Next Generation Destroyer thread (after 055, 052D)

[Atomicfrog]

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.

The comment was more a follow on of your comments than something against them...it was not a counter argument.... not sure why you are angry ??? Sorry would have been better to have made a reply to someone else.

 

[TK3600]

In all seriousness, I think a future 052D replacement should be something of similar weight, similar set of armaments. If weight change, it is solely for accommodating systems like engine, hydrodynamics. The general weight class is sound, so is the armament level, both should be retained.

I imagine 052D replacement to be similar length, little bit wider. Generally the same size but with layout optimized, in a way similar to 055 but newer. The layout change is dependent on the updated subsystems, so who knows which direction it goes. The main change is subsystem. Not only are they all new, they are not restrained by previous form factors, since ship structure itself change along to fit them. That is the main difference of a new platform vs old platform deeply modernized. The role itself has not changed.

In conclusion, new 05X will be a 052D with all new subsystem unrestrained by previous form factor along with structural change to accomdate it, but weight class will be very close. It is like a 2023 phone vs 2024 phone of same series. Internal parts changed completely, exterior dimension changed slightly, but general size, function etc are almost exactly the same.

 

[bebops]

The new destroyer replacement should have the ability to use hypersonic missile and long range torpedos. I dont know why torpedo range is so short. It has to be at least hundreds of miles

 

[iBBz]

What do the pros of this forum think of the concentric UVLS design? Does it waste space and limit mass flow rate to the point where it wouldn't be qualified on future PLAN DDGs and CGs?

 

[Blitzo]

What do the pros of this forum think of the concentric UVLS design? Does it waste space and limit mass flow rate to the point where it wouldn't be qualified on future PLAN DDGs and CGs?

That's not a yes/no question.

It's all relative to other alternatives -- are you comparing it with Mk-41 or Mk-57 or SYLVER or H/AJK-16 or UKSK, or something hypothetical alternative design that you have in mind?
And then how does UVLS compare with any of the above alternatives for both contemporary current ships and future ships?

You mention space wastage and mass flow rate -- do we know what the use of space and mass flow rate of UVLS and the various alternative VLS types are, to even compare them on that basis to begin with?


You gotta throw out a bit more detail if you want a more specific answer.


My own view is that the UVLS is fine. It's already one of the largest if not the largest genuinely universal/modular types of VLS that exists today, and able to accommodate hot and cold launch tubes which each offer their own use case and tube size strengths and weaknesses.
Even if a future surface combatants is larger and able to accommodate longer or higher diameter tubes, such a "ultra large" VLS would likely not be the baseline VLS armament but rather complementing the UVLS on the same ship.
We are seeing this on some ship types, for example the batch II Sejong use a small number of larger size KVLS-2 with a larger number of normal size Mk-41 and KVLS-1.
Zumwalts are being refit with LRHW VLS replacing their AGS, while still carrying its Mk-57 VLS.

If a future PLAN CG or large DDG wanted to also pursue an ultra large VLS on top of the already large UVLS, they can do so by just having both.

 

[Wrought]

In all seriousness, I think a future 052D replacement should be something of similar weight, similar set of armaments. If weight change, it is solely for accommodating systems like engine, hydrodynamics. The general weight class is sound, so is the armament level, both should be retained.

I imagine 052D replacement to be similar length, little bit wider. Generally the same size but with layout optimized, in a way similar to 055 but newer. The layout change is dependent on the updated subsystems, so who knows which direction it goes. The main change is subsystem. Not only are they all new, they are not restrained by previous form factors, since ship structure itself change along to fit them. That is the main difference of a new platform vs old platform deeply modernized. The role itself has not changed.

In conclusion, new 05X will be a 052D with all new subsystem unrestrained by previous form factor along with structural change to accomdate it, but weight class will be very close. It is like a 2023 phone vs 2024 phone of same series. Internal parts changed completely, exterior dimension changed slightly, but general size, function etc are almost exactly the same.

