055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

The point is that Lynx, Panther and NH-90 are not part of the Seahawk supply chain, not whether they are good enough ASW platforms or are or not effectively competing against the Seahawk. This belies the 'Seahawk supply chain' financial argument. Also, the NH-90 was chosen for naval ASW over the Seahawk and over the Merlin and the Super Frelon, all of whom were already available and had supply chains in place. This to me speaks both against the supply chain argument and against the bigger is better argument.

The supply chain position applied only for seahawk regarding its popularity, not for the popularity of all medium and light weight helicopters.
I see the popularity of light and medium weight helicopters (which seahawk is a part of), as more a result of most navies either having ASW needs that can be fulfilled by a smaller helicopter, and also the fact that most navies do not have large enough surface combatants to field larger helicopters on in the first place (and cost).

Given that available 13 to 14 ton platforms with available supply chains already existed at the time most of these navies started looking for new ASW helos, I would think that unneeded capability is the greatest share of the correct answer. Back in the days of big budget military spending during the Cold War, the US and the West were still using helos like the Seaprite, Sea King and later the MH/UH-60 and NH-90. The Merlin and Super Frelon's lack of significant penetration into the ASW helo market is very telling IMO; even as legacy platforms were becoming obsolete and navies started looking for replacements, they in general eschewed these larger helos and overwhelming looked to 10 ton platforms like the Seahawk and NH-90. There is no sign of any significant changes going into the future as pretty much all warships that we know of are being designed with these medium helos primarily in mind.

Right, well at least we can agree that 13 ton helicopters offer capabilities which many navies may not require for their ASW helicopters.
But of course, the PLAN might have these requirements, as well as the funds to develop it, as well as the ship to comfortably fit it on.

Or that the additional capabilities provided by 13 ton platforms are seen as unnecessary to effective ASW.

Yes, I agree with this.

However, do we agree that 13 ton helicopters do provide an increase in capability for ASW compared to a 10 ton helicopter? That is to say, while a 10 ton helicopter might fit the ASW needs of many navies, that if we were merely measuring on sheer performance, a 13 ton helicopter will out perform a 10 ton helicopter?

I don't think anyone has been making claims to the effect that there is zero chance the Z-18 will appear on the 055. And if it does appear on the 055, I don't think 'because it's better' would be the obvious and necessary conclusion, either. 'Because it's available' would be my first inclination in such a case.

Well we seemingly disagree on the fundamental position of of a heavier versus a lighter helicopter's differing capabilities in ASW roles, so I suppose there's not much I can say.
However "because it's available" would be a poor reason for PLAN to go for Z-18 on 055 if it didn't offer the benefits of having greater capability as well. Higher unit cost and operating cost, needing a larger deck/hangar, all for a larger helicopter that supposedly doesn't offer any more meaningful capability beyond a 10 ton helicopter?
May as well just wait for Z-20 or use existing Z-9s or Ka-28s instead, then.

IMO the more interesting question is why didn't the USN feel the need to develop a heavier weight ASW helo.

Didn't have large enough surface combatants to hold them, didn't think the extra capability was worth the cost, or simply wanted to jump on the UH-60 bandwagon, but chances are it was all of these factors.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

there is still a lot of time before Z20 Could emerge as a naval asset, if it ever does. The Future is still fluid and we have seen no follow up of the first Z20 flight.

 

[nemo]

Z8FQ is not the only variant that is of interest here. Another interesting option is Z-8 AWACS. Even vanilla transport Z8 may have uses -- transport and insertion of marine/spec op force. Such capability makes would make CG supporting large helicopters much more flexible, especially if it is operating as the core of a independent group/detachment.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

and there is still the Z15, of which the PRC now has the rights to production Or perhaps the PLAN would decide to continue with Kamov choppers. The Coaxial configuration has a lot to offer form a naval platform.

 

[Solaris]

The supply chain position applied only for seahawk regarding its popularity, not for the popularity of all medium and light weight helicopters.
I see the popularity of light and medium weight helicopters (which seahawk is a part of), as more a result of most navies either having ASW needs that can be fulfilled by a smaller helicopter, and also the fact that most navies do not have large enough surface combatants to field larger helicopters on in the first place (and cost).

I don't agree that not large enough is the right answer here. Even the 4,100 ton Oliver Hazard Perry frigates are able to carry 2 Seahawks. Certainly larger ships could embark 13 ton helos with no problem. So it's a matter of does a particular ship want to embark a larger vs smaller helo. In this regard, I think ship designers have spoken.

But of course, the PLAN might have these requirements, as well as the funds to develop it, as well as the ship to comfortably fit it on.

While this is certainly true in theory, I'm at a loss to explain why ASW requirements with Chinese characteristics will mean that the PLAN prefers 13 ton helos instead of 10 ton helos.

