Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer vs China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) Type 055
Full specs: Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) Type 055
Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer and China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) Type 055 are both warship, compared here on public specifications. The Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer leads on range (8,100 vs 5,000 nmi). Several China-origin figures here are manufacturer or state claims with limited independent verification, so treat this comparison as directional.
Verdict
On paper, China's Type 055 is the bigger ship: 12,000 tonnes standard displacement against the Arleigh Burke's 9,200, 180m long against 155.3m, and 112 vertical-launch cells against the Burke's 96, large enough that Western analysts routinely classify it closer to a cruiser than a destroyer. The Burke counters with what the Type 055 cannot yet match: three decades of production maturity, 74 hulls built across three flight variants, a combat-proven Aegis Combat System with the AN/SPY-1D radar, and a longer 8,100nm range despite the smaller hull. China has built only 8 Type 055s to date, and none has a documented combat record comparable to the Burke class's extensive operational history. Bigger and more heavily armed on the spec sheet does not yet mean more proven, and until the Type 055 fleet grows and is tested, the Arleigh Burke remains the more battle-ready platform even while conceding size and missile-cell count.
Analysis by Cole Merrick, Defense-systems data columnist, WeaponSpecs · Last updated 2026-08-06
Compare systems side by side
Search above to add up to five systems. You’ll get a per-spec winner, relative bars, a normalized spec profile and an honest verdict, every number from public sources.
Building a fleet? Try the Force Builder →
Full data
Full spec sheet
| Firepower | ||
| VLS cells | 96 | 112 ✓ |
| Physical | ||
| Length (m) | 155.3 m | 180 m |
| Naval | ||
| Displacement (t) | 9,200 t | 12,000 t |
| Full-load displacement (t) | 9,700 t | 13,000 t |
| Max speed (kn) | 30 kn | 30 kn |
| Range (nmi) | 8,100 nmi ✓ | 5,000 nmi |
| Complement | 329 | 300 |
| Aircraft carried | N/A | 2 |
| Program | ||
| Unit cost (USD) | $1,900,000,000 | N/A |
| Units built | 74 ✓ | 8 |
| Operator countries | 1 | 1 |
Analysis
Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer vs China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) Type 055: how they match up
Size and missile capacity
The Type 055 outsizes the Arleigh Burke on nearly every hull dimension, 12,000 tonnes standard displacement (13,000 fully loaded) against the Burke's 9,200 (9,700 loaded), and 180m in length against 155.3m. Its 112-cell vertical launch system exceeds the Burke's 96 cells, a meaningful edge in raw magazine depth for a ship carrying the HHQ-9B surface-to-air missile, YJ-18 anti-ship missile and CJ-10 land-attack cruise missile all from the same launcher family.
Radar and combat systems
The Burke's AN/SPY-1D radar anchors the Aegis Combat System, a battle-tested architecture refined across decades of US Navy service and shared with allied navies operating Aegis-equipped ships. The Type 055 fields the Type 346B dual-band AESA radar within an integrated mast sensor suite plus a towed sonar array, a system Chinese state media describes as broadly comparable to Aegis in capability, a claim that, like most Chinese-origin performance figures, has not been independently verified against a real adversary.
Range and endurance
Despite its smaller hull, the Arleigh Burke posts a longer published range, 8,100nm against the Type 055's 5,000nm, at the same 30-knot top speed. That range advantage matters for a US Navy built around forward deployment far from home ports, while the Type 055 is designed primarily to escort Chinese carrier strike groups closer to contested waters near China itself, a shorter-legged mission profile by design rather than a shortfall.
Fleet scale and combat record
General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls have built 74 Arleigh Burkes across three flight variants since 1991, the most numerous surface combatant class in the US Navy, with an approximate $1.9 billion unit cost for the latest Flight III standard. China has built only 8 Type 055s since the class entered service in 2020, and Beijing has not publicly disclosed a unit cost. Neither ship class has a documented record of surface combat, but the Burke's Aegis system has intercepted real ballistic-missile and drone threats in recent Middle East operations, a form of combat validation the Type 055 has not yet had the opportunity, or the need, to demonstrate.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Type 055 bigger than the Arleigh Burke? +
Yes, at roughly 12,000 tonnes standard displacement and 180m long against the Burke's 9,200 tonnes and 155.3m, the Type 055 is large enough that many analysts classify it closer to a cruiser than a destroyer.
Does the Type 055 carry more missiles than the Arleigh Burke? +
Its vertical launch system has 112 cells against the Burke's 96, a real capacity edge on paper, though missile mix, quality, and combat-tested reliability matter as much as raw cell count.
How many Arleigh Burke and Type 055 destroyers exist? +
74 Arleigh Burkes have been built since 1991 across three flight variants; China has built 8 Type 055s since 2020, a far smaller and newer fleet.
Has the Type 055 seen combat? +
No documented combat record exists for the Type 055 as of this writing, unlike the Arleigh Burke class, whose Aegis-equipped ships have intercepted real ballistic-missile and drone threats in recent Middle East operations.
Which is cheaper? +
The Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer has the lower public unit-cost figure at 1,900,000,000 USD. Treat this as directional, defense pricing varies by contract and configuration.
Which has the higher vls cells? +
The China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) Type 055 has the higher vls cells at 112.
Which has the higher max speed? +
The Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer has the higher max speed at 30 kn.
Which has the higher range? +
The Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer has the higher range at 8,100 nmi.
Which has the higher units built? +
The Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer has the higher units built at 74.
Which has the higher operator countries? +
The Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer has the higher operator countries at 1.
Is the Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer better than the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) Type 055? +
On the public specs we track, the Huntington Ingalls Industries Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer leads on 2 of 5 headline metrics, see the full spec sheet for the metric-by-metric breakdown.
Where does this comparison data come from? +
Every figure in the table is sourced from public manufacturer pages, defense-ministry releases and reference publications, and is verifiable on each system's spec page. WeaponSpecs does not accept vendor placement.
Keep exploring
