055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

Considering the exceedingly impressive degree of corruption revealed in top ranks of the PLA, it would be truly unbelievable if PLA's acquisition is not also influenced to a impressive degree by political considerations of pleasing non-professional fan boys in the power structure of the government and amongst the uninformed public.

I think you are digging yourself a hole that is going to be harder and harder to get out of.
If you wanted to ask "how much could the 055's design have been influenced by something, something national pride" or "was it possible that 055's design could have been influenced by something, something national pride" then you could have an argument to stand on.


But taking this post and your last post together, it almost seems like you believe that the only reason the Navy is developing 055 is due to silly national pride or fanboyism (!) and you're unable to comprehend the military value of having larger ocean going surface combatants in China's strategic interests and military requirements in the foreseeable future.

I think it may be worth taking an hour or so and maybe read this thread from beginning to end to get caught up on where the discussion and information about this ship is at, because your question has been answered before many times in this thread in the last couple of years, and asking this simple and oft repeated question out of the blue comes across as ignorant and uninformed.
One you get caught up, if you are still unconvinced, then maybe a discussion could begin, but at that point the argument that have been consistently presented over the years should more than convince you or anyone that there is a logical reason for pursuing a larger surface combatant design.

 

[Blitzo]

I am still not clear on the rationale behind the 055 design. I know fan boys think larger is prouder, and being smaller than then Kongos or Zumwalts is somehow an affront, but I don't see what 055 offers that a somewhat modified 052D can't do for less given the primary strategic needs of China for the next 20 years or so.

It kind of amuses me that Janiz is the only one to like this post lol.


Btw I don't think many people believe 055 being smaller than a Zumwalt is an "affront" -- Zumwalt at full displacement is around 15000 tons. 055 at full displacement in its initial variant will likely approach 13000 tons at full, if that at all.

That doesn't mean it's still an immensely important warship for the Navy.

 

[Janiz]

It kind of amuses me that Janiz is the only one to like this post lol.

It kind of amuses me that after like 25 posts after that this question still waits for an answer by anyone lol

Ask 'big shrimps' on the Chinese board because without that there will bo no answer

 

[Blitzo]

It kind of amuses me that after like 25 posts after that this question still waits for an answer by anyone lol

Ask 'big shrimps' on the Chinese board because without that there will bo no answer

I think the last 25 posts have all answered Richard's original question and subsequent questions quite well.


To be honest at this point I'm wondering if Richard is aware of the basics of surface combatant capability and characteristics, like the relationship between displacement to armament, displacement to command/control capability, displacement to ship endurance, not to mention displacement to growth potential/future proofing.

The associations between displacement and all those characteristics of warship are very, very simple, and can easily explain and be explained by the Navy's overall future direction and their intended strategic direction.

 

[taxiya]

I think you are digging yourself a hole that is going to be harder and harder to get out of.
If you wanted to ask "how much could the 055's design have been influenced by something, something national pride" or "was it possible that 055's design could have been influenced by something, something national pride" then you could have an argument to stand on.


But taking this post and your last post together, it almost seems like you believe that the only reason the Navy is developing 055 is due to silly national pride or fanboyism (!) and you're unable to comprehend the military value of having larger ocean going surface combatants in China's strategic interests and military requirements in the foreseeable future.

I think it may be worth taking an hour or so and maybe read this thread from beginning to end to get caught up on where the discussion and information about this ship is at, because your question has been answered before many times in this thread in the last couple of years, and asking this simple and oft repeated question out of the blue comes across as ignorant and uninformed.
One you get caught up, if you are still unconvinced, then maybe a discussion could begin, but at that point the argument that have been consistently presented over the years should more than convince you or anyone that there is a logical reason for pursuing a larger surface combatant design.

It kind of amuses me that after like 25 posts after that this question still waits for an answer by anyone lol

Ask 'big shrimps' on the Chinese board because without that there will bo no answer

@Janiz
Do you not read Bltizo's post just two above yours? See the bold text. Or you deliberately pretend to be blind AS USUAL?

So far this thread has accumulated to 230 pages. And you say the question was not answered already? Again, you play not understanding the plain English language. That is trolling. Your big grin emoticon does not make you any cooler nor funnier, but only a fxxl.