However, do we agree that 13 ton helicopters do provide an increase in capability for ASW compared to a 10 ton helicopter? That is to say, while a 10 ton helicopter might fit the ASW needs of many navies, that if we were merely measuring on sheer performance, a 13 ton helicopter will out perform a 10 ton helicopter?

Of course, or else there would not even be a discussion. "How much more performance", "is it needed", and "is it worth it" are the relevant questions, though.

Didn't have large enough surface combatants to hold them, didn't think the extra capability was worth the cost, or simply wanted to jump on the UH-60 bandwagon, but chances are it was all of these factors.

Or the even more likely answer: it simply wasn't needed. BTW, Ticonderogas and Burkes are some of the largest surface combatants in the world. If a larger ASW helo capability was needed, they would have had it.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't agree that not large enough is the right answer here. Even the 4,100 ton Oliver Hazard Perry frigates are able to carry 2 Seahawks. Certainly larger ships could embark 13 ton helos with no problem. So it's a matter of does a particular ship want to embark a larger vs smaller helo. In this regard, I think ship designers have spoken.

I think size of the ship is one of the right answers -- my position is dependent on only a single premise but the interaciton of multiple.
---
A larger helicopter will need correspondingly bigger helipad, and a longer, potentially wider, and more importantly, taller hangar, that may either force one to need a larger ship, or displace other elements in a smaller ship to give up space. Combined with having greater cost for a 13 ton helicopter, and a lack of userbase (for USN's case WRT seahawk), it would not be worthwhile to develop a heavier helicopter instead of a lighter one, and I think that is why many navies field smaller helicopters instead of larger ones.
(Btw I include the whole "greater capability not worth the extra cost" part for heavier helicopters in the "greater cost" disincentive for larger helicopters)


I'm not sure what OHP has to do with this. They clearly made a decision to build a ship that can accommodate two medium weight helicopters instead of other potential helicopter loadouts, whether that be one medium helicopter, no helicopter, or one heavy helicopter, etc.

While this is certainly true in theory, I'm at a loss to explain why ASW requirements with Chinese characteristics will mean that the PLAN prefers 13 ton helos instead of 10 ton helos.

Well, they have few of the disincentives for not choosing a 13 ton helicopter, and few of the incentives for choosing a smaller helicopter, so why wouldn't they go for a larger one?
Disincentives for larger helicopter: needs a bigger ship, costs more in terms of unit cost and operating cost, and potentially is less compatible with an existing support base if there is a lighter helicopter already in vast service with other users
Incentives for smaller helicopter: costs less in terms of unit cost and operating cost, can be used on smaller ship, may be able to leverage an existing support base if variants of it are in service with other users.

Obviously the disincentive for larger helicopter/incentive for smaller helicopter regarding support base doesn't exist for the PLAN, because both Z-20 and Z-18 are relatively new.
The bigger ship disincentive doesn't apply either, assuming 055 is as big as we think it is. If 055 isn't as big as it is and doesn't have much room to spare then chances are 055 wont' have Z-18s.
The other disincentive for a larger helicopter is the higher cost, which the PLAN may deem a worthwhile sacrifice for the better capability of Z-18.

It is a combination of these various factors which may make the decision shift one way or the other.


Also, putting Z-18s on 055s may not mean the PLAN is intending to purchase only Z-18s for their ASW roles. Z-20 will likely act as a "low end" for smaller ships or existing surface combatants not large enough for Z-18s.

Of course, or else there would not even be a discussion. "How much more performance", "is it needed", and "is it worth it" are the relevant questions, though.

Okay, good.

Or the even more likely answer: it simply wasn't needed. BTW, Ticonderogas and Burkes are some of the largest surface combatants in the world. If a larger ASW helo capability was needed, they would have had it.

The disincentives for a larger helicopter is not only the size of the ship, but also the higher cost, and support base (if applicable). In that sense it makes perfect sense that Ticonderoga and Burke didn't go for a larger helicopter.

They are definitely some of the largest surface combatants in the world, but their spurance and flight i forbearers may not have been large enough to implement a hangar large enough for a 13 ton helicopter without substantial costs (or at least, the cost to design and implement such hangars may not have been seen worth the increase in capability of a heavier helicopter, combined with the notion that a heavier helicopter may fundamentally not be worth the increase in capability regarding both unit/operating cost and logistics/support base)

 

[Blitzo]

and there is still the Z15, of which the PRC now has the rights to production Or perhaps the PLAN would decide to continue with Kamov choppers. The Coaxial configuration has a lot to offer form a naval platform.

I doubt the PLAN will continue to buy Kamovs nor do I think they will militarize the Z-15.

