PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

They are really cruisers... which should definitely be kept separate from destroyers... they are a step above a normal destroyer... normally bigger better longer range sensors and plenty of weapons to defend itself and other vessels nearby.

If you want to have proper carriers you need Cruisers... like China.

Interesting that Britain has no cruisers... can't afford them it seems... they wanted 12 destroyers but could only afford 6 to support their two carriers.

It is ironic that they would be better off with one carrier and 12 destroyers, but who am I to advice the Royal Navy...

But then the arrogance of being called The Royal Navy... as if no other country on the planet with a Monarchy can have one too.

GarryB wrote:They are really cruisers... which should definitely be kept separate from destroyers... they are a step above a normal destroyer... normally bigger better longer range sensors and plenty of weapons to defend itself and other vessels nearby.

If you want to have proper carriers you need Cruisers... like China.

Interesting that Britain has no cruisers... can't afford them it seems... they wanted 12 destroyers but could only afford 6 to support their two carriers.

It is ironic that they would be better off with one carrier and 12 destroyers, but who am I to advice the Royal Navy...

But then the arrogance of being called The Royal Navy... as if no other country on the planet with a Monarchy can have one too.

The figured that 6 destroyers would be enough, 2 in each carriergroup and 2 in reserv or in maintence. At the time it wasnt any big need for destroyers around the British Island, but im gessing they regret it now.

Latest update from the Dalian shipyard. Looks like another 5! destroyers are under construction. This is just sick.

Cruisers are getting extinct with the line between different classes of ships becoming more and more blurred.

The only "real" cruisers left are the Kirov and the Slava class ships.

The figured that 6 destroyers would be enough, 2 in each carriergroup and 2 in reserv or in maintence. At the time it wasnt any big need for destroyers around the British Island, but im gessing they regret it now.

They did everything they could to do this on the cheap including asking France if they wanted a carrier so they only had to buy one for themselves but got the benefits of making two at once which makes them both cheaper than if you were just making one... on the condition they could borrow the French carrier if they needed it...

Obviously the French said no.

The Brits wanted 12 destroyers, which would have been three groups of four... two of those groups operating each with each of their carriers and the other four in maintenance or upgrade.

The budget was cut yet again and they cut their order to 6 destroyers because despite being the most obvious choice the penalties of cutting one of the carriers would have made it more expensive than getting two carriers.

Now they have two carriers and not enough ships in their entire navy to support them properly so even on their maiden voyage they had to borrow ships from their HATO allies to operate with their new carrier... their new destroyer has problems and most are out of service for a lot of the time...

Which suggests buying 6 instead of 12 is not as bad as it seems I suppose really.

But a Destroyer is just big enough to defend itself and ships around it... Corvettes have limited self defence, while Frigates should be able to defend themselves and would work well together with a group of Corvettes in making those ships better protected.

A destroyer can defend itself and the sea around itself, but works better with other ships working together in air defence.

A Cruiser can manage the air defence of a group of ships and coordinates air defence with the air defence component of any carrier in the group, while the carrier controls the overall mission of the carrier group (ie land attack or whatever).

Latest update from the Dalian shipyard. Looks like another 5! destroyers are under construction. This is just sick.

They are certainly building up an impressive fleet... wonder how their nuclear weapon stockpile and missile capacity is going... their core nuclear weapons capability was based on medium and intermediate range weapons to allow itself to fight its neighbours, but the US ripping up the INF treaty, they are going to want much longer ranged missiles in numbers that will make the US think twice about its bullying.

Cruisers are getting extinct with the line between different classes of ships becoming more and more blurred.

I don't agree... the main issue for the Soviet Union regarding cruisers was the cost of nuclear propulsion and lack of suitable propulsion systems.

With their new nuclear powered icebreakers and other developments I honestly think fossil fuel price fluctuations and availability issues over the next few decades will make nukes more attractive and green as a propulsion technology.

With nuclear propulsion cruiser sized ships have all the advantages of large ships without the issues of running costs... the first generation laser air defence systems will benefit from nuclear powered energy sources and large areas on board ships to locate all the bits and pieces... but also a bigger ship means more space for more missiles and much bigger much more powerful longer ranged sensors... sonar, radar, optical etc etc...

I don't think they will make cruisers as big as the Orlan class simply because they wont need to be.... many of the antenna and sensors consolidated into fewer very large antenna, and of course vertical launch systems all over the place... and perhaps 200km+ range 203mm guns maybe... perhaps 180km range 152mm guns to start with on destroyers and cruisers... with guided shells such weapons would be very useful against a range of targets including enemy ships.

203mm shells with 110kg payloads could be used as a depth charge launcher when the location of an enemy sub is revealed by it launching something or otherwise making noise.

The Slava class needs a serious upgrade in terms of AD systems even though I don't believe the Moskva was hit.

Naval TOR is vastly superior to OSA... and upgrading the electronics wouldn't hurt either.

A decent carrier group should include two cruisers and a half dozen destroyers too...

I am not sure if they ever intend to upgrade the Slavas, but they do need to be replaced soon. Maybe the Lider project will be resurrected?
Just my opinion but the Russians now need a rapid expansion to support their new naval doctrine, and the best and most viable way forward is to base future designs on the enlarged Gorshkov's. Only when they have sufficient numbers of these ships under construction and in service should they be looking for nuclear powered cruisers.

The Kirovs were rather unique and can be considered Battle Cruisers. Looking forward to the upgraded versions, but like the "Typhoon" subs they will eventually become extinct with no direct replacements. However the upgraded Kirovs will be able to serve for a very long time to come.

The last USN cruisers was basically an updated design based on the 1970's Spruance class destroyers - and so was the Burke destroyers. The Ticonderoga cruisers are slowly being retired whilst they are being replaced by new Burke destroyers.

If the Type55 can be considered as a cruiser then the Burkes should be considered cruisers as well. As I've said the lines are being blurred but both are officially classified as Destroyers.

I think the enlarged Gorshkovs will become their standard heavy frigate and that a Destroyer might be a scaled up rearranged modification of the enlarged vessel, but I also think they will go for nuclear power for their destroyers and cruisers which means modification and changes in layout anyway.

The experience with the Slava class is that big radars are useful but 1970s air defence systems are not.

At the very least replace the radar units directing the guns... the newer systems are more precise and accurate and deal better with a much wider variety of air and surface targets, and also replace OSA with naval TOR... I would think having OSA in production is a bit of a waste.

They are big ships and offer good endurance so are still useful till they get destