Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Of course. The size difference between these two warships alone are too massive from them to be managed under the same project umbrella.
Strictly hypothetically speaking (and assuming that the information is accurate) - I'd wish that this 18000-ton ship retains the same number of 850mm VLS cells as the 055 DDGs (i.e. 112x), if not reduced to 96x - Then add 16-32x 1200mm LVLS cells on it, with half of the cells loaded with navalized HQ-29 and the other half loaded with navalized DF-17.
That's from a rando on Rednote, no real connection to this, he really only posted it as "It is possible to resemble this" as a ship with a zumwalt style superstructure but conventional hull.
If this 18000 tonne ship is the only class with 1) larger VLS and 2) newer, larger AESA panels for ABM, then I think it would be better for:
1. Fewer 850mm VLS. Say 64 VLS cells
2. More larger VLS. Say 48 VLS cells. You could usefully fill all these cells with HQ-29 ABM and DF-16/17/ASBMs
(Consider that there are over 500 DF-26 missiles in total, yet the DF-17 (~$2 Mn) is considerably smaller and cheaper)
---
It would be highly unlikely for such a ship to be travelling unaccompanied, so it could rely on the 850mm VLS cells and radars on the Type-055 and Type-052D.
----
In terms of production numbers, you would want at least one for each carrier, plus some for independent SAG operations.
So they could build 8 ships every 5 years, which is the same pace as the Type-055.
---
If I had to guess, such a ship would cost less than $2 Billion
In terms of conventional hull, I personally think they would use the 055 arrow head shape again, as that was also what was depicted in the DDGX renders from Lockheed, before the emergence of BBGX.
I think China could afford to procure 50 of a 18K tonne CG. And this would include an implied requirement for smaller destroyers to escort/accompany.
(If you look at actual output of goods and services, the latest PPP/pricing data indicates that China is about twice the size of the US economy)
But I don't see a requirement for anywhere this many, unless the US manages to:
1. increase shipbuilding significantly and manage to build 30+ Trump-class battleships (highly doubtful)
2. also starts producing a lot more hypersonic missiles at an affordable cost (highly doubtful)
3. prints a lot more money for all this (possible)
2. probably doesn't matter anyhow given new combatants whether general purpose or CG will all likely come with new VLS. They could be large enough to carry something like HHQ-19 for hypersonic and terminal stage defense.
Let's say there is a new large VLS which accommodates a 1.2m diameter missile.
That implies the new VLS is at least 1300x1300mm, which occupies 2.3x more surface area than the current 850x850mm UVLS. That is a large space penalty.
---
An air-defence destroyer will always need at least some HQ-9 SAMs, which are sufficient for long-range air-defence against supersonic and subsonic threats. So they should keep at least some UVLS for the HQ-9.
There are the 950mm cells