055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Iron Man]

Well the only part of that reply of yours which I had a problem with is the latter half where I wasn't sure what your meaning is ("Suffice it to say that this post (these two posts) represents your opinion rather than your making a statement of some kind of heretofore unacknowledged fact of ship classification.")

As for saying it's "my personal opinion," I think you might be misunderstanding me, because I agree with Lethe and his belief that there are flaws in surface combatant categorizations which are quite self evident.
However it is our opinions that such a phenomenon is quite self evident/obvious/etc. So the question I had regarding your post, is to ask why you believed Lethe or I expressed anything more than merely our own opinions.

Or putting it another way, can you see the difference between what you wrote "a statement of some kind of heretofore unacknowledged fact of ship classification," and how I would describe our positions: "an opinion/judgement about the increasingly flawed/inaccurate method of ship classification"? They aren't so dissimilar, but the way you wrote it makes our position somehow seem immensely more unreasonable.

Thinking something is self-evident is not the same as thinking something is one's own opinion. For example, "the sun rises in the East and sets in the West" is not an opinion, while "the sun is closer to red than it is to yellow" is an opinion. When you say that something is self-evident, you are NOT making a statement of opinion, you are essentially saying that something is so obvious that whoever disagrees with you is a moron. For example, you think there are "flaws" in the current frigate/destroyer/cruiser classification system that are "self-evident". I don't see flaws in the system, I see flaws in the decision-makers of various navies that classify their ships in certain ways for almost invariably political reasons. In the past, ships were classified both based on tonnage and more recently, also based on role (with the advent of missiles, computers, and datalinked networks). Both tonnage and role influence each other to a significant extent. Smaller ships like frigates took on duties like ASW and local AAW, while larger destroyers took on roles like fleet AAW and land attack, and still larger cruisers took on roles like fleet command and ballistic missile defense. You have exceptions like the Zumwalt that is not expect to have any fleet command duties but is rather designed to infiltrate into the littorals without necessarily having any fleet backup, hence the hyperattention to stealth and shore bombardment (both of which have since been somewhat diluted due to money issues), hence its designation as a destroyer. I don't see any problem with the way the ship classification system was/is set up; these roles reflect the natural consequence of how different-sized ships fit into certain roles better than other sizes. You think people abuse the system, so therefore the system is broken. I just don't see that way.

 

[Iron Man]

I think it is self-evident that contemporary distinctions between frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, are so muddled as to be confusing or misleading, rather than a source of conceptual clarity which is the entire point of having such distinctions in the first place. Such confusion is predictable because it reflects not only differing usage of the terms by various nations, but evolution of warship designs over time. Any conceptual hierarchy is necessarily the product of a particular place and time and is intended to serve particular purposes (i.e. chiefly to describe one's own navy, and those of the most relevant foreign nations), and we should anticipate that it will become less coherent and less useful as distance from those "elements of origination" increases.

The question of whether 055 is a destroyer or a cruiser is, to my mind, basically two questions: the first is how PLAN officially characterises the ship. Such official classification is not necessarily authoritative for the rest of us, but I think it should enjoy a certain degree of privilege. That is to say, we should use the official term unless the use of that term is more confusing than revealing. For an example of where national privilege should prevail, I would point to the Horizon-class frigate. It could conceivably be labelled as a destroyer, but France calls it a frigate, and there is no compelling reason to override their classification. For an example of where external classification does/should prevail, I would point to the Hyuga and Izumo class "destroyers". Japan's classification should be acknowledged, but in a broader global context the vessels are quite different in function, layout, and appearance to what we usually think of as a destroyer. Thus, it makes sense for us to refer to them as "ASW helicopter carriers", whilst also acknowledging the Japanese classification.

