055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[franco-russe]

Link please (Kuzin & Nikolski only says "... в конце 70-х годов они и
были переквалифицированы в ракетные крейсера ..." about ships of "проект 1134", and Russian wikipedia seems to copy this I just wonder about the year, 1975, thank you!

1975 was my recollection and is also the year suggested by chuck731. Russian Wikipedia says 1977, which corresponde to what I find in a good Russian source.

It seems, however, that the 1134's changed from BPK to RKR pennant numbers before 1977, so my recollection was probably correct. I guess this will be enough about Russian cruisers!

 

[shen]

oops, i totally remembered wrong about the classification of Soviet cruisers. but I still maintain that Kirov and Slava are closer to battleships in their function. they are the centerpiece of battlegroups. they have the have the heaviest antiship firepower among all Soviet surface ships. their armor are of course in the form of active defense, provided by their heavy AA missile batteries. armored warship was the development of a particular technically age. in the Age of Sail, battleships were ships of the line, biggest ships able to carry the largest number of cannons. in the Age of Steam, shell guns prompted the development of armored warships. battleships became heavily armored ships carrying the heaviest armor piercing cannons. in the Atomic Age, nuclear weapons made even the heaviest armor pointless. nuclear weapon, rather than guided missile was the reason why armored warships disappeared. but since nuclear weapon has never actually been used, and there are plenty of conflicts between non-nuclear armed countries, there is actually still a place for warships with heavy armor protection. provided adequate underwater protection can also be developed.

now, about whether an Absalon type warship is appropriate for PLAN. first, of course PLAN also need a class of larger DDG, with enough VLS to carry a large number of AA missiles as well as enough spare VLS for AShM and land attack missiles. with SATNAV, datalinks, and dual mode IR/AR terminal guidance, there is no reason why both functions cannot be taken over by one class of missile. 052C/D are adequate AAW ships, but not large enough to be truly multipurpose warship capable of area air defense, anti-shipping, land attack, and ASW.
but PLAN also need an Absalon type warship to fulfill the classic cruiser function. Absalon, while optimized for low intensity warfare, is certainly not useless in high intensity warfare either. with 16X Harpoons, it has very respectable antiship firepower. armed with ESSM, it is capable of self defense, big aviation facility and command facility also make it useful as ASW flotilla leader. and it can be a very decent mini LPD capable of supporting a company-sized force or carry up to 7 MBTs.
a PLAN Absalon doesn't have to bigger, Absalon's size is just about right. it can be armed with the weapon suite of 054A or its follow-up class. aviation facility should be able to support at least two Z-8 sized helicopters. it should have a big flex bay with a rear Ro-Ro ramp also functional as boat launch. One ship of this would have the capability of an entire current PLAN anti-piracy flotilla, but be far cheaper to operate and doesn't occupy more valuable assets such as LPDs, replenishment ships or even carrier. sending a big 071 LPD to the East Africa station is really a waste, and too expensive for even PLAN to do on a regular basis. in a Libyan style evacuation mission, a PLAN Absalon would be far more suitable than the 054A that was available at the time. I don't see PLAN stationing large SAG or CBG in the Indian Ocean. it would be unnecessary and needlessly provocative towards India (which is very uncomfortable with Diego Garcia). a PLAN Absalon on the other hand is less aggressive in appearance and can safeguard Chinese interests in the area just as well. it can be the East Africa station ship, regularly calling at the various ports in the area, providing free medical cares to the local people, participate in disaster relief, fight pirates, also doing intelligence collection.

 

[Jeff Head]

Pardon me?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think you should be able to recognize Slava and Kirov under Проект 1164 and Проект 1144 entries, respectively, while this webpage is devoted to "missile cruisers".

Agreed. As they were being designed and constructed, and thereafter, the Soviet naval engineers and analysts always referred to the Kirov class as TARKR (the literal translation from Russian is Heavy Nuclear Powered Missile Cruiser). That's pretty much how we should consider them in my opinion.

