Next Generation Destroyer thread (after 055, 052D)

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Eh if you have a reason for taking these papers seriously (and I’m not saying you shouldn’t) you should just lay out your thinking and be clear from the get go.

I did. Perhaps you missed it?

Here:
Do note that this may or may not be related to the 052D/DG-successor DDGs that are currently (very likely to be) in WIP, as this model may very well be taken from the archives for simulation purposes.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I thought the reason was well understood?

But eh, nevermind.
I feel like if your lead up to someone arguing “this is outdated and thus irrelevant now” is “hold up I’ve got more just wait” maybe “I’ve got more” should have come sooner for clarity? I think fwiw these papers are interesting but I’m a bit confused why if you’ve got a reason for taking them seriously you wouldn’t just get straight to it…Anyways just my two cents.
 

antwerpery

Junior Member
Registered Member
Given the PLAN's recent attempts at trying to reduce the RCS of ships, for example the recent stealth corvette, is there a chance that the next generation destroyer will be like the Zumwalt class and have a hull designed to reduce RCS as much as possible?
 

Wrought

Junior Member
Registered Member
I keep trying to make sense of what combat between ships would look like with everyone launching salvos at the other in an all out war. It always looks like an all-toppings pizza shitshow in my head. Is there a real chance of surviving in such scenarios? How reliable are ship defenses against modern offensive weaponry such as hypersonic bms, drones, cruise missiles, torpedoes etc.? Are these systems fully automated like hitting a button and letting the computer take over prioritizing and neutralizing targets on its own, or does someone have to prioritize things looking at a screen full of dots? Like how does all of that work? How do you even make sure a battle group works in harmony without one ship confusing the other? and finally, with all of that taken into account, would it be better to have smaller ships in larger numbers, or larger ships in smaller numbers?

Here is an explanation of Distributed Maritime Operations in 10 parts. DMO is how USN conceptualizes what you are asking about.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
I keep trying to make sense of what combat between ships would look like with everyone launching salvos at the other in an all out war. It always looks like an all-toppings pizza shitshow in my head. Is there a real chance of surviving in such scenarios? How reliable are ship defenses against modern offensive weaponry such as hypersonic bms, drones, cruise missiles, torpedoes etc.? Are these systems fully automated like hitting a button and letting the computer take over prioritizing and neutralizing targets on its own, or does someone have to prioritize things looking at a screen full of dots? Like how does all of that work? How do you even make sure a battle group works in harmony without one ship confusing the other? and finally, with all of that taken into account, would it be better to have smaller ships in larger numbers, or larger ships in smaller numbers?
The answer is far close to "press a button" than "use the Mark 1 eyeball", at least in peer-to-peer conflicts. This is the very thing Aegis was designed for; automated combat based on predesignated rules of engagement where there is too much information for humans to process in a reasonable amount of time. This is where CEC and target deconfliction rise to supreme importance. Unfortunately for the most common Aegis-type PLAN warship, the 052D, I cannot locate anything reasonable on the mast that could pass as a CEC antenna, and feel more likely it uses a satellite datalink instead. This wouldn't be true CEC since that is a direct ship-to-ship datalink that does away with the satellite middleman which itself could be jammed or destroyed, but it certainly is better than not having a target deconfliction capability.
 

iBBz

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Obviously the real world is far less predictable, but should give you an idea
Thank you. These battles are kinda fun to watch.

Here is an explanation of Distributed Maritime Operations in 10 parts. DMO is how USN conceptualizes what you are asking about.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Thank you for the link. I'll read this article and see what I can learn.

The answer is far close to "press a button" than "use the Mark 1 eyeball", at least in peer-to-peer conflicts. This is the very thing Aegis was designed for; automated combat based on predesignated rules of engagement where there is too much information for humans to process in a reasonable amount of time. This is where CEC and target deconfliction rise to supreme importance. Unfortunately for the most common Aegis-type PLAN warship, the 052D, I cannot locate anything reasonable on the mast that could pass as a CEC antenna, and feel more likely it uses a satellite datalink instead. This wouldn't be true CEC since that is a direct ship-to-ship datalink that does away with the satellite middleman which itself could be jammed or destroyed, but it certainly is better than not having a target deconfliction capability.
I appreciate the explanation. Now its starting to make sense.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'll just translate and optimize while retaining the meaning as best as possible.

1. That ship model (hereafter referred to as the "old model") by the 大海院 is not new, and can be traced back to the 2014-2015 period. During that period, the 055 DDG project was just reaching the end of the design and engineering phase, and the preparation for initiating the construction of the first 055 DDG was underway.
- Therefore, it can be inferred that this old model is likely an early iteration of the 055 DDG's design, which explains its many similarities to the current 055 DDG (picture 3).
- The current 055 DDG could either be a further developed/modified version of this early design model or the finalized version of the winning proposal.

