D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Fixed it for you.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The Kirov class is a *very* impressive ship, but I'm seriously doubting the Russian navy's ability to get the others back into service (right now it's just the Peter the Great all by itself), and more to the point keep it in meaningful service and readiness, let alone keep it updated with current equipment and have a replacement plan in place for when it gets retired (the ships are 35+ years old now, even though PTG was a 1998 launch as it was stuck in project hell during the collapse). It's the eternal problem of the post-Soviet Russian navy, no one doubts the quality of their ships, but they just can't get them built and maintained on anything like a sensible schedule, or in meaningful numbers.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Yeah true but if we are talking about them on a ship to ship basis, then the Kirov with its 20 Shipwreck missiles is going to beat the 055, the only way the 055 would be able to even those odds would be if it equips more than half of its VLS for anti ship missiles, which in turn would mean that it sacrifices its AA capabilities while the Kirovs have an entire separate VLS farm for that.The Kirov class is a *very* impressive ship, but I'm seriously doubting the Russian navy's ability to get the others back into service (right now it's just the Peter the Great all by itself), and more to the point keep it in meaningful service and readiness, let alone keep it updated with current equipment and have a replacement plan in place for when it gets retired (the ships are 35+ years old now, even though PTG was a 1998 launch as it was stuck in project hell during the collapse). It's the eternal problem of the post-Soviet Russian navy, no one doubts the quality of their ships, but they just can't get them built and maintained on anything like a sensible schedule, or in meaningful numbers.
Yeah true but if we are talking about them on a ship to ship basis, then the Kirov with its 20 Shipwreck missiles is going to beat the 055, the only way the 055 would be able to even those odds would be if it equips more than half of its VLS for anti ship missiles, which in turn would mean that it sacrifices its AA capabilities while the Kirovs have an entire separate VLS farm for that.
Quite true, though I'm not really sure the 55 and Kirov are really in the same class - the Kirov is twice the size of the 55 and nuclear powered - I can't think of any other navy with anything even remotely comparable to it in anyone's inventory. It's definitely a potent symbol, though in the event a real-world naval conflict I imagine having more, smaller type-55 type ships might be a better bet, especially for the sort of scenarios the PLAN might be involved in - i.e. imposing a sealane blockade (Taiwan) or challenging one (SCC), or forming part of a carrier escort/battle group (two type 55s may provide better cover than 1 Kirov, which seems fair since the Kirov was never envisaged in this role).
Having more competent destroyers is FAR better than betting everything on one capital ship. Bismark, Yamato, both destroyed by allied navies without as much effort as originally anticipated (neither were all they were cracked up to be). Technology wins every day. 055 is the more modern destroyer, designed around the knowledge of what modern threats are like. Modifying a Kirov will always run into limits with what one can do. Kirov has no modern phased arrays capable of handling hundreds of targets. Digital integration of subsystems probably dated or non-existent. No modern jamming and electronic warfare embedded into the design. It's like comparing a 1970 F-14 to a 2018 F-35. One may be able to carry more but they are in reality leagues apart.
I doubt a Kirov can win against a small group of AB flight 3 or 055s. AB like 055 will have plenty enough interceptors for the 20 shipwrecks. Even if they wanted to spend 3 missiles on each shipwreck, they will have enough cells left for AShM. For one Kirov, USN and PLAN will have multiple destroyers because the single Kirov comes at too great an opportunity cost. The choice of betting all on one ship is also ridiculous nowadays. It doesn't matter how impressive that one ship is. It will definitely be sunk. Better to spend all that metal and cash on several ships. The only reason it is kept around these days is because it does has the room for modifications that it can take and Russian shipbuilding industry is almost non-existent today so the alternative would be buying foreign ships. The West won't sell and buying from China is too big a blow for Russian pride, so it is automatically not up to their standard. On with the modifications on decades old design it is then.
I doubt a Kirov can win against a small group of AB flight 3 or 055s. AB like 055 will have plenty enough interceptors for the 20 shipwrecks. Even if they wanted to spend 3 missiles on each shipwreck, they will have enough cells left for AShM. For one Kirov, USN and PLAN will have multiple destroyers because the single Kirov comes at too great an opportunity cost. The choice of betting all on one ship is also ridiculous nowadays. It doesn't matter how impressive that one ship is. It will definitely be sunk. Better to spend all that metal and cash on several ships. The only reason it is kept around these days is because it does has the room for modifications that it can take and Russian shipbuilding industry is almost non-existent today so the alternative would be buying foreign ships. The West won't sell and buying from China is too big a blow for Russian pride, so it is automatically not up to their standard. On with the modifications on decades old design it is then.