As it is, this whole detailed discussion about the Kirovs is off topic on the thread about the Type 055 Chinese vessel and its impending production. Now that we have covered it in some detail, let's try and get back on topic.

.

 

[Blitzo]

oops, i totally remembered wrong about the classification of Soviet cruisers. but I still maintain that Kirov and Slava are closer to battleships in their function. they are the centerpiece of battlegroups. they have the have the heaviest antiship firepower among all Soviet surface ships. their armor are of course in the form of active defense, provided by their heavy AA missile batteries. armored warship was the development of a particular technically age. in the Age of Sail, battleships were ships of the line, biggest ships able to carry the largest number of cannons. in the Age of Steam, shell guns prompted the development of armored warships. battleships became heavily armored ships carrying the heaviest armor piercing cannons. in the Atomic Age, nuclear weapons made even the heaviest armor pointless. nuclear weapon, rather than guided missile was the reason why armored warships disappeared. but since nuclear weapon has never actually been used, and there are plenty of conflicts between non-nuclear armed countries, there is actually still a place for warships with heavy armor protection. provided adequate underwater protection can also be developed.

Battleships were centerpiece of their battle groups, but they were also heavily armoured and meant to absorb punishment which none of today's ships are. Air defences =\= armour. Nuclear weapons and air power and modern missiles made armour, and thus battleships, obsolete.

The kirovs and slavas aren't battleships.

now, about whether an Absalon type warship is appropriate for PLAN. first, of course PLAN also need a class of larger DDG, with enough VLS to carry a large number of AA missiles as well as enough spare VLS for AShM and land attack missiles. with SATNAV, datalinks, and dual mode IR/AR terminal guidance, there is no reason why both functions cannot be taken over by one class of missile. 052C/D are adequate AAW ships, but not large enough to be truly multipurpose warship capable of area air defense, anti-shipping, land attack, and ASW.
but PLAN also need an Absalon type warship to fulfill the classic cruiser function. Absalon, while optimized for low intensity warfare, is certainly not useless in high intensity warfare either. with 16X Harpoons, it has very respectable antiship firepower. armed with ESSM, it is capable of self defense, big aviation facility and command facility also make it useful as ASW flotilla leader. and it can be a very decent mini LPD capable of supporting a company-sized force or carry up to 7 MBTs.
a PLAN Absalon doesn't have to bigger, Absalon's size is just about right. it can be armed with the weapon suite of 054A or its follow-up class. aviation facility should be able to support at least two Z-8 sized helicopters. it should have a big flex bay with a rear Ro-Ro ramp also functional as boat launch. One ship of this would have the capability of an entire current PLAN anti-piracy flotilla, but be far cheaper to operate and doesn't occupy more valuable assets such as LPDs, replenishment ships or even carrier. sending a big 071 LPD to the East Africa station is really a waste, and too expensive for even PLAN to do on a regular basis. in a Libyan style evacuation mission, a PLAN Absalon would be far more suitable than the 054A that was available at the time. I don't see PLAN stationing large SAG or CBG in the Indian Ocean. it would be unnecessary and needlessly provocative towards India (which is very uncomfortable with Diego Garcia). a PLAN Absalon on the other hand is less aggressive in appearance and can safeguard Chinese interests in the area just as well. it can be the East Africa station ship, regularly calling at the various ports in the area, providing free medical cares to the local people, participate in disaster relief, fight pirates, also doing intelligence collection.

Even if the PLAN didn't deploy a permanent CVBG or ARG in the Indian Ocean (in fact I think that is the only reason they want a blue water navy in the first place — to defend their SLOCs) they will still seek to send task forces composed of their newest warships there as a "proving ground". That is to say, the PLAN won't lack for ships to deploy to the region, and anti piracy isn't important enough of a mission for them to warrant developing a specific class tailored for it (yes, absalon also has competent weapons, but less than what a more high intensity warship of its displacement can have).

Now I'm not saying there aren't areas from the absalon which the PLAN can learn from. In fact I think they could incorporate the successful module concept and high volume hull concept into their future next generation frigate. However, the PLAN in the foreseeable future simply shouldn't need a "cost effective" and more modular capability for fighting pirates. Indeed, if the ECS territorial disputes get solved, the PRC could very realistically send a few of their larger coast guard cutters for anti piracy missions as well.

