ironically less vulnerable some 200km off the coast of the mainland than ships are.

 

[uk 75]

The discussion on US options above shows why it has difficulty designing a surface fleet.
Long range missiles (Navaho size rather than Tomahawks) and more SSNs with decent armament are far more essential.

 

[Josh_TN]

The defensive environment for surface ships seems to be deteriorating rapidly. Anti ship weapons are relentlessly getting faster, smarter, and longer ranged. ISR is getting ever more prolific and persistent. It will be interesting to see how the LSC design addresses this. Short of some kind of breakthrough in directed energy technology, we may be approaching an inflection point where it isn’t possible for ships to survive in the face of peer competitor anti shipping efforts. One of the recent open source wargames covering an invasion scenario had both sides taking huge surface ship casualties and expending thousands of missiles (to the point of depleting almost all stand off weapons of both sides) in just three weeks.

 

[zevets]

Will we have airfields? Once things go south, China has literal thousands of MRBMs to deny our ability to use airpower.

The goal is to get Large Surface Combatant to escort your CVNs into close enough range that the tac air can send enough cruise missiles to sink their amphibs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The defensive environment for surface ships seems to be deteriorating rapidly. Anti ship weapons are relentlessly getting faster, smarter, and longer ranged. ISR is getting ever more prolific and persistent. It will be interesting to see how the LSC design addresses this. Short of some kind of breakthrough in directed energy technology, we may be approaching an inflection point where it isn’t possible for ships to survive in the face of peer competitor anti shipping efforts. One of the recent open source wargames covering an invasion scenario had both sides taking huge surface ship casualties and expending thousands of missiles (to the point of depleting almost all stand off weapons of both sides) in just three weeks.

Got a link to that? I'd love to read it!

 

[Josh_TN]

It was a very specific scenario with a number of assumptions they explain, but I think the results were very illuminating. Link below has a quick summary and the downloadable PDF of the general results and conclusions.

The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan

CSIS wargamed a Chinese invasion of Taiwan 24 times and found that Taiwan would endure as a democratic and independent entity in most scenarios. However, the costs were enormous. Victory is not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence to avoid war.

www.csis.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

The discussion on US options above shows why it has difficulty designing a surface fleet.
Long range missiles (Navaho size rather than Tomahawks)

I dunno, I'm not sure that 3500nmi ranges are worth doing as cruise missiles. Especially not at Mach 3. That makes a very big missile, even without putting a 10,000lb/4500kg, 10-25MT warhead on it.

Just as soon do that type of range as a ballistic missile. Even more speed and harder to intercept.

and more SSNs with decent armament are far more essential.

Define "decent armament".

12x Tomahawks is about as much as any one ship fired at Iraq or Yugoslavia, surface or sub. You might be able to push it to 15x in a single volley from the last 688s and 774s (12x VLS + 3x torpedo tube launched. No sub will be without one torpedo in the tubes for a snapshot when doing blatantly obvious things like shooting cruise missiles.) The most recent block of Virginia class have 40x VLS available (4x7, 2x6), and you can add 3 more in a full volley.

SSGNs do have the "Full Monty" option of 154ish, if there's enough targets for 154ish within 900nmi/1500km.

My ideal for the SSN(X) is still only 12x VLS plus 50x weapons in the torpedo room with 6-8 tubes, max strike of 17-19.

It was a very specific scenario with a number of assumptions they explain, but I think the results were very illuminating. Link below has a quick summary and the downloadable PDF of the general results and conclusions.

The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan

CSIS wargamed a Chinese invasion of Taiwan 24 times and found that Taiwan would endure as a democratic and independent entity in most scenarios. However, the costs were enormous. Victory is not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence to avoid war.

www.csis.org

Sweet, thank you!

 

[Josh_TN]

Poking an industrially stronger nation into a war you've barely prepared for yourself is rarely a good strategy.

If defending surface ships continues to be ever more difficult, then that doesn't seem beneficial for the PLAN or a strategic situation that the PRC can just build its way out of. The LSC seems destined to built so far into the future that even the premise of escorting surface or carrier task forces in the Western Pacific is questionable. But the same applies to PLAN vessels: we might be approaching a period where building more ships to fight a peer competitor is simply building more targets. If future US missiles like SiAW and HACM have an anti shipping capability, then it seems likely an anti access strategy can work as well for the US as it does for the PRC. I think the only thing on the horizon that might push the dynamic in favor of defensive firepower is if some kind of directed energy weapon effective against all possible AShM envelopes could be developed. LSC does intend to reserve enough power and cooling for such, but it is unclear if the technology for an effective DEW actually can be developed in a useful timeframe (and LSC itself seems like a very long term project to begin with).

 

[asVAL]

Why even discuss PLA amphibious assault anyway?
The plan right now ( or at least what I could gather from OSINT) is that the PLA plans for full on sea denial first and invasion last, only after they have managed to cripple allied forces in INDOPACOM and destroying every major ROC military asset via LRPF and airpower. It's hard to do but at least less riskier than sending fleets of commercial-standard RO-RO ships ferrying thousands of PLAMC troops onto coastlines defended with minefields and AShM batteries plus 105mm howitzers while their AF is busy tackling F-35s and NGAD sorties.

