055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Lion]

I think a lot of people ignore the significant of La Fayette class frigate build by France. It is the first truely successful stealth shaping major warship.

When I was working in port in 2000. I still remember asking one of the DP operator how is the La Fayatte frigate entering the port. He told me her radar signature on her depict like a 400 tons fishing boat. That is not the case for AB few years later when we tracked it entering our port.

Until now you can see the clean sleek warship design of many countries trying to emulate the La Fayatte class frigate shaping. From British Typ 45, RSN Formiable to PLAN type054A. Be it frigate or destroyer . While the AB deck is still that messy and too much sub system install in a unstealthy way. In terms of fire power and system, it is unrivalled but in term of revolutional design and shaping. It's mediocre.

 

[luhai]

I think a lot of people ignore the significant of La Fayette class frigate build by France. It is the first truely successful stealth shaping major warship.

When I was working in port in 2000. I still remember asking one of the DP operator how is the La Fayatte frigate entering the port. He told me her radar signature on her depict like a 400 tons fishing boat. That is not the case for AB few years later when we tracked it entering our port.

Until now you can see the clean sleek warship design of many countries trying to emulate the La Fayatte class frigate shaping. From British Typ 45, RSN Formiable to PLAN type054A. Be it frigate or destroyer . While the AB deck is still that messy and too much sub system install in a unstealthy way. In terms of fire power and system, it is unrivalled but in term of revolutional design and shaping. It's mediocre.

Probably because it is design to operate beside a big fat carrier rather than alone. So the group be detected anyways, stealth shaping or not. Zumwalts on the other hand, supposed to operate by itself, doing shore bombardment... So stealth shaping matters and you see it.

 

[i.e.]

Probably because it is design to operate beside a big fat carrier rather than alone. So the group be detected anyways, stealth shaping or not. Zumwalts on the other hand, supposed to operate by itself, doing shore bombardment... So stealth shaping matters and you see it.

DCN has some great ideas on semi-submersibles.

whatever thats sticking out of the water is very stealth shaped.

That could be the way of the future.

I am sure USN is looking at all kinds of things. but what we talk about here is a technology disruptor.

same as the internet industry is basically bankrupting the old phone companies.

 

[i.e.]

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.

Jeff, the First Des Monies class 8 inch gun cruiser with its radar directed 8 inch guns with autoloaders were commissioned in 1948.

The first P-15 Termit was available by 1956, their brethren were even earlier . So yeah, I was off by 2 yars less.

The 8 inch gun cruisers were scaleable too. you can add autoloader. make a longer calibre, better radar directed computer driven fire control, add better armour and bettter propulsion.

But they still face obsolescence no matter how good it got. once that disruptor technology became widely adopted.

if Khrushchev wasn't a missile maniac and chooses to build out soviet navy in what stalin wanted... heavy guns traditional navy.... and Soviet navy never bothered with anti shipping cruise missiles I am sure USN would have a much easier time... but instead shortly after Soviet Navy choose to go missile heavy, pretty much all rapid firing heavy gun cruisers in USN RN inventory were decommissioned. those gun destroyer and cruiser that are left either were adapted become anti-aircraft crisers (with rapid firing 5 inch VT fused shells or early SAMs) or anti submarine cruisers.

 

[i.e.]

I think a lot of people ignore the significant of La Fayette class frigate build by France. It is the first truely successful stealth shaping major warship.

When I was working in port in 2000. I still remember asking one of the DP operator how is the La Fayatte frigate entering the port. He told me her radar signature on her depict like a 400 tons fishing boat. That is not the case for AB few years later when we tracked it entering our port.

Until now you can see the clean sleek warship design of many countries trying to emulate the La Fayatte class frigate shaping. From British Typ 45, RSN Formiable to PLAN type054A. Be it frigate or destroyer . While the AB deck is still that messy and too much sub system install in a unstealthy way. In terms of fire power and system, it is unrivalled but in term of revolutional design and shaping. It's mediocre.

france always had some gread naval ideas, from the first ocean going ironclad La Gloire (which treatened RN so much by putting every one of its Ship of the line into obsolescenc over night, RN response was HMS Warrior) to Jeune École, (Submarines, Torpedos, and Big Guns on small fast ships) All born out of a grudging rivalry with RN but with out the naval resources that goes to the traditional route.

And it was IJN that showed USN what that a carrier strike force can do to your traditional battleship line.

Necessity is the mother of all inventions.!