Last edited:
Having more competent destroyers is FAR better than betting everything on one capital ship. Bismark, Yamato, both destroyed by allied navies without as much effort as originally anticipated (neither were all they were cracked up to be). Technology wins every day. 055 is the more modern destroyer, designed around the knowledge of what modern threats are like. Modifying a Kirov will always run into limits with what one can do. Kirov has no modern phased arrays capable of handling hundreds of targets. Digital integration of subsystems probably dated or non-existent. No modern jamming and electronic warfare embedded into the design. It's like comparing a 1970 F-14 to a 2018 F-35. One may be able to carry more but they are in reality leagues apart.
I doubt a Kirov can win against a small group of AB flight 3 or 055s. AB like 055 will have plenty enough interceptors for the 20 shipwrecks. Even if they wanted to spend 3 missiles on each shipwreck, they will have enough cells left for AShM. For one Kirov, USN and PLAN will have multiple destroyers because the single Kirov comes at too great an opportunity cost. The choice of betting all on one ship is also ridiculous nowadays. It doesn't matter how impressive that one ship is. It will definitely be sunk. Better to spend all that metal and cash on several ships. The only reason it is kept around these days is because it does has the room for modifications that it can take and Russian shipbuilding industry is almost non-existent today so the alternative would be buying foreign ships. The West won't sell and buying from China is too big a blow for Russian pride, so it is automatically not up to their standard. On with the modifications on decades old design it is then.
All of this is true. I've heard it said that the Russian navy would like to withdraw the Kirovs to free up resources for some of the new frigates, but there's political considerations that make this impossible - but one ship on it's own isn't much use. There's also the question of what the Russian navy would do with a Kirov type ship these days? The Type 55 fits with a definite role in the PLAN - it's a great escorter, a great blockader - all things the PLAN needs to account for. The Kirov is a nuclear powered capital battlecruiser in what is now essentially a greenwater littoral protection navy :/
All of this is true. I've heard it said that the Russian navy would like to withdraw the Kirovs to free up resources for some of the new frigates, but there's political considerations that make this impossible - but one ship on it's own isn't much use. There's also the question of what the Russian navy would do with a Kirov type ship these days? The Type 55 fits with a definite role in the PLAN - it's a great escorter, a great blockader - all things the PLAN needs to account for. The Kirov is a nuclear powered capital battlecruiser in what is now essentially a greenwater littoral protection navy :/
The 055 and the overall direction PLAN is heading does show it thinks highly of the USN model. Rather than having individually impressive sounding ships, they understand success can only be achieved starting with a proper analysis of objectives and mission/battle profiles. From there, an organised and coherent strategy can be formulated with precisely engineered role fillers taking place of hardware. It isn't simply about how many missiles I can fit and how heavy something is. I'm not saying this because Kirov owns all in those realms, it would be the same if a PLAN destroyer ends up taking the top place in trivial ways.
055 was developed out of the lessons from building and operating 052C and 052D. 052C being favoured over 052B shows when they decided not to pursue the pure anti-surface strength method that Russians seemed to favour. Raw firepower loses to well-placed firepower. 20 super AShM is definitely better than 20 average AShM but it's still only a fraction of what decides the outcome of a fight. This all makes sense for PLAN because they are facing greater air threats. It would be interesting to see how they focused on the sub-surface fight, which is rarely talked about or disclosed.
The puzzling thing is why they have decided to continue with 052D and talks of future 052E upgrades. Even if 055 trials are better than expected, PLAN wants more number fillers in 052x. Maybe the shipyards have streamlined the manufacturing process now and more 052s means far cheaper, and quicker, therefore greater numbers. 055 may be considered an improved and more capable 052 performing certain tasks 052 cannot, but it's a much heavier and complex ship. There's got to be an optimal weight/performance+capability ratio and maybe PLAN analysis have indicated that 055 cannot replace 052 for the overall needs of the navy.
