055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[morosini]

Could this possibly be a side-effect of Russia's falling behind China in terms of next-gen R&D and systems integration? As POP3 reveals, the 055 in its current form is an extraordinarily optimised version of an original design that weighed over 20,000 tonnes, achieved due to a design emphasis on universality of systems (e.g. modular VLS, good systems integration).

If the Russians, in their cash-strapped state, can't afford to find/train/hire a large cohort of engineers to integrate systems and conduct R&D into next-gen systems, or can't afford to do so extensively, it's plausible that the Lider class is as heavy as it is because of inefficiencies.

It must be said that as projected Lider would have far more weaponry, with over 200 VLS againts between 96 and 128 for 055A. So a large part of the difference in displacement originates from the larger armament (that doesn't mean it is more effective howerver, especially considering that the VLS's on 055 are multifunctional giving the chinese destroyer greater flexibility of use as needed) and probably not from a deficit in projectual capabilities.

 

[Iron Man]

Yes, I've seen many photos of this monster. Given the financial state of Russia's military and Russia in general, if they end up even building just 4-6 of these I would say it's already par for the course.

However, through all of this time of increasing disclosures about the Lider class, there has been no indications that Pr 21956 has moved anywhere at all nor under any sort of active consideration by the Russian Navy. Of course maybe the Russian Navy will consider it, or a variant of Pr 21956 again in the near future, but at this stage there is no indication of it... and given that the Russian Navy is actually quite open about their future procurement plans going forwards to anywhere from half a decade to a decade, if they still haven't announced any plans to procure a Pr 21956 or similar design, then I can't see them intending for such a ship to be part of the foreseeable orbat to enter service within at least the next ten years or so.

As for what the Russian Navy's future force structure will be... who knows. Maybe they will announce an 8000 ton destroyer class in the next few years to fit the bill between the 17000 ton Lider and the 4500 ton Gorshkov, or maybe they won't, or maybe they won't be able to build anywhere near the number of Liders and Gorshkovs they want.

We will just have to see. Whether it's the Project 21956 or some other design, I don't believe the Russian Navy has any intention of getting rid of destroyer-sized ships from their ORBAT altogether, especially via building a larger number of Liders to compensate for it. Not going to happen.

Could this possibly be a side-effect of Russia's falling behind China in terms of next-gen R&D and systems integration? As POP3 reveals, the 055 in its current form is an extraordinarily optimised version of an original design that weighed over 20,000 tonnes, achieved due to a design emphasis on universality of systems (e.g. modular VLS, good systems integration).

If the Russians, in their cash-strapped state, can't afford to find/train/hire a large cohort of engineers to integrate systems and conduct R&D into next-gen systems, or can't afford to do so extensively, it's plausible that the Lider class is as heavy as it is because of inefficiencies.



That's the case for the USN but I'm not sure if it is for the PLAN. POP3 has a thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

where he explains various aspects of the PLAN's philosophy regarding C&C and the ships responsible for hosting them.

The PLAN differentiates between small and large command vessels. The small command vessels simply coordinate conventional surface actions. Every single new-built PLAN vessel has small-command capability by default including even the older Type 052, small Type 054 and Type 056. The large command vessels are fewer in number but pretty much every flotilla in the PLAN has such a ship. The large command vessels are capable of coordinating air, ground, surface, sub-surface, and space assets. The first such vessel is the Type 051 DDG-134 'Zunyi', which is still in service. To POP3, the fact that DDG-134 is still in service illustrates an insufficient number of large command vessels. However, the fact that every flotilla has a large command vessel already far exceeds PLAN expectations, which they laid down a decade ago. He predicts that the PLAN is about to double their aspirations to equip every flotilla with two large command vessels instead of the current one. But I digress...

You believe the PLAN doesn't need that many Type 055s because, to you, it is a cruiser and represents primarily increased C&C function over the Type 052D/E. But we have POP3 saying even a Type 051, that antiquated hulk, is capable of serving as a large command vessel. Additionally, DDG-112 is supposedly far superior to the DDG-113 in C&C capabilities even though they're both classed as Type 052s.

