Next Generation Destroyer thread (after 055, 052D)

[Atomicfrog]

In short: Yes, that's basically my original line of thought. I should've explained more clearly beforehand.

But before that, and as a reply to your previous post:


Adding such huge, potential powder keg source onto warships with massive significance for the navy operating them and only available in very low numbers isn't particularly a good idea. A lucky hit or an unlucky accident could potentially render an entire CV or LHD incapacitated, if not outright sunk with the addition of such massive quantities of explosives onboard. A couple UVLS cells for quad-packable MRSAMs (if not HHQ-16s and/or HHQ-9s) should be a good idea for CVs and LHDs, but only up until that.

This brings the notion that large surface combatants (i.e. DDGs and CGs) should be the ones carrying the larger diameter strike missiles in LVLS cells, instead of CVs and LHDs. They are available in greater numbers, able to be present in larger numbers of regions at once, more flexible in their deployments, and are naturally more expandable than proper flattops.

Instead of attempting to construct 20000-30000-ton pipe-dream warships that would be a total waste of precious, finite peacetime and wartime resources - Proper modifications and iterations of the normal, frontline surface warships currently operating in the PLAN today are definitely enough for such endeavors.

Retaining the 64 UVLS-cell count for the 052D/DG-successors and the 112 UVLS-cell count for the 055-successors (if not marginally increasing the number of UVLS cells by a maximum of 16 for both warships) - All while having the option to swap certain numbers of the UVLS cells onboard with smaller numbers of LVLS cells is certainly more than enough.

For the sake of giving examples:
1. A 052D/DG-successor DDG of 9000-10000 tons (at full load) with original loadout configs of 64 or 80 UVLS cells can have alternate loadout configs of 48 UVLS + 6-8 LVLS cells or 64 UVLS + 6-8 LVLS cells; and
2. A 055-succesor DDG/CG of 15000-16000 tons (at full load) with original loadout configs of 112-128 UVLS can have alternate loadout configs of 80 UVLS + 12-16 LVLS cells or 96 UVLS + 12-16 LVLS cells.

These LVLS cells must be capable of not just carrying larger, heavier and even longer-range strike missiles, but also multi-pack certain missiles in each individual LVLS cell, which would otherwise only be able to fit one unit per UVLS cell.

Most importantly, if anything - The ability of swapping UVLS cells with LVLS cells onboard the surface combatants of the PLAN must be:
1. Applicable across significant portions of the major surface combatant fleet of the navy (i.e. not only for the selected few, "unique-type" warships);
2. "For-but-not-with", i.e. said CGs and DDGs must function properly and conduct their respective roles in the navy, with or without the addition of LVLS cells; and
3. Providing visibly greater benefit in terms of strike range or strike volume than without LVLS cells.

Bigger ships and more subsystems give you costlier ships that means usually less ship to field. Fewer ship with heavier maintenance diminish the presence at sea. You also need to feed this monster number of cells... Shelf life, maintenance upgrades, training, everything need to be sorted out to have enough missiles if a conflict arise.

If you take the US, they are not able to feed enough missiles to feed their fleet. We could take the tomahawk for example:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pumping out ships and introducing newer types is one thing, procuring all the rest need another logistic workforce.

China fleet is already becoming young compared to is adversaries. I'm not seeing the urgent need to build a next generation destroyer.

 

[BoraTas]

Where is American expansion of shipyard capacity? I heard their ships are low in maintnence, outdated, missing capability (frigate), so where are the expansion? They certainly get a large budget. So where is the expansion if you have money and the needs. Shouldn't it pop up like magic on demand?

Well, they are trying. USN currently has problem with everything. They couldn't field even the FREMM to start with. They took a proven and sensible design that was service in 4 navies. They tried to add so many things that the design became unstable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Remember these too:
The deletion of the well deck from America-class LHDs
The commissioning of the USS Ford despite known faults in the propulsion and weapons elevators
The entire LCS saga
Development of the Zumwalt DDG around a gun system that can use a single munition. Then the cancellation of the said munition.
Very slow introduction of the F-35 to the carriers
Recruitment target getting missed by 40%. And the insistence to continue 6+ month deployments despite that.

So they don't have a particular problem with shipyards.

 

[tankphobia]

The only way they could justify a 20k ton ship would be nuclear cruiser escorts for a future fully nuclear CSG. It would give China global presence, but also be extremely expensive. Would not seriously consider unless China want to contest arctic waters also.

 

[TK3600]

Well, they are trying. USN currently has problem with everything. They couldn't field even the FREMM to start with. They took a proven and sensible design that was service in 4 navies. They tried to add so many things that the design became unstable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Remember these too:
The deletion of the well deck from America-class LHDs
The commissioning of the USS Ford despite known faults in the propulsion and weapons elevators
The entire LCS saga
Development of the Zumwalt DDG around a gun system that can use a single munition. Then the cancellation of the said munition.
Very slow introduction of the F-35 to the carriers
Recruitment target getting missed by 40%. And the insistence to continue 6+ month deployments despite that.

So they don't have a particular problem with shipyards.

My point is they have a huge attrition of skilled labor across all industry. Not limited to shipyards. Automobile, semiconductor, infrastructure, aerospace, you name it. It will not pop up on demand with a wade of cash. Well, if the cash dont get stolen in first place.

Note this is not a problem limited to US. South Korea, Japan, even China has issues with shipyard employment to different extent, just less than US.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Bigger ships and more subsystems give you costlier ships that means usually less ship to field. Fewer ship with heavier maintenance diminish the presence at sea. You also need to feed this monster number of cells... Shelf life, maintenance upgrades, training, everything need to be sorted out to have enough missiles if a conflict arise.

