by78
General
It's conventional.
Next Generation Destroyer thread (after 055, 052D)
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
It's conventional.
Discussion continued in this thread to avoid derailing the 052C/D-Class Destroyers thread.
And the official designation of the Izumo-class is a helicopter-carrying destroyer (or if directly translated from Japanese, a helicopter-carrying escort ship).
I have nothing against that, as per my previous posts in the other thread.
Though, the DF-26 is likely too far of a stretch.
Kindly hold your horses.
Firstly - The 054B is not a 6000-ton FFG. More recent (and more accurate thanks to more detailed observations available) estimations put the FFG's full load displacement at 5500-5700 tons.
There's quite some ways to go before reaching well into the 6000-ton displacement category. Hence, it is advisable that the 054B FFG shouldn't be classified as such.
Secondly - There will be no 20000-ton CGs.
A Master's degree's thesis on a 20000-ton warship with a railgun & UAV+USV and (even) Ma Weiming's dream of a so-called "all-purpose warship" (全能舰) that can one-vs-all of a USN CSG will never get molded into existence - As long as those concepts and idea(l)s aren't grounded to reality and requirements of the PLAN.
Also, China is nowhere near being enthusiastic on repeating the same mistakes of the Soviet Navy. So there's that.
Thirdly - There is certainly a place for a 9000-10000-ton (general purpose) DDG in the PLAN that can be serial-built in large numbers.
The US has already built more than 70× Burkes of the 8400-9700 tons by now, with plans for another 20 or more of the 9700-ton Burkes. I see nothing wrong with any efforts by China to replicate the same thing that the US has successfully done for decades (as long as China avoids repeating the same mistakes the US did).
In fact, according to a certain guy on Weibo who observes the development of China's marine propulsion systems really closely and is generally deemed a reliable source of information - It is highly probable that the PLAN will procure at least several surface warships powered by domestic marine gas turbine engines that are in the 35-40MW-range by the end of this decade. This actually makes a 9000-10000-ton DDG (and perhaps a 15000-16000 ton CG) way more realistic to achieve than a 20000-ton pipe dream.
And the official designation of the Izumo-class is a helicopter-carrying destroyer (or if directly translated from Japanese, a helicopter-carrying escort ship).
I have nothing against that, as per my previous posts in the other thread.
Though, the DF-26 is likely too far of a stretch.
Kindly hold your horses.
Firstly - The 054B is not a 6000-ton FFG. More recent (and more accurate thanks to more detailed observations available) estimations put the FFG's full load displacement at 5500-5700 tons.
There's quite some ways to go before reaching well into the 6000-ton displacement category. Hence, it is advisable that the 054B FFG shouldn't be classified as such.
Secondly - There will be no 20000-ton CGs.
A Master's degree's thesis on a 20000-ton warship with a railgun & UAV+USV and (even) Ma Weiming's dream of a so-called "all-purpose warship" (全能舰) that can one-vs-all of a USN CSG will never get molded into existence - As long as those concepts and idea(l)s aren't grounded to reality and requirements of the PLAN.
Also, China is nowhere near being enthusiastic on repeating the same mistakes of the Soviet Navy. So there's that.
Thirdly - There is certainly a place for a 9000-10000-ton (general purpose) DDG in the PLAN that can be serial-built in large numbers.
The US has already built more than 70× Burkes of the 8400-9700 tons by now, with plans for another 20 or more of the 9700-ton Burkes. I see nothing wrong with any efforts by China to replicate the same thing that the US has successfully done for decades (as long as China avoids repeating the same mistakes the US did).
In fact, according to a certain guy on Weibo who observes the development of China's marine propulsion systems really closely and is generally deemed a reliable source of information - It is highly probable that the PLAN will procure at least several surface warships powered by domestic marine gas turbine engines that are in the 35-40MW-range by the end of this decade. This actually makes a 9000-10000-ton DDG (and perhaps a 15000-16000 ton CG) way more realistic to achieve than a 20000-ton pipe dream.
Last edited:
Thing is that a ship launched ballistic missile was planned by the Italian Navy under the designation 'Alpha' derived from the Polaris SLBM intended for the Vittorio Veneto class cruisers that's dimensionally close to what the DF-21/26 would be, so having a CG built around such is quite operationally feasible. In addition, a 20k CG has better endurance and seakeeping than a vessel of lower tonnage, so having such a vessels as a principal escort and long range fire support in a CVBG (basically a scaled up 055 with quad SLBM launchers) does make sense, it just would be the second major/primary unit in a task/battle group.
And that plan has never left the drawing board and onto the cruiser, isn't it?
This isn't the first time similar plans were drawn up either. Several other navies (including the USN) have also explored such options in the past (particularly during the Cold War) - But we all knew what happened.
If that's the case, then why isn't there any navy anywhere around the world looking forward to building such warships today?
Alfa's development was stopped due to the NPT, rather than cost or technical issues.
As for why conventional equivalents were never deployed earlier, it's because the necessary accuracy and guidance systems for AShBM/PGM work didn't exist before the 21st century, so in this instance China would be on the leading edge of naval firepower development. As for 20k warships, the cost of large warships in terms of production and crewing is generally more than most navies can afford, which is not an issue for China as ships equivalent in tonnage to the Japanese Izumo-class would be cheaper in Chinese shipyards and better automation systems makes crewing such vessels not that much larger than what the 055Bs would require.
That is because other nations' (shipbuilding industry / missile technology / reconnaissance capability / possibility of having guts to challenge US carrier strike doctrine) sucks.
Maya-class is even officially a frigate, colony-level navy is not a good counterexample, their structure is already twisted.
What do you mean by not grounded? Ma is a navy rear admiral himself.
Please prove that 055 cannot be serial-built in large numbers, there are 12 floating now.
Cruiser/battleships carry larger caliber cannons, so as long as 055 didn't equip giga-size VLS, it is the same role as 052D.
No, if China is really going to learn the lesson, then it will be never trust the capitalists. US did nothing wrong of planning + building Brukes, the main reason for USN's structure problem is simply because their shipbuilding industry is dead.
The 2nd reason is they wasted plenty resources on LCS and Zumwalt's cannon, resulting no proper FFG/DDG/CG to derive.
So as long as China's industry still beating + a 6000t next gen. frigate capable for mass production, I see no structure issues.
(by the way, my 20000t CG is by no means accurate, any ship between 13000t-30000t holds)
055 arguably carry 'bigger caliber' through deeper vls cells for yj-21.
Every 052D should be capable to launch YJ-21, they use the same 850mm UVLS, some cells are 9m deep strike length too.
Russia's 22350 and 052D share the same doctrine by having overwhelming weapon density, which can be viewed as pocket battleships in WW2.