Is the large Missile Destroyer/Cruiser becoming obsolete?

[Sampanviking]

Working on the basis of the old adage "never build a weapon that you cannot afford to lose" I do wonder if the growing sophistication and accuracy of anti ship missiles and long range targeting is making the larger offensive warships obsolete?

China's PLAN is the new and modern blue water navy of an emerging major economy and world power. The organisation lacks historical baggage is currently in middle of inventing itself, literally creating itself from scratch. When you look at where its energies and investment is being focused, you detect four distinct areas: Submarines, Frigates, FAC's and Landing/Docking Amphibious ships etc. Submarines express their own logic, so I only propose to look at surface combatants. Noticeably lacking are substantial numbers of larger ships, Destroyers, Cruisers even Carriers (although we keep being told at least one is currently being built).

Looking at the mix of ships that are being built, I am tempted to wonder if Chinese strategy is form Blue water Battlegroups of "Mother" Docking Ships which are protected by Frigates and within which the main Offensive Surface power is provided by Type 022 FAC's operating from the Motherships.

The advantages of such a strategy is that these FAC's are fast, quite stealthy, small and harder to target and hit, while getting the maximum number of AShM into the battle zone as possible (you no longer need big ships to carry the big guns). In addition these boats are cheap and quick to build and the loss of one only inflicts light casualties and does little to blunt the overall offensive potential of the attack group as a whole.

I would welcome some expert opinion.

 

[Alatien]

Interesting point. I agree that the capabilities of small ships are quickly catching up with larger vessels. For example look at La Fayette or Formidable classes with displacement of ~3600t and complement of 70, and having capabilities of DDG-51 (~9000t, and 290 crew).

What we observe, is that there is no reason to go larger than 4000t these days. Powerful radars, vertical launchers, multi-mission payload, battlespace management, active defense, all these can be fitted on ships with 3000-4000t.

There are several reasons why large ships can still be useful: cargo transport, aircraft basing, extended range and endurance. But those are mostly combat support, not combat functions.

But. I think there is a limit to how small you want to have your ships. There is some package that you need on all worthwhile combatants: surface attack capability (missiles or heavy gun), air defense capability (at least RAM or Aster 15 type), and network communication suite. Without these elements, your ship cant make a difference. The Type 22 is missing a real air defense since MANPADS are ok vs. helicopters, but are useless against anti-ship missiles.

A good example is German Braunshweig class which has all the aformentioned elements, even a helo landing pad, and has "only" 1800t displacement, with 65 crew. It pays for it with small endurance thou (7 days). Curiously it was exactly designed to fight targets cheaply, as its planned missile (Polyphem) was supposed to be much cheaper than other ASMs.

Still, such small ships require ASW protection (another specialized small ship?), and have to detect and target the over-the-horizon enemy (large command ship or UAVs based on a ship/land). So true, you can have a small, cheap, and powerful attacker, but on its own it is not going to do you much good. And when you add an ASW ship, command ship, UAVs, etc suddenly the system is not so small and cheap anymore.

Regards.

 

[Ananda]

Noticeably lacking are substantial numbers of larger ships, Destroyers, Cruisers even Carriers (although we keep being told at least one is currently being built).

Looking at the mix of ships that are being built, I am tempted to wonder if Chinese strategy is form Blue water Battlegroups of "Mother" Docking Ships which are protected by Frigates and within which the main Offensive Surface power is provided by Type 022 FAC's operating from the Motherships.
.

Depends on what substantial means. They already invest on two sovremenys..possible another two (although wheather this already operational or not I haven't found confirmations). However their Type 51 - 52 (especially Luzhou and Luyang) in my oppinion is huge investment since this type of Destroyers is major leap for PLAN. They got 26 Destroyers compared to 51 Frigates which show PLAN which in my oppinions show balance force of Frigates and Destroyers.

For Cruisers, I think present day destroyers actually already entered Light Cruisers catagories.

Perhaps the questions now is wheather we will see any new build cruisers that will be larger than Slava or Tico (and I bet nobody will build another Kirov).

 

[Feanor]

I don't know about "another Kirov" but the existing ones will continue to operate until the end of their service life.

 

[funtz]

Should that not depend on what a nation needs instead of what every nations needs?

USN, RN, RAN, PLA-N, RuN, etc. etc. every navy will have a seperate requirement, and what is right for PLA-N wont be so for a different navy.
------------------------

Would it be true to say that a missile will be far more maneuverable and faster than a missile boat?
and
If the Mother ship goes down all you have are a lot of missile boats too far away from home to come back with no way to resupply?

 

[Feanor]

If the Mother ship goes down all you have are a lot of missile boats too far away from home to come back with no way to resupply?

You mean just like if an aircraft carrier gets sunk in a battle out in the ocean, then the aircraft in the air are kinda screwed?

 

[Sampanviking]

Thank you for the responses.

To pick up on current production, I understand that the PLAN is currently in serial production of its 054a Frigate with at least six already operational, by contrast, I not aware of any Destroyers in production. Half of China's existing Destroyer are elderly Luda's

The loss of a Mother Ship would be a disaster, if it were the only one in the group, which again suggests to me a strategy of a group of smaller vessels, rather than one Giant. Although of course, FAC's (or a Blue Water version thereof) do posses the generic ability to float even without fuel, while an Aircraft cannot simply hang in the sky on empty!