As for CSIS, that sim they did on Taiwan vs PRC it turned out to be a JASSM marketing ploy so I'd not trust them very much. I have no qualms about their JASSM airbase strikes tbh but their PLAN ASW modelling is just abysmal. That's also ignoring the magic of THAAD that would kill all MRBM/IRBM the PLA could toss at Guam and Japan, but hey at least it's long?
To copy another comment on reddit, credit u/Temstar:

CSIS have among other sponsors Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. NG is one of the two biggest sponsors (the other is Bank of America) Both NG and LM are closely associated with USAF.

CSIS report says two carriers sunk, but what saved the day was 2000 black JASSM-ER of Biden.

B-21 is being built by Northrop Grumman

JASSM is being built by Lockheed Martin

You see where I'm going with this.

Lyle Goldstein had a pretty interesting podcast section that casted some rather reasonable doubts on this particular wargame:

View: https://youtu.be/SCDQVLD8MvI?t=3616


Back to LSC.
How about building a Flight IIIA that incorporates the CGBL hull mated to a modern propulsion ( IEPS is a must) and the current Flight III combat system? Think: 128 VLS, double RAM and can be upgraded to DEW, AMDR, SLQ-32v7 and a new CIC. How fast could one shipyard switch over to building a larger, albeit only stretched, hull form? It's not an entirely new run, just an upgrade to deal with the obsolecense of the Burke hull design and prepare the USN for DDGX.

 

[Kat Tsun]

If defending surface ships continues to be ever more difficult, then that doesn't seem beneficial for the PLAN or a strategic situation that the PRC can just build its way out of. The LSC seems destined to built so far into the future that even the premise of escorting surface or carrier task forces in the Western Pacific is questionable. But the same applies to PLAN vessels: we might be approaching a period where building more ships to fight a peer competitor is simply building more targets. If future US missiles like SiAW and HACM have an anti shipping capability, then it seems likely an anti access strategy can work as well for the US as it does for the PRC. I think the only thing on the horizon that might push the dynamic in favor of defensive firepower is if some kind of directed energy weapon effective against all possible AShM envelopes could be developed. LSC does intend to reserve enough power and cooling for such, but it is unclear if the technology for an effective DEW actually can be developed in a useful timeframe (and LSC itself seems like a very long term project to begin with).

Future US missiles won't matter if the DOD is right and war is about 40 months away at most and 4 months at least, tbf. Current US missiles are important, which means essentially Tomahawk, possibly Harpoon, and JASSM. That's about it.

That said the USN was probably right in the early 2000s and it needed a much larger combatant to handle anti-ship missiles, with larger missiles and radars, but unfortunately it lost that bid. It's a bit late now, unless it can delay a major war for another 20 years or something.

 

[Josh_TN]

Future US missiles won't matter if the DOD is right and war is about 40 months away at most and 4 months at least, tbf. Current US missiles are important, which means essentially Tomahawk, possibly Harpoon, and JASSM. That's about it.

I would add MALD-N to that list. But I agree that until the end of the decade, US AShM is largely subsonic. Only known exceptions are SM-6 and Sea Dragon (theorized to also be SM-6).

We’re getting rather far off topic; might suggest we ope a Taiwan conflict thread so as to not further dilute this one? I think it is fascinating topic to discuss further but not here.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Future US missiles won't matter if the DOD is right and war is about 40 months away at most and 4 months at least, tbf. Current US missiles are important, which means essentially Tomahawk, possibly Harpoon, and JASSM. That's about it.

I doubt the Chinese will even think about attempting to invade Taiwan until they've started doing large scale amphibious exercises.

The "China will invade in 2027" seems to have come from speech made by Admiral Davidson in 2021.

That in turn seems to have come from some confusion over the PLA celebrating it's centennial in 2027, with it's wider modernisation program not being due to be completed until 2035.

Thread by @MikeBlack114 on Thread Reader App

@MikeBlack114: I've finally snapped, here's my rundown of the timeline associated with the Great 2027 Taiwan Invasion Collective Delusion currently occurring within the entire USG, apparently Before I start, to be c...…

threadreaderapp.com

China’s 2027 Goal Marks the PLA’s Centennial, Not an Expedited Military Modernization

Introduction China has added a new short-term milestone to its existing slate of military modernization goals. While noteworthy in its own right, the new benchmark is not a sign that China is sprinting to basically complete the modernization of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ahead of the...

jamestown.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

Back to LSC.
How about building a Flight IIIA that incorporates the CGBL hull mated to a modern propulsion ( IEPS is a must) and the current Flight III combat system? Think: 128 VLS, double RAM and can be upgraded to DEW, AMDR, SLQ-32v7 and a new CIC. How fast could one shipyard switch over to building a larger, albeit only stretched, hull form? It's not an entirely new run, just an upgrade to deal with the obsolecense of the Burke hull design and prepare the USN for DDGX.

Did anyone actually bother doing detailed design for the CGBL hull?

