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

[gslv mk3]

Hey that is an Indian website talking about Arudhra, not me OK

The source isn't wrong, however they mixed up an Israeli MPR with an Indian one.

I am asking you if any naval AESA radar had been inducted. Can you tell me?

Not yet -AESA that is. However we never had any BMD capability on our destroyers, so equipping one with our own BMD radar never made sense.

Btw, why is it not on a destroyer but on a surveillance ship, it still doesn't make sense. How are you going to attack the target? Means you lock in a target, then what?

Track it. It will be integrated with ground based BMD systems.

 

[Penguin]

?

So, that quote just confirms that someone else posted that, not me. Thx.

Anyway, lets be honest, the world is not rife with 24k ton Kirov class, 15k ton Zumwalts, or 12.5k ton Slava class cruisers or 12.3k ton Type 055 ships. On the other hand, there is a good bracket of 9-11 ton ships: Seyong the Great class, Kongo and Atago class, Arleigh Burke various flights. But for most navies, the biggest ships are 5k-8k ton ships at best. Other navies make different choices, obviously.

 

[#hydra#]

So, that quote just confirms that someone else posted that, not me. Thx.

Anyway, lets be honest, the world is not rife with 24k ton Kirov class, 15k ton Zumwalts, or 12.5k ton Slava class cruisers or 12.3k ton Type 055 ships. On the other hand, there is a good bracket of 9-11 ton ships: Seyong the Great class, Kongo and Atago class, Arleigh Burke various flights. But for most navies, the biggest ships are 5k-8k ton ships at best. Other navies make different choices, obviously.

But tonnage came with great firepower,I fear Pla-navy will have clear cut advantage over us in future if we didn't act properly.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

The articles coming out of Indian media is, "Hey China is going for 12k tonnes, but we have only 8k tonnes, so IN is outgunned" is really a stupid factual analysis to begin with. The thing is you are corroborating my point. If an 9k tonne ship can incorporate all the features of an advanced warship then having a smaller one is better.
IN should build smart and know its capability. If we have an advanced radar which needs more space and power than tonnage can be increased accordingly.

Another reason is this Chinese destroyer has some 128 VLS slots which requires a lot of space and tonnage. If IN can have the same tech with 64 slots then I am good. (Current IN destroyers have empty slots where 64 can be increased to 72 or 80, which is more than good if u ask me)

For India, who sees only Indian Ocean as its operational theatre, we don't need to go head on head even with capability.

In any conflict, we will have the home advantage. Most important swathes of Indian Ocean are in fact extremely close to Indian land mass.

We could project incredible force just from our land masses.

 

[wiseone2]

So, that quote just confirms that someone else posted that, not me. Thx.

Anyway, lets be honest, the world is not rife with 24k ton Kirov class, 15k ton Zumwalts, or 12.5k ton Slava class cruisers or 12.3k ton Type 055 ships. On the other hand, there is a good bracket of 9-11 ton ships: Seyong the Great class, Kongo and Atago class, Arleigh Burke various flights. But for most navies, the biggest ships are 5k-8k ton ships at best. Other navies make different choices, obviously.

large ships are sitting ducks to the opposing naval aviation. Hence the switch to smaller 5-8k ton class warships

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

large ships are sitting ducks to the opposing naval aviation. Hence the switch to smaller 5-8k ton class warships

I don't agree.

This point is used by many people when they want to attack large capital ships.

For example, Chinese use such argument against aircraft carriers.

The fact is that, one still needs space and size to do a lot of stuff, like installing better radars, having more power, having the ability to fire more, larger and better missiles etc.

Of course the larger the ship, the more valuable a target it is, but usually the larger the ship, the more capable also it is (taking technology as a constant)

 

[Penguin]

But tonnage came with great firepower,I fear Pla-navy will have clear cut advantage over us in future if we didn't act properly.

The 11K ton Sejong the Great also has 128 VL cells.

This is a very close relative to Arleigh Burke, which has 90 cells Mk41 VLS in flight I (21 ships) and 96 cell Mk 41 VLS in Flight II and IIA (66-21= 45 ships), so if USN would seek ships with more VLS cells, I sure could come up with them right quick. Besides, many of those will actually be quadpacked with ESSM (and I've not seen convincing evidence that DK-10 is in fact quadpacked on 052D or 055).

