China's Type 055 missile cruisers ( Renhai class )

[Haijun watcher]

Apparently the PLA-N is also working on large surface cruisers for force projection. Picture of the mockup is at the link below:

Source: The Next Big Future

China also developing railguns and lasers for their navy but will first have a modern missile cruiser in about 2017

China appears to be developing a new cruiser, potentially called the Type 055, which reportedly would displace approximately 10,000 tons and carry large numbers [about 128] of antiship cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and land-attack cruise missiles as well as potentially laser and rail-gun weapons. The first 055 hull to begin construction in the 2015-2016 timeframe. The 055 CG is expected to replace PLAN Type 052D destroyer as China's main combatant surface, with at probably twice as many missile launchers (128 vs. 64). The 055 CG will play a major part in China's naval strategy starting with a projected entry into service of 2017-2020. Its large size, formidable armament and powerful sensors will match or exceed that any current U.S. or allied AEGIS warship in the Pacific.

It will become the principal escort for China�s future aircraft carrier battle group.

The US has begun testing combat lasers on ships, planes and ground vehicles in 2014 and will being testing railguns in 2016.

China appears to be building its first big cruisers. Although shipbuilders have yet to lay down the first ship of the class, a mockup suggests that China could be planning a cruiser of (by contemporary standards) very large proportions.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

More on the Type 055 project vessels, called "cruisers" by some due to their size, while called "destroyers" by others:

Navy Recognition

Pictures Showing China's Type 055 Next Gen Destroyer Under Construction in Shanghai

Recent pictures from China confirm that the first hull of the next generation Type 055 Guided-Missile Destroyer (DDG) for the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN or Chinese Navy) entered final assembly stage at the Jiangnan Changxing naval shipyard located near Shanghai. The information is reported from our colleagues from East Pendulum.

Through photos taken by Shanghai-based spotters, we can witness the chronological assembly of the first Chinese destroyer displacing over 10,000 t:

(...SNIPPED)

[Admiral John Byng]

Perhaps the Chinese need to use the old term "light cruiser"? 10,000 tons is very big for a destroyer but a bit light for a cruiser.

I wonder if the Chinese will build a modern take on the Kirov missile cruisers eventually?

[maxim]

I would not care how they classify the ship.

I have seen no logical definition of frigate, destroyer and cruisers, which can be applied to modern ships. Corvettes are smaller, not designed for blue water operations. OPVs are slower and built cheaper (not as heavily armed and not so good sensors; similar to earlier gunboats, sloops and avisos). But how differentiate between a destroyer and a cruiser today? I would argue that nearly all of today's ships classified as a frigate or destroyer would have been classified in earlier times (e.g. the 1900s) as cruisers - not because of their displacement (which is in my opinion not useful to differentiate at all), but because of the capabilities and types of missions (multi-purpose vs. single purpose of the early destroyers).

But I would be interested in a kit, when the ship is completed... And of a Type 052D 1/700 kit, which is still missing...

[ChrisH]

I found this article detailing the 'US Navy's Cruiser Problem' which in part compares TICONDEROGAs to BURKEs and what makes one a cruiser and the other a destroyer. The list below seems to apply to the USN and may not apply to other navies.

• Cruisers have extra size to allow for an "air defense commander" and their staff.
• TICONDEROGA's CIC has 20 consoles compared to 16 on a BURKE.
• Cruisers have more VLS cells and more directors.
• Cruisers have more communications facilities built into them.
• Cruisers have extra redundancy in that their AN/SPY-1 arrays are split between two structures instead of one.
  
  I'm not sure I buy this, as it seems like someone is trying to convince people a BURKE isn't a cruiser and they needed one more reason. LONG BEACH was a cruiser even though she violated this rule and in spite the AN/SPY-1 arrays being split TICONDEROGA was originally a destroyer.

So, if everything we see here is true and not the USN trying to let everyone know they need a more capable ship than BURKEs, size matters a little to the USN. Not because a larger displacement makes one a cruiser and one a destroyer, but rather the extra size allows for additional crew, weapons and sensors that make cruisers slightly more capable than destroyers. Regardless, the differences between a cruiser and destroyer are pretty slight.

[maxim]

You can argue that the difference is the flagship function, because all other differences are specific for a comparison between to classes and do not fit to others.

But how many ships classified as destroyer can serve as flagship?

E.g. Type 45...

The size difference between the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class is not worth mentioning.

Ticonderoga class: 9800 t

Arleigh Burke class Flight I: 8315 t
Arleigh Burke class Flight II: 8400 t
Arleigh Burke class Flight IIA: 9200 t (!)
Arleigh Burke class Flight III: 9800 t (!!)

