055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

First, let's be clear that the Russian Navy does NOT currently have a bimodal navy, and we are only talking about the possibility that they may go that way;

Yes, of course. This entire discussion about the Russian Navy's future is entirely notional.

currently it has a full range of frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, with the greatest tonnage in the destroyer category. Second, the USN in its current form is not similar to the type of possible ORBAT that we have been speculating for the Russian Navy. It is destroyer-heavy, no doubt about it. But it is certainly not cruiser-heavy, nor is it going that way. It is also returning to a more balanced fleet distribution with its LCS/frigate production run. In fact I would say that the USN recognition that the LCS is not going to cut the mustard and is uprating this ship class to a frigate is a sign that the norm of a balanced fleet architecture is in fact the norm.

My reason for bringing in the USN was not to directly compare the USN and Russian Navy in terms of orbat, but rather as a way of saying we should assess the orbat and designs of each navy (of any country) on the basis of their own unique requirements, funding and industrial background.

As for the Russian navy, I don't see how building 8-12 cruisers along with a slew of frigates is somehow more financially feasible than building 16-24 destroyers along with a similar number of frigates. This is not a reasonable financial argument.

If we didn't have so much evidence and reports that the Russian Navy are going to be building 12 cruisers along with a frigate design and with such a lack of evidence of any 8000 ton destroyer design being pursued, then I would agree with you that it would make much more sense for the Russian Navy to go for 16-24 destroyers.

But as it is, we only have the evidence we have to work with at the moment, and so we have to try and make sense of their choices that we currently see.
One track of thinking about is something along the lines of "maybe they will introduce a new medium destroyer class in the near future," and sure, that is not an unreasonable path to take but I also think it is flawed especially when we are observing a relatively open Navy like the Russian Navy who typically announce their projects and designs many years in advance.
Another track of thinking is just to take the current announcements and evidence at face value and consider why the Russian Navy might be considering a 17500 ton and 4500 ton bimodal fleet in future.

I'm willing to consider both tracks, and I don't think they are necessarily exclusive of each other (yet).

Like I said, the job of an uprated LCS is going to be primarily ASW, regardless of its AAW or antiship capabilities. Just look at the OHP class. Its ASW capability is unquestioned, yet it had completely lost its AAW and antiship capabilities.

Sure, and that's fine for the LCS, but it doesn't change the fact that LCS/FF will not really be a frigate in the way that most of the rest of the world knows it, including even ASW frigates which tend to be equipped with some quite capable AAW weapons (VLS SAMs in particular) and sensors as well. This isn't to say the USN is somehow obliged to follow the rest of the world's frigate characteristics, but I think it does mean we have to acknowledge that the LCS/FF will be quite a bit of an outlier in terms of its mix of capabilities and its size compared to other modern frigates.

The OHP class in the USN by the end of their service lives weren't conducting much ASW as far as I knew, and during the OHP's service en masse during the cold war they fielded an impressive AAW and ASuW capability (for the time), alongside having impressive ASW as well... so I'm not sure what the OHP has to do with LCS's lack of AAW capability. If anything, the OHP should be an example of a past frigate design demonstrating some of characteristics that still exist for most of the world's modern frigate designs by having a medium AAW capability despite being primarily an ASW vessel, and thus showing the LCS/FF as even more of an outlier.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...


Like I said, the job of an uprated LCS is going to be primarily ASW, regardless of its AAW or antiship capabilities. Just look at the OHP class. Its ASW capability is unquestioned, yet it had completely lost its AAW and antiship capabilities.

...

Of course LCS discussion is quite OT, and there isn't actually that much to say about it.

I'll be brief:
"Full SUW and ASW capability will be fielded in fiscal2017."
says the document dated June 14, 2016

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Ctrl+F works)

I won't hold my breath until then. The delays, issues of this program are simply amazing.
I mean at the same time the Chinese Navy has been fielding Type 056 and Type 054 by dozens

 

[Iron Man]

If we didn't have so much evidence and reports that the Russian Navy are going to be building 12 cruisers along with a frigate design and with such a lack of evidence of any 8000 ton destroyer design being pursued, then I would agree with you that it would make much more sense for the Russian Navy to go for 16-24 destroyers.