 

[Blitzo]

@Janiz
Do you not read Bltizo's post just two above yours? See the bold text. Or you deliberately pretend to be blind AS USUAL?

So far this thread has accumulated to 230 pages. And you say the question was not answered already? Again, you play not understanding the plain English language. That is trolling. Your big grin emoticon does not make you any cooler nor funnier, but only a fxxl.

The most confusing part is that in the last 25 posts the reasons for larger ships vs smaller ships has been explained by people in good faith as well, like:


https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-228#post-421683
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-228#post-421676
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-229#post-421691
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-229#post-421706



And this is even without having to go through the entire last 200+ pages. I'm wondering if Janiz has even read the last few pages properly...

 

[Iron Man]

I am still not clear on the rationale behind the 055 design. I know fan boys think larger is prouder, and being smaller than then Kongos or Zumwalts is somehow an affront, but I don't see what 055 offers that a somewhat modified 052D can't do for less given the primary strategic needs of China for the next 20 years or so.

I'm assuming you're not trying to imply that the PLAN has similar motivations as fanbois. That would be an utterly idiotic assertion.

I don't agree with some of the others that "endurance" is a major driver in the introduction of this design. No doubt it will have more endurance than smaller ships, but in a CSG the frigate is the limiting factor in terms of endurance, not the destroyer or cruiser. Not only that, a CSG will almost always have oilers/replenishment ships. Really the only time a 055's increased endurance vis-à-vis the 052C/D becomes relevant is when it is sailing alone or with other 055s. Then again if it is sailing with other 055s, such a SAG would almost certainly be accompanied by an oiler.

IMO the role of the 055 hinges entirely on its actual displacement. If it is as rumors suggest a 12 to 13,000 ton ship, it will be two-thirds larger than the 052C/D class. This is a true cruiser design and would be used as a cruiser, not just a larger 052D with quantitatively more weapons, but a larger ship with a qualitative difference in role with extra command capabilities.

Here is a breakdown of a USN battlegroup command hierarchy. Note especially this part:

3. Air Warfare Commander (AW)

The commanding officer of the cruiser in the battlegroup is often assigned as AW. Preferably, it is a Ticonderoga class CG operating the AEGIS weapon system. The Combat Information Center (CIC) of these ships is specially designed for inner air battle functions. A second cruiser within the battlegroup may act as an alternate AW to allow a 12 hours on - 12 hours off rotation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is it absolutely necessary for there to be an AAW command ship? Obviously not; you don't need a command ship to shoot at incoming missiles and fighters. Would such a ship be a force multiplier in a CSG or SAG? Most definitely.

If OTOH its actual displacement turns out to be closer to 9 to 10,000 tons, then this ship IMO will almost certainly be the replacement design for the 052D. It will function as a larger 052D in every way, and will be in the same league as the Aegis ships of the US, Korean, and Japanese navies.

I mean, look around the navies around Wes Pacific: Japan has Kongo class, Atago class; South Korea has KDX-III; the US has Arleigh Burke class and Ti-Conderoga class. They're all 10,000t or above destroyers/cruisers. Instead of asking for a rationale for 055, people need to provide a rationale for why not. Seriously.

You should check your sources. Less than half of the ships you mentioned even have a full load displacement of 10,000 tons or greater. And of the ones that are, the Atago is barely above 10,000 tons, and the KDX-III is 11,000 tons.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't agree with some of the others that "endurance" is a major driver in the introduction of this design. No doubt it will have more endurance than smaller ships, but in a CSG the frigate is the limiting factor in terms of endurance, not the destroyer or cruiser. Not only that, a CSG will almost always have oilers/replenishment ships. Really the only time a 055's increased endurance vis-à-vis the 052C/D becomes relevant is when it is sailing alone or with other 055s. Then again if it is sailing with other 055s, such a SAG would almost certainly be accompanied by an oiler.

Good post, though regarding the topic of endurance, I think the idea of that being an important factor in its design is the role of endurance in increasing the station time in blue water without refuelling or resupply generally speaking.

I.e.: not only for CSG escort, but also for more independent operations or operations in SAGs.
Obviously, having greater endurance will also allow an 055 to conduct the AAW mission for a SAG more persistently and longer than say a frigate (especially in blue water), but that also means the 055 does not need to be replenished or refuelled as often.

