China’s Type 055 destroyer: Why India should take inspiration from Russia’s Lider-class destroyer

[Han Patriot]

Are you thick?

You quoted a post of mine where I indicate what original post BY SOMEONE ELSE I was responding to. NOT MY POST THEREFOR. This is why my post states 'it is a retort to'

See post #3, which is the original NOT BY ME
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chin...as-lider-class-destroyer.504111/#post-9615926

To which you replied with the highly intelligent "That's what all losers say."in number 4.
To which I replied in #8 with It is the argument used by those who say the carrier's day is over, including many Chinese here.

And YOU are accusing ME of lying?

Fine, so you agree 055 is not a sitting duck then?

 

[Penguin]

Fine, so you agree 055 is not a sitting duck then?

I'm not going to be made to say or to deny things. And certainly not before you apologize for wrongly accusing me in public of lying. In other words, you had better start toning it down, mister.

 

[Han Patriot]

I'm not going to be made to say or to deny things. And certainly not before you apologize for wrongly accusing me in public of lying. In other words, you had better start toning it down, mister.

OK bro, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I have to be hawkish since some Indian posters are just as hawkish, I reckon you are a reasonable dude. Let call it even?

 

[Penguin]

OK bro, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I have to be hawkish since some Indian posters are just as hawkish, I reckon you are a reasonable dude. Let call it even?

Accepted. No further issue.

'People' 'often' refer to a single large ship as a 'white elephant', a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. I can see how that would apply to a smaller navy that acquires a single major unit e.g. Thailand with its mini-carrier, but it could also be PN with a single 055.

Clearly, this does not necessarily reflect poorly on the qualities of the ship in question. More likely is that that navy cannot properly support that main vessel operationally with other ships, without ending with no ships available for other duties than carrier escort. So, effectiveness of the fleet is reduced, the cost aspect of operating and maintaining the major vessel aside.

This is clearly not the case with 055 for PLAN, as more than a couple are apparently planned, and this is in line with addition of carriers, smaller destroyers and frigates as well as AOEs.

As for a large ship like 055 automatically being better than a smaller ship, remains to be seen. A larger ship means usually that more ordnance is carried and/or that the variety of ordnance is increased. Also, more or more powerful sensors. This together translated to greater stayingpower and/or ability to deal with more complex situations.

However, to the detraction of this may be that weapons, sensors - while effective - are possibly not as small as they could be. So, older Soviet ships tended to be larger then their US counterparts, because their main systems were bulkier, for a given capability. If able to miniturize and integrate functions and systems better, one may end up with an equally capable yet smaller ship.

In sum, one has to be very carefull with generalizations and look at the specifics of designs before making sweeping statements or judgements. I have no doubt both P15A and 055 are capable ships IN RELATION TO WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO DO BY DESIGN (i.e. a relative not an absolute measure). That doesn't mean they are equivalent or identical. Or that they need to be.

 

[Han Patriot]

Accepted. No further issue.

'People' 'often' refer to a single large ship as a 'white elephant', a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. I can see how that would apply to a smaller navy that acquires a single major unit e.g. Thailand with its mini-carrier, but it could also be PN with a single 055.

Clearly, this does not necessarily reflect poorly on the qualities of the ship in question. More likely is that that navy cannot properly support that main vessel operationally with other ships, without ending with no ships available for other duties than carrier escort. So, effectiveness of the fleet is reduced, the cost aspect of operating and maintaining the major vessel aside.

This is clearly not the case with 055 for PLAN, as more than a couple are apparently planned, and this is in line with addition of carriers, smaller destroyers and frigates as well as AOEs.

As for a large ship like 055 automatically being better than a smaller ship, remains to be seen. A larger ship means usually that more ordnance is carried and/or that the variety of ordnance is increased. Also, more or more powerful sensors. This together translated to greater stayingpower and/or ability to deal with more complex situations.

However, to the detraction of this may be that weapons, sensors - while effective - are possibly not as small as they could be. So, older Soviet ships tended to be larger then their US counterparts, because their main systems were bulkier, for a given capability.

In sum, one has to be very carefull with generalizations and look at the specifics of designs before making sweeping statements or judgements. I have no doubt both P15A and 055 are capable ships IN RELATION TO WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO DO BY DESIGN (i.e. a relative not an absolute measure). That doesn't mean they are equivalent or identical. Or that they need to be.

I have to disagree bro, Kolkata class is equivalent to 052D in both tonnage and also weaponry.

 

[Penguin]

I have to disagree bro, Kolkata class is equivalent to 052D in both tonnage and also weaponry.

Not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with.

Above I looked at 055 as an example of a large ship. Could have been Zumwalt or Kirov too. But it also applies for the small craft brown water navy that gets a single 3500ton frigate. A single such ship in a navy not otherwise so equipped is risky.

Originally I understood P15A destroyer was to be an GP/AAW oriented vessel, like P15 Delhi, with P17 frigate being more in an GP/ASW line. However, looking at P17A, the difference with P15A as well as P15B is becoming marginal.

As for comparison P15A (or B) with 052C (or D), on the surface there appears little difference between these similar sized ships. Crucial are the non-visible differences in electronics and C4I systems.