But as it is, we only have the evidence we have to work with at the moment, and so we have to try and make sense of their choices that we currently see.
One track of thinking about is something along the lines of "maybe they will introduce a new medium destroyer class in the near future," and sure, that is not an unreasonable path to take but I also think it is flawed especially when we are observing a relatively open Navy like the Russian Navy who typically announce their projects and designs many years in advance.
Another track of thinking is just to take the current announcements and evidence at face value and consider why the Russian Navy might be considering a 17500 ton and 4500 ton bimodal fleet in future.

I'm willing to consider both tracks, and I don't think they are necessarily exclusive of each other (yet).

Oh, so it's no longer a speculated 8-12, now it's just straight up 12 with "so much evidence"??? Let's not do this kind of gerrymandering with the edges here. Regardless, the likelihood of 12 ships the size of the Lider is about as ridiculous as I can imagine for the Russian Navy considering the state of the Russian economy. You also keep saying that the Russian Navy is "relatively open" but that is just your opinion which you have not demonstrated. Also, even if it were open as a working girl on Friday night, this doesn't mean that just because we haven't heard further news of the Project 21956 or a new destroyer design, that there is therefore no destroyer on the horizon.

Sure, and that's fine for the LCS, but it doesn't change the fact that LCS/FF will not really be a frigate in the way that most of the rest of the world knows it, including even ASW frigates which tend to be equipped with some quite capable AAW weapons (VLS SAMs in particular) and sensors as well. This isn't to say the USN is somehow obliged to follow the rest of the world's frigate characteristics, but I think it does mean we have to acknowledge that the LCS/FF will be quite a bit of an outlier in terms of its mix of capabilities and its size compared to other modern frigates.

The OHP class in the USN by the end of their service lives weren't conducting much ASW as far as I knew, and during the OHP's service en masse during the cold war they fielded an impressive AAW and ASuW capability (for the time), alongside having impressive ASW as well... so I'm not sure what the OHP has to do with LCS's lack of AAW capability. If anything, the OHP should be an example of a past frigate design demonstrating some of characteristics that still exist for most of the world's modern frigate designs by having a medium AAW capability despite being primarily an ASW vessel, and thus showing the LCS/FF as even more of an outlier.

I'm sorry, what??? OHP by the end of their service lives were ONLY doing and capable of doing ASW. That was literally their only job in a CSG. Their Mk-13 launchers were neutered by the block retirement of the SM-1R and they were unable to launch the SM-2. They had no anti-shipping capability to speak of when their Harpoons were also removed unless you want to count Hellfires launched from their SH-60s. The USN could have easily boosted their AAW capability by installing a Mk41 module and adding 32 ESSMs, but in the case of the USN they already had so many larger ships with eminently capable AAW suites that I think they probably did not feel the need to rearm the OHP. Whatever the uprated LCS becomes, AAW will not necessarily be a priority requirement. Regardless, the Mk 56 VLS is still being considered as a modular add-on for the uprated LCS (as are Harpoon slant launchers). This ship in the end would be no more an "outlier" frigate than the OHP was.

 

[Blitzo]

Oh, so it's no longer a speculated 8-12, now it's just straight up 12 with "so much evidence"??? Let's not do this kind of gerrymandering with the edges here.

That is a partial slip up on my part -- I use the word "evidence" not to in the "something which definitively disproves or proves" an argument, but rather in the "indicator or sign" definition. If you wish you can replace the word "evidence" in my last post with "indicator".

Now, to address you -- my position is that it is still speculated that they may be able to eventually build up to 12 ships, however it is not speculated that there have been substantial media reports on this vessel which have said that they are intending to build up to 12 of these warships, and it is also not speculated that there is a lack of reports or even rumours of an 8000 ton destroyer or Pr 21956 class ship being pursued by the Navy.

The difference is that we're speculating what the Russian Navy may eventually be able to build and what their overall future orbat may look like, vs the "evidence"/indicators for what they currently have announced that they intend to build.

So when I say "so much evidence" for 12 Liders it is relative to the comparative lack of evidence/indicators of any Pr 21956/8000 ton destroyers being pursued.

I'll rephrase that last post if you wish, to reduce ambiguity "If we didn't have so many reports/indicators that the Russian Navy are going to be building 12 cruisers along with a frigate design and with such a relative lack of reports/indicators of any 8000 ton destroyer design being pursued, then I would agree with you that it would make much more sense for the Russian Navy to go for 16-24 destroyers."