I see the relevance of an increased endurance in 055 as being the ability to reduce the frequency/demands for resupply and refuelling relative to providing the capabilities which 055 provides in another form (like 052Ds), whether it's in a CSG, SAG or for independent operations.

 

[Iron Man]

Good post, though regarding the topic of endurance, I think the idea of that being an important factor in its design is the role of endurance in increasing the station time in blue water without refuelling or resupply generally speaking.

I.e.: not only for CSG escort, but also for more independent operations or operations in SAGs.
Obviously, having greater endurance will also allow an 055 to conduct the AAW mission for a SAG more persistently and longer than say a frigate (especially in blue water), but that also means the 055 does not need to be replenished or refuelled as often.

I see the relevance of an increased endurance in 055 as being the ability to reduce the frequency/demands for resupply and refuelling relative to providing the capabilities which 055 provides in another form (like 052Ds), whether it's in a CSG, SAG or for independent operations.

I'm not really sure how much of an improvement in endurance the 055 brings compared to a 052D, especially in cases where an oiler is involved. Even if it would utilize the oiler and/or replenishment ship less than a 052D, whether this would actually make any real difference tactically is anyone's guess.

We also know that the 052C/D engines are in a CODOG configuration with high efficiency cruising diesels paired with GTs for burst speed, whereas the 055 is assumed to be COGAG with 4 identical low efficiency GTs (low compared to diesels), with one or two GTs running at near maximum output during cruise speed (maybe ~12 knots on one GT turning one screw and ~20 knots on two GTs turning one screw each), and all four running during full/flank speed. The 055 would undoubtedly carry more bunker fuel, but would this increased fuel be significantly offset by having to use GTs for cruise? Nobody knows the answer to this question.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm not really sure how much of an improvement in endurance the 055 brings compared to a 052D, especially in cases where an oiler is involved. Even if it would utilize the oiler and/or replenishment ship less than a 052D, whether this would actually make any real difference tactically is anyone's guess.

We also know that the 052C/D engines are in a CODOG configuration with high efficiency cruising diesels paired with GTs for burst speed, whereas the 055 is assumed to be COGAG with 4 identical low efficiency GTs (low compared to diesels), with one or two GTs running at near maximum output during cruise speed (maybe ~12 knots on one GT turning one screw and ~20 knots on two GTs turning one screw each), and all four running during full/flank speed. The 055 would undoubtedly carry more bunker fuel, but would this increased fuel be significantly offset by having to use GTs for cruise? Nobody knows the answer to this question.

That is a fair point, but then we also have to remember an 055 provides greater capability than a single 052D as well, not only in terms of qualitatively superior command/control and surveillance, but also potentially up to double the armament of a single 052D in terms of VLS.

To provide the same degree of firepower as an 055 in the form of 052Ds, the Navy would need to field two 052Ds in lieu of one 055, and I think there is a good case to argue that the fuel and supplies needed to maintain two 052Ds on cruising station in a given theatre would likely be greater than that of an equivalent 055 even if the 055 is cruising on gas turbines and the 052Ds on diesels.
[That is what I meant in my last post when I said "055 as being the ability to reduce the frequency/demands for resupply and refuelling relative to providing the capabilities which 055 provides in another form (like 052Ds)," though it probably wasn't phrased that well.]


Of course, two 052Ds also means the two ships can cover more patrol area and offers greater flexibility etc, compared to a single 055 in certain mission profiles.
But I think that doesn't invalidate the idea that the 055's likely superior endurance (combined with its greater armament, command/control etc) will make it a more suitable and/or cost effective solution for certain missions mission profiles than 052Ds, in terms of the need to resupply and/or refuel.


edit: in terms of 055 having reduced need to resupply and/or refuel, I see the major benefits of this as making the job of the logistics tail easier, as it should allow a replenishment ship to have to return to port to restock less often (regardless of whether it is supporting a CSG, SAG or occasionally topping up a single lone 055), and reducing the overall length of the logistics tail of the Navy generally speaking. Of course, the effect this may have on reducing the Navy's logistics tail would depend on the kinds of missions the Navy decides to pursue (i.e.: missions where 055 and replenishment ships could come into play, like blue water missions), but also on the number of 055s in service overall (where more 055s instead of the equivalent capability in number of 052Ds will be able to paradoxically provide greater alleviation for the logistics demand)