055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

trade offs people, trade offs! PLAN is constrained!

I don't think PLAN should have a large fleet of 12,000 ton behemoths... but having a small number, say six, to form a SAG around, or to act as the centrepiece of a CVBG's escort fleet, while pioneering new technologies such as DEW, is something the PLAN can afford to splurge on.

Most of their medium term fleet will remain 054As and 052Ds -- both very capable, small-medium, medium-heavy ships with good missile to tonnage ratios. Very little excess fat.

 

[i.e.]

I don't think PLAN should have a large fleet of 12,000 ton behemoths... but having a small number, say six, to form a SAG around, or to act as the centrepiece of a CVBG's escort fleet, while pioneering new technologies such as DEW, is something the PLAN can afford to splurge on.

Most of their medium term fleet will remain 054As and 052Ds -- both very capable, small-medium, medium-heavy ships with good missile to tonnage ratios. Very little excess fat.

I dont think they can either. I don;t even think USN is able to afford anything but a trickle of Zumwalt.

unless they want to bankrupt themselve to match ship for ship with USN.

thje risk with USN is that they have build themselves into a core of SPY-1/burkes and any thing revolutionarily new comes along they would face block obsolescence. its an opportunity for PLAN too.

Sort like Royal navy before the dreadnaught. in fell swoop one ship HMS dreadnaught made every other battle ship obsolete.

so my argument is for PLAN to be relevant with out breaking the bank in surface warfare they need a substantial number of smaller (to contain the individual ship cost), 6-7000 ton ship but technologically advanced ship to build in quantity.

a fleet of 30 x 6500 ton version of zumwalt (or another revolutionary design), anyone? need to rethink how destroyers are built to make that happen.

 

[i.e.]

INJ had the right idea that they need their ships to be individually technologically superior, and as a fleet operationally superior to match the quantity of USN ships.

unfortunately (or fortunately) they did not bet everything on Naval aviation instead they wasted substantial resources fixated on surface action with big ships. their cruisers packed even more punch yet so little showed. . while their submarine efforts were a near total failure despite having huge numbers built.

They should have stopped building anything but Light and fleet Carriers and Carrier Escorting Light Cruisers packed with AA guns. No Musashi and Yamato, No big 10 8inch gun cruisers. should have took those captured bofors 40mm and copied t and replaced those ridiculous 25mm hotchkiss P.O.S. guns, and direct its entire submarine efforts into sinking merchant and logistic ships....

 

[Jeff Head]

thje risk with USN is that they have build themselves into a core of SPY-1/burkes and any thing revolutionarily new comes along they would face block obsolescence. its an opportunity for PLAN too.

The AEGYS System, including SPY, has evolved and improved over the years, and with the Block III vessels, the Burkes will evolve to a new design, completely modernized, yet still on a Burke hull.

This new radar is called the AMDR (Air Missile Defense Radar). It consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar will provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination, as well as missile communications. An X-band radar will provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets. Both will share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, and missile guidance and communication. AMDR will be a scalable system. The Burke IIIs will accommodate a 14-foot version. The US Navy will install 20 ft versions on larger and future vessels.

 

[i.e.]

The AEGYS System, including SPY, has evolved and improved over the years, and with the Block III vessels, the Burkes will evolve to a new design, completely modernized, yet still on a Burke hull.

This new radar is called the AMDR (Air Missile Defense Radar). It consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar will provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination, as well as missile communications. An X-band radar will provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets. Both will share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, and missile guidance and communication. AMDR will be a scalable system. The Burke IIIs will accommodate a 14-foot version. The US Navy will install 20 ft versions on larger and future vessels.

I know SPY and AEGIS is continually evolving.

but what I am trying to get at is ... and you have to excuse me for keep using mid-20th century naval analogy....
a continully evolving and awesome 8 inch gun cruiser with a radar directed Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System...

is still no match for the p-15 termit missile armed destroyer just 10 years after the last of the best of heavy cruiser Des Moines-class was commissioned.


naval technology evolves incrementally, until they hit a big step change....HMS Warrior/ HMS dreadnaught/ Naval Aviation/ Missiles.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I know SPY and AEGIS is continually evolving.

but what I am trying to get at is ... and you have to excuse me for keep using mid-20th century naval analogy....
a continully evolving and awesome 8 inch gun cruiser with a radar directed Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System...

is still no match for the p-15 termit missile armed destroyer just 10 years after the last of the best of heavy cruiser Des Moines-class was commissioned.


naval technology evolves incrementally, until they hit a big step change....HMS Warrior/ HMS dreadnaught/ Naval Aviation/ Missiles.

your argument is illogical. Like you said naval technology evolve incrementally which is exactly what Jeff is saying in regards to the Aegis system. If something new and awesome turns up through some breakthrough in technology, then it doesn't matter whether it's AEGIS or not. Navies that can afford it WILL adapt and change to implement this new technology even if it means putting it on a new breed or class of ships.

