Is the large Missile Destroyer/Cruiser becoming obsolete?

[Firn]

The Netherlands (Zeven Provincien) and UK (Type 45) have recently comissioned AAW 6000t+ destroyers. So big ships are definetly not a dead concept.

The question here is whether such 6000t ships can indeed do so much more than a 3000t one? Zeven Provincien radar has a range of 2000 km... for what? 2000 km is a distance from The Netherlands to the St Petersburg (Russia) (theoretically, since there is land in the way). What can be accomplished on such a distance? Only strategic missile warfare (ZP will have SM-3s), but even that is limited if all you have are several destroyers. It is not a substitute for a missile shield, merely a partial layer.

In a naval combat a useful engagement/detection envelope is about 400km. Beyond that few missiles can engage, and thou target detection is possible, its identification is far more difficult. Both frigates and destroyers can achieve that.

A modern 6000t ship (destroyer) is as much use as a 3000t one (frigate). They carry same missile complements (Aster 15/30, SM-2, Harpoon/Exocet), similar number of torpedo launchers (2 or 4), guns are standard (76 or 127mm), and both have comparable CIWS with missiles (systems like ESSM, RAM, Aster 15) and guns CIWS (Goalkeeper, Phalanx, etc), even similar aircraft complement (standard 1 helicopter hangar). Some even have comparable endurance and range (Formidable frigate and ZP destroyer have both about 8000km), and sea worthiness. Smaller ships can even mount an impressive array of EW, like La Fayette class.

So the main difference that persists is that 6000t destroyers can carry larger marine complement or some cargo. But these functions are better carried out by dedicated ships (or sth like LCS), not a proper warship.

Additional difference is that destroyers can have more of everything. 40 vertical launchers instead of 16, and more ASW or CISW ammunition. But that has not been a limiting factor in combat for a while.

There is certainly some truth in the argument. The Formidable also carries 32 vertical cells which carry a mix of Aster 15/30. Such a frigate seems to be a sensible choice for most medium "western" navies. They should also accomodate Tactical UAV like the Scaneagle with ease, which will become irreplacable assets for future navies. Of course the larger ship will have a higher performance but who cost-effective is it?

So I wonder how much is the cost difference between, let us say a Formidable class ship and an Kongō class destroyer?

 

[kev 99]

You both make a point that small ships (3000t) can't mount as effective weapons as large ships (6000t). I disagree.

Several existing designs (Horizon and Formidable FFs) have an "influence radius" of about 400 km. This is as much as you need from a warship, as it is rarely possible to take advantage from a detection range of 2000 km (like ZP DDs). To add to that, small ships mount the same weapons as larger ships. Same Harpoons or Exocets, same SM-2s or Aster 30s, same CIWS, same torpedoes, or towed sonars.

Fire control and battlespace management has made huge leap in recent years, so even small ships can house a command center with 8-20 workstations. Same as larger ships. And unless you run a carrier you dont need more.

As for better seakeeping, yes, that is true, ride on a 6000t ship is more comfortable than on a 3000t ship. But if designed for operation in rough conditions (like La Fayette), small ships can still perform all their functions. Maybe except helicopter operations are restricted, but not much more than on destroyer during a rough weather.

In terms of range, existing large ships do not have an advantage. DDG-51, and ZP have 8000 km range, and so do La Fayette or Formidable.

You are comparing different classes of ships; La Fayette and Formidable are general purpose Frigates, Zp and DDG-51 are AAW ships which mount very large heavy radars built for area air defence, these ships need to be large to accommodate them.

A Horizon displaces more than 6000 tonnes.

 

[Sampanviking]

I find myself broadly agreeing with Alatien and fully accept that there is far more than a single scenario or solution to the problem. I also would like to make clear that the Type 022 ref was intended as Illustrative rather than definitive.

In terms of keeping displacement sizes down, I would raise the issue of situational awareness, what the PLA refers to as "conditions of informationalisation and technology". In this I mean small surface combatants that do not carry full sensor arrays but are fed full situational awareness and maybe even targeting/guidance from external sources, such as Sats, AWACS and larger Combat Support Ships.

I also find it interesting how conservative the views of so many here are, which is quite surprising considering this is the profession that coined the phrase cutting edge and within which innovation so highly regarded.