 

[Blitzo]

Bringing the thread back on topic...

there's a thought that 055 may end up sharing some design features like type 45, namely the mast (probably won't have SAMPSON though -- may have a different surface search radar up there).

here's a badly PSed type 45 featuring some parts we might expect on 055

 

[i.e.]

Bringing the thread back on topic...

there's a thought that 055 may end up sharing some design features like type 45, namely the mast (probably won't have SAMPSON though -- may have a different surface search radar up there).

here's a badly PSed type 45 featuring some parts we might expect on 055

Oh God thats fugly.

I really think SAMPSON is not worth it on big ships. the reason being. even though sampson is back to back, and has relative higher data rate. it would still not be higher than 360 deg large phased array radar.

as the top of the line 055's expected mission would be sea/air warfare. that means a higher rate radar dealing with all threat directions.

I think the way of future is Conformal array..., advance hull types+ clean deck house with a big conformal array+direct energy weapons/rail guns.

sorta like a a scaled up version of Skjold-class patrol boat.

DCN has had some great ideas in the recent years but French Navy lack the funds to carry them out/ experiment with them fully.

I really hope the new "055" would be something out of the box.

 

[Jeff Head]

Jeff, the First Des Monies class 8 inch gun cruiser with its radar directed 8 inch guns with autoloaders were commissioned in 1948.

The first P-15 Termit was available by 1956, their brethren were even earlier . So yeah, I was off by 2 yars less.

I know full well when the Des Moines were commissioned, and when those missiles came out.

The three Des Moines were commissioned in 1948 and 1949 and were the best World War II heavy cruiser design that followed the Oregon City Class. So, they were built several years before the time frame you are talking about. The Salem, CA-139, was decommissioned in 1959. The Des Moines itself, CA-138, was decommissioned in 1961. The last one built and the last one serving, the Newport News, CA-148, was not decommissioned until 1975, and she used those guns accurately for fire support in the Vietnam War. In fact, that same type of technology was resurrected in the 1980s with the four Iowa Battleships precisely because those guns were so effective in fire support...and the Russians feared them...and they were used until the 1990s (all four decommissioned for the last time between 1990 and 1992).

So, the actual technology survived for decades and served on long after the time frames you point to.

And all of that just illustrats my actual point.

The Des Moines heavy cruisers were the tail end of a technology that had existed for decades.

The missiles were the front end of a tehnology that has now lasted for decades.

One technology did not "replace" the other overnight or in thoe 10 years you refer to. That was when the end of one came out and finllay began to be replaced and the start of the other came out.

Then, over a 30 year period, the new technology took complete hold and the other disappeared.

We are no whre near that point yet with the misisles and sensors used on the Burke class. It is true that the US Navy is already preparing to deploy directed energy weapons and rail guns. It is also very possible that those technologies will ultimately replace the types of weapons used on vessels like the ABs now. But even then, they will not produce a quick obsolescence of the former...it will be a transition over several decades...just like it was going from those heavy crusiers to the surface to surface missiles.

That's my point. Clearly, once the last straw is reached, it can be shown to appear to happen fast...but this is just the culmination of one process and the start of another, and the full transition takes quite a bit longer.

 

[PanAsian]

In terms of near future technologies which have disruptive potential I want to add improved sonars, improved powerplants, improved propulsion, and sub launched SAMs to the list together with hard-kill lasers, railguns, UAVs, and improved radars. Some of these such as powerplants and propulsion may not be 'sexy' but they are the fundamentals and if you can move a lot faster for a lot longer than others it is just as game changing as a fancy new weapon.

 

[Totoro]

Here's another interpretation of 055, using the 052d image.

What isn't visible in the image is the added width of the hull. That might enable to rearange the components in the way envisioned in this image.

Twin hangars, VLS bay between them. Rear mast for some sort of UHF radar. It might be useful if the mast is off center longitudinal axis, and the frontal smokestack follows that arrangement, only offset in the other direction. That also isn't really shown in this image.

Another solution would be to keep the rear mast centered but to rearange the frontal smokestack so its split in two sections, each going offset of the center and to the edge of the ship's deck.

I do believe there'd still be room for a RAM sort of ciws between the hangars, probably moved a bit forward, so it doesn't interfere with the repositioned rear VLS bay.

It should be perfectly possible to fit a 32-40 cell bay in the rear, and in the front, thanks to the larger width of ship and ever so slightly moved main superstructure to the rear, at least 48 cells. 80-88 cells of such large VLS system (lets keep in mind mk41 has smaller cells than new chinese system) is plenty and offers lots of combinations.