Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Maybe this explains the recently announced purchase of ~200 LRASM. A stockpile this size might help said CN sleep at night. Perhaps the nunnery can wait...
PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy
- Thread starter Wall83
- Start date
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There hasn’t actually been a purchase announced yet, only a FMS notice of a possible sale as req by US Law.
You can, but then the South Korean Sejong the Great class are labeled DDGs, yet they have 128 cell VLS, with a full displacement of 11,000 tons. On top of the 128 cell VLS they have a 21-cell RAM launcher and 16 Hyunmoo III anti-ship missiles. The South Koreans have three of these and all are AEGIS ships.
My argument is how do we define the various classes of ships now? Is it by:
- Size?
- Armament?
- Or mission?
I would not argue over classification confusion originally the destoyer was largely a torpedo boat with some guns and frigates date back to days of sail with 28 guns ,a battleship a hundred years ago was approx. 10,000 tons .
There have been attempts to classify ship by their role and weopanry as with the Oliver Perry as a guided missile frigate arent they all now though now we have Littoral Combat ship,s , and even the Izumo class destroyer no confusion there .lol
Perhaps we can for simplicity call anything with a specific mission set and number of missiles a specific classification irrespective of where the ship originates even aircraft
There have been attempts to classify ship by their role and weopanry as with the Oliver Perry as a guided missile frigate arent they all now though now we have Littoral Combat ship,s , and even the Izumo class destroyer no confusion there .lol
Perhaps we can for simplicity call anything with a specific mission set and number of missiles a specific classification irrespective of where the ship originates even aircraft
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I say by the mission. It's just as Navies enlarge the Armament and size, so some of the mission specs.
Just take example of what the European devinition of Next Gen Corvetes:
Spain seen joining Greece, France, Italy on European Patrol Corvette program
Not long ago 2000-2500 ton can still be consider Frigates or Light Frigates. 500 ton - 2000 ton consider to be Corvete and below 500 ton are Patrol Boats.
Now 3000 ton can be consider Corvetes. Corvetes dimension also increase from 70m-95m not long time ago toward 100m-115m even now 120m. That the range that usualy belong to Frigates.
Some duties/missions that used to be done by Frigates being done now by new type of corvettes, just as like some Destroyers mision being done by new type Frigate (some called them Heavy Frigates).
In short, everything enlarge. Thus Cruisers perhaps now in the range of 20,000 ton more like USSR originated Kirov class Cruisers, which used to ve criteria of 'Battle Cruisers'.
100 years ago new battleships were 25-35,000 tons, e.g. the UK's Queen Elizabeth & Revenge classes. 20 years earlier there were ships being built that were classed as battleships & were only about 15,000 tons, but the size was going up fast.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yep and by WW2, first 40k then 50-70k tons during the war. The US Montana class was to be in the 70,000 ton range also but the program was cancelled as carriers became the new premier capital class ship.
under ten thoudand tons my mistake I was confused with earlier second class battleships e.g USS Texas and even the R.N Devastation class battleships from earlier
Edited by Moderator to fix BB coding
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I think by mission / role because that gives a greater understanding of the ships capabilities and intentions. Categorising by tonnage and / or armament is limiting because whilst it might have x number of VLS cells and displaces y tonnes, what is the ship's intended mission? That's how I see it.
ragingsheep
New Member
Isn't the "classical Western" definition that separates a destroyer (especially a large one such as a Flight III AB) from a cruisers is that cruisers are supposed to have flag facilities that the destroyer doesn't necessarily have?
Also if you want to be really cynical, calling the 055s cruisers allows the US Navy to ensure that there's a healthy amount of funding dedicated to CG(X).
Also if you want to be really cynical, calling the 055s cruisers allows the US Navy to ensure that there's a healthy amount of funding dedicated to CG(X).
There is that, but then in RAN & RNZN terms both of the LHDs and HMNZS Canterbury have C2 capabilities, so does that make them a cruisers? Or what about the RDN Absalon Class, when they have the C2 module installed, does that make then a cruiser? I also think your final about about the USN denoting the 055s as cruisers isn't that cynical at all, but more practical.
While I have a certain amount of sympathy for the logic that the purpose defines the tool, I think that a slightly more complex approach is desirable. Consider the Soviet 1124 small anti-sub ship and the 1135 anti-submarine ship. Both have the same primary mission, protecting the SLBM bastions from western incursions. Yet one is not even a corvette (light ASW corvette at best), the other is clearly a frigate, albeit with a distinct anti-submarine lean in terms of equipment. I think a combination of size, endurance, weapons, and mission, should be used to classify because its more analytically useful then a pure taxonomy based on a single primary criteria. For example an oversized destroyer without appropriate C2 capabilities is just that, an oversized destroyer. On the other hand a regular sized destroyer with a C2 module installed is still a destroyer but with added C2 capabilities. LHDs don't qualify as cruisers on account of weapon loadout. The 20386 is too large and expensive for a corvette somewhat under-armed and lacking endurance for a light frigate. By combining the criteria we are not only able to classify but also evaluate the peculiarities of the type and make conclusions about intended use base on actual capabilities.
EDIT: To me the 055s would qualify as cruisers if they have appropriate C2 capabilities and are intended to be used as flagships for squadrons of vessels.
An article in the March 2020 issue of APDR about China's naval build up. It's an interview with Prof Toshi Yoshihara and Prof Ross Babbage by Kym Bergmann, https://venturaapdr.partica.online/.../chinas-naval-buildup-of-alarming-proportions. It's quite enlightening well worth the read and I thoroughly recommend it.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The crane operator was lucky. As for the collision, seems to be excessive speed for reasons unknown (for the time being).
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Way to early to speculate on the level of damage. But, you can assume it's going to be a good deal more than just the visible smoke damage
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Just want to add the pictures from Chinese Forum, but you already put it first. Anyway the Chinese forums talking about the fire being controlled in less then an hour.
I just take it as grain of salt, as that's from Chinese Forum full of ten cents army. It could be they are right or another covered as they usually did. For me, this ships being prepared in fast track times. This fire can be shown some fast track jobs being done, and cutting corners might be happening.
Some projects managers will lose their job on this.