Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)

[Tomboy]

Alot of papers referencing a certain 14000t destroyer with a Zumwalt style superstructure are appearing in recent years. With 32 papers found and ~10 independent models. Is it possible the 052D replacement is bigger than we all thought it would?

Usual disclaimers apply with this guy

 

[Gloire_bb]

View attachment 169101
Alot of papers referencing a certain 14000t destroyer with a Zumwalt style superstructure are appearing in recent years. With 32 papers found and ~10 independent models. Is it possible the 052D replacement is bigger than we all thought it would?

Usual disclaimers apply with this guy

Well, global fashion (Germany, Italy, US) right now is twin survivability islands, almost entirely independent of each other if necessary.
In most cases, this architecture, together with boosted power generation, massively increases displacement for a given capability point. Plus things like popular CODLOGAL.
Maybe that may serve as an explanation, how a 052d "NEO" can massively grow in size (potentially beyond existing 055).

 

[Aspide]

Which US ship uses twin survivability islands?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

View attachment 169101
Alot of papers referencing a certain 14000t destroyer with a Zumwalt style superstructure are appearing in recent years. With 32 papers found and ~10 independent models. Is it possible the 052D replacement is bigger than we all thought it would?

Usual disclaimers apply with this guy

The 14000-ton displacement that he mentioned is actually the designed/standard displacement and not the full load displacement.

Perhaps this is actually referring to the 18000-ton (at full load) large destroyer/cruiser instead of the next-gen general-purpose DDG? Because going from 7500-ton full load displacement of the 052D DDGs to >14000-ton standard displacement of this new DDG/CG is about 100% jump in displacement, which is absolutely massive for a general-purpose DDG.

 

[Tomboy]

The 14000-ton displacement that he mentioned is actually the designed/standard displacement and not the full load displacement.

Perhaps this is actually referring to the 18000-ton large destroyer/cruiser instead of the next-gen general-purpose DDG? Because going from 7500-ton full load displacement of the 052D DDGs to >14000-ton standard displacement of this new DDG/CG is about 100% jump in displacement, which is admittedly massive for a general-purpose DDG.

4000t difference between standard and full is too large to be realistic. IIRC, Zumwalt had a standard displacement of 14.5kt and a full displacement of 15.9kt, a difference of 1400t only.

USN was looking at 13,000+t designs for DDG(X) and given future combat needs (Mainly array size and power generation) and endurance requirements, a 14,000t general purpose destroyer doesn't sound unreasonable. 052Ds were just quite undersized for its role and hence I don't think its fair to assume it is the optimal size for the current generation of general purpose DDG and draw conclusions on future designs from there.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

4000t difference between standard and full is too large to be realistic. IIRC, Zumwalt had a standard displacement of 14.5kt and a full displacement of 15.9kt, a difference of 1400t only.

USN was looking at 13,000+t designs for DDG(X) and given future combat needs (Mainly array size and power generation) and endurance requirements, a 14,000t general purpose destroyer doesn't sound unreasonable. 052Ds were just quite undersized for its role and hence I don't think its fair to assume it is the optimal size for the current generation of general purpose DDG and draw conclusions on future designs from there.

Huh. In that case (and should this 14000-ton standard displacement general-purpose DDG is indeed true), then we most likely won't see this next-gen DDG getting built in similar scale and speed as the 052Ds.

Hopefully, they would have minimally manned, mission-modular radar picket/arsenal ships to fill in and accompany these next-gen DDGs.

 

[Tomboy]

Huh. In that case (and should this 14000-ton standard displacement general-purpose DDG is indeed true), then we most likely won't see this next-gen DDG getting built in similar scale and speed as the 052Ds.

Hopefully, they would have minimally manned, mission-modular radar picket/arsenal ships to fill in and accompany these next-gen DDGs.

It's just my guess, it could very well that these new ships are a direct 055 successor and that the PLA will keep a three tiered high end combatant fleet with a CG, large destroyer and standard destroyers. Although I think the suggestion that perhaps they'll go with fewer manned but higher end ships but ensuring numerical superiority by having a bunch of unmanned platforms to go along with it, is reasonably likely as well.

 

[jnd85]

Which US ship uses twin survivability islands?

My best guess is that he may be referring to San Antonio-class ships that were re-equiped with two prominent, advanced composite enclosed masts housing radars and antennas to reduce radar cross-section, though not really the same as twin islands like on newer UK ships like the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

 

[AndrewS]

It's just my guess, it could very well that these new ships are a direct 055 successor and that the PLA will keep a three tiered high end combatant fleet with a CG, large destroyer and standard destroyers. Although I think the suggestion that perhaps they'll go with fewer manned but higher end ships but ensuring numerical superiority by having a bunch of unmanned platforms to go along with it, is reasonably likely as well.

There is also the possibility of a high-end Frigate, primarily for ASW which would screen the Destroyers and larger ships. But whether a such a class is worth developing is dependent on the number of aircraft carriers.

As for unmanned platforms, they don't actually save that much money/space, and would have far inferior damage control capabilities.

Given that the Chinese Navy can recruit enough sailors and that the Chinese Navy doesn't regularly flog its ships for 6+ month missions just for "presence", they might as well put in a minimal crew, even if the ship could operate unmanned.

 

[Gloire_bb]

My best guess is that he may be referring to San Antonio-class ships that were re-equiped with two prominent, advanced composite enclosed masts housing radars and antennas to reduce radar cross-section, though not really the same as twin islands like on newer UK ships like the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Nope, now abortive DDG(X) overflowing into BBG(X). I.e. two newest US large surface combatants.
For Italy, whole "EVO" generation: PPA EVO, FREMM EVO, but most of all (most thoroughly) - their new DD.

Finally, the germans started this approach in the first place(F125/126/127). There are others here and there(like, Dutch), but this isn't systematic at this point. Hard to tell if it'll catch up everywhere. It's a rather expensive way of doing same things.