Therefore, I don't believe the Type 055 offers primarily better C&C capabilities over the Type 052D/D; that should not be a factor in your estimate of their eventual numbers. If the PLAN wanted another large command vessel, they could simply modify a Type 052D/E instead of building more Type 055s, like they modified the DDG-134 and DDG-112.

Of course, you could still make the case that the PLAN will procure the Type 055 in much smaller numbers than the Type 052D/E, but you'll need a different rationale.

Type 051 with "command" facilities? What constitutes command facilities for this class of ship? A conference table and some phones? LOL sorry, not buying it. Any ship with alleged "command" facilities that is not one of the newer designs is not going to be able to do diddley squat in terms of commanding a modern surface force. I don't even believe the 052D has sufficient command facilities to efficiently coordinate a modern large surface action group. Carriers have entire flag bridges and flag staff to coordinate the actions of a CSG, you think a 052D has the room to spare for extra C&C facilities? That ship is already bursting at the seams with all the extra VLS tubes they've managed to stuff in there. That is why I think the 055 has come into existence at this time. The PLAN is finally getting enough modern ships into its inventory that large SAGs and CSGs plying distant oceans are going to become common occurrences, and they will need a 'squadron leader' to command them. I think the 055 is just such a vessel.

 

[kroko]

Yes, I've seen many photos of this monster. Given the financial state of Russia's military and Russia in general, if they end up even building just 4-6 of these I would say it's already par for the course.

Taking into account that we are already seeing it (its development is finished?) therefore not classified, that they havent build any new hull bigger than a frigate since the end of ussr and the fact that russia´s economy is in worse shape now (despite the military budget being increased), i dont think that they will build any of these.

We will just have to see. Whether it's the Project 21956 or some other design, I don't believe the Russian Navy has any intention of getting rid of destroyer-sized ships from their ORBAT altogether, especially via building a larger number of Liders to compensate for it. Not going to happen.

No navy can replace a destroyer fleet with lider-size ships. Each lider costs what? twice the cost of a destroyer? I dont think this is aceptable to any nation.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, I've seen many photos of this monster. Given the financial state of Russia's military and Russia in general, if they end up even building just 4-6 of these I would say it's already par for the course.


We will just have to see. Whether it's the Project 21956 or some other design, I don't believe the Russian Navy has any intention of getting rid of destroyer-sized ships from their ORBAT altogether, especially via building a larger number of Liders to compensate for it. Not going to happen.

Yeah, well don't get me wrong, I also think it is a weird idea for the Russian Navy to not have an 8000 ton destroyer class in the works in the foreseeable future.
The problem with the Russian Navy though, is that they're much more open than the Chinese are, so if they really haven't announced any such ship for the foreseeable future then I think we will have to take their word for it, and that's why I'm just working with what the plans they've announced.

Obviously any sort of surface fleet made up of a dozen 17500 ton destroyers along with what would likely be a larger number of 4500 ton frigates would be a strange force structure, but at the same time I think the Russian Navy will become a bit of a strange animal in coming years as many of its Cold War era ships start to become retired and their shipbuilding industry is forced to adapt with the subindustries they still have in good condition.


Also, a surface fleet made up of 17500 ships and many 4500 ships won't necessarily be that strange IMHO. I think the USN's force structure since the mid to late 2000s and going forwards into the next decade or so of having a majority Burke/Tico fleet with no meaningful frigate fleet is pretty strange as well.

 

[Iron Man]

Also, a surface fleet made up of 17500 ships and many 4500 ships won't necessarily be that strange IMHO. I think the USN's force structure since the mid to late 2000s and going forwards into the next decade or so of having a majority Burke/Tico fleet with no meaningful frigate fleet is pretty strange as well.

Yeah it's as strange as an all Burke/Tico fleet, which is why the USN is working to change that by uprating one or both LCS classes to frigate standards. I have little doubt the Russians will have a standard destroyer class soon enough.