Are you saying if an advanced alien race visits Earth tomorrow and shows everyone on Earth how to make a system that can track, detect and destroy a single bee from 10,000 miles away the USN is just going to sit idly by and say NOPE .. we already have Aegis.. we're not going to implement this new system on our ships! Let everyone else put it on their ships...LOL

 

[Blitzo]

I think what ie is saying is that any new revolutionary weapon would make the USNs existing large fleet of aegis destroyers obsolete, and make it harder for the USN to replace them quickly enough to make an impact in hostilities.

Of course the USN would attempt to upgrade and change as would any navy but he's hinting that the massive commitment to aegis is very concrete and hard to grow out of quickly.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I think what ie is saying is that any new revolutionary weapon would make the USNs existing large fleet of aegis destroyers obsolete, and make it harder for the USN to replace them quickly enough to make an impact in hostilities.

Of course the USN would attempt to upgrade and change as would any navy but he's hinting that the massive commitment to aegis is very concrete and hard to grow out of quickly.

..but wouldn't that be true of ANY Navy regardless of whether their have Aegis or not? that was my counter point. In fact I would argue that it is actually EASIER to change an entire homogenous system to an entirely new one than to overhaul 10 different and disparate system that were piecemeal together over the years to a new one.

Standardization of a system offer many advantages and yes to overhaul the entire system would be a significant cost however over the long term it is definitely more effective and efficient than have 10 different ships using 10 different types of systems. Even training would be a nightmare nevermind maintenance and operationg costs.

ACS (AEGIS) is a pretty solid and proven system that is one of the best in the world. If something comes along that would render it obsolete overnight I am pretty sure this new system would do the same to almost if not ALL current system as well.

 

[Blitzo]

..but wouldn't that be true of ANY Navy regardless of whether their have Aegis or not? that was my counter point.

Yes but the entire UDN surface combatant fleet relying on aegis puts them at risk of the entire fleet made redundant in one swoop, whereas a fleet relying on a more dispersed array of ships may be able to react quicker. You can argue the reverse too, that the homogeneity of an all aegis fleet means they can be upgraded to face a new threat easier.

But I agree with you — nothing is on the horizon which can make aegis or AAW APARs obsolete. And if aegis is made "obsolete" the practical time window is so small, that the USN (and most navies) would probably react quite quickly

 

[Jeff Head]

I know SPY and AEGIS is continually evolving.

but what I am trying to get at is ... and you have to excuse me for keep using mid-20th century naval analogy....
a continully evolving and awesome 8 inch gun cruiser...

is still no match for the p-15 termit missile armed destroyer just 10 years after the last of the best of heavy cruiser Des Moines-class was commissioned.

naval technology evolves incrementally, until they hit a big step change....HMS Warrior/ HMS dreadnaught/ Naval Aviation/ Missiles.

The US Navy, above all others IMHO, invests huge amounts of time and money in looking forward precisely at these scenarios and then developing the technology and implementing it.

The Laser CIWS, the Rail Gun technologies, etc. are all going to be out soon on US Navy ships.

The same is true with the radars and sensors. The US Navy tries to design its vessels to be able to take advantage of the changes as they occur.

But, step changes rarely, if ever, occur all at once as you imply. We did not go from an 8 inch cruisers that started in the late 1800s and evolved to the Des Moines class to the P1-5 missile in a decade or two...or three.

The Burkes actually illustrate this point. They are surviving so long and remaining potent force for so long precisely because they, and the sensors and weapons systems they rely on, have all been designed from the outset to be scalable and allow for upgrades to include evolving technologies.

Eventually they will reach the end of their ability to do so...and the US with the Burke IIIs, the Zumwalts, and other future designs yet on the drawing board, is already preparing for that, though it is still three decades away.