Who said anything about "need"? No, you don't "need" a Tico to be a SAG leader, but by that logic you don't even need a Burke to be a SAG leader. An LCS could do it too. A tugboat with a radio could be a SAG leader. The question isn't one of need but of which ship is better suited to command a SAG or to be the AAW commander of a CSG. Tico has additional C&C facilities for just such a purpose. The Burke doesn't. I'm willing to bet the 055 also has additional C&C facilities that the 052D doesn't. And similarly for the Kirov vs smaller Russian ships.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
kwaigonegin
Colonel
@Ironman
Hmmmm actually you said it.
Ticonderoga cruisers, in addition to having significantly greater firepower, have extra C&C facilities on board for the CSG's AAW commander, and of course can serve as the SAG leader in the absence of a carrier. The Burke does not have these facilities and is therefore less capable as the commander of a SAG or as the AAW commander of a CSG.
Hmmmm actually you said it.
Ticonderoga cruisers, in addition to having significantly greater firepower, have extra C&C facilities on board for the CSG's AAW commander, and of course can serve as the SAG leader in the absence of a carrier. The Burke does not have these facilities and is therefore less capable as the commander of a SAG or as the AAW commander of a CSG.
What are you even talking about here.
Less capable, not incapable. Keyword: less.
The main difference between Ticonderoga and arleigh Burke has more to do with evolving view of how many hulls the USN needed to conduct aggressive forward deployment coming into vogue in late 1970s, and what it can afford to put into each hull, then the role Individual ship would play.
Both designs were meant to be cheaper, less capable ships that could be would form the low end of a all Aegis hi-Lo mix. Neither vessels were intended to take on distinctly different roles from the other,
In both cases, the vessels that was intended to form the high end of the mix proved unaffordable, or did not provide a sufficient margin of superiority in its primary mission over the low end of the mix to justify the added cost, so were cancelled while low end of the mix, seen as cheaper and therefore politically more palatable, were proceeded with.
So both classes ended up being the sole design in production. AB really are the successors to the Ticos, not an low end to Tico’s high end. In so far as AB seems even lower cost than the Ticos, that is a reflection of the realization that even the Ticod can not be afforded in sufficient numbers to meet the demands anticipated in the 1990s had the cold war not ended unexpectedly.
Ticos are in some ways better equipped than the AB. So it is possible to arbitrarily draw a line of demarcation right between them so as to justify why one should be a cruiser and the other destroyer. But that would be purely arbitrary line making a distinction without any substantive difference.
Incidentally, the intended high end to ticonderoga's low end - strike cruiser - would have been a true cruiser designed from the onset to be able to take on independent cruising missions without escort in low to medium threat environment. It would have been equipped for substantively different roles from Tico. The ticos would have formed parts of the screen around these strike cruiser in high threat areas like WWII destroyers screening cruisers. That would have meaningfully made the strike cruiser a different class of vessels from the Ticos.
Both designs were meant to be cheaper, less capable ships that could be would form the low end of a all Aegis hi-Lo mix. Neither vessels were intended to take on distinctly different roles from the other,
In both cases, the vessels that was intended to form the high end of the mix proved unaffordable, or did not provide a sufficient margin of superiority in its primary mission over the low end of the mix to justify the added cost, so were cancelled while low end of the mix, seen as cheaper and therefore politically more palatable, were proceeded with.
So both classes ended up being the sole design in production. AB really are the successors to the Ticos, not an low end to Tico’s high end. In so far as AB seems even lower cost than the Ticos, that is a reflection of the realization that even the Ticod can not be afforded in sufficient numbers to meet the demands anticipated in the 1990s had the cold war not ended unexpectedly.
Ticos are in some ways better equipped than the AB. So it is possible to arbitrarily draw a line of demarcation right between them so as to justify why one should be a cruiser and the other destroyer. But that would be purely arbitrary line making a distinction without any substantive difference.
Incidentally, the intended high end to ticonderoga's low end - strike cruiser - would have been a true cruiser designed from the onset to be able to take on independent cruising missions without escort in low to medium threat environment. It would have been equipped for substantively different roles from Tico. The ticos would have formed parts of the screen around these strike cruiser in high threat areas like WWII destroyers screening cruisers. That would have meaningfully made the strike cruiser a different class of vessels from the Ticos.
Last edited:
Regarding whether type 055 should be classified as cruiser or destroyer, my view is that depends mainly on whether it is intended to play a substantially different role from the 052D. If it has much greater anti-ship capability or land attack capability, or if it has a much stronger self defence capability and can thus operate independently in environments where the 052 would only operate as part of task force, then it justify a different classification.
by78
General
Unfortunately no.
Indeed, haohanfw's Red Shark, the one who's getting first-hand views of JN's 055s and giving us very nice CGIs has reported the fifth 055's modules have appeared.
He has also spotted two 052Ds' modules at JN, making for a total of fifteen known 052Ds; six in service, four on sea trials, three outfitting and two soon to begin assembly.
This means China is simultaneously constructing five 12,000-tonne surface combatants, with a possible increase to six when 055 no.2 launches later this year or early next, and possibly increasing to eight when DL's 055s launch.
antiterror13
Brigadier
It seems building 052D still continue ... now I believe will reach 24 and could be more
Interesting how many 055 will be built before new 055A (with IEPS) starts
I think the 055 or 055A production run will probably reach 12-15 units. This is based on a production run of about 10 years over which China will need to produce around 8 055s to form escorts for 4 carrier battle groups, plus attrition reserve of say 2 -3 hulls, plus maybe 2 - 3 additional units to form cores of surface action groups that can be deployed to areas of lesser threat that does not warrant a carrier, or areas where air cover can be provided from shore or island bases.
I think 055A will not have IEP. IEP will require a radical redesign of the hull. I don’t think the Chinese will make this commitment while the relatively newly designed 055 hull and power plant remains satisfactory.
I suspect the first Chinese IEP warship will be the follow on to 052D. The 052B/C/D hull design is now nearing 20 years old. A major hull redesign in this tonnage class will likely occur long before redesign of the 055 hull.
I think 055A will not have IEP. IEP will require a radical redesign of the hull. I don’t think the Chinese will make this commitment while the relatively newly designed 055 hull and power plant remains satisfactory.
I suspect the first Chinese IEP warship will be the follow on to 052D. The 052B/C/D hull design is now nearing 20 years old. A major hull redesign in this tonnage class will likely occur long before redesign of the 055 hull.
- Status