The bottom line of that part of my post is that there's been a lot of noise and indicators about up to 12 Liders intending to be pursued produced, and no noise or indicators about Pr 21956 or an equivalent displacement destroyer intending to be pursued.

Regardless, the likelihood of 12 ships the size of the Lider is about as ridiculous as I can imagine for the Russian Navy considering the state of the Russian economy. You also keep saying that the Russian Navy is "relatively open" but that is just your opinion which you have not demonstrated. Also, even if it were open as a working girl on Friday night, this doesn't mean that just because we haven't heard further news of the Project 21956 or a new destroyer design, that there is therefore no destroyer on the horizon.

Okay first of all, you have to admit that this part of your post is needlessly aggressive right? Is there really a need to bring in "working girls"? Come on, I think we can be less colourful about this.

Secondly, yes I agree that 12 ships of the Lider class is probably unlikely to be built, given the state of the Russian economy and also how other surface combatant projects in the recent past have been implemented relatively poorly by the Russian Navy.
But that doesn't change the fact that at this stage, the indicators from affiliated Russian state media and various military and industry entities have said they are intending to build 12 such ships, and also that there has been no reports, indicators or rumours about an 8000ton destroyer being pursued, Pr 21956 or otherwise.

I'm sorry, what??? OHP by the end of their service lives were ONLY doing and capable of doing ASW. That was literally their only job in a CSG. Their Mk-13 launchers were neutered by the block retirement of the SM-1R and they were unable to launch the SM-2. They had no anti-shipping capability to speak of when their Harpoons were also removed unless you want to count Hellfires launched from their SH-60s. The USN could have easily boosted their AAW capability by installing a Mk41 module and adding 32 ESSMs, but in the case of the USN they already had so many larger ships with eminently capable AAW suites that I think they probably did not feel the need to rearm the OHP. Whatever the uprated LCS becomes, AAW will not necessarily be a priority requirement.

Yes, OHPs by the end of their service lives had all their AAW armament removed (removing the Mk-13 launchers as you said), but that didn't mean the OHPs were doing ASW.

From what I've read, by the end of their service lives and after the removal of the Mk-13s, most of the remaining OHPs were doing more general patrol duties and drug interdiction missions, rather than performing ASW missions as part of a CSG or otherwise.

Regardless, the Mk 56 VLS is still being considered as a modular add-on for the uprated LCS (as are Harpoon slant launchers). This ship in the end would be no more an "outlier" frigate than the OHP was.

If the LCS class gets fitted with VLS such as Mk-67 one day then that would be true, though I've heard no plans to fit either the LCS or FF ships with such weapons.
Edit; feel free to correct me though, I might have missed such news if it had happened.

 

[balance]

Latest analysis of Type 055. Interesting analysis.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

Latest analysis of Type 055. Interesting analysis.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

@Skywatcher I don't think 055 will have a full displacement over 14000 tons tb, considering the displacement statements from various big shrimps over the years, not to mention recent estimates of the hull under construction at JN (namely its beam)

I think over 13000 tons as full displacement is probably a more realistic estimate at this stage.

 

[balance]

@ Blitzo
I don't realize that the Western media takes Type 055 more seriously than I think, although folks in SD Forum has been talking about it for some time. Do you think it is an accurate analysis or an exaggeration? It dubs it Asia's strongest ship, naval game-changer, etc.

 

[Blitzo]

@ Blitzo
I don't realize that the Western media takes Type 055 more seriously than I think, although folks in SD Forum has been talking about it for some time. Do you think it is an accurate analysis or an exaggeration? It dubs it Asia's strongest ship, naval game-changer, etc.

@Skywatcher wrote it, you can ask him yourself if you want... I don't want to write anything that is too judgey, after all it is his opinions.

 

[shen]

My nitpick on Skywatcher's article. on masts,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Enclosed mast such as found on LPD17 is primarily designed to decrease RCS. The integrated mast on Type 55 is closer in concept to the I-Mast marketed by Thales. Although it is probably not a turnkey system as the I-Mast, the primary aim is to decrease EM conflict.

 

[Skywatcher]

@Skywatcher I don't think 055 will have a full displacement over 14000 tons tb, considering the displacement statements from various big shrimps over the years, not to mention recent estimates of the hull under construction at JN (namely its beam)

I think over 13000 tons as full displacement is probably a more realistic estimate at this stage.

Well, I decided to go with the larger figure due to its greater potential for future growth and upgrades.