Kamovs are increasingly old and the PLAN have a helicopter industry that will soon be ready to produce equally good or superior products that are indigenous.
Regarding Z-15, it sits in an awkward weight class between Z-9 and Z-20. Z-20 is definitely going to enter military service and has a very good chance of being developed into a naval variant, and I don't think there is a need for further stratification of helicopter weight classes below it.

 

[Solaris]

I think size of the ship is one of the right answers -- my position is dependent on only a single premise but the interaciton of multiple.
---
A larger helicopter will need correspondingly bigger helipad, and a longer, potentially wider, and more importantly, taller hangar, that may either force one to need a larger ship, or displace other elements in a smaller ship to give up space. Combined with having greater cost for a 13 ton helicopter, and a lack of userbase (for USN's case WRT seahawk), it would not be worthwhile to develop a heavier helicopter instead of a lighter one, and I think that is why many navies field smaller helicopters instead of larger ones.
(Btw I include the whole "greater capability not worth the extra cost" part for heavier helicopters in the "greater cost" disincentive for larger helicopters)

I'm not sure what OHP has to do with this. They clearly made a decision to build a ship that can accommodate two medium weight helicopters instead of other potential helicopter loadouts, whether that be one medium helicopter, no helicopter, or one heavy helicopter, etc.

You had said

most navies do not have large enough surface combatants to field larger helicopters on in the first place

Most navies have significantly larger surface combatants than the OHP. My point is that if a Perry only with a 14 m beam can carry 2 10 ton helos, larger vessels can certainly be built to carry 1 or even 2 13 ton helos. The point is also that the various world navies have chosen not to build this capability into their vessels, repeatedly, for reasons other than a limitation of the ship's hull size.

Well, they have few of the disincentives for not choosing a 13 ton helicopter, and few of the incentives for choosing a smaller helicopter, so why wouldn't they go for a larger one?
Disincentives for larger helicopter: needs a bigger ship, costs more in terms of unit cost and operating cost, and potentially is less compatible with an existing support base if there is a lighter helicopter already in vast service with other users
Incentives for smaller helicopter: costs less in terms of unit cost and operating cost, can be used on smaller ship, may be able to leverage an existing support base if variants of it are in service with other users.

Obviously the disincentive for larger helicopter/incentive for smaller helicopter regarding support base doesn't exist for the PLAN, because both Z-20 and Z-18 are relatively new.
The bigger ship disincentive doesn't apply either, assuming 055 is as big as we think it is. If 055 isn't as big as it is and doesn't have much room to spare then chances are 055 wont' have Z-18s.
The other disincentive for a larger helicopter is the higher cost, which the PLAN may deem a worthwhile sacrifice for the better capability of Z-18.

It is a combination of these various factors which may make the decision shift one way or the other.

As I mentioned, a bigger ship is not needed for a 13 ton helo. If an OHP frigate can make room for 2 10 ton frigates, any similarly sized ship or larger can make room for a 13 ton helo. Or even 2. For the PLAN and the 055, really the only question is, is the greater capability offered by the Z-18 worth it to them? The answer will come with photos of the 055's stern, and maybe not even then.

Also, putting Z-18s on 055s may not mean the PLAN is intending to purchase only Z-18s for their ASW roles. Z-20 will likely act as a "low end" for smaller ships or existing surface combatants not large enough for Z-18s.

I prefer to think of the Z-20 as the likely new standard ASW helo for all past, current and future FFG's and DDG's, and the Z-18 as possibly the helo chosen for truly larger ships like the LPD, LHD/A, and CV. Eventually the PLAN will have the ability to scrap all the older retiring Z-9's and Kamov's and replace them one for one on current PLAN vessels with the Z-20, something the Z-18 has no hope of doing due to its greater size. Otherwise you run the logistics nightmare of certain ships not being able to handle certain other ships' helos even in the same squadron or strike group. An amphibious strike group is going to be far less common than groups formed without the presence of large amphibious vessels, so it makes perfect sense to restrict the larger Z-18's to only those vessels.

They are definitely some of the largest surface combatants in the world, but their spurance and flight i forbearers may not have been large enough to implement a hangar large enough for a 13 ton helicopter without substantial costs (or at least, the cost to design and implement such hangars may not have been seen worth the increase in capability of a heavier helicopter, combined with the notion that a heavier helicopter may fundamentally not be worth the increase in capability regarding both unit/operating cost and logistics/support base)

Again I was responding to your comment

Didn't have large enough surface combatants to hold them

Size isn't the issue. Was it worth it was/is the issue. Even Spruance had the room had it so desired. The Flight I Burkes were purposely designed without hangars because the designers were afraid Congress would balk at the price, but the USN had every intention to build them into later iterations, which is precisely what ended up happening.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

First the Requirements for a ASW chopper and those of a combat transport.
Z20 is optimized as a combat transport Chopper. The placement of the Landing gear particularly the rear wheel the number of Rotor blades. these features are optimized for rigidity and survive ability under ground fire.
It's rear wheel's placement suggests it's meant to act as a anchor allowing the crew in a emergency to stick it into the ground and slam the weight down on the forward wheels which are shock absorbers. In order to do that the Rear wheel has to be very very structurally sound.

