055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

I don't believe at all that a 12-13kt "destroyer" will be produced in the same numbers as a 052C/D/E destroyer. If the 055 is 12-13kt full displacement it will be a true cruiser and will fill a cruiser's role in the PLAN. If the 055 is 9-10kt full displacement it will probably be a 052C/D replacement and there will likely be no 052E, and we may yet look for an even larger displacement cruiser in the PLAN's future.

I agree that the terminology and nomenclature of naval surface ships do not have as much meaning as they once did, and of course any 12-13k ton large destroyer would be called a cruiser. I personally am going to call the 055 a large destroyer because that's how the Chinese language defence forums have called it, but for practical purposes, yes 055 of the expected weight class would essentially be a cruiser.

But the question that arises, is why is it judged unlikely for the Chinese Navy to build a similar or slightly smaller of large destroyers/cruisers to medium destroyers?

 

[Iron Man]

But the question that arises, is why is it judged unlikely for the Chinese Navy to build a similar or slightly smaller of large destroyers/cruisers to medium destroyers?

Because of overlapping roles. The closer in tonnage two classes are to each other, the more role overlap they will have and the more redundant one class will be. Why would you produce a 7,500t class destroyer alongside a 10,000t class destroyer when at most the 10kt destroyer will only be moderately more capable and is doing the same things, only better? You would be tempted in this case to cease series production of the 7,500t destroyer in favor of series production of the larger vessel to concentrate resources and manpower and increase efficiency and ease of maintenance. If however there is some kind of qualitative difference between the two classes, then there is a reason to produce both at the same time. I think a 5-6kt "054B" frigate, 8-9kt "052E" destroyer, and a 12-13kt 055 cruiser in something like a 4:3:1 ratio is a pretty good ORBAT for the PLAN in the near to mid-term.

 

[Blitzo]

Because of overlapping roles. The closer in tonnage two classes are to each other, the more role overlap they will have and the more redundant one class will be. Why would you produce a 7,500t class destroyer alongside a 10,000t class destroyer when at most the 10kt destroyer will only be moderately more capable and is doing the same things, only better? You would be tempted in this case to cease series production of the 7,500t destroyer in favor of series production of the larger vessel to concentrate resources and manpower and increase efficiency and ease of maintenance. If however there is some kind of qualitative difference between the two classes, then there is a reason to produce both at the same time. I think a 5-6kt "054B" frigate, 8-9kt "052E" destroyer, and a 12-13kt 055 cruiser in something like a 4:3:1 ratio is a pretty good ORBAT for the PLAN in the near to mid-term.

That was my bad, I meant to say "But the question that arises, is why is it judged unlikely for the Chinese Navy to build a similar or slightly smaller number of large destroyers/cruisers to medium destroyers?"

I was writing on my phone, forgive me.

That said, a 4:3:1 ratio is not unfeasible, but I also think a 2:1:1 ratio is also viable.

 

[Lethe]

I don't believe at all that a 12-13kt "destroyer" will be produced in the same numbers as a 052C/D/E destroyer

Nor do I -- it will be produced in significantly greater numbers than those transitional vessels from a bygone era.

 

[Iron Man]

When it comes to modern surface combatants, the line is blurred between destroyers and cruisers. What defines a cruiser? Number of launch cells? Displacement? Role? The roles between destroyers and cruisers are largely the same, being primarily anti-air and anti-ship, with a side of shore bombardment. The only ship today that I'd argue would be a true cruiser would be the Kirov-class, with the large displacement and emphasis on anti-ship weaponry.

I have mentioned before that I think the qualitative difference between a destroyer and a cruiser besides the improved capabilities is the presence of extra command facilities for an embarked SAG commander and his support staff, possibly at the level of Senior Captain/Rear Admiral. This ship would serve as a command ship in the absence of an aircraft carrier, or as the AAW command ship as part of a CSG. In addition a cruiser may be tasked with missions not normally given to a destroyer, such as ABM defense and ASAT warfare given that it would have many more VL cells to spare for these types of missiles.

Nor do I -- it will be produced in significantly greater numbers than those transitional vessels from a bygone era.

Oh right, because the PLAN obviously needs several dozen cruisers when even the USN doesn't.

 

[Lethe]

Oh right, because the PLAN obviously needs several dozen cruisers when even the USN doesn't.

