Just to clarify my own perspective: I agreed with
@Cloud_Nine_'s
post that 055 is "the new norm" for a large surface combatant, noting that I had argued something similar some years back, that 055 is "just" a 21st century Burke and is therefore suitable for mass production as replacement for 052x.
The inventory I envisioned back then was for 055 as the new destroyer, a larger (~6000 tonne) ASW-focused frigate with dual hangars, and then a small ship between current 056 and 054 (probably around the size of F-22P or C-28A) to take over littoral duties.
Since then, 052D construction has continued and will evidently do so for some time yet. Additionally there are rumours that work on further evolution of 052x or a "medium destroyer" program is continuing. Hence, my envisioned architecture needs to evolve to "acknowledge reality" and work with what is actually happening. So the question becomes, if there is going to be a new or ongoing medium destroyer, how does it fit? The challenge for a "medium destroyer" is to control costs while preserving the capabilities that justify its existence (as distinct from just going with a new frigate with lesser AAW potential). Hence my post
here arguing that such a platform should dispense with capabilities outside the core role such as an organic helicopter. This would put a future medium destroyer in the same inventory relation as the Flight I Burkes (8300 tonne with no onboard helos) had in relation to Ticonderoga as the high-end AAW asset, and Spruance/Perry as the (dual hangar!) ASW-focused assets.
The elephant in the room is that there remains no larger dual-hangar ASW frigate to provide high-end blue water ASW capability at low cost (056 is fantastic in littoral capacity). This certainly strengthens the case for a medium general purpose combatant like 052D/E/X but strikes me as suboptimal in the face of a very high-end submarine threat. Even a cut-rate combatant like Perry had dual hangars for a reason.