A ASW chopper is rarely meant to take ground fire, particularly those assigned to a DDG or Cruiser. It has to fit in a compact space. To do that the tail needs to be fordable. that's contradictory, Z15 however offers a alternitive as it uses a conventional tricycle. this is better suited to a ship, and it means the tail is just a tail only meant to support the rear rotor. next Z20 follows the same sleek hull form of the blackhawk. This means a ASW Z20 would need to be reconfigured with structural member to support emergency floats and torpedos, Z15 already has the start of these. Look I am just voicing my opinion her just as You are But I think The Z15 is better suited to the Naval mission set and Vip then Z20. Z20 Seems a good choice for PLA ground forces and Air Forces.

 

[Blitzo]

You had said
Most navies have significantly larger surface combatants than the OHP. My point is that if a Perry only with a 14 m beam can carry 2 10 ton helos, larger vessels can certainly be built to carry 1 or even 2 13 ton helos. The point is also that the various world navies have chosen not to build this capability into their vessels, repeatedly, for reasons other than a limitation of the ship's hull size.

Being able to physically carry a chopper of that size doesn't mean they can safely recover and launch it, which is dependent on helipad. Furthermore, as I already said in my previous post, the much greater height of a 13 ton helicopter versus a 10 ton helicopter also has big implications for the final height of the aft structure which houses the helipad.

As I mentioned, a bigger ship is not needed for a 13 ton helo. If an OHP frigate can make room for 2 10 ton frigates, any similarly sized ship or larger can make room for a 13 ton helo. Or even 2. For the PLAN and the 055, really the only question is, is the greater capability offered by the Z-18 worth it to them? The answer will come with photos of the 055's stern, and maybe not even then.

Having the hangar space for two ten ton helos does not mean one can field a 13 ton helicopter, because of both the height of the hangar, and also the size of the helipad. I clarify the ship size question at the end of this post.

I prefer to think of the Z-20 as the likely new standard ASW helo for all past, current and future FFG's and DDG's, and the Z-18 as possibly the helo chosen for truly larger ships like the LPD, LHD/A, and CV. Eventually the PLAN will have the ability to scrap all the older retiring Z-9's and Kamov's and replace them one for one on current PLAN vessels with the Z-20, something the Z-18 has no hope of doing due to its greater size. Otherwise you run the logistics nightmare of certain ships not being able to handle certain other ships' helos even in the same squadron or strike group. An amphibious strike group is going to be far less common than groups formed without the presence of large amphibious vessels, so it makes perfect sense to restrict the larger Z-18's to only those vessels.

Personally, I would prefer a two tiered naval helicopter system divided into two roles.
Z-20FQ, to act as the low end ASW helicopter that can be fielded on new build smaller ships like corvettes/light frigates, as well as currently existing DDGs and FFGs that won't be retiring anytime soon but lack hangars and helipads to accommodate Z-18.
Z-20 transport, to act as a multirole transport/logistics helicopter, again as the low end of a hi-lo mix. Will of course have uses in CSAR, airborne assault, for situations where a larger helicopter like Z-18 may be unsuited.

Z-18FQ, will act as the high end ASW helicopter fielded on a variety of platforms, but specifically surface combatants (seeing as surface combatants will take up the brunt of ASW escort work). I would like both 055 and the next generation frigate to both have the option to field two of them, to provide a top tier heliborne ASW capability in situations where necessary. The additional space can also be used for UAVs and storing multirole modules.
Z-18 transport, act as the PLAN equivalent of sea knight or V-22 (in terms of troop carrying capacity), as well as a heavier weight logistics helicopter.

Again I was responding to your comment

Size isn't the issue. Was it worth it was/is the issue. Even Spruance had the room had it so desired. The Flight I Burkes were purposely designed without hangars because the designers were afraid Congress would balk at the price, but the USN had every intention to build them into later iterations, which is precisely what ended up happening.

I think we are getting into semantics of what "size" means.
For me, not having the "large enough ships" means having large enough hulls which may affordably and practically field large enough hangars and helipads. That affordability and practicality is of course determined by hull size.

So I think we both technically agree on the size issue. I suppose I should have added on the "worth it or not" part, but I thought that was pretty self explanatory. After all, almost all ships can accommodate any piece of subsystem with enough modification, and it is size that determines whether the modification or design choice is worth it or not.