Besides official classification and the privilege it should be granted, I think the question of whether it makes sense for us to refer to 055 as a destroyer or a cruiser fundamentally reduces down to how we think of the type in the context of the Navy. Because I view this ship as a successor to the 052x series, not a complement to it, I favour the classification of destroyer. For those who see PLAN producing both 055 and smaller, 052x destroyers alongside one another into the indefinite future, it makes sense to distinguish the former from the latter by labelling it a cruiser, in line with its greater size. Such produces a neat scheme whereby PLAN produces one corvette class*, one frigate class, one destroyer class and one cruiser class. There is an appealing unity and correspondence between class, displacement, and classification. But that is true only if the 052 series does indeed have a future, of which I am far from convinced.

* And of course we have already confronted this question with 056. So far as I can tell, PLAN classifies this ship as a frigate. "We", on the other hand, have apparently decided to label it a corvette, distinguishing it from the much larger 054 class of frigates and better contextualising it in the context of western frigate classes.

Yes, I think there will be a 052E, so we definitely see the 055's role differently. Even if there were not a 052E, I think still think the 055 would play a cruiser role in the PLAN giving the preponderance of 052X sized destroyers currently or projected to be in the fleet.

BTW, here is a little jewel for you:


Please note the slope of the trendline. Feel free to check my numbers.

Some notes for the graph:
1) I included only surface combatants, of 4kt+, with VLS +/- slant launcher tubes, so no carriers, amphibs, or subs even if they have VLS, and no ships using the old-style swing arm launchers.
2) I did not include ships with SRSAMs in the tallies, so no HHQ-10, etc.
3) Tube capacities reflect the intended design capacity, not the capacity as built due to money issues, so Daring, Horizon, FREMM, etc. all reflect the originally designed number of tubes.

 

[FORBIN]

Yes, I think there will be a 052E, so we definitely see the 055's role differently. Even if there were not a 052E, I think still think the 055 would play a cruiser role in the PLAN giving the preponderance of 052X sized destroyers currently or projected to be in the fleet.

BTW, here is a little jewel for you:
View attachment 40316

Please note the slope of the trendline. Feel free to check my numbers.

Some notes for the graph:
1) I included only surface combatants, of 4kt+, with VLS +/- slant launcher tubes, so no carriers, amphibs, or subs even if they have VLS, and no ships using the old-style swing arm launchers.
2) I did not include ships with SRSAMs in the tallies, so no HHQ-10, etc.
3) Tube capacities reflect the intended design capacity, not the capacity as built due to money issues, so Daring, Horizon, FREMM, etc. all reflect the originally designed number of tubes.

Yeah
And Ticonderoga is the more armed in comparison with the size after Sejong the Great, KD-2 South Koreans in force ! and big Kirov really disapointing could we discover reasons : policy, arrangement or other

Meantime
De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate 48 tubes

 

[Iron Man]

Yeah
And Ticonderoga is the more armed in comparison with the size after Sejong the Great, KD-2 South Koreans in force ! and big Kirov really disapointing could we discover reasons : policy, arrangement or other

Meantime
De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate 48 tubes

The Tico is definitely the most missile-dense warship in the last 40 years. KDX-2 and KDX-3 actually tie for second spot. Kirov's problem is its huge antiship missiles designed back in the 70s. Once the Admiral Nakhimov puts back into the water next year after her modernization we shall see what her VLS looks like. If the Russians replace the oversized Granits with the Klub/Kalibr missiles they could probably pack in >200 cells. As for the Dutch ship it is another of the designed-for-but-not-fitted-with 48 tubes.

 

[FORBIN]

The Tico is definitely the most missile-dense warship in the last 40 years. KDX-2 and KDX-3 actually tie for second spot. Kirov's problem is its huge antiship missiles designed back in the 70s. Once the Admiral Nakhimov puts back into the water next year after her modernization we shall see what her VLS looks like. If the Russians replace the oversized Granits with the Klub/Kalibr missiles they could probably pack in >200 cells. As for the Dutch ship it is another of the designed-for-but-not-fitted-with 48 tubes.