I do remember the Falklands very well and I think that the fate of HMS Sheffield should have served as a wake up to call to the worlds Navies about the difference between Missile and Bomb Attacks on ships (a number of RN Vessels survived Bomb attacks and returned home with UXB's on board). One Exocet missile, fired by the AIrforce of a developing nation, however, which failed to explode, still manage to gut and then sink a State of the Art 4100 ton destroyer, from one of the worlds premier navies.

 

[StevoJH]

Actually, the chinese have commissioned something like half a dozen destroyers in the past 10 years. However for arguments sake i'd like to point out that the new "frigates" actually have a higher displacement then the old Luda class destroyers, the first of which commissioned over 40 years ago.

 

[kev 99]

Thank you for the responses.

To pick up on current production, I understand that the PLAN is currently in serial production of its 054a Frigate with at least six already operational, by contrast, I not aware of any Destroyers in production. Half of China's existing Destroyer are elderly Luda's

The loss of a Mother Ship would be a disaster, if it were the only one in the group, which again suggests to me a strategy of a group of smaller vessels, rather than one Giant. Although of course, FAC's (or a Blue Water version thereof) do posses the generic ability to float even without fuel, while an Aircraft cannot simply hang in the sky on empty!

I do remember the Falklands very well and I think that the fate of HMS Sheffield should have served as a wake up to call to the worlds Navies about the difference between Missile and Bomb Attacks on ships (a number of RN Vessels survived Bomb attacks and returned home with UXB's on board). One Exocet missile, fired by the AIrforce of a developing nation, however, which failed to explode, still manage to gut and then sink a State of the Art 4100 ton destroyer, from one of the worlds premier navies.

A state of the art destroyer? It had an old radar set on board because the new one wasn't ready, as did Coventry. The most successful T42 at downing Argentine aircraft was Exeter, the only one deployed with the new type 1022 radar. It's also worth pointing out that the missile cut the water lines to the fire fighting system and it was actually the South Atlantic weather that sunk Sheffield.

 

[StevoJH]

A state of the art destroyer? It had an old radar set on board because the new one wasn't ready, as did Coventry. The most successful T42 at downing Argentine aircraft was Exeter, the only one deployed with the new type 1022 radar. It's also worth pointing out that the missile cut the water lines to the fire fighting system and it was actually the South Atlantic weather that sunk Sheffield.

It also didn't sink until something like 6 days later in heavy weather while under tow.

 

[Alatien]

Maybe the Falklands' example isnt the prime one, but Sampanviking's point still has some merit.

Thou I would approach it from a different point. The smaller vessels do not have to be dependent on the mothership, unless they require long (several weeks) deployment. And this would remove their weakness. If smaller ships can mount a modern radar they can be independent. But then we talk about ships in 3000t class (2000t ?), not 1000t FACs.

It is better to have 2 x 3000t vessels than a single 6000t - can patrol larger area (relevant during peace time and low intensity conflicts), and the force is only partialy deteriorated when one ship is sunk. And a single Exotec or other missile can sink even a 6000t vessel. Thou 2x3000t would be more expensive than one 6000t, so its a cost-benefit trade-off.

 

[Goknub]

going small has its benefits but it ends up reducing what the ships can do .

A 6000t Destroyer can do anti-everything very well and still have enough space for supporting the army on shore. A 3000t can't survive anywhere near as long and requires capabilities be left out.

To a large degree I don't think major navies have taken advantage of the defencive options available to them. Stick 6 x CIWS, 4 x RAM, Lazer CIWS, ESSM, SM2 + other weapons and you'd have a ship very hard to hit. But it would require a larger ship than 3000t.

 

[kev 99]

If anything Escort displacements appear to be going up not down, particularly for AAW destroyers.

 

[StevoJH]

If anything Escort displacements appear to be going up not down, particularly for AAW destroyers.

Steel is cheap

I just read somewhere that the steel for the first Hobart class AWD cost $20 million, that means that 99+% of the cost of the ships is systems and assembly.

 

[Alatien]

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.

 

[kev 99]

Steel is cheap

...and air is free.

Where have I read that before.

Apparently the steel for both CVFs has already been ordered and is thought to cost around £65m, when you consider that large ships have so much more room for potential upgrades and generally are better at sea keeping anyway it's a no brainer.

 

[kev 99]

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.

Bigger ships are better than smaller ones, better seakeeping, more room for weapons, more room for crew and embarked marines, greater growth potential, more space for complex systems, more room also equals more space for fuel (better range), also for AAW escorts its important to mount the radar as high up as possible, this is easier on a larger ship.

 

[Lostfleet]

I am sorry to interrupt the technical discussion but I have a different personal view n big ships.

Although I believe today's ships are better off when they are smaller, as a personal desire I still want to see some big majestic warships entering the harbor. At the moment only carriers or amphibious landing ships are big in size, but it would interesting to see some big Cruiser or Destroyers that you can go " wow" at.

 

[storywolf]

basically ships are of course better of if they are small - and still can do the job.

But at this moment - there is still limitation of small. This is because - weapons, sensors and others are all heavy dependent on electricity !!! With out the require size you just do not have the capability of longer range sensor.

 

[Alatien]

Bigger ships are better than smaller ones, better seakeeping, more room for weapons, more room for crew and embarked marines, greater growth potential, more space for complex systems, more room also equals more space for fuel (better range), also for AAW escorts its important to mount the radar as high up as possible, this is easier on a larger ship.

basically ships are of course better of if they are small - and still can do the job.

But at this moment - there is still limitation of small. This is because - weapons, sensors and others are all heavy dependent on electricity !!! With out the require size you just do not have the capability of longer range sensor.

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.