055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[joshuatree]

what more fundamental new capability can a bigger ship with more VLS brings? it would prob be same type of electronics.

The bigger Tico was stopped while us navy choose to continue build the supposilly lower-end burke well into future.

..........I rather see a more capable 054 design then a bigger 055.

A bigger ship would be able to provide more power for its systems, that capability is an important factor.

Although if one looks at the AB IIA and future IIIs, their displacements match or would surpass the Ticos so not sure if the USN chose ABs over Ticos because they didn't need as many larger vessels or if they simply decided they will have different variations of one class instead of two classes.

A more capable 054 replacement design would probably end up with a larger displacement as well. I like to see that design sport some AESA type sensors. At that point, I wonder if the CN will just call them light destroyers instead.

Speaking of AESA, I wonder how small can the system be scaled down and still be considered useful? It be interesting if even type 056s could usefully field them. But I'm guessing there is a minimal threshold for them to be effective.

 

[Jeff Head]

Although if one looks at the AB IIA and future IIIs, their displacements match or would surpass the Ticos so not sure if the USN chose ABs over Ticos because they didn't need as many larger vessels or if they simply decided they will have different variations of one class instead of two classes.

Not really.

The Flight IIA vessel is about 9,300 tons and the Tico is 10,000 tons.

The Flight IIIs will be 10,000+ tons.

The Burkes are an evolution. When you look at the serial builds and how many have been produced, it is clear that the US did not just decide they wanted different variations of the same vessel.

The vessels were designed from the outset with this type of growth and upgrade/modernization capabilities in mind.

The Flight I and II vessels are essentially the same and number 28 vessels. (DDG-51 through DDG-78)

The Flight IIA vessels are sometimes unofficially referred to as the "Oscar Austin" class (DDG-79, the first Flight IIA vessel was the Oscar Austin) because they were significantly different with the helo hangers and a four foot extension to the hull. But otherwise, the same hull design and similar capabilities. There are going to be a total of 44 of the Flight IIA, the last seven of which will have a "technology insert" which will be a sort of bridge design over to the Flight IIIs. (DDG-79 through DDG-122)

Then you will start the Flight III with new radars, increased VLS capacity, and other improvements. At least 12-18 of those, if not more. (DDG-123 on).

In many ways, the evolution from the Type 052C to the Type 052D is like a new "Flight" of the vessel.

 

[Blitzo]

Speaking of AESA, I wonder how small can the system be scaled down and still be considered useful? It be interesting if even type 056s could usefully field them. But I'm guessing there is a minimal threshold for them to be effective.

I think the smallest ship I know carrying a capable air defense AESA is the Australian Navy's ANZAC class, which have been upgraded with the ceafar radar.
As a kiwi, I'd like for our couple of ANZACs to be upgraded with them as well... but that money's probably better spent elsewhere. Not like the NZ navy will head off where saturation missile attacks are a threat.

As for a future chinese frigate, I'd like them to either feature a new small AESA, or even just a next generation PAR. PJ-38, so the frigate can be useful for NGFS. 32 cell CCL, quad pack the 50km active radar DK-10, and use the remaining space for AShM, VL ASROC, LACM. Dual hangar, a large flight deck, and a modular space for ASW and counter mine tasks. integrated propulsion. 5000+ tons.

Basically, what I described was the Type 26 GCS.

 

[andyhugfan]

Not really.

The Flight IIA vessel is about 9,300 tons and the Tico is 10,000 tons.

The Flight IIIs will be 10,000+ tons.

The Burkes are an evolution. When you look at the serial builds and how many have been produced, it is clear that the US did not just decide they wanted different variations of the same vessel.

The vessels were designed from the outset with this type of growth and upgrade/modernization capabilities in mind.

The Flight I and II vessels are essentially the same and number 28 vessels. (DDG-51 through DDG-78)

The Flight IIA vessels are sometimes unofficially referred to as the "Oscar Austin" class (DDG-79, the first Flight IIA vessel was the Oscar Austin) because they were significantly different with the helo hangers and a four foot extension to the hull. But otherwise, the same hull design and similar capabilities. There are going to be a total of 44 of the Flight IIA, the last seven of which will have a "technology insert" which will be a sort of bridge design over to the Flight IIIs. (DDG-79 through DDG-122)

Then you will start the Flight III with new radars, increased VLS capacity, and other improvements. At least 12-18 of those, if not more. (DDG-123 on).

In many ways, the evolution from the Type 052C to the Type 052D is like a new "Flight" of the vessel.

When the rest of the world were still building 'conventional' naval ships, the USS Arleigh Burke was a true pinnacle of modern technology. It would take at least 10 years for other western countries to come with comparable destroyer designs, and now 20 years later, the Chinese and Indians are closing this gap. The Russians are still lagging....

With the AB-class, the USN has built the best pound-for-pound destroyer and influenced other designs even till this day and age.