If you take the US, they are not able to feed enough missiles to feed their fleet. We could take the tomahawk for example:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pumping out ships and introducing newer types is one thing, procuring all the rest need another logistic workforce.

China fleet is already becoming young compared to is adversaries. I'm not seeing the urgent need to build a next generation destroyer.

Sure. And nobody is building Fletcher-class DDs anymore today.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Bigger ships and more subsystems give you costlier ships that means usually less ship to field. Fewer ship with heavier maintenance diminish the presence at sea. You also need to feed this monster number of cells... Shelf life, maintenance upgrades, training, everything need to be sorted out to have enough missiles if a conflict arise.

If you take the US, they are not able to feed enough missiles to feed their fleet. We could take the tomahawk for example:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pumping out ships and introducing newer types is one thing, procuring all the rest need another logistic workforce.

China fleet is already becoming young compared to is adversaries. I'm not seeing the urgent need to build a next generation destroyer.

Yeah, I suppose everyone should've just stick with the Fletcher-class instead. Could've built thousands of them.

 

[montyp165]

What you've just described is literally what Ma Weiming has suggested (i.e. "全能舰"), which has no anchor to the grounds of reality.

Go back up the thread and previous thread(s) and re-read what I have explained many times already. I ain't got any more energy to waste on what is basically the same, repetitive argument.

That's still an incorrect assumption to make because such a vessel is intended to serve as the core of a surface action group, or as the lead escort vessel/combat support in a CVBG, meaning that there would only be as many such vessels as CVs. Arguing that it would be used as a universal replacement surface combatant vessel would be highly disingenuous.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

That's still an incorrect assumption to make because such a vessel is intended to serve as the core of a surface action group, or as the lead escort vessel/combat support in a CVBG, meaning that there would only be as many such vessels as CVs. Arguing that it would be used as a universal replacement surface combatant vessel would be highly disingenuous.

And that design (as a so-called "core of a SAG") is still going to be more useless than not for the PLAN, especially when future platforms in the DDG and CG categories (which will definitely be available in great numbers) can be made/modified for performing similar tasks.

The 21st-century version of the Kirov battlecruisers are essentially what you are arguing for. We don't need them.

Also, there is no need to chase after much higher goals than they are realistically and feasibly achievable for the scope of operations of the navy as a whole.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Sure. And nobody is building Fletcher-class DDs anymore today.

That's funny...

Type 055 have been in service for about 5 years, only half of the planned have been build. Saying it's not enough and running for better bigger dream is a bit premature. They didn't even reach midlife. Type 52d is just dipping his toes in water.

You still need improvement in the long term but when you build already top of the line ships in bigger quantity than other nation you can wait a bit to do bigger increments than adding new types after 5 years... Adding more cells and ships with bigger capacity of more of the same is a bit strange when technology improve and those ordonnances could be obsoletes in 20 years while type 055 and 052D will still be in water.

Would wait before making assessment of what the next one will need. Making improvement in gas turbines, and subsystem is way more important presently that the need of more VLS to be relevant.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

That's funny...

Type 055 have been in service for about 5 years, only half of the planned have been build. Saying it's not enough and running for better bigger is a bit premature. They didn't even reach midlife. Type 52d is just dipping his toes in water.

You still need improvement in the long term but when you build already top of the line ships in bigger quantity than other nation you can wait a bit to do bigger increments than adding new types after 5 years... Adding more cells and ships with bigger capacity of more of the same is a bit strange when technology improve and those ordonnances could be obsoletes in 20 years while type 055 and 052D will still be in water.

Would wait before making assessment of what the next one will need. Making improvement in gas turbines, and subsystem is way more than deciding that it need more VLS to be relevant.

Firstly, as I have mentioned in the previous posts - I am not looking for super-duper surface combatants that are jam-packed with missiles as per envisioned by some members of this forum. What I am actually looking for are major surface combatants that are better-suited for an all-out, open-ocean naval warfare in the coming years and into the coming decades, while retaining many of the strengths and advantages of the present surface combatants in service with the PLAN. Is this something too much to ask for?

In the meantime, nowhere had I ever mentioned that the next-gen DDGs that were meant to succeed the 052D/DGs (and also CGs for the 055s) must be built today. Where did you even get that idea from?

Plus, just so you know, the first 052D will be reaching 20 years of age by 2034. And for a design finalized in 2011 if not the late-2000s (otherwise construction work on Kunming cannot began before her launch in 2012) - 20+ years can be a pretty long period of time, especially considering the reignited arms race happening on both sides of the Pacific right now.

And while the 052D/DG-class is a very good and potent platform as a general-purpose DDG for the PLAN - The celling for the most amount of potentials that can be wring out of the 052D/DG's hull (which actually stemmed from the 052s all the way from the early-1990s, back when China's naval technology is still far from mature in many aspects) has been reached by now, if not pretty soon.

Personally, I wouldn't wish for the PLAN of the late-2030s, let alone the 2040s and 2050s to receive newly-built frontline surface combatants with their fundamental hull designs set in the late-2000s. Is this something too much to ask for?

Furthermore, the PLAN and their related R&D institutes and universities aren't sitting still either. To begin with, China's own 35-40 MW gas turbine engines can be expected by the end of this decade, which actually comes at a perfect time - As the work on a new-class of general-purpose DDG is already underway right now, as per pop3.

If there is a suitable time to begin rolling out successors to the 052D/DGs, it would be sometime in the 2030s (and similarly, successors to the 055 in the late-2030s if not 2040s) - And the improvements over the predecessors should never be limited to armaments only, as this has always been my stance for quite some time already, just so you know.

Hence, it's more like you're the funny one if you really think that I'm as "muh more and bigger VLS, muh much massive hull!" as a few people here in this thread.