Last edited:
The puzzling thing is why they have decided to continue with 052D and talks of future 052E upgrades. Even if 055 trials are better than expected, PLAN wants more number fillers in 052x. Maybe the shipyards have streamlined the manufacturing process now and more 052s means far cheaper, and quicker, therefore greater numbers. 055 may be considered an improved and more capable 052 performing certain tasks 052 cannot, but it's a much heavier and complex ship. There's got to be an optimal weight/performance+capability ratio and maybe PLAN analysis have indicated that 055 cannot replace 052 for the overall needs of the navy.
It's not so puzzling when you consider that the 052D is the all-around best destroyer for its tonnage, which is still significant smaller than the 055's. In other words, you don't need a 10,000-ton large destroyer for everything. In many cases, a 7,500-ton multirole destroyer will suffice, and its lower operating costs and upgradeability is also likely a major attraction for its continued usage.
It would seem that the PLAN is pursuing a fleet structure not unlike the USN's - the 055 is akin to the Ticonderogas as the 052Ds to the Spruances (or the Burkes, if you prefer). The key difference is that these Chinese destroyers are significantly more capable than their American contemporaries. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN eventually settles on a 052D/E:055/A ratio of around 2:1.
It's only sensible, and more flexible, to employ a healthy mix of more medium-value, medium-capability ships and fewer high-value, high-capability ships, than to focus production purely on the latter.
It's not so puzzling when you consider that the 052D is the all-around best destroyer for its tonnage, which is still significant smaller than the 055's. In other words, you don't need a 10,000-ton large destroyer for everything. In many cases, a 7,500-ton multirole destroyer will suffice, and its lower operating costs and upgradeability is also likely a major attraction for its continued usage.
It would seem that the PLAN is pursuing a fleet structure not unlike the USN's - the 055 is akin to the Ticonderogas as the 052Ds to the Spruances (or the Burkes, if you prefer). The key difference is that these Chinese destroyers are significantly more capable than their American contemporaries. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN eventually settles on a 052D/E:055/A ratio of around 2:1.
It's only sensible, and more flexible, to employ a healthy mix of more medium-value, medium-capability ships and fewer high-value, high-capability ships, than to focus production purely on the latter.
They can be called more modern because they have been designed after the US counterparts but it's hard to say they are more capable, let alone significantly so. Both 052 and 055 hold fewer VLS than respective counterparts for one thing. PLAN would benefit from fielding better SAMs for its destroyers. Ideally also more models and variants for layered defences. HHQ9 and 16s don't seem to be able to match specs of SM-2 and ESSMs. PLAN currently also don't have a fielded SM-3 equivalent. New missiles will be a great addition to the rest of 055's modern gear. Surprised we haven't seen tests for new SAMs for both PLAN and PLA. Although it has to be said, HQ-9 and radars have been constantly upgraded and improved. Perhaps PLAN is focusing more on submarines and anti-sub. They could be happy with SAM performance for now.
It's not so puzzling when you consider that the 052D is the all-around best destroyer for its tonnage, which is still significant smaller than the 055's. In other words, you don't need a 10,000-ton large destroyer for everything. In many cases, a 7,500-ton multirole destroyer will suffice, and its lower operating costs and upgradeability is also likely a major attraction for its continued usage.
It would seem that the PLAN is pursuing a fleet structure not unlike the USN's - the 055 is akin to the Ticonderogas as the 052Ds to the Spruances (or the Burkes, if you prefer). The key difference is that these Chinese destroyers are significantly more capable than their American contemporaries. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN eventually settles on a 052D/E:055/A ratio of around 2:1.
It's only sensible, and more flexible, to employ a healthy mix of more medium-value, medium-capability ships and fewer high-value, high-capability ships, than to focus production purely on the latter.
This. The 055 is overkill for a lot of missions - it makes sense to have some, but also a larger number of smaller cheaper ships to fill the gaps. With smaller, more accurate weapons platforms kicking around these days, a smaller ship can be both affordable and perfectly capable for 90% of the jobs needed, otherwise it's the kirov problem all over again. For things like SCC and ESC patrols, they're fine and capable ships. What the PLAN does need to do though is settle on a 52 version as right now there's a lot of slightly different ones kicking around which I imagine affects operational efficiency. It might be wise to settle on 52D and complete the good long build programme, and pension off the smaller numbers of older variants - maybe pass them on to friendly nations to build up their abilities. It'd be a good opportunity to look at the Sovremennyys as well. They've been quite upgraded over the years, so Iran may be interested in them. Otherwise the Russians may be interested in taking them back to replace some of their older ships of the class.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.