By the way, the 22 ship 10k ton Ticonderoga class ships each have 122 cells. Compared to preceeding Virginia class CGN, which had 'just' 2 × Mk 26 missile launchers for 68 missiles (Standard missiles MR and ASROC) plus 2x4 Tomahawk and 2x4 Harpoon deck launchers.

Our Dutch LCF Zeven Provincien class 'make do' with 5 8-cell Mk41 VLS (40 total) for 32 SM2 and 32 ESSM, in addition to 2x4 Harpoon. They can accommodat one additional 8-cell module if need be (space/weight reserved) for Tomahawk cruise missiles. This is a 6k ton (full load) ship. As compared to the 7.5K ton (full load) 052D with its 64 cells worth of VLS, likely still all single packed.

large ships are sitting ducks to the opposing naval aviation. Hence the switch to smaller 5-8k ton class warships

You will have to explain why. And why more so than a smaller ship.

 

[wiseone2]

The 11K ton Sejong the Great also has 128 VL cells.

This is a very close relative to Arleigh Burke, which has 90 cells Mk41 VLS in flight I (21 ships) and 96 cell Mk 41 VLS in Flight II and IIA (66-21= 45 ships), so if USN would seek ships with more VLS cells, I sure could come up with them right quick. Besides, many of those will actually be quadpacked with ESSM (and I've not seen convincing evidence that DK-10 is in fact quadpacked on 052D or 055).

By the way, the 22 ship 10k ton Ticonderoga class ships each have 122 cells. Compared to preceeding Virginia class CGN, which had 'just' 2 × Mk 26 missile launchers for 68 missiles (Standard missiles MR and ASROC) plus 2x4 Tomahawk and 2x4 Harpoon deck launchers.

Our Dutch LCF Zeven Provincien class 'make do' with 5 8-cell Mk41 VLS (40 total) for 32 SM2 and 32 ESSM, in addition to 2x4 Harpoon. They can accommodat one additional 8-cell module if need be (space/weight reserved) for Tomahawk cruise missiles. This is a 6k ton (full load) ship. As compared to the 7.5K ton (full load) 052D with its 64 cells worth of VLS, likely still all single packed.


You will have to explain why. And why more so than a smaller ship.

In a technical sense it makes no difference whether it is a large ship or smaller ship

I assume smaller ships are less detectable than a large ship. Not sure by how much.
Smaller ships can be faster. They can complete their mission and get back before getting blown out
Smaller ships are more expendable than larger ships. It costs less, has fewer men and lesser equipment

Beyond a certain point making a ship larger does not make it more capable

 

[Michael Corleone]

I like how Russians strap a reactor to virtually whatever moves.

 

[Penguin]

large ships are sitting ducks to the opposing naval aviation. Hence the switch to smaller 5-8k ton class warships

You suggest a smaller ship like the Dutch LCF is better able to defend itself than a larger ship like the US Arleigh Burke? How so? Please explain the workings.

From this perspective, also, how do you explain that most frigates made for European navies in the past decades have increased tonnage (5-7k) relative to earlier frigates (3-5k ton). Think German F123, F124 (relative to F122), Dutch LCF (relative to S/L frigates, M frigates and Tromp class), Spanish F100 relative to Santa Maria (FFG7/OHP) class, Horizon relative to France's Suffren class and Italy's Audace class, Daring relative to Type 42, etc.?

 

[Penguin]

In a technical sense it makes no difference whether it is a large ship or smaller ship

I assume smaller ships are less detectable than a large ship. Not sure by how much.
Smaller ships can be faster. They can complete their mission and get back before getting blown out
Smaller ships are more expendable than larger ships. It costs less, has fewer men and lesser equipment

Beyond a certain point making a ship larger does not make it more capable

The larger LCF (6k ton) is a more stealthy design than the Tromp class AAW frigate (4.3k ton) and L-class frigate (3.75k ton) it replaced. This makes it LESS detectable even if bigger. Advances are also made in e.g. noise reduction and reduction of heat signature.