 

[Kat Tsun]

I doubt the Chinese will even think about attempting to invade Taiwan until they've started doing large scale amphibious exercises.

The "China will invade in 2027" seems to have come from speech made by Admiral Davidson in 2021.

That in turn seems to have come from some confusion over the PLA celebrating it's centennial in 2027, with it's wider modernisation program not being due to be completed until 2035.

Thread by @MikeBlack114 on Thread Reader App

@MikeBlack114: I've finally snapped, here's my rundown of the timeline associated with the Great 2027 Taiwan Invasion Collective Delusion currently occurring within the entire USG, apparently Before I start, to be c...…

threadreaderapp.com

China’s 2027 Goal Marks the PLA’s Centennial, Not an Expedited Military Modernization

Introduction China has added a new short-term milestone to its existing slate of military modernization goals. While noteworthy in its own right, the new benchmark is not a sign that China is sprinting to basically complete the modernization of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ahead of the...

jamestown.org

The reason it's stuck around is probably because the USN sees itself as getting progressively weaker over the coming decades.

Unless there's some incredible shift in Western worker/labor costs in this decade, it's unlikely the US will be able to make up its industrial weaknesses before 2040 or so, when the PLAN will actually have finished its major modernization program. The carrier gap and the submarine cliff are coming for the USN, and will probably be worse for it than most people think it will, because the US sailors aren't as good at simple sailing as they used to be.

So it could just be DOD hyping itself up for a war, one it intends to start right now, rather than fight a much more difficult war in the future; or it could just be the DOD is simply terminally bad at gauging estimates of certain things, which is fair since it's par the course, but bodes poorly for its potential to support allies in major wars if it gets Pearl Harbored again or something.

It's not very likely, but the longer the inevitable war is delayed, the more the USN's strategic parity erodes. This is probably not lost on DOD.

Anyway, I agree with Josh_TN that a separate thread would be better for this.

Did anyone actually bother doing detailed design for the CGBL hull?

No, it was never intended to be built. All work was prelim, because it was just a paper study to just examine how a future cruiser might look as a baseline, with the comparison being the Burke. It may have informed the CGX, or something in between, but probably not.

Simply making a larger Burke hull would be functionally identical anyway, as I don't think CGBL had anything different hydrodynamically, and it is what LSC is actually doing. Practically speaking, the LSC may only just squeak in this decade to start bending metal, and first ship enters service sometime in the mid-'30's.

Preparation for LSC would be inefficient, as you can pretty easily go from a 9,000 ton ship to a 13,000 tonner without much issue, and the Burkes themselves might need to be replaced by something more similar to LSCs anyway. Flight III is having uhhh issues, mainly with SWaP.

 

[asVAL]

Did anyone actually bother doing detailed design for the CGBL hull?

Probably, or methinks absolutely, not.
However it does sets some basic dimensions and layout standard to look upon and revise. Otherwise license-build KDX-III with AEGIS Baseline 10 or whatever the new classification calls it nowadays. Better yet buy/copy Type 055 because it's probably the most capable LSC-class vessel in service right now.

 

[Dilandu]

Will we have airfields? Once things go south, China has literal thousands of MRBMs to deny our ability to use airpower.

You have F-35B; it did not need airfields. It's just USAF did not want to recognize its advantages.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Probably, or methinks absolutely, not.
However it does sets some basic dimensions and layout standard to look upon and revise. Otherwise license-build KDX-III with AEGIS Baseline 10 or whatever the new classification calls it nowadays. Better yet buy/copy Type 055 because it's probably the most capable LSC-class vessel in service right now.

LSC and CGBL line up so closely in displacement that they are probably using CGBL for LSC's dimensions and just adapting it to AMDR tbf.

 

[Dilandu]

12x Tomahawks is about as much as any one ship fired at Iraq or Yugoslavia, surface or sub. You might be able to push it to 15x in a single volley from the last 688s and 774s (12x VLS + 3x torpedo tube launched.

Modern Tomahawks aren't capable of being launched from torpedo tube. Their hulls were lightened, and would not be able to survive water hammer impact.

Why even discuss PLA amphibious assault anyway?
The plan right now ( or at least what I could gather from OSINT) is that the PLA plans for full on sea denial first and invasion last, only after they have managed to cripple allied forces in INDOPACOM and destroying every major ROC military asset via LRPF and airpower. It's hard to do but at least less riskier than sending fleets of commercial-standard RO-RO ships ferrying thousands of PLAMC troops onto coastlines defended with minefields and AShM batteries plus 105mm howitzers while their AF is busy tackling F-35s and NGAD sorties.

Because chances that Taiwan would sue for peace if Chinese troops entrench on beacheads are significantly greater than in case of merely siege without landing.

But I agree that until the end of the decade, US AShM is largely subsonic. Only known exceptions are SM-6 and Sea Dragon (theorized to also be SM-6).

Well, both Japan and Taiwan actually have supersonic ASM's. Not as advanced as Soviet/Russian heavy supersonics, of course - more akin to "Moskit" - but still pretty efficient.