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

[Blitzo]

For a DD, of course 16-20 is to be expected. But I wouldn´t rule out them trying out the cruiser concept, especially if the Trump class "Battleships" aren´t cancelled.

Don't inflate tonnage. 16-20k tons is already more than a large destroyer in category by contemporary reasoning, it is very much in a cruiser category if not heavier.
Just because the Zumwalt class is called a "destroyer" at 15-16k tons doesn't mean everyone else has to abide by the same stupid conventions immediately. (e.g.: just because Zumwalt is a "destroyer" doesn't mean ships smaller than it cannot also be destroyers or even cruisers)
Even the 055 itself is understood as a "large destroyer" to differentiate it from say, 052Ds.


As for the Trump class -- if the PLAN are sensible, they would recognize the Trump class "battleships" are ridiculous, and if the USN does actually remain uncancelled the PLAN would be toasting their good fortune that their main adversary navy is pursuing such an idiotic vessel that is sacrilegious to the very concept of "opportunity-cost".


If you think it would somehow be a good idea for the PLAN to pursue a vessel of similar or greater tonnage, it may be worth reflecting on priors.

 

[alanch90]

In a fleet of upsized platforms I’d expect a 16-20k class ship to be the cruiser and a 9-12k class ship to be the destroyer. One path they could take is to reassign the basic 055 template into the destroyer role and position a new 20k design into the future cruiser role. The legacy 052D fleet can then slide into a light destroyer/heavy frigate role, since it seems most attempts at a modern frigate design end up looking like a light destroyer anyways.

Don't inflate tonnage. 16-20k tons is already more than a large destroyer in category by contemporary reasoning, it is very much in a cruiser category if not heavier.
Just because the Zumwalt class is called a "destroyer" at 15-16k tons doesn't mean everyone else has to abide by the same stupid conventions immediately. (e.g.: just because Zumwalt is a "destroyer" doesn't mean ships smaller than it cannot also be destroyers or even cruisers)
Even the 055 itself is understood as a "large destroyer" to differentiate it from say, 052Ds.


As for the Trump class -- if the PLAN are sensible, they would recognize the Trump class "battleships" are ridiculous, and if the USN does actually remain uncancelled the PLAN would be toasting their good fortune that their main adversary navy is pursuing such an idiotic vessel that is sacrilegious to the very concept of "opportunity-cost".


If you think it would somehow be a good idea for the PLAN to pursue a vessel of similar or greater tonnage, it may be worth reflecting on priors.

Countries are already building destroyers at 15k tons as we speak. Take the Japanese ASEV, for example. US DDG(X) -which perhaps they may be reviving- was also projected to be of larger displacement than 055. Tonnage isn´t really a good criteria to tell a cruiser apart from a DDG, since each countries own criteria change over time.

In any case, the "Trump" class (to me they resemble more a heavy cruiser/battlecruiser like the Kirov than a battleship) does bring a capability you can´t put in destroyers, potentially a lot of intermediate range weapons (perhaps up to 36), which will perform land attack and anti ship missions. Dismissing that potential threat out of hand is not something sensible planners do. Just wait until the US lays down the first hull, but have your own design ready by then. And if anything, a surface combatant large enough to pack DF-27 like weapons at large enough quantities is likely the kind of answer PLAN will go for.

 

[Blitzo]

Countries are already building destroyers at 15k tons as we speak. Take the Japanese ASEV, for example. US DDG(X) -which perhaps they may be reviving- was also projected to be of larger displacement than 055. Tonnage isn´t really a good criteria to tell a cruiser apart from a DDG, since each countries own criteria change over time.

Yes, and those would be considered as "large destroyers".

Until such a time that it the average destroyer in the world is of that displacement category

In any case, the "Trump" class (to me they resemble more a heavy cruiser/battlecruiser like the Kirov than a battleship) does bring a capability you can´t put in destroyers, potentially a lot of intermediate range weapons (perhaps up to 36), which will perform land attack and anti ship missions. Dismissing that potential threat out of hand is not something sensible planners do. Just wait until the US lays down the first hull, but have your own design ready by then. And if anything, a surface combatant large enough to pack DF-27 like weapons at large enough quantities is likely the kind of answer PLAN will go for.

If you want to suggest that a 055 successor should carry IRBM sized weapons, then that is the first argument to try to justify -- and get ready to defend such an idea versus a myriad of other alternative solutions for achieving such strike capabilities or naval platforms for carrying such weapons, and whether it even makes sense for the PLAN to have seek such a capability in the first place.

Heck even the Trump class carrying CPS is not exactly an IRBM sized weapon; its individual canister footprint is only a bit bigger than a 9m UVLS.