 

[joshuatree]

...The Burkes are an evolution. When you look at the serial builds and how many have been produced, it is clear that the US did not just decide they wanted different variations of the same vessel.

The vessels were designed from the outset with this type of growth and upgrade/modernization capabilities in mind.

...

May not be specifically and immediately in mind but it still appears the USN had some notion of different flights if the vessels were designed from the outset for growth as you've described. I'm sure the sources I referenced are different from yours but navy.mil lists a Tico at 9600 tons, AB IIA at 9496 tons which I consider close enough. What would be your opinion on why the USN decided to have no more Ticos? Both were in production in the early 90s so it is conceivable they could have kept building both side by side.

 

[Jeff Head]

What would be your opinion on why the USN decided to have no more Ticos? Both were in production in the early 90s so it is conceivable they could have kept building both side by side.

The Tico was a 1970s hull that was initially designed in the 1960s for the Spruance class. The Burke was 1980s design and much more seaworthy and was built to expand. As we have seen. And now, the Flight IIIs Burkes will end up being not only the equal, but the better of the Ticos.

The US has amassed a very large, modern fleet, capable of continuing upgrade, but also very maintainable and logistics friendly, and will ultimately have 75+ such vessels.

And ultimately (just a little later than we had expected) there will be another follow-on design, perhaps based on the Zummwalt hull or some other to push the envelope further. In the mean time, the Burke force is unequaled anywhere on earth as a surface combatant force and will remain that way for several decades to come.

 

[kwaigonegin]

May not be specifically and immediately in mind but it still appears the USN had some notion of different flights if the vessels were designed from the outset for growth as you've described. I'm sure the sources I referenced are different from yours but navy.mil lists a Tico at 9600 tons, AB IIA at 9496 tons which I consider close enough. What would be your opinion on why the USN decided to have no more Ticos? Both were in production in the early 90s so it is conceivable they could have kept building both side by side.

No the Ticos are old designs. They were based on the Spruance class DDGs which themselves date back to the early 1970's.

 

[i.e.]

I think the smallest ship I know carrying a capable air defense AESA is the Australian Navy's ANZAC class, which have been upgraded with the ceafar radar.
As a kiwi, I'd like for our couple of ANZACs to be upgraded with them as well... but that money's probably better spent elsewhere. Not like the NZ navy will head off where saturation missile attacks are a threat.

As for a future chinese frigate, I'd like them to either feature a new small AESA, or even just a next generation PAR. PJ-38, so the frigate can be useful for NGFS. 32 cell CCL, quad pack the 50km active radar DK-10, and use the remaining space for AShM, VL ASROC, LACM. Dual hangar, a large flight deck, and a modular space for ASW and counter mine tasks. integrated propulsion. 5000+ tons.

Basically, what I described was the Type 26 GCS.

what about a the italian version of FREMM, but mounting a SAMPSON style radar.

 

[i.e.]

A bigger ship would be able to provide more power for its systems, that capability is an important factor.

Although if one looks at the AB IIA and future IIIs, their displacements match or would surpass the Ticos so not sure if the USN chose ABs over Ticos because they didn't need as many larger vessels or if they simply decided they will have different variations of one class instead of two classes.

A more capable 054 replacement design would probably end up with a larger displacement as well. I like to see that design sport some AESA type sensors. At that point, I wonder if the CN will just call them light destroyers instead.

Speaking of AESA, I wonder how small can the system be scaled down and still be considered useful? It be interesting if even type 056s could usefully field them. But I'm guessing there is a minimal threshold for them to be effective.

ofcourse a bigger ship would have "more capability" but are those cost effective this is the main question.

PLAN doesnt have the budget of USN and it would not be able to procure in quantities that would mitigate any inefficient in individual ships.

so every ton of ship in water has to count.

sorta like the Washington Naval treaty days where 10,000 ton/8 inch gun cruisers were the max and every navy has to trade off one thing to another to fullfill its operational needs.

USN opted for fast ship mounting 9 8inch guns in triple turrets, a wider ship but deemed strongly built for pacfic fleet action.

while RN opted for county class with its 2 gun turrets and narrow long hull for range on colonial trade route protection duties.

while IJN went nuts and packed 5 twin turrets on a overloaded hull. with everyweight saving scheme imaginable.
figured that they have to go full offensive qualitative wise as they don't have the quantity to win over USN pacific fleet.

Italians went with the zara and condottieri class cruisers with their extreme speeds and short range and closely packed main twin turrets for med. operations.

france went colonial. no armour and all about speed and cruising range.

trade offs people, trade offs! PLAN is constrained!

 

[Blitzo]

what about a the italian version of FREMM, but mounting a SAMPSON style radar.

I'd rather have that kind of set up on 055 instead (or simply 052D's APARs higher on a large integrated mast). Stick a herakles style radar or a sea eagle successor onboard a new frigate, and emphasize helicopters, ASW and modular capability.

Adding a radar as capable as SAMPSON to a frigate will make it overlap with 052D, I think.