The PLAN have a wealth of options for anti piracy at the moment and well into the future.

 

[shen]

damn it, lost a long reply when the website reset. hate it when that happens. but I'll be back.

 

[shen]

ok, a little on battleship by dictionary definitions, most common meaning is a large heavily armed and armored warship. however, one definition "a warship of sufficient size and armament to take her place in the line of battle; ship of the line". as you can see, the idea of a battleship goes back before metal armored warship was invented. it is the earlier usage which captures the more essential meaning of a battleship, rather than the common but more temporal meaning based on more specific technologies and technological limitations of late 19th to early 20th century. even if we use the temporal definitely of battleship as an armored warship with heavy offensive armament. armor = protection, defensive missiles = protection, battleship = heavily protected warship. when nuclear weapon made armor =\= protection, we are left only with defensive weapons as only form of viable protection. therefore on modern warship with heavy defensive and offensive missile battery such as the Kiev are modern battleships. The idea that active defense can replace passive defense is also behind APS system on modern AFV.
I also don't accept the common belief that airpower and guided missiles made battleship or more generally armored warship obsolete. POW and Repulse sank by bombers in 1941, battleship construction continued throughout the war and into the early post-war period. Battleships consistently shrugged off bomb hits or at survived air attacks that sank unarmored warship throughout the war. Even when battleships were sank by aircraft, they took far more efforts compare to unarmored warship. I think it was Operation Crossroad that really demonstrated the futility of armoring warship if nuclear weapons are involved. In the modern context, while it make sense for large nuclear armed countries to build the fleets with nuclear weapons in mind, there are still situation were armored warships can be useful. Especially if the opponents are non-nuclear armed countries.

PLAN buildup and operational expansion should be paced at a rate which steadily increase capability to keep pace with expanding Chinese interests and deter aggressive overt military action by the opposition while also not unnecessarily alarm the established global naval power to cause an arms race and cause open conflicts. Keep in mind the comparison of PLAN with Germany High Sea Fleet raised by Robert Ross.
I don't think PLAN will or should permanently deploy CVBG in the Indian Ocean. PLAN CVBG will deploy to the Indian Ocean when needed, but it will be based in Hainan. Why alarm India unnecessarily? But a forward PLAN presence is necessary in East Africa, and that can be ideally fulfilled by Absalon type ships. I agree at the present, Indian Ocean deployment is a test ground for new PLAN warships for training purposes. But 054A and 056 are not the ideal vessel for extend deployment, especially if they have to do without precious replenishment vessel support. New PLAN can train in the Pacific and South China Sea too.
A forward PLAN presence in East Africa is not just to fight pirates. PLAN need to show its flag regularly in ports of the Indian subcontinent, in the Middle East, Africa and the Mediterranean. PLAN must be in place to protect Chinese business interests when local conflicts threaten them. PLAN must be ready to evacuate Chinese civilians in future repeats of Libyan scenario. All these missions can be better accomplished with Absalon type ship rather multiple purpose frigate such as 054A.

 

[Blitzo]

ok, a little on battleship by dictionary definitions, most common meaning is a large heavily armed and armored warship. however, one definition "a warship of sufficient size and armament to take her place in the line of battle; ship of the line". as you can see, the idea of a battleship goes back before metal armored warship was invented. it is the earlier usage which captures the more essential meaning of a battleship, rather than the common but more temporal meaning based on more specific technologies and technological limitations of late 19th to early 20th century. even if we use the temporal definitely of battleship as an armored warship with heavy offensive armament. armor = protection, defensive missiles = protection, battleship = heavily protected warship. when nuclear weapon made armor =\= protection, we are left only with defensive weapons as only form of viable protection. therefore on modern warship with heavy defensive and offensive missile battery such as the Kiev are modern battleships. The idea that active defense can replace passive defense is also behind APS system on modern AFV.