2. However, the 大海院 has not abandoned this old model over the past decade, but has instead been repeatedly using it in various research projects, with the most recent academic paper that utilized and/or referenced this model being published just last year (should be this year, refer picture 4).
- Interestingly, the papers from the 大海院 also featured simulation models of the current 055, which differ significantly from the old model in various parameters. This suggests that the old model is no longer associated with the current 055 DDG.
- And although it did not become the final design for the current 055 DDG, the old model has now evolved into an independent research model. Hence, the potential at which said old model being utilized for the design and development of the next-generation DDG cannot be discarded.

3. In many of the academic papers, the old model is generally divided into two main parts: The hull model and the superstructure model.
- It should be noted that in the papers published since 2020, the hull model appears more frequently, whereas the superstructure model has become increasingly rare. This could indicate that the relevant research departments have abandoned the original superstructure model design, retaining only the hull model design for further optimization and modification.
- Some design elements from the original 055 DDG proposal were used in the new DDG model that was exhibited by CSSC last year (i.e. the "052D-compact/lite"). However, the exhibited new DDG model uses the 052C/D's hull, and the overall execution is quite rough.

4. It’s worth noting that historically, many major warships have reused hulls from older-generation warships, including the 052D/DG DDGs, the Ticonderoga CGs, the Akizuki DDGs and the Asahi DDGs.
- All these ships share the common feature of optimizing and improving upon the hull designs of their predecessors while significantly modifying or even completely redesigning the superstructures, ultimately resulting in brand new ship designs with superior overall performance compared to their predecessors.
- Following this line of logic, the hull design of the old model could indeed serve as the blueprint for the design and development of the next-generation DDG.
- Namely, through the further optimization and improvement of the hull design, coupled with pairing the hull with a completely new superstructure, ultimately resulting a new DDG-class that is distinct from both the 055 and 052D/DG classes of DDGs.

5. The original design of the old model featured a COGAG propulsion system, which comprised of 4x GT25000 gas turbine engines. This is also the exact propulsion system that is adopted by the current 055 DDGs. Given that the 055 DDGs are still in serial production, a newly modified variant of the 055 DDG is unlikely to emerge in the next (few) 2 years.
- Therefore, the new CODLAG patent (pictures 5 and 6) from the 701st Institute (i.e. the same institute which designed and engineered the COGAG propulsion system of the current 055s) is likely not intended for (the future units of) the 055 DDG, but for another DDG project.
- Coincidentally, the old model initially also used a COGAG propulsion system design.
- (However,) this actually makes the old model a more likelier candidate for the new CODLAG propulsion system patent than the current 055 DDG. This is because the application of the CODLAG propulsion system in the patent would require changes to the engine room layout and intake/exhaust structures (on the current 055 DDG). (In contrast,) with a newly designed superstructure, the old model should be well-aligned/adapted for said CODLAG propulsion system.
- Thus, the likelihood of these two (old model and CODLAG propulsion system) coming together is quite high. Coupled with recent delivery news from relevant/related manufacturers, it probably won’t be long before we find out who the new patent, and thus, the new CODLAG propulsion system are intended for.

6. Additionally, there are news suggesting that the next-generation DDG will feature an tumblehome wave-piercing bow similar to the Zumwalt DDGs and the Defense and Intervention (FDI) FFGs, which is completely different from the flared bow of the old model.
- In reality, a conventional hull design like the old model can be modified to accommodate an improved tumblehome wave-piercing bow, similar to the FDI FFG. The mid-ship cross-section of the FDI is also a conventional design, much like the hulls of the old model and the current 055 DDG.
- The hull model of the old model can modified into a new hull that features a tumblehome wave-piercing bow. This design offers better high-speed performance, and the bow wave problem can be solved through optimizing the deck profile design and other methods.
- In short, while the old flared bow design might be retained, adopting a new tumblehome wave-piercing bow is technically feasible. Whether it will be implemented ultimately depends on the decisions of the PLAN and the 701st Institute.

img-17423030403895145653110638864.jpg
008tJu9Ogy1hzldp2wi62j30v0144x5a.jpg
008tJu9Ogy1hzldmyk3nij388b4moe8e.jpg
008tJu9Ogy1hzlcg3065cj31yv2rfnph.jpg
008tJu9Ogy1hxb3j8mahjj31g90kkgzf.jpg
008tJu9Ogy1hxb3szm42bj30v30jn442.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top