Atago class: > 10000 t
Kongo class: 9500 t
Sejongdaewang class: 11000 t

Type 055: 10000 t

[ChrisH]

While TICONDEROGA's can operate as a flagship, that's not what differentiates it from a BURKE per the USN. It is the extra battle staff built around an 'air defense commander' that makes TICONDEROGA's, at least in the minds of the USN, a cruiser and makes BURKE's a destroyer. Even though a FLIGHT III BURKE displaces about the same as a TICO, it must not have the extra room in the CIC for the air defense commander and their staff or the extra four consoles. So there is a tangible difference, at least in the USN, between cruisers and destroyers, whether one agrees with the criteria or not.

With regard to the other ships listed, I don't know enough about their navies naming conventions to comment on them being called destroyers, tho I suspect that in the case of the JMSDF it's better politically to have destroyers than cruisers (or carriers). Using the USN definition, tho, ATAGO and KONGO would be destroyers due to their smaller VLS capacity and single pilot-house. If the Type 45 served in the USN it would be difficult to classify because they appear to be cruiser-like in their ability to manage area air defense but destroyer-like with their smaller number of VLS cells. I'm not familiar enough with the CIC-layout SEJONG THE GREAT, but unless they have extra space the USN BURKEs don't have, they'd probably be classified DDGs in the USN because they have similar limitations even though they have more VLS cells.

[maxim]

The "Air Defence Commander" gives the ship a flagship function: command the air defence of a naval force

As far as I know many of the much smaller European air defence frigates and destroyers have the ability to coordinate the air defence of a naval force. I do not know, if they have an extra room, but I would not be sure, if the requirement of an extra room fits to the current standard of technology. In Second World War a CIC was for sure an improvement - but today? The same function can be done with much less personal much more effectively, because of automation, the much more advanced computers. The Ticonderoga class is a 40 year old design

The VLS capacity cannot be part of the definition - otherwise the first ships of the Ticondoroga class and all earlier classes could not be cruisers (including Long Beach). The same problem is there with the redundancy regarding the launchers (e.g. Belknap class) or the radars (most classes had only one 2D and one 3D radar).

For sure the USN has to justify somehow administratively the difference, but I cannot see any reason, why this definition is actually universally valid and why it should make sense regarding today's technologies.

[Haijun watcher]

And yet another source call this project a "destroyer" again. Make up your minds, journalists!

Popular Mechanics

China's New Guided Missile Destroyer To Be Its Biggest Yet
By Kyle Mizokami
Oct 24, 2016


Chinese shipyards are reportedly busy constructing what will be the largest destroyers in Asia. The yet-unnamed destroyers, tentatively called the Type 055 class, will be stealthy and packed with firepower. Despite the hype on the internet, it's unlikely to be a super-ship. Instead, China's next jump forward will likely have the Chinese Navy merely catching up with the rest of the region.

The first reports of the Type 055 emerged in 2014, when photos of a giant land-based mockup of the ship's superstructure�particularly the bridge and radar mast�were spotted in Wuhan, China, hundreds of miles from the ocean. The location is the same place where a mockup of China's first aircraft carrier, Liaoning, was constructed in 2009.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

The "cruiser-destroyer" confusion over the Type 055 continues.

Defence Aerospace

China's Type 055 Destroyer as Good as US Zumwalt-Class Destroyer?
(Source: China Military; issued Feb 24, 2017)
BEIJING --- An American media recently published an article saying that the new Type 055 guided-missile cruiser China is developing now is as good as America's Zumwalt-class stealth guided-missile destroyer with sci-fi appearance. This comment drew attention from various sides immediately.

Public information shows that Type 055 destroyer is a new-generation 10,000-ton-class destroyer currently being developed by the PLA Navy, which features large displacement, high speed, great cruising ability, long endurance and sound global seaworthiness.

Li Jie, researcher with the PLA Naval Military Academic Research Institute, expressed that information from various sides shows that the Type 055 guided-missile destroyer boasts outstanding overall performance and represents the highest level of Chinese surface vessels today.

(...SNIPPED)

[maxim]

It will continue, because there is no clear definition what a cruiser and what a destroyer is

[Haijun watcher]

This article is wrong. Japan's Atago/Kongo class AEGIS destroyers and South Korea's Sejong the Great class AEGIS destroyers are arguably the most advanced warships in (East) Asia.

South China Morning Post

Asia�s biggest, most advanced warship finally launches as China strengthens naval presence

The type 055 destroyer is similar in size to the US Navy�s Arleigh Burke class ships and is billed as a major step forward for Chinese sea power
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 28 June, 2017, 1:29pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 28 June, 2017, 6:45pm

China launched what it calls the most advanced and largest warship in Asia on Wednesday, billing it as a major step forward in the modernisation of its navy, the official military newspaper said.

The first of the new type 055 guided-missile destroyers, which has a displacement of more than 10,000 tons and was built at the Jiangnan shipyard in Shanghai, is equipped with air defence, anti-missile, anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons, the PLA Daily reported.