My point being that the notion of "imagine if they build a 40-50k ton warship carrying DF-27" isn't something that should just be thrown out there in a cavalier way.
There's a lot to justify, defend, examine and speculate on (both the idea of a 40-50k ton warship in general, as well as whether it even makes sense to put a DF-27 sized weapon on a surface warship let alone any sort of naval platform to begin with), and sometimes all of those complicating factors means it isn't really worth talking about unless there are actually any strong indicators or rumours of it being pursued.


As it stands, the existing high end of a next gen PLAN large surface combatant is about 20k tons, so unless we get indicators that they're seriously looking at anything bigger than that, it's better to keep the speculation contained.

We don't have the freedom to just throw out random ideas after all.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Don't inflate tonnage. 16-20k tons is already more than a large destroyer in category by contemporary reasoning, it is very much in a cruiser category if not heavier.
Just because the Zumwalt class is called a "destroyer" at 15-16k tons doesn't mean everyone else has to abide by the same stupid conventions immediately. (e.g.: just because Zumwalt is a "destroyer" doesn't mean ships smaller than it cannot also be destroyers or even cruisers)
Even the 055 itself is understood as a "large destroyer" to differentiate it from say, 052Ds.


As for the Trump class -- if the PLAN are sensible, they would recognize the Trump class "battleships" are ridiculous, and if the USN does actually remain uncancelled the PLAN would be toasting their good fortune that their main adversary navy is pursuing such an idiotic vessel that is sacrilegious to the very concept of "opportunity-cost".


If you think it would somehow be a good idea for the PLAN to pursue a vessel of similar or greater tonnage, it may be worth reflecting on priors.

I don't think 20-30K destroyers/cruisers are a bad idea. The way Trump envisions it as ""Trump class" might be a bad idea, but not a ultra large ship.

Coming from my earlier post, as I saying, in this modern age dominated by drones and missiles, stealth is not going to work for ships. So, what is the best way to survive mass saturation attacks from Drones and Missiles? It is to build such a large scale defense that it can rebuff mass attacks.

Load the ship with ultra powerful radar, multiple types of air and missile defense. Instead of current approach of VLS based air/missile defense, large cruisers should have every kind of air/missile/drone defense possible. So, multiple microwave arrays, multiple lasers, 200+ VLS, multiple CRAMs with big loadout of missiles.

Another capability such a large scale ship can have is the ability to launch its own drones for attacks and surveillence. This will make such ships more capable of understanding its surroundings or even launch loitering drone attack.

It can also launch large ASBM or ASCM with ultra long range or hypersonic speeds. This will allow it to attack from a long distance and thus keeping it safe from attacks from the shore.

Overall, the way to go for navies could be give up on medium destroyers completely, focus on big ships defended by absolute defense and supported by large number of unmanned ships and drones.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't think 20-30K destroyers/cruisers are a bad idea. The way Trump envisions it as ""Trump class" might be a bad idea, but not a ultra large ship.

Coming from my earlier post, as I saying, in this modern age dominated by drones and missiles, stealth is not going to work for ships. So, what is the best way to survive mass saturation attacks from Drones and Missiles? It is to build such a large scale defense that it can rebuff mass attacks.

Load the ship with ultra powerful radar, multiple types of air and missile defense. Instead of current approach of VLS based air/missile defense, large cruisers should have every kind of air/missile/drone defense possible. So, multiple microwave arrays, multiple lasers, 200+ VLS, multiple CRAMs with big loadout of missiles.

Another capability such a large scale ship can have is the ability to launch its own drones for attacks and surveillence. This will make such ships more capable of understanding its surroundings or even launch loitering drone attack.

It can also launch large ASBM or ASCM with ultra long range or hypersonic speeds. This will allow it to attack from a long distance and thus keeping it safe from attacks from the shore.

Overall, the way to go for navies could be give up on medium destroyers completely, focus on big ships defended absolute defense and supported by large number of unmanned ships and drones.

The "error-bars" and "confidence intervals" for what future naval warfare may look like are far too wide, so I don't see why we need to exclude certain types of ships as if they should be given up.

For example, why suggest the idea to "give up on medium destroyers completely"? Isn't that such a big call which actually requires some more concrete evidence or at least rumours to consider?


All we know is that the PLAN have categories of future manned surface combatants in the works, of varying sizes ranging from about 052D sized to 20k ton sized and some in between. And all such manned surface combatants could make sense in different permutations of future force structure depending on iteration of technology or concept of operations, so it's not worth our time to "rule out" options.

The rest should be left up to us to wait for further evidence and rumours.


Let's avoid freewheeling speculation. The point of PLA watching is to have directed projections.

 

[alanch90]

If you want to suggest that a 055 successor should carry IRBM sized weapons, then that is the first argument to try to justify -- and get ready to defend such an idea versus a myriad of other alternative solutions for achieving such strike capabilities or naval platforms for carrying such weapons, and whether it even makes sense for the PLAN to have seek such a capability in the first place.

