055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

luhai

Banned Idiot
To me, the last real cruisers are from the 1960s when the long and lender cruiser hull are still in place.

The 1960s traditional cruisers are real beauties.

C2-CG09Underway.jpg


750px-USS_Albany_%28CG-10%29_underway_1970s.jpg


Now compare that the to Ticos..

USS_Lake_Champlain_%28CG-57%29.JPG
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
SampanViking said:
I still wonder what exactly is the benefit of a much larger Destroyer/Cruiser over the size of Destroyer the PLAN currently operates. As I have said before, a century ago it made sense as your hull size was directly proportional to the size and range of your main armament.
This of course is no longer true and Cruise Missiles give an 022 or an 056 the same range as Heavy Cruiser.

So aside for just packing more missiles, what real "extra" would a 12,000 tonne vessel offer?
Click to expand...

I agree. There seems to be no point to making a bigger version of type 052D. 3 7000 ton 052D would be both more damage tolerant and flexible than 2 of these notional 55s, unless the 55 needed the added size for things like a large load of anti-surface ordinance.

.
,
 
Last edited:
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
¦^��: Re: Type 055 DDG - PLAN's Next Generation Destroyer Thread

chuck731 said:
I agree. There seems to be no point to making a bigger version of type 052D. 3 7000 ton 052D would be both more damage tolerant and flexible than 2 of these notional type 55.

But fanboys probably think their motherland won't be bragworthy until she sports ships bigger than their Japanese or Korean equivalent.
,
Click to expand...

Producing more Type 052D would require significantly longer training time for the sailors, a lot more sailors to start with, and a whole lot more money.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
luhai said:
To me, the last real cruisers are from the 1960s when the long and lender cruiser hull are still in place.

The 1960s traditional cruisers are real beauties.

C2-CG09Underway.jpg
Click to expand...
The Long Beach was an exceptional vessel. Displaced over 15,000 tons, she was armed withj"

3 x Dual Missile Launchers
2 x 5" guns
1 x 8 AROC Launcher
4 x 1 Polaris Missile launchers (provisions for)


Later, after modernizing, in the late 1980s and 1990s until she was decommissioned in 1995 (after almost 34 years) she looked like this:


1280px-USS_Long_Beach_%28CGN-9%29_stbd_beam_view.jpg

​

Her armament had changed to

2 x twin Standard Missile launchers
2 x 4 Harpoon Missile launchers
2 x 4 Tomahawk Missile Box launchers
1 x 8 ASROC Launcher
2 x 5" guns
2 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Jeff Head said:
So, the fact that the Zumwalt is clearly a cruiser and not a destroyer, it uses guided missiles, it has a non-nuclear propulsion plant, and it's displacement is in excess of 12,000 tons is really all that they have in common IMHO.
Click to expand...

No, the USN genuinely think of zumwalts as destroyers. There was a separate project to design a cruiser counterpart to the zumwalts. The cruiser didn't have zumwalt's tumblehome hull, and was designed for blue water fleet air defence. It was cancelled when future air threat to the fleet was underestimated while cost of Iraq war escalated.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
chuck731 said:
No, the USN genuinely think of zumwalts as destroyers. There was a separate project to design a cruiser counterpart to the zumwalts. The cruiser didn't have zumwalt's tumblehome hull, and was designed for blue water fleet air defence. It was cancelled when future air threat to the fleet was underestimated while cost of Iraq war escalated.
Click to expand...
The CGX program was specifically designed to replace the Tico with a future guided missile cruiser combatant principally geared towards air defense.

My guess is that ultimately there will be a cruiser replacement. It may well end up being for the next 20 years to be the Burke III. But, sooner or later there will be a new purpose built replacement.

I understand full well that the Zumwalts are "officially" classed destroyers. I have been involved with and following these process for over 30 years now. And that is fine. People can call things whatever they decide, for whatever reasons, particularly the Navy and Government people who get to make the official designations.

However, none of that changes the fact that with their displacement, with their heavy direct fire capability, with their heavy ground strike or surface strike guided missile capability, they are what would be traditionally known as cruisers...and cruisers which are also extremely capable in the air defense and ASW roles as well.

There has been a lot of talk for several years at the US Naval Institute about this and the "unofficial" consensus is that they are in fact cruiser type vessels that the US Navy and US government has decided to call destroyers.

But all of this talk about the Zumwalt is really off topic here on the PLAN Type 055 thread and should be moved over to the Zumwalt thread itself.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
History: The destroyer was, hundred years ago, a small vessel to protect cruisers and battleships against torpedo boats. The original name was torpedo boat destroyer. But when you see how many meanings the word frigate has had over the last six or more centuries ......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top