View attachment 40323

OT...
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/naval-missiles-and-launchers.t7866/page-3#post-419718

 

[Jura The idiot]

Nobody can say if it is exactly square unless we can get an exactly perpendicular photo shot, but I'm not sure why whether it is exactly square or not makes any difference towards its functionality.

going from

to

then taking norms within
a = [6.4 14.1]; b = [1.5 29.3]; c = [18.9 14.1]; d = [14.3 29.7];
EDIT and "averaging" (for nitpickers LOL who would say abcd doesn't form a rectangle or whatever)

it appears the panel is ROUGHLY 33:26 ("higher than wider": if its bottom is 1.0, its side is ABOUT 1.27)

***
while on a slow Fast train during today, I had enough time to think about classification systems of modern warships, which I did, and I admit at that time I basically had thought the opposite to several pretty interesting points you made at the same time LOL
in short, I thought both

• displacement-based and
  
• role-based

classifications were becoming meaningless, and what would make sense now should be just something like (an example, please don't nitpick)
'Surface Combatant of 5k displacement, ASW and local AA defense role' instead of 'Frigate',

but I'm not so sure anymore

 

[Ali Qizilbash]

Yes, I think there will be a 052E, so we definitely see the 055's role differently. Even if there were not a 052E, I think still think the 055 would play a cruiser role in the PLAN giving the preponderance of 052X sized destroyers currently or projected to be in the fleet.

BTW, here is a little jewel for you:
View attachment 40316

Please note the slope of the trendline. Feel free to check my numbers.

Some notes for the graph:
1) I included only surface combatants, of 4kt+, with VLS +/- slant launcher tubes, so no carriers, amphibs, or subs even if they have VLS, and no ships using the old-style swing arm launchers.
2) I did not include ships with SRSAMs in the tallies, so no HHQ-10, etc.
3) Tube capacities reflect the intended design capacity, not the capacity as built due to money issues, so Daring, Horizon, FREMM, etc. all reflect the originally designed number of tubes.

So whats your opinion on the no. of VLS on Type 55 i.e. 120+ or 112 as shown in the table?

 

[delft]

in short, I thought both

• displacement-based and
  
• role-based

classifications were becoming meaningless, and what would make sense now should be just something like (an example, please don't nitpick)
'Surface Combatant of 5k displacement, ASW and local AA defense role' instead of 'Frigate',

but I'm not so sure anymore

OT
The oldest known use of the term frigate concerned a rowed boat with latin sails and sweeps in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. The next was a somewhat larger vessel, ship rigged and also with sweeps, used in the Southern North Sea after about 1600 by pirates from Dunkerque, then Duinkerken and in the Spanish Netherlands, trying to capture Dutch merchantmen and by the Dutch opposing them and trying to capture merchantmen from the other side. We do not know what characterized a frigate but more than half a century later a frigate could have sixty guns on two decks and be fit to fight in the line. At the beginning of the eighteens century a new frigate appeared ship rigged with some twenty six ponders on a single deck and this model grew throughout that century and it ended with the USS Constitution which again had two gun decks. After the middle of the nineteenth century new frigates appears with a single gun deck and armour, with ship rig and steam power, and meant to fight in the line.
The twentieth century frigate was a ship similar to the destroyer but smaller. The name was introduced by RN during WWII and corresponded to the USN destroyer escort.
With so many not connected ship categories with the name Frigate I see no objection to continuing the use of this name as long as we know what we are talking about.

 

[Skywatcher]

For the record, comparing the Type 055 DDG to the Tone cruiser class in terms of the largest Asian surface combatant was regarding anything built in an Asian shipyard, for what it's worth.

Sure the Russians and we Americans might have significant Asian presence, but don't possess shipyards in Asia itself building warships of that size.

 

[Iron Man]

So whats your opinion on the no. of VLS on Type 55 i.e. 120+ or 112 as shown in the table?

The spotter that's been doing the high quality CGIs says 112, but apparently some post-launch rumors say 128, so who knows. We'll just have to see.