(...SNIPPED)

[DougC]

[quote="maxim"]It will continue, because there is no clear definition what a cruiser and what a destroyer is ;)[/quote]

The last international treaty to define cruisers and destroyers was the London Treaty of 1930.

[tomorrow]

You can argue that the difference is the flagship function, because all other differences are specific for a comparison between to classes and do not fit to others.

But how many ships classified as destroyer can serve as flagship?

E.g. Type 45...

The size difference between the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class is not worth mentioning.

Ticonderoga class: 9800 t

Arleigh Burke class Flight I: 8315 t
Arleigh Burke class Flight II: 8400 t
Arleigh Burke class Flight IIA: 9200 t (!)
Arleigh Burke class Flight III: 9800 t (!!)

Atago class: > 10000 t
Kongo class: 9500 t
Sejongdaewang class: 11000 t

Type 055: 10000 t

Don`t forget the 22DDH class? 19500 t (full 27000 t)

[maxim]

@ DougC: I would not ask for a treaty, only a definition. I think that for most ships in 1930 it was possible to define what is a cruiser and what is not. There were some ships, which were not easy to classify, e.g. the Deutschland class or the French "contre-torpilleur" (which translates into destroyer, but these ships were actually in between cruisers and destroyers, the real French destroyers were classified as "torpilleurs"). Also in 1900 it was possible to define for most ships, what was a cruiser and what was not a cruiser. For sure, again there were some difficult ships, e.g. at the border between cruiser and gunboat (e.g. some Danish and Norwegian ships), but in general it worked.

But today? There is no pattern, which can be applied to at least two major navies and it would give clear results. There is no clear qualitative difference between ships classified as frigates, destroyers and cruisers (e.g. German Sachsen class, British Daring class, and US Ticonderoga class). There are some quantitative differences, but they are not working, if some other classes are also considered, e.g. the South Korean Sejongdaewang class. The classifications used by the navies are random, they only consider political goals (should it appear cheap or impressive?) and administrative purposes (e.g. payment of the commander), but are not comparable at all between different navies including closely allied navies.

@ tomorrow:
The Izumo class is easy: that is a helicopter carrier classified as DDH by JMSDF. But everyone knows that it is a helicopter carrier (in contrast to the Shirane class they replaced, which were also classified as DDH; they had frigate/destroyer/cruiser capabilities and a especially large hangar; for them it was hard to say what they are, e.g. the similar Italian Andrea Doria class was classified as cruisers).

[DougC]

The only way to get uniform definitions is by international treaty or convention. Lacking that, each navy is free to classify the ships any way it wants.

How each navy classifies its warships is primarily based on political and cultural factors.

For example: Since Japan is only allowed to have a "defensive" military, and destroyers are considered defensive (why, I don't know), the JMSDF will have only "destroyers" of various types. This is also known as "polite fiction."

[maxim]

Sure, but I am talking about something different: in most periods of naval history a type of ship could be easily defined INDEPENDENT of the classification of a certain navy, because of typical characteristics, which defined that type. For everyone familiar with the subject it was obvious what e.g. a cruiser is and what not. That is in general also still true today for most ships, e.g. it is obvious that the Izumo class ships are helicopter carriers. There is no dependence on treaties, as there was no dependence on treaties for that to identify a ship type e.g. in 1900.

The problem today are the typical surface warships, classified as frigates, destroyers and cruisers - there is no simple way to distinguish them. For sure they can be distinguished from other types of ships with very few difficult cases (e.g. Russian Kirov class or the difference to some corvettes). E.g. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1995 calls all these ships of the USN "escort", because the classifications of the USN makes no sense (e.g. Farragut class vs. Leahy class - different classification after 1975, but the same line of development). It makes actually also much more sense to consider these ships to be one type of ship with certain subtypes, e.g. ships optimised for anti-submarine warfare or air-defence. But there is no generally accepted name for that category, probably because still the old type of classifications are used. I prefer the way some European navies are calling these ships: "frigate". E.g. the French, German and Italian call all these ships "frigates", even if some are classified as "destroyers" (having "D" numbers).

[DougC]

Maxim,

Someone else with the same lament:

https://warshipphilosophy.wordpress.com ... p-classes/

[maxim]

Thank you for the link! For sure it would be also possible to call all these ships "cruisers", which would also fit much better than e.g. the term "destroyer" (who needs a "torpedo boat destroyer" today!?). "Frigates" and "cruisers" have a common past, because frigates were the common type of cruising warships (between c. 1750s to the 1850s) and even before fast warships used for cruiser-type purposes were called often frigate. Also the US Navy called their first generation of bigger guided missile ships used for cruiser-type tasks "frigates" (but classified them as DLG), as did the French.

[DougC]

One can thank the British for the misuse of the term "frigate" since the sailing frigates were large warships. The USN use of the term was more correct but still not exactly correct. In 1975, the USN change its classifications to conform with what the rest of NATO were using.