 

[Skywatcher]

Taking into account that we are already seeing it (its development is finished?) therefore not classified, that they havent build any new hull bigger than a frigate since the end of ussr and the fact that russia´s economy is in worse shape now (despite the military budget being increased), i dont think that they will build any of these.

To be fair, the Russians built a few 8,000 ton warships Post Cold War- for the PLAN.

Anyways, I'd take the Lider a lot more seriously if it didn't look like some 21st century version of the WWII Kongo battleships (seriously, would you want to be on such a top heavy ship like that (if the models are anywhere near accurate) in the Northern Fleet)?

 

[Blitzo]

Yeah it's as strange as an all Burke/Tico fleet, which is why the USN is working to change that by uprating one or both LCS classes to frigate standards. I have little doubt the Russians will have a standard destroyer class soon enough.

Well, the USN is only looking to get a total of 42-50 LCS/FF if that at all -- yet they are still looking to seemingly maintain their overall number of aegis destroyers/cruisers (with Flight III Burkes to replace initial retiring Ticos) going forwards.

So I'd say a continued fleet of 80 or so 9000-10000 ton DDG/CGs with only 42-50 LCS/FF (which don't exactly fit the typical frigate billet either!) is still a very strange orbat composition.

 

[Iron Man]

Well, the USN is only looking to get a total of 42-50 LCS/FF if that at all -- yet they are still looking to seemingly maintain their overall number of aegis destroyers/cruisers (with Flight III Burkes to replace initial retiring Ticos) going forwards.

So I'd say a continued fleet of 80 or so 9000-10000 ton DDG/CGs with only 42-50 LCS/FF (which don't exactly fit the typical frigate billet either!) is still a very strange orbat composition.

Not really. If I could afford such a fleet, I would do something similar. The USN is primarily oriented towards fighting a major power like China or Russia, so major units like ABs and Ticos are going to make the greatest impact during conflicts with such countries. OTOH, making such units do ASW when a frigate could do the same is a massive waste of a large ship, which is why they have come to regret letting the ASW-oriented OHP class retire without a suitable replacement for it. BTW I certainly wouldn't discounted either LCS class when they get uprated into a frigate class. If either of them get even a single Mk 41 module stuffed with ESSMs (such as what Australia and Turkey did with their OHPs), they will become about as effective as a 054A. In any case a frigatized LCS would have a primary mission of ASW, so their antiship and anti-air capabilities would be secondary considerations.

 

[Blitzo]

Not really. If I could afford such a fleet, I would do something similar. The USN is primarily oriented towards fighting a major power like China or Russia, so major units like ABs and Ticos are going to make the greatest impact during conflicts with such countries. OTOH, making such units do ASW when a frigate could do the same is a massive waste of a large ship, which is why they have come to regret letting the ASW-oriented OHP class retire without a suitable replacement for it.

Okay, but I could also say that given the conditions that Russia faces (including industrial), a fleet composed of 17500 ton large destroyers and 4500 ton frigates could make sense.

I think that if we're trying to use the argument of "no one else is doing anything like that therefore it is unlikely for country X to also do that," then we should at least try to apply that principle evenly.
OTOH, if we instead look at each navy in terms of their own unique requirements, fiscal situation and industrial bedrock (which I think is the right way of doing it), that means we can justify whatever orbat decisions av navy make within their own context, and there is much less need to worry about the norms that other navies of other nations may have supposedly set.

In the case of the USN, their current and continuing unique charactersitic would be having a very large proportion/vast majority of its surface combatant fleet and tonnage being made up of 9000-10000 ton surface combatants with a minimal or soon to be quite proportionally smaller frigate/LCS force.
In the case of the Russian Navy's potential future unique characteristic, it would be the possibility of having its surface combatant fleet being made up of a dozen or less 17500 ton very large combatants with possibly a larger number of 4500 ton frigates, with no medium displacement destroyers to bridge the gap.

