055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Pmichael]

I don't think anyone would claim the Burke III's propulsion is cutting edge but for this day and age I think you would be hard pressed to say they cannot still be considered reasonably modern.

The point is that we have not yet reached a point in naval propulsion internationally, where we can have the gall to call anything other than IEPS or COGLAG as "subpar," simply because there aren't that many surface combatants out there with IEPS and COGLAG or equivalents to begin with. In many respects the European navies are on the leading edge in this regard, but the point still remains that this kind of propulsion technology is far from the norm for international navies.

Thus, I reiterate my previous point, that I see nothing wrong or "subpar" if 055 uses COGAG propulsion, especially if it is only the first batch.

The basic Burke-class is like 30 years old. Even if AEGIS and the amount of VLS cells are still stunning characteristics so are several features not state of the art anymore.

Also looking at other ships in that size classes. The new batch of Burke-class ships are the only one we know will use the COGAG system. All other navies moved over to diesel-electric or even full electric propulsion - the US Navy was also planning to move to IEP and the Zumwalt-class (and the cruiser-version) as well.

 

[Blitzo]

The basic Burke-class is like 30 years old. Even if AEGIS and the amount of VLS cells are still stunning characteristics so are several features not state of the art anymore.

Also looking at other ships in that size classes. The new batch of Burke-class ships are the only one we know will use the COGAG system. All other navies moved over to diesel-electric or even full electric propulsion - the US Navy was also planning to move to IEP and the Zumwalt-class (and the cruiser-version) as well.

All well and good to say what they were planning to transition to -- but the point remains that of the vast majority of surface combatants in the world, are not using IEPS (or CODLAG or COGLAG), nor will they be using them anytime soon.

I'm taking exception to your statement that 055 with COGAG would be "subpar" -- but unfortunately the problem with that statement is that the word "par" (or standard) is defined by the average of the current ships in service and for the foreseeable future, in our case. The fact that the vast majority of medium and large surface combatants will still be using non IEPS (and even non CODLAG or COGLAG) propulsion for the next few decades.


If you want to argue that IEPS or CODLAG and COGLAG should be the way of the future or even the near future for surface combatants, and that navies should strive to implement this kind of propulsion among their ships, then I have no problem with that.
But if you maintain your position that IEPS, CODLAG, or COGLAG should somehow be considered the standard or average form of propulsion that all new surface combatants should be judged upon and that anything below that level is "subpar," then I will continue to maintain my opposition to the statement.

 

[Pmichael]

You could argue that the future Type055 without modern propulsion system could still fulfil the job as the largest surface ships, excluding the carrier(s), in the Chinese Navy. But the design would be still behind other modern ship classes in that regard.
That's one of the fields which China must close the gap to other shipbuilding nations so fast as possible.

 

[Blitzo]

You could argue that the future Type055 without modern propulsion system could still fulfil the job as the largest surface ships, excluding the carrier(s), in the Chinese Navy. But the design would be still behind other modern ship classes in that regard.
That's one of the fields which China must close the gap to other shipbuilding nations so fast as possible.

No one is talking about 055 being the "largest surface ships" -- we are only talking about propulsion.

And I will repeat again, that COGAG propulsion for the foreseeable future will still be considered to be relatively modern among surface combatants, because IEPS, CODLAG, COGLAG, and equivalents will be far from common among surface ships. Therefore, the "par" or the "average" propulsion among large surface ships in the world is still clustered around COGAG type propulsion rather than IEPS, etc, so an 055 which uses COGAG initially in the first batch or so would most definitely not be "subpar".

Furthermore, no one is disputing that 055 would optimally be better if it had a mature IEPS propulsion -- and in fact the current consensus is that the 055 class will be equipped with IEPS after the first batch of COGAG powered ships -- but that doesn't change the fact that your original statement was still categorically illogical and false, so I'm not sure why you're still persisting along that same line.

 

[AndrewS]

Large destroyers like the Arleigh Burke or Type-55 have service lives of 30+ years and are COGAG powered.

Note that both the US and China are each still producing 3 every year, so they will be in service for a long time yet.

And because China and the US account for the vast majority of naval construction around the world, they effectively set the standard for what is a modern propulsion system.

Remember that the only destroyer class warships that use IEPS instead of COGAG are the 3 Zumwalt and 6 Type-45. Both of these are essentially one-off ship classes with a small production run.

I would also add the US doesn't have any plans for an IEPS equipped destroyer due to the failure of the Zumwalt class as the Burke replacement.

So I think it likely that the Chinese will end up with IEPS Type-55s before the US gets them. Particularly since the Burkes are focusing on integrating AMDR by 2023 which is 7 years away. This will finally provide a modern AESA radar to replace the current obsolete PESA on the Burke. Note that the Type-52D/55 already have an AESA.

AESA radars just offer so many more benefits than PESAs like:

1. jamming resistance
2. low probability of intercept
3. digital beamforming
4. multiple simultaneous scan modes
5. datalinking
6. resilience and efficiency

 

[Pmichael]

No one is talking about 055 being the "largest surface ships" -- we are only talking about propulsion.

And I will repeat again, that COGAG propulsion for the foreseeable future will still be considered to be relatively modern among surface combatants, because IEPS, CODLAG, COGLAG, and equivalents will be far from common among surface ships. Therefore, the "par" or the "average" propulsion among large surface ships in the world is still clustered around COGAG type propulsion rather than IEPS, etc, so an 055 which uses COGAG initially in the first batch or so would most definitely not be "subpar".

Furthermore, no one is disputing that 055 would optimally be better if it had a mature IEPS propulsion -- and in fact the current consensus is that the 055 class will be equipped with IEPS after the first batch of COGAG powered ships -- but that doesn't change the fact that your original statement was still categorically illogical and false, so I'm not sure why you're still persisting along that same line.

So how many from scratch designed destroyers of the 10000t class are using COGAG? I don't know a single one, in fact Japan is moving to something else for their own two new Burke-class destroyers.

We also don't need to act that the new batch of Burke-class is the lovechild of the Navy but even they are getting a HED system instead of just purely running on their two turbines.

 

[Blitzo]

So how many from scratch designed destroyers of the 10000t class are using COGAG? I don't know a single one, in fact Japan is moving to something else for their own two new Burke-class destroyers.

I think we are talking past each other -- when you say "subpar" do you mean it in terms of only compared with similar displacement ships which have been recently designed and are designed from scratch?
Because I see the word "subpar" as comparing 055's propulsion technology to the average propulsion technology in service with international navies.

If you really want to be specific towards 10,000 ton or larger combatants, then that kind of specificity could definitely technically be true, but then we have to remember that there are then only two true "from scratch" classes of 10,000 ton or larger displacement warships that have been built or will be built in these few years, one of which is the Zumwalt class and the other is the 055 class... so the usefulness of that kind of statement is limited at best.

We also don't need to act that the new batch of Burke-class is the lovechild of the Navy but even they are getting a HED system instead of just purely running on their two turbines.

I believe some older Burke IIAs are getting HEDs, but the new production Burke IIIs are merely getting an upgrade to their electric generator capacity.

 

[AndrewS]

Japan's 2 new destroyers over their next 5 year plan - are almost a one-off build of their class.

And if they're going with IEPS, does that mean Japan had already trialed IEPS on another naval or coast guard or test ship?

 

[Blitzo]

Japan's 2 new destroyers over their next 5 year plan - are almost a one-off build of their class.

And if they're going with IEPS, does that mean Japan had already trialed IEPS on another naval or coast guard or test ship?

JMSDF's two new destroyers will be Atago variants, and will use COGLAG rather than IEPS, I believe.

 

[Janiz]

And if they're going with IEPS, does that mean Japan had already trialed IEPS on another naval or coast guard or test ship?

Since 1996 and JS Nichinan, baby.