Heck even the Trump class carrying CPS is not exactly an IRBM sized weapon; its individual canister footprint is only a bit bigger than a 9m UVLS.

No, that wasn´t my point at all. What I said was: I´m expecting the 055 successor to be larger, likely in the 15-20k ton range and still be considered a destroyer. In addition, the Trump class becoming a real capability may likely trigger a symmetrical response from the Chinese side. I wouldn´t be surprised if PLAN planers are having this exact conversation as we speak.

On the other hand, a CPS missile is about 12m in length and not projected to be equipped on any current or future USN destroyer at the moment (apart from the 3 modified Zumwalts) exactly because of size constraints. The CPS is the Trump´s reason to exist since its the only unique capability it provides over DDs.

For example, why suggest the idea to "give up on medium destroyers completely"? Isn't that such a big call which actually requires some more concrete evidence or at least rumours to consider?

No one said so.

 

[Blitzo]

No, that wasn´t my point at all. What I said was: I´m expecting the 055 successor to be larger, likely in the 15-20k ton range and still be considered a destroyer. In addition, the Trump class becoming a real capability may likely trigger a symmetrical response from the Chinese side. I wouldn´t be surprised if PLAN planers are having this exact conversation as we speak.

On the other hand, a CPS missile is about 12m in length and not projected to be equipped on any current or future USN destroyer at the moment (apart from the 3 modified Zumwalts) exactly because of size constraints. The CPS is the Trump´s reason to exist since its the only unique capability it provides over DDs.

A 15k-20k ton ship might be considered a destroyer, or a large destroyer or a cruiser.

For us in 2026, it is certainly more prudent to recognize it probably won't be taking on the role of a 052D which is what we consider to be a "destroyer" in the PLAN with the 055 being a "large destroyer".

As for the Trump class, the idea of the PLAN doing a symmetric response to it is presently unnecessary. The Trump class is a bad idea for the USN, and a similar ship for the PLAN is also a bad idea.

Basically there are no reasonable grounds to entertain the idea of a 40k-50k ton ship at the moment, whether it has DF-27s or not.

What I am saying, is I think we should actively shut down and suppress anything that can be interpreted as an invitation to discuss prospects of such a ship. If things change (credible rumours or indicators) then sure. But for now, no.

There are other threads which exist for "random freewheeling speculation".

Eg Design a warship fun thread

No one said so.

That reply was to @tamsen_ikard , where in post #604 he did say so (see his last paragraph of that post)

 

[sndef888]

I would guess 15-16k is the max the PLA would go for a 055B

It just makes the most sense economically. All you have to do is upsize the 055 a little, add a couple VLS, upgrade the powerplant to a CGT-30 and everything works out.

To go higher than that you'd need new propulsion, huge redesign, and for what? It doesn't seem worth the cost unless there's a real need for that size. Everything a 40k ton ship can do, probably 2 x 055Bs can do better for the same cost.

Trump class is a dumb idea and I would be surprised if China followed suit

 

[Blitzo]

I would guess 15-16k is the max the PLA would go for a 055B

It just makes the most sense economically. All you have to do is upsize the 055 a little, add a couple VLS, upgrade the powerplant to a CGT-30 and everything works out.

To go higher than that you'd need new propulsion, huge redesign, and for what? It doesn't seem worth the cost unless there's a real need for that size. Everything a 40k ton ship can do, probably 2 x 055Bs can do better for the same cost.

Trump class is a dumb idea and I would be surprised if China followed suit

The 055 successor might have a clean sheet hullform (among other things), and may also have a new propulsion architecture -- it may well not be a "055-suffix" class, but a whole new designation family.

Agree on the rest.

 

[bsdnf]

Don't inflate tonnage. 16-20k tons is already more than a large destroyer in category by contemporary reasoning, it is very much in a cruiser category if not heavier.
Just because the Zumwalt class is called a "destroyer" at 15-16k tons doesn't mean everyone else has to abide by the same stupid conventions immediately. (e.g.: just because Zumwalt is a "destroyer" doesn't mean ships smaller than it cannot also be destroyers or even cruisers)
Even the 055 itself is understood as a "large destroyer" to differentiate it from say, 052Ds.


As for the Trump class -- if the PLAN are sensible, they would recognize the Trump class "battleships" are ridiculous, and if the USN does actually remain uncancelled the PLAN would be toasting their good fortune that their main adversary navy is pursuing such an idiotic vessel that is sacrilegious to the very concept of "opportunity-cost".


If you think it would somehow be a good idea for the PLAN to pursue a vessel of similar or greater tonnage, it may be worth reflecting on priors.

The absurdity of the Trump-class battleship lies not in the tonnage itself, but in their disproportionate armament.

If the PLAN truly intends to build a "national missile defense ship," then large vessels of similar tonnage are inevitable. This is certainly not absurd enough to launch a DF-27, but the size of a DF-16 is possible.