Separating "armour" and "protection" is a good step to resolving this tidbit. Protection is made up of armour, active and passive defence, damage control, etc.

Battleships -- that is to say, battleships from the WWII era -- must be heavily armoured to be called as such.

Modern warships with heavy protection and heavy armament might be worthy of being called capital ships (in the same sense as battleships were for the first half of the early 20th century), but they are not battleships.

I also don't accept the common belief that airpower and guided missiles made battleship or more generally armored warship obsolete. POW and Repulse sank by bombers in 1941, battleship construction continued throughout the war and into the early post-war period. Battleships consistently shrugged off bomb hits or at survived air attacks that sank unarmored warship throughout the war. Even when battleships were sank by aircraft, they took far more efforts compare to unarmored warship. I think it was Operation Crossroad that really demonstrated the futility of armoring warship if nuclear weapons are involved. In the modern context, while it make sense for large nuclear armed countries to build the fleets with nuclear weapons in mind, there are still situation were armored warships can be useful. Especially if the opponents are non-nuclear armed countries.

This is a little OT, and you could make a different thread in the member's club room thread.
There might be some rationale for an armoured warship, but I think it makes more sense for the armour weight to instead be allocated towards more capable weapons or protection whether they be active or passive.

PLAN buildup and operational expansion should be paced at a rate which steadily increase capability to keep pace with expanding Chinese interests and deter aggressive overt military action by the opposition while also not unnecessarily alarm the established global naval power to cause an arms race and cause open conflicts. Keep in mind the comparison of PLAN with Germany High Sea Fleet raised by Robert Ross.
I don't think PLAN will or should permanently deploy CVBG in the Indian Ocean. PLAN CVBG will deploy to the Indian Ocean when needed, but it will be based in Hainan. Why alarm India unnecessarily? But a forward PLAN presence is necessary in East Africa, and that can be ideally fulfilled by Absalon type ships. I agree at the present, Indian Ocean deployment is a test ground for new PLAN warships for training purposes. But 054A and 056 are not the ideal vessel for extend deployment, especially if they have to do without precious replenishment vessel support. New PLAN can train in the Pacific and South China Sea too.
A forward PLAN presence in East Africa is not just to fight pirates. PLAN need to show its flag regularly in ports of the Indian subcontinent, in the Middle East, Africa and the Mediterranean. PLAN must be in place to protect Chinese business interests when local conflicts threaten them. PLAN must be ready to evacuate Chinese civilians in future repeats of Libyan scenario. All these missions can be better accomplished with Absalon type ship rather multiple purpose frigate such as 054A.

These are good points, however I have a few parts which I disagree with.

One, is that the PLAN won't seek to have a permanent and significant presence in the Indian Ocean. Now, while I agree that a permanent CVBG might be a bit much, I can easily foresee a significant SAG or ARG force in the Indian Ocean region, mainly to watch over PRC SLOCs. Therefore, in my mind, the PLAN will soon have a permanent and large presence in the Indian ocean region anyway, so a need for a self sufficient lower intensity multirole warship is unnecessary.

If anything, any PLAN presence there must deliberately a high intensity warship, because those who can threaten the PRC's SLOCs are more capable adversaries than pirates on a dhow.


I agree that the PLAN must also be ready to evacuate chinese civilians in case their interests are threatened in that region -- however a few absalons would be virtually negligible in such scenarios. They need more and larger warships. I consider a CV or LHA escorted by numerous frigates and destroyers as a competent force for such missions.
Two or even three absalons just won't cut it.


Basically, my rationale against developing and stationing absalon type ships in the indian ocean region revolves around the notion that the PLAN will seek to continue stationing more capable, higher intensity (but possibly less efficient at anti piracy) warships in that area in the first place, whether through having assets to protect their SLOCs, or ships to protect chinese interests in africa, and so on.

If the PLAN experienced a winddown of budget and also finds that its mission doesn't include SLOC defense or power projection in the region, and find that they only need to fight pirates in the area, then a more cost effective and tailored, lower intensity absalon class of their own would make far more sense.