Wouldn't care to speculate about any cruisers that may or may not be in the works, but PLAN certainly needs several dozen destroyers, which as 12-13k tons is what these ships are.

Behold The Future! Scarily, it's Not Like The Past!
2500 ton Corvette
5500-6500 ton Frigate
12000-13000 ton Destroyer

If it's true that a second (and even a third!) 055 is in the works even now, my original estimate of 2 units by 2020, 12 by 2025 and 22 by 2030 is looking a little conservative. Certainly pretty hard to square with the idea that 052-series has any future post-2020, that's for sure.

 

[Iron Man]

Wouldn't care to speculate about any cruisers that may or may not be in the works, but PLAN certainly needs several dozen destroyers, which as 12-13k tons is what these ships are.

Behold The Future! Scarily, it's Not Like The Past!
2500-3000 ton Corvette
5500-6500 ton Frigate
12000-13000 ton Destroyer

If it's true that a second (and even a third!) 055 is in the works even now, my original estimate of 2 units by 2020, 12 by 2025 and 22 by 2030 is looking a little conservative. Certainly pretty hard to square with the idea that 052-series has any future post-2020, that's for sure.

I understand that you wish to use the term "destroyer" to describe a 12,000 to 13,000 ton ship to make your massive fanboi fleet more palatable, but some of us do know better.

 

[Blitzo]

Oh right, because the PLAN obviously needs several dozen cruisers when even the USN doesn't.

It depends on force structure and mission requirements.

Let's remember, the USN already has some 80+ cruisers/destroyers of the 9000 ton to 10,000 ton category and that number of large combatants is one that they are looking to maintain in the coming years, (of course their fleet will also have an expected 36 or so 3000+ ton frigates/LCS). So taking their force structure along with their missions/requirements, means they may not need several dozen 13000 ton class surface combatants in their fleet, because their overall orbat is already so heavily skewed towards the 9000-10,000 ton displacement category to begin with.

For the Chinese Navy, given they are much more frigate heavy (4000 tons) and with the bulk of their destroyer force currently being in the medium displacement weight category (7000-8000 tons), and take that all together with what the Navy's projected future missions and requirements are, then I definitely could see the Chinese Navy having a role for a couple of dozen 13k ton destroyers maybe near the end of the 2030s, even if the USN does not.
I'm not saying the Navy will definitely get 24 or so 055s or that my ~2:~1:~1 ratio will come to pass, but I do think it is just as plausible as other force projections that others have thrown around in the past.



Of course, Lethe is also taking this one step further and I think he's talking about a more future force structure modification as well, but the principle remains the same.

 

[Blitzo]

I understand that you wish to use the term "destroyer" to describe a 12,000 to 13,000 ton ship to make your massive fanboi fleet more palatable, but some of us do know better.

Over-enthusiastic and/or inaccurate it may or may not be, but I think saying someone's posts or motivations underlying their content is "fanboy" is a not a very friendly way of countering their position, and shouldn't be used too casually.

To an outside reader, it suggests that the "fanboy's" position is so ridiculous and not bound by reason and only motivated by emotion/nationalism/naivety that it is not worth a proper counter argument and is only worth being dismissed. Now, while I do think there are times and places for those kind of accusations especially for people making definitively and obviously wild claims, I also think you've been far too generous in your willingness to accuse or suggest other people are being "fanboys" or equivalents of that term.

 

[Lethe]

I understand that you wish to use the term "destroyer" to describe a 12,000 to 13,000 ton ship to make your massive fanboi fleet more palatable, but some of us do know better.

Standards change over time. China changes over time. Add the two changes together and you get rather significant changes over time.

At 2000 tons China's earliest Type 07 destroyers were only slightly larger than the current Type 056 corvettes. The current Type 054A frigate has a greater displacement than the Type 051 destroyers still in service. The ships, they get bigger mon.

Or we could look at the other clean-sheet destroyer designs of the 21st century:

Zumwalt: 15,000 tons
Leader: est. 18,000 tons
Type 45: 8500 tons (more than a Flight I Burke despite having only two-thirds the missile load! It's almost as if they keep stuffing in capabilities and the ships keep getting bigger -- remarkable).

You can choose to live in the past when ships were smaller and China was just starting to build its first modern warships and dipping its toes in the blue-water arena if you like. I'm off to the future with the world's second largest navy.