Next Generation Destroyer thread (after 055, 052D)

[ACuriousPLAFan]

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

Two 35-40MW gas turbine engines plus two 5-7MW diesel engines in any one of the CODAG, CODOG, CODLAG or CODLOG configurations should be enough to do the trick.

 

[snake65]

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.

Well, I would not call what they were doing a systemic mistake. In fact, USN was trying to follow old Elmo Zumwalt combination of "High end - Low end" ships to meet their global requirements. They managed well with High end Burke, but flopped with Low end Freedom, which was to be expected as the USN has no clue about littoral operations. DD-1000 was in fact a Cold War era ship in concept, same like Seawolf subs, and thus was doomed from beginning. The Constellation frigate (another Low end attempt) quite probably will be a failure, just because USN has managed to spoil a good ship with their senseless requirements.

 

[DDG181]

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

Why? Shouldn't the main cost come from the electronics?

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.

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

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.

You don't get it don't you? If you think China, a communist, is going on the same track as USA in terms of ideology and politics, then you're absolutely right. Military is always the extension of politics.

US transferred plenty industrial capabilities to other nations to gain more profits, if China learns then it will hold tight the status of being world's factory.

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.

In terms of VLS speed rate they show no difference - 1.57 * 112 ~ 3 * 64

What I see is PLAN is very urgent expanding its fleet in quantities, doubling in numbers but sacrificing sailing in long range and top speed.

052D is the best solution combating near the first island chain, using a frigate size full with some aspects of cruiser fire power.

Producing 052D now is the same reason as producing 054AG with the 100mm cannon.

 

[BoraTas]

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.

I think if PLAN really wants big missile launchers it could just add them to its future carriers. I know giving carriers surface combatant missions is usually a bad idea but procuring a class of CGs to just have a few dozen big launchers would be a massive misuse of resources. As long as the said launchers don't go through the hangar (as they do in the Russian Kuznetsov) they should be OK. Much better than procuring a whole new class to just have them. I genuinely can't understand why some people want battlecruiser equivalents in 2024.

 

[TK3600]

If 20k cruiser, it better be nuclear to justify it. Serve as an expensive but very fast ship able to patrol for extended time.

 

[gelgoog]

Well, I would not call what they were doing a systemic mistake. In fact, USN was trying to follow old Elmo Zumwalt combination of "High end - Low end" ships to meet their global requirements. They managed well with High end Burke, but flopped with Low end Freedom, which was to be expected as the USN has no clue about littoral operations. DD-1000 was in fact a Cold War era ship in concept, same like Seawolf subs, and thus was doomed from beginning. The Constellation frigate (another Low end attempt) quite probably will be a failure, just because USN has managed to spoil a good ship with their senseless requirements.

The Burke is a Cold War era design. While it is still viable you cannot credit its creation to the modern USN.

Both the Zumwalt and the LCS were failures. The Zumwalt's hull was originally intended to be used in a missile arsenal ship. It was turned into an artillery firing platform due to US Congress interference. An artillery platform without any ammunition to fire. The LCS was never downselected to a single vendor and the original design specs are a disaster. The high speed requirement meant the ships are failure prone, and a lot of space is taken with propulsion, leaving little for weapons systems.

I think the Constellation frigate has a lot more potential. But they should have finished the redesign before cutting metal. The Zumwalt platform could be repurposed into something useful. But it remains to be seen if it will happen.

The only well executed major combatant the USN designed after the Cold War is the Virginia class submarine. But even that has its own issues. Not related to the ship design or requirements. You also have the Ford class program which seems to be fairing better today after considerable initial growth pains. But it is questionable if large carriers are still effective in the modern combat environment.

 

[DDG181]

I think if PLAN really wants big missile launchers it could just add them to its future carriers. I know giving carriers surface combatant missions is usually a bad idea but procuring a class of CGs to just have a few dozen big launchers would be a massive misuse of resources. As long as the said launchers don't go through the hangar (as they do in the Russian Kuznetsov) they should be OK. Much better than procuring a whole new class to just have them. I genuinely can't understand why some people want battlecruiser equivalents in 2024.

If you add VLS to carriers, it is near the concept of Ma's omni-ship. But I don't think it is necessary to combine 076 and 055.

 

[DDG181]

The Burke is a Cold War era design. While it is still viable you cannot credit its creation to the modern USN.

Both the Zumwalt and the LCS were failures. The Zumwalt's hull was originally intended to be used in a missile arsenal ship. It was turned into an artillery firing platform due to US Congress interference. An artillery platform without any ammunition to fire. The LCS was never downselected to a single vendor and the original design specs are a disaster. The high speed requirement meant the ships are failure prone, and a lot of space is taken with propulsion, leaving little for weapons systems.

I think the Constellation frigate has a lot more potential. But they should have finished the redesign before cutting metal. The Zumwalt platform could be repurposed into something useful. But it remains to be seen if it will happen.

The only well executed major combatant the USN designed after the Cold War is the Virginia class submarine. But even that has its own issues. Not related to the ship design or requirements. You also have the Ford class program which seems to be fairing better today after considerable initial growth pains. But it is questionable if large carriers are still effective in the modern combat environment.

Zumwalt's hull is nice, I expect DDGX derived from that hull if US can really make it that time. USN is integrating CPS to Zumwalt by removing the useless cannon, that might be one step ahead China.

Constellation's concept is nice, but due to US dying shipbuilding industry, it is delayed again recently.

 

[snake65]

The Burke is a Cold War era design. While it is still viable you cannot credit its creation to the modern USN.

Flight III is no longer Cold War design, similarity is only visual, even the hull is different.

 

[gelgoog]

Flight III is no longer Cold War design, similarity is only visual, even the hull is different.

It is just like the F-15EX. A rehash of an old design. I am not saying it is not a good platform and weapons system however.