 

[shen]

Separating "armour" and "protection" is a good step to resolving this tidbit. Protection is made up of armour, active and passive defence, damage control, etc.

Battleships -- that is to say, battleships from the WWII era -- must be heavily armoured to be called as such.

Modern warships with heavy protection and heavy armament might be worthy of being called capital ships (in the same sense as battleships were for the first half of the early 20th century), but they are not battleships.

You can't separate armor and protection. Armor is protection. In the atomic age, armor is not viable protection, therefore armor is not the defining feature of modern battleship. The idea of battleship predate armor warship. Battleship is ship of the line, in contrast to cruisers.

This is a little OT, and you could make a different thread in the member's club room thread.
There might be some rationale for an armoured warship, but I think it makes more sense for the armour weight to instead be allocated towards more capable weapons or protection whether they be active or passive.

agree OT.

These are good points, however I have a few parts which I disagree with.

One, is that the PLAN won't seek to have a permanent and significant presence in the Indian Ocean. Now, while I agree that a permanent CVBG might be a bit much, I can easily foresee a significant SAG or ARG force in the Indian Ocean region, mainly to watch over PRC SLOCs. Therefore, in my mind, the PLAN will soon have a permanent and large presence in the Indian ocean region anyway, so a need for a self sufficient lower intensity multirole warship is unnecessary.

If anything, any PLAN presence there must deliberately a high intensity warship, because those who can threaten the PRC's SLOCs are more capable adversaries than pirates on a dhow.


I agree that the PLAN must also be ready to evacuate chinese civilians in case their interests are threatened in that region -- however a few absalons would be virtually negligible in such scenarios. They need more and larger warships. I consider a CV or LHA escorted by numerous frigates and destroyers as a competent force for such missions.
Two or even three absalons just won't cut it.


Basically, my rationale against developing and stationing absalon type ships in the indian ocean region revolves around the notion that the PLAN will seek to continue stationing more capable, higher intensity (but possibly less efficient at anti piracy) warships in that area in the first place, whether through having assets to protect their SLOCs, or ships to protect chinese interests in africa, and so on.

If the PLAN experienced a winddown of budget and also finds that its mission doesn't include SLOC defense or power projection in the region, and find that they only need to fight pirates in the area, then a more cost effective and tailored, lower intensity absalon class of their own would make far more sense.

I don't think PLAN will seek permanent bases in the Indian Ocean. Heavy combat assets can be deployed to the theater when Chinese SLOC is threatened. But there is no need to forward deploy them on a permanent basis. It would be counterproductive and raise tension unnecessarily. India, as a fellow developing nation, shouldn't be antagonized unnecessarily. A permanent PLAN base in the Indian Ocean would threaten Indian SLOC as well as India itself. The forward PLAN presence should be ideally accomplished with minimum base support. Foreign base would entangle China into the volatile political environment of the Middle East and Africa. Absalon type warship can be forward deployed for extended period without forward bases. It would make local port calls on a regular basis, receive fuel and stores on a cash-and-carry basis, provide free medical care of local people, provide humanitarian relief when necessary, project soft power on a continuous basis. Accomplish these vital peacetime missions without roughing the feather of the established global naval power or antagonize local powers.

 

[Blitzo]

You can't separate armor and protection. Armor is protection. In the atomic age, armor is not viable protection, therefore armor is not the defining feature of modern battleship. The idea of battleship predate armor warship. Battleship is ship of the line, in contrast to cruisers.

(Edit: by the word "separate," I meant to define the terms, not to unlink them in terms of conceptual function)

I'm not separating armour and protection, I'm saying that armour is a type of protection, along with other types of protection such as hard kill and soft kill protection, active and passive defences.

The entire idea of a battleship is for to to be heavily armed and heavily armoured -- emphasis on the latter.
There is no such thing as a modern battleship because no ships today are heavily armoured.

Modern capital ships may be heavily layered by all types of protection such as ciws, SAMs, decoys, ECM/EW, but armour is not part of their protection package. therefore they are not battleships.