Increasingly complex sensors, networks, and signal processing demands ever-greater power generation, which demands more space and weight. I don't see that trend going away soon; if anything it is accelerating. Armaments are way overhyped and fine as is, but I personally would expect a significantly larger successor to accomodate a better powerplant.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I dont know why torpedo range is so short. It has to be at least hundreds of miles

Because unlike missiles, torpedoes are literally trying pierce through mass of "liquid concrete", which is actually very energy-exhausting. You'd need a much larger fuel source to propel the same mass through the same distance of water than air.

That's also why many people can finish a 47-kilometer marathon, but only few can swim across the English Channel at its narrowest point (36 kilometers), even under perfect weather conditons and sea states.

 

[iBBz]

That's not a yes/no question.

It's all relative to other alternatives -- are you comparing it with Mk-41 or Mk-57 or SYLVER or H/AJK-16 or UKSK, or something hypothetical alternative design that you have in mind?
And then how does UVLS compare with any of the above alternatives for both contemporary current ships and future ships?

You mention space wastage and mass flow rate -- do we know what the use of space and mass flow rate of UVLS and the various alternative VLS types are, to even compare them on that basis to begin with?


You gotta throw out a bit more detail if you want a more specific answer.

I was just wondering which method is more space efficient in general, a common exhaust, or a dedicated exhaust such as the ones on the UVLS. I tried looking for photos of the UVLS with its door open just to get an idea how much area the exhaust consumes, but couldn't find any, so I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone tried to do some math on it. Also Wikipedia claims the shortest UVLS can be quad packed. Has this been visually confirmed, and quad packed with what type of missiles?

My own view is that the UVLS is fine. It's already one of the largest if not the largest genuinely universal/modular types of VLS that exists today, and able to accommodate hot and cold launch tubes which each offer their own use case and tube size strengths and weaknesses.
Even if a future surface combatants is larger and able to accommodate longer or higher diameter tubes, such a "ultra large" VLS would likely not be the baseline VLS armament but rather complementing the UVLS on the same ship.
We are seeing this on some ship types, for example the batch II Sejong use a small number of larger size KVLS-2 with a larger number of normal size Mk-41 and KVLS-1.
Zumwalts are being refit with LRHW VLS replacing their AGS, while still carrying its Mk-57 VLS.

If a future PLAN CG or large DDG wanted to also pursue an ultra large VLS on top of the already large UVLS, they can do so by just having both.

I agree. I think UVLS is fine and should a change be necessary in the future to acomodate new missile designs, it can always be done without having to build new ships.

 

[snake65]

If a future PLAN CG or large DDG wanted to also pursue an ultra large VLS on top of the already large UVLS, they can do so by just having both.

Exactly. Only if the UL VLS doesn't fit in the existing design (missile too long), you'll need a new ship. But then you have to look at it from cost/benefit perspective.

 

[Blitzo]

I was just wondering which method is more space efficient in general, a common exhaust, or a dedicated exhaust such as the ones on the UVLS. I tried looking for photos of the UVLS with its door open just to get an idea how much area the exhaust consumes, but couldn't find any, so I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone tried to do some math on it.

No one has, and that would be a massive undertaking.
You could probably do a PhD on it and still have stuff leftover.

Also Wikipedia claims the shortest UVLS can be quad packed. Has this been visually confirmed, and quad packed with what type of missiles?

We know the UVLS in general is intended to be bale to carry multipack (including quadpack) missiles, and I've seen no indication that is limited to the shortest length UVLS.

We have yet to see the actual evidence of a missile type being multi or quadpacked yet -- but we expect a MR SAM to be the leading candidate for now.
Knowing the PLA and how easy it is to hide VLS contents in a missile tube for a long time from prying eyes, chances are when we do receive confirmation of a quad packed missile in the UVLS it would be multiple years after it had already entered service.