Both characteristics diverge from the force structures of most other global navies, but at the same time I think both can be logically justified within their own context, and while weaknesses obviously can be argued to exist in both of those navies if those characteristics end up occurring, I don't think there is anywhere near enough about them to outright condemn or rule out those characteristics as ridiculous or untenable.

BTW I certainly wouldn't discounted either LCS class when they get uprated into a frigate class. If either of them get even a single Mk 41 module stuffed with ESSMs (such as what Australia and Turkey did with their OHPs), they will become about as effective as a 054A. In any case a frigatized LCS would have a primary mission of ASW, so their antiship and anti-air capabilities would be secondary considerations.

At this stage it seems like Mk-41 is not going to be on the cards for LCS or FF at all. It sounds like they aren't even structurally capable of supporting it, barring any possible major reconstruction later on in their life, which while possible, is not something that I think can be used in any sort of discussion for the class at this point.
The lack of VLS for the LCS derived FF is actually one of the major criticisms of the new SSC.

Of course LCS discussion is quite OT, and there isn't actually that much to say about it.

 

[Iron Man]

Okay, but I could also say that given the conditions that Russia faces (including industrial), a fleet composed of 17500 ton large destroyers and 4500 ton frigates could make sense.

I think that if we're trying to use the argument of "no one else is doing anything like that therefore it is unlikely for country X to also do that," then we should at least try to apply that principle evenly.
OTOH, if we instead look at each navy in terms of their own unique requirements, fiscal situation and industrial bedrock (which I think is the right way of doing it), that means we can justify whatever orbat decisions av navy make within their own context, and there is much less need to worry about the norms that other navies of other nations may have supposedly set.

In the case of the USN, their current and continuing unique charactersitic would be having a very large proportion/vast majority of its surface combatant fleet and tonnage being made up of 9000-10000 ton surface combatants with a minimal or soon to be quite proportionally smaller frigate/LCS force.
In the case of the Russian Navy's potential future unique characteristic, it would be the possibility of having its surface combatant fleet being made up of a dozen or less 17500 ton very large combatants with possibly a larger number of 4500 ton frigates, with no medium displacement destroyers to bridge the gap.

Both characteristics diverge from the force structures of most other global navies, but at the same time I think both can be logically justified within their own context, and while weaknesses obviously can be argued to exist in both of those navies if those characteristics end up occurring, I don't think there is anywhere near enough about them to outright condemn or rule out those characteristics as ridiculous or untenable.

First, let's be clear that the Russian Navy does NOT currently have a bimodal navy, and we are only talking about the possibility that they may go that way; currently it has a full range of frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, with the greatest tonnage in the destroyer category. Second, the USN in its current form is not similar to the type of possible ORBAT that we have been speculating for the Russian Navy. It is destroyer-heavy, no doubt about it. But it is certainly not cruiser-heavy, nor is it going that way. It is also returning to a more balanced fleet distribution with its LCS/frigate production run. In fact I would say that the USN recognition that the LCS is not going to cut the mustard and is uprating this ship class to a frigate is a sign that the norm of a balanced fleet architecture is in fact the norm. As for the Russian navy, I don't see how building 8-12 cruisers along with a slew of frigates is somehow more financially feasible than building 16-24 destroyers along with a similar number of frigates. This is not a reasonable financial argument.

At this stage it seems like Mk-41 is not going to be on the cards for LCS or FF at all. It sounds like they aren't even structurally capable of supporting it, barring any possible major reconstruction later on in their life, which while possible, is not something that I think can be used in any sort of discussion for the class at this point.
The lack of VLS for the LCS derived FF is actually one of the major criticisms of the new SSC.

Of course LCS discussion is quite OT, and there isn't actually that much to say about it.

Like I said, the job of an uprated LCS is going to be primarily ASW, regardless of its AAW or antiship capabilities. Just look at the OHP class. Its ASW capability is unquestioned, yet it had completely lost its AAW and antiship capabilities.