055 Large Destroyer Thread II

para80

Junior Member
Registered Member
Its the ninth one fitting out. The tenth one is technically the one at Dalian and then there is possibly another one building at Jiangnan labelled above as #1. It could also be an 052DL, but I'm not sure yet from the images so far. Its certainly another DDG obviously.
 

grulle

Junior Member
Registered Member
ok so it is confirmed that they are finally building the next batch. amazing news. this just made my day lol. hopefully they don't stop at 16 though, that would not nearly be enough.
 

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
If true, the 9th vessel would be named after the location where CCP was founded (not Shanghai, but the Southern Lake in Jiaxing City). Such naming is consistent with 101 Nanchang, 102 Lhasa, 103 Anshan, 106 Yan'an, 107 Zhunyi, and 108 Xianyang. All of these names city names are important to the CCP and PLAN's history with the exception of Xianyang, the capital of Qin Dynasty. I wonder if future 055s would include Anyang (capital of Shang Dynasty), Ruijin (capital of the short-lived Chinese Soviet Republic), and Kashgar (like Lhasa, symbolising the PRC's control of critical and historically symbolic border cities traditionally not part of the Han civilisation).
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
If true, the 9th vessel would be named after the location where CCP was founded (not Shanghai, but the Southern Lake in Jiaxing City). Such naming is consistent with 101 Nanchang, 102 Lhasa, 103 Anshan, 106 Yan'an, 107 Zhunyi, and 108 Xianyang. All of these names city names are important to the CCP and PLAN's history with the exception of Xianyang, the capital of Qin Dynasty. I wonder if future 055s would include Anyang (capital of Shang Dynasty), Ruijin (capital of the short-lived Chinese Soviet Republic), and Kashgar (like Lhasa, symbolising the PRC's control of critical and historically symbolic border cities traditionally not part of the Han civilisation).
That moment in PLAN history when they name one Taipei.
 

Franklin

Captain
My view is that China needs begin to divest from these largest manned platforms and start to invest more in unmmanned systems in the air on the surface and under the water. In the short run these platforms will be force multipliers and in the long run they will dominate the battlefields.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
My view is that China needs begin to divest from these largest manned platforms and start to invest more in unmanned systems in the air on the surface and under the water. In the short run these platforms will be force multipliers and in the long run they will dominate the battlefields.
The correct way is to do with both manned and unmanned platforms. Unmanned platforms are still incapable of fully replacing manned platforms for the foreseeable future.
 
Top