In chronological order:
Tromp frigate (dedicated AAW and command ship) > 28kn (4.3k ton) COGOG complement: 306
S frigate (general purpose version) > 30 kn (3.9k tons) COGOG complement: 176–196
L frigate (same hull as S but AAW version) > 30kn (3.75k ton) COGOG complement: 197
M frigate/ Doorman class (replacement S) > 30kn (3.3k tons) CODOG complement: 154
LCF/Zeven provincien (replacement Tromp and L) > 30kn (6k ton) CODAG complement: 232, €600 million/ship

I don't see a speed difference that is related to size.

Note Holland class OPV is 3750 tons, like L-frigate, but max speed is just 22kn. Reason: it has all diesel CODELOD propulsion rather than a combination of diesel with gasturbine as found on the frigates. Complement: 54 (+ additional space for 40). US$150m/ship

How is a more stealthy 3,200 ton Formidable class ship (Singaporean navy), with 32 VL Aster 15/30 (30km/120km), more expendable than a less stealthy 4,035 ton Talwar class ship (Indian navy) with 24 × SRL Shtil-1 (32km) and - in first three only - 9M311 / NATO SA-N-11 (10km)? Both have 8 AShM. ASW tubes and 1 ASW helicopter. Or a larger (6k ton), similarly armed (with 2 helicopters but no ASW tubes, and Barak 1 VL in place of SA-N-11) P17 Shivalik?

Look at the complements. Not how the S and L frigate have fewer crew than the Tromp, while not very much smaller. This is because they are newer and more automated. Compare S and M frigate: likewise, even if the M is a bit smaller. Compare Tromp and LCF: the latter is much larger but has much less crew. Compare Holland OPV and L: same tonnage but much much less crew due to fewer military systems (and hence specialist personnel) on board + automation.

I'm not sure that a small ship like UAE Baynunah class (915 tons) costs less than a 1520 ton Comandanti class ship or 1620 ton Abu Dhabi class ship based on it. It certainly has more weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynunah-class_corvette
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti-class_patrol_vessel
https://www.fincantieri.com/en/products-and-services/naval-vessels/comandante-cigala-fulgosi-class/
https://www.fincantieri.com/en/products-and-services/naval-vessels/abu-dhabi-class/

When we have Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles such as Dhanush why make such huge sitting ducks?

When our rival navy the PN has small barely armed frigates such huge destroyers are a waste of money

If you pretend that PN is your (only) future thread, then don't get huge destroyers.

 

[Penguin]

The PLAN would need to get all ships with nuclear reactors and resolve SCS conflict before becoming a factor in IOR.

Why? The USN has only nuclear carriers and subs, yet is all over the place with its conventionally COGAG powered Ticonderoga's and Burkes. Not to mention LCSs.

Merely venturing into IOR is not noteworthy.

The reverse also applies. But anyway, PLAN doesn't need to venture far to disrupt e.g. Malacca strait or hit hard at Andaman or Nicobar islands.

We have big destroyers but the Type 055 size is not required by us.

Our Vishakapatnam Class has UVLM big enough for Dhanush as well as standard Brahmos[/QUOTE]

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

chal be chusli , jawab mil gaya tojhe tere baap see , aab chal jaa ke riksha chala .

Ouch...

BTW, what you're trying to do on Internet you illiterate rapist?

 

[Han Patriot]

So, that quote just confirms that someone else posted that, not me. Thx.

Anyway, lets be honest, the world is not rife with 24k ton Kirov class, 15k ton Zumwalts, or 12.5k ton Slava class cruisers or 12.3k ton Type 055 ships. On the other hand, there is a good bracket of 9-11 ton ships: Seyong the Great class, Kongo and Atago class, Arleigh Burke various flights. But for most navies, the biggest ships are 5k-8k ton ships at best. Other navies make different choices, obviously.

Bro, I quoted your post man. How can you be lying in broad day light, any member can reconfirm it by going back a few pages.

You are mistaking me, nobody is saying 7k-8k ships as useless, the roles are just different. China has both ships for a reason.

 

[Penguin]

Bro, I quoted your post man. How can you be lying in broad day light, any member can reconfirm it by going back a few pages.

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?