(Btw a "ship of the line" is a very antiquated term used when sailing ships still formed into lines of battle to deliver and absorb punishment. Battleships aren't be called "ships of the line" -- yes, while they were meant to deliver firepower and absorb it if need be, they didn't form into battle lines against each other)

PS: a ship as heavily armed as a battleship but lacking the armour would be called a battlecruiser. Note how important the battleship's armour is in defining its specific ship type.

I don't think PLAN will seek permanent bases in the Indian Ocean.

Permanent deployment =/= permanent bases. The PLAN currently have a permanent presence in the Indian ocean via their rotations of anti piracy taskforces, without permanent bases I foresee a similar situation in future only with more ships and more capable ships.

Heavy combat assets can be deployed to the theater when Chinese SLOC is threatened.

The whole idea of protecting SLOCs is to do so at peacetime and have the ability to deter aggressive moves against your SLOCs. By the time a Chinese SLOC is threatened, it would already be attacked and cut off, simply on the basis that PLAN bases on the mainland are so far away from the Indian Ocean.

But there is no need to forward deploy them on a permanent basis. It would be counterproductive and raise tension unnecessarily. India, as a fellow developing nation, shouldn't be antagonized unnecessarily. A permanent PLAN base in the Indian Ocean would threaten Indian SLOC as well as India itself. The forward PLAN presence should be ideally accomplished with minimum base support. Foreign base would entangle China into the volatile political environment of the Middle East and Africa. Absalon type warship can be forward deployed for extended period without forward bases. It would make local port calls on a regular basis, receive fuel and stores on a cash-and-carry basis, provide free medical care of local people, provide humanitarian relief when necessary, project soft power on a continuous basis. Accomplish these vital peacetime missions without roughing the feather of the established global naval power or antagonize local powers.

I think your position here can be divided into two parts:
The idea that China shouldn't antagonize India, and the idea that a permanent PLAN presence means permanent bases.

WRT India, the fact is that multiple countries operate heavily in the Indian Ocean. The seas around the Middle East and africa are justifiable interests for many nations around the world to have an interest in defending. So whether India likes it or not, China's naval presence in the Indian Ocean (to be precise, the more western, middle-east/african side of it) will only grow.

WRT permanent PLAN bases -- a permanent PLAN presence in the form of a CVBG or ARG doesn't necessitate a permanent base. Basically, what they would do is perform 3-4 month long patrols with the occasional friendly port visit.
Say, a permanent naval presence in the form of a carrier/LHA/LPD, supported by four DDGs/FFGs, and two or so AORs, can be deployable without need for forward bases. The carrier and AORs staying in theatre for perhaps a few months longer than the destroyers and frigates, the same way as some PLAN AORs have lingered in the gulf of aden longer than destroyers and frigates.


Current PLAN taskforces to Aden are not deployed from forward bases -- they operate in the same way as you've suggested an absalon type warship should. They are supported by AORs, make local port calls, and do flag showing visits with local regional states.

I'm suggesting the PLAN will seek to do the same in future, only expand that by deploying more ships and larger ships for the same role, and they won't need permanent bases either.

 

[shen]

of course armored battleships engaged each other in line of battle. look at Battle of Jutland.

the distinction I'm making is that battleships, whether armored or not, are the centerpiece of battle fleets that engage each other in decisive battle in the Mahanian fashion. Contrast that with cruisers which carried out patrols in distant station in peacetime and conduct commerce warfare in wartime.

armor is one type of protection. a form of protection made irrelevant when nuclear weapons are involved.

ok, so we agree PLAN doesn't need permanent Indian Ocean bases. I suggest that peacetime permanent Indian Ocean deployment of of major combat assets such as CVBG and SAG is also unnecessary. When do you need heavily armed warship to protect SLOC during peacetime? Deterrence can be provided by battlegroups based in Hainan.
Without permanent Indian Ocean bases, I suggest China would be better served by forward deployed Absalon type ships rather than rotation of more combat oriented warships. Absalon can forward deployed without AOR support, and be more capable in projecting soft power.