Nobody follows such a convention. Nowadays frigates, destroyers, and cruisers are designated as such for political rather than military reasons.
Except that "Large Destroyer" is a category you just made up, even if you did put it in caps. We'll never know for sure, but I would argue calling the 055 a "destroyer" is also a political decision. In China's case its navy is large enough that multiple classes of vessels are present which necessitates class division, whereas in European navies most surface combatants are single class, leading to ambiguity in naming conventions which is then influenced by political decisions.Except arguable China, which has:
1. The Type-55 Large Destroyer
2. The Type-52D Destroyer
3. The Type-54 Frigate
4. The Type-56 Light Frigate
And naming things correctly is not just for military reasons. It's just common sense so people don't get confused.
Except that "Large Destroyer" is a category you just made up, even if you did put it in caps. We'll never know for sure, but I would argue calling the 055 a "destroyer" is also a political decision. In China's case its navy is large enough that multiple classes of vessels are present which necessitates class division, whereas in European navies most surface combatants are single class, leading to ambiguity in naming conventions which is then influenced by political decisions.
Official media seems to only be "official" when it spouts something someone agrees with. I'll take whatever comes out of the mouth of a PLAN official, but Chinese media is not seen as any kind of authoritative source on the Chinese military, much less on Chinese naval surface combatant nomenclature.Large destroyer is not a category I just made up. It is what the Type 55 is described as in the official media.
Note the Chinese Navy is much less influenced by political decisions because it operates as an independent fiefdom with comparatively little civilian oversight.
Official media seems to only be "official" when it spouts something someone agrees with. I'll take whatever comes out of the mouth of a PLAN official, but Chinese media is not seen as any kind of authoritative source on the Chinese military, much less on Chinese naval surface combatant nomenclature.
I also dispute your caricature of the Chinese military as some kind of "independent fiefdom" that sounds more like the standard uninformed Western media characterization of the Chinese military than someone on SDF who should know better.
No, no, no. I did not dispute that the 055 is being called a "destroyer", in fact I specifically mentioned that it was being called so and said it was possibly for political reasons, so don't try to pull off this BS here. You designated the 055 a "Large Destroyer", in caps, as if it is some kind of official distinction from "Destroyer" (052D), and which is not any term used by any PLAN official.Here is the English language press easiest from the Defence Ministry spokesperson calling the Type-55 a destroyer.
Plus I stand by my description of the Chinese military as like an independent fiefdom. There is very little civilian oversight and involvement in its plans, activities, operations, budgets etc.
The military are themselves a formal political constituency with their own members in Congress.
No, no, no. I did not dispute that the 055 is being called a "destroyer", in fact I specifically mentioned that it was being called so and said it was possibly for political reasons, so don't try to pull off this BS here. You designated the 055 a "Large Destroyer", in caps, as if it is some kind of official distinction from "Destroyer" (052D), and which is not any term used by any PLAN official.
You can stand by whatever you like, it doesn't make your Westernized caricature of the Independent Fiefdom of the Chinese Military any more reflective of reality.
This part is bit OT, but it seems to me that you don't understand how China works. The Chinese Communist Party fully control PLA as the funding principle of PRC written in the constitution. Is CCP civilian? Xi as the head of the Party is the commander in chief of PLA, is he civilian? Xi's grade of controlling the military is no match by any political leader in the world. A very deep sense of not allowing the military being independent of civilian control has been run for hundreds of years in China.And as for the Chinese military being an "independent fiefdom", you can't argue with the fact that there is no systemic civilian oversight/control on how the Chinese military spends its budget.
That contrasts with the Oversight Committees in Congress, sequestration limits and unnecessary procurement that we've seen imposed on the US military. But on the flipside, that lack of scrutiny also means different types of corruption are possible.
And as for the Chinese military being an "independent fiefdom", you can't argue with the fact that there is no systemic civilian oversight/control on how the Chinese military spends its budget.
That contrasts with the Oversight Committees in Congress, sequestration limits and unnecessary procurement that we've seen imposed on the US military. But on the flipside, that lack of scrutiny also means different types of corruption are possible.
Well then show us what you have "seen". Which linkable source confirms that the builder called it a "large destroyer"?I would have preferred to just call the Type-55 a destroyer, as it better supports my point on naming things as they are. But I've seen it also called a "large destroyer" by the shipbuilder, so I erred on the safe side with that term.
And the point is that the Chinese Navy calls them destroyers because there is no uninformed political pressure for the Chinese Navy to call them cruisers, just to match the "cruiser gap" with the US.
I think taxiya and jobject have squared you away plenty well enough on this point.And as for the Chinese military being an "independent fiefdom", you can't argue with the fact that there is no systemic civilian oversight/control on how the Chinese military spends its budget.
That contrasts with the Oversight Committees in Congress, sequestration limits and unnecessary procurement that we've seen imposed on the US military. But on the flipside, that lack of scrutiny also means different types of corruption are possible.