055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[asif iqbal]

Twin hangers a 128 cell load out 10,000 tons a perfect ship for a true blue water area defence

Add to that the scores of FFG and DDG from PLAN and you have a serious fighting force

I wonder how they are going to go with the propulsion on this one these days the ships can run on electric propulsion for a while to reduce noise when in a danger zone while being hunted by submarines

Electric propulsion is really a area where China should excel as it will also be required by the future carriers

 

[jzsn]

The media often refer to the land mock up as China's potential new cruiser. Since Ticonderoga is CG at 9600 Ton displacement, shouldn't this thread be called Type 055CG - the next generation cruiser?

 

[Blitzo]

The media often refer to the land mock up as China's potential new cruiser. Since Ticonderoga is CG at 9600 Ton displacement, shouldn't this thread be called Type 055CG - the next generation cruiser?

Whether something is called a destroyer or cruiser isn't very important -- zumwalt, at 15,000 tons is called a destroyer.

055 is called a destroyer because in preceding years, the designation was described as the "large destroyer," so it just carried on from there. Personally I have no problem calling 055 a destroyer.

 

[delft]

Whether something is called a destroyer or cruiser isn't very important -- zumwalt, at 15,000 tons is called a destroyer.

055 is called a destroyer because in preceding years, the designation was described as the "large destroyer," so it just carried on from there. Personally I have no problem calling 055 a destroyer.

But the development from the first destroyers then called torpedo boat destroyers of more than hundred years ago and measuring in the order of a hundred tons is very noticeable.

 

[thunderchief]

But the development from the first destroyers then called torpedo boat destroyers of more than hundred years ago and measuring in the order of a hundred tons is very noticeable.

Technically, they are not destroyers ( torpedo boat destroyers or missile boat destroyers in modern times) , but they are not cruisers either cause they do not cruise around alone and attach merchant ships

 

[steve_rolfe]

Technically, they are not destroyers ( torpedo boat destroyers or missile boat destroyers in modern times) , but they are not cruisers either cause they do not cruise around alone and attach merchant ships

Yes............but i think a ships displacement should come into the equation when a ship is classified.

I mean todays Frigates with tonnage of over 5000 tonnes are more than what many Destroyers were, even just a couple of decades or so ago............and when you get into displacements of over 10,000 tonnes, i think the term Cruiser is more applicable.

I also class a Cruiser as a warship which is pretty much self reliant and can perform blue water duties without necessary needing accompanying warships, and to cover any areas of warfare!

I'am sure the Zumwalt and the 055 class would fall into this category!

Mind you, ive just realised that the huge Kirov class Cruisers of Russia, therefore could be classified as pocket-Battleships!

 

[Jeff Head]

Well, we'll wait and how the PLAN classifies it. If they end up calling it a cruiser, we will change this thread name.

Historically it has been called a large destroyer by the Chinese.

As to displacement, well, the US Zumwalts, the JMSDF Atagos, the Korean Se Jongs, etc. are all over 10,000 tons and classified as DDGs.

It is true that the Ticos were classified as CGs by the US Navy. So, if the Type 055 is classified as a CG by the PLAN, we will call it that. Until then, we'll leave it as is here on this thread's title.

 

[joshuatree]

Let's not forget Japan's helicopter "destroyers".

With no international standardization, what one calls it is really superficial between naval ships that fall into the category of frigates, destroyers, and cruisers. They are basically small, medium, large of the same general config. Amphibious landing ships or flat tops are obviously distinctive enough to be considered different all together.

 

[montyp165]

The term surface combatant would be more accurate for modern surface warships than the old frigate/destroyer/cruiser classifications of the past since the type of equipment and operational roles of these ships are more of a universal functionality compared to WWII and earlier vessels with their much more niche specific designs and function.

 

[no_name]

Nano pic to break up the somewhat pedantic discussion about ship classifications.

The small raised steps on the back reminded me of Burke. Maybe there won't be an L-band type radar or at least not at that position?

And looks like they have covered those work level windows.