Next Generation Destroyer thread (after 055, 052D)

[kentchang]

all platform should be equipped with hypersonic and "Typhon-like VLS missile".

China should develop a multiuse missile. A missile that can be used as antimissile defense, A2A, ground strike and antiship cruise..

This is very silly. If you can afford it, you want dedicated, best-in-class weapons. How many constructor workers use Swiss knives?

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

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.

What capabilities will a 20k ship offer over a 055? Note "moar VLS" is not a capability.

 

[montyp165]

What capabilities will a 20k ship offer over a 055? Note "moar VLS" is not a capability.

Most important aspects for a 20k vessel (besides the volume for 4 SLBM launchers and whatever additional available armaments spacing) is much better endurance for extended operations, as well as space for additional C4IS systems (especially in a drone-heavy combat environment) and as a mothership for both aerial and underwater autonomous drones.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Most important aspects for a 20k vessel (besides the volume for 4 SLBM launchers and whatever additional available armaments spacing) is much better endurance for extended operations, as well as space for additional C4IS systems (especially in a drone-heavy combat environment) and as a mothership for both aerial and underwater autonomous drones.

What's the point of carrying 4 SLBM on a cruiser when you have SSGN capable of carrying at least x3 that number as well as serving as a much more flexible strike platform that can operate either with or without a surface group? As for operating drones, it would be much more effective to dedicate an specialized ship for that purpose (likely larger than 20k) for drone operations.

 

[sndef888]

I think there is no reason for a new 20,000 ship when 055 exists (and can probably be comfortably upsized to ~15,000 tons to fit whatever future weapons). No need to develop a completely new ship

But there is sufficient reason for a newly designed ~8-9000 ton destroyer.

Like what someone else said in the other thread: 052D is just that little bit too small for independent operations in blue waters and risks getting saturated.

A 8-9000 ton ship can have significant cost savings over 055 (using 2 gas turbines instead of 4) and yet be able to operate independently better than the 052D

 

[Wrought]

What's the point of carrying 4 SLBM on a cruiser when you have SSGN capable of carrying at least x3 that number as well as serving as a much more flexible strike platform that can operate either with or without a surface group? As for operating drones, it would be much more effective to dedicate an specialized ship for that purpose (likely larger than 20k) for drone operations.

SSGNs launch cruise missiles. You would need a SSBN for the kind of missiles you're thinking of. And there are some pretty obvious problems when it comes to using SSBNs for conventional missiles, like giving away your position and the need for real-time ISTAR. Much easier to use a surface combatant. That's not to say a 20,000-ton surface combatant is necessarily a good idea, of course.

Also, SLBMs are specifically submarine-launched ballistic missiles (and so far, exclusively with nuclear warheads). It doesn't make any sense to refer to them in a surface context.

 

[antiterror13]

I think there is no reason for a new 20,000 ship when 055 exists (and can probably be comfortably upsized to ~15,000 tons to fit whatever future weapons). No need to develop a completely new ship

But there is sufficient reason for a newly designed ~8-9000 ton destroyer.

Like what someone else said in the other thread: 052D is just that little bit too small for independent operations in blue waters and risks getting saturated.

A 8-9000 ton ship can have significant cost savings over 055 (using 2 gas turbines instead of 4) and yet be able to operate independently better than the 052D

Do you think 9000 ton ship can be powered by 2 gas turbines? I am assuming the same gas turbine QC-280 ?

 

[sndef888]

Do you think 9000 ton ship can be powered by 2 gas turbines? I am assuming the same gas turbine QC-280 ?

Probably an upgraded version of QC-280 with more power. IINM there is already one developed (QC-280IC?)

 

[lcloo]

Militarised a 200,000 tons container ship or oil tanker with 2,000 super duper missiles will please some members. Happy Hungry Ghost month. LOL!!!

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

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.

It's so easy to throw the "muh, I can make more of the same thing because I'm good and everyone else sucks, so that means I can actually go ATW bigger and still be much better!" argument when not actually considering all the multitude of factors that are also at play.

How many of then can China afford to procure, operate and maintain? How fast can the Chinese shipyards build them? How many and to what degree the required facilities and infrastructures should be prepared for their operation and maintenance? How should the PLAN operate them in ocean-spanning, distributed-mass warfare operations? How should the PLAN be able to deal with the losses of one or more of such units? Etc etc.

It's useless to talk about such utter unrealistic pipe dreams when the absolute fundamentals to warship procurement, operations and upkeep cannot be feasibly and viably met.

Maya-class is even officially a frigate, colony-level navy is not a good counterexample, their structure is already twisted.

"Colony-level navy" "Not a good counterexample"

All I can say is LMAO, and you didn't actually get what I'm implying with my example.

What do you mean by not grounded? Ma is a navy rear admiral himself.

And Ma Weiming's expertise and speciality is in EM-related technologies, not the overall ship design and shipbuilding themselves. There are other departments which are specifically responsible for such tasks, not Ma Weiming's department - And this is the same for literally every single ship design bureau across the entire globe.

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.

Nowhere have I ever mentioned that the 055 cannot be serial-built.

Also, if you want some numbers, here they are.

From 2017 (of which the first 055 hull was launched) until today (August 2024), there are 10 055s launched, with 1 hull expected to be launched by the end of this year. This represents a built rate of 1.57 ships per year.

In the same time period, there are 20 052D/DGs launched, with 1 hull expected to be launched by the end of this year. This represents a built rate of 3 ships per year.

That's almost twice the construction rate of the 055s.

And with the above comparison in hindsight - It certainly isn't a stretch to mention that building a 20000-ton surface combatant (which is actually much more complex than an LPD and LHD, for your information) will actually (and unneecssarily) consume much more time, money, manpower and effort which are definitely better spent elsewhere that can realistically improve the PLAN's warfighting potential and survival in a peer-to-peer conflict.

No, if China is really going to learn the lesson, then it will be never trust the capitalists.

So basically you got the same illness that has infected pretty much every blob on the Capitol Hill.

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)

There comes an even worse pipe dream of 30000-ton surface combatant, ROFL. A literal wunderwaffe right there.

Doing what you have suggested till now is literally, by-the-book, repeating the exact same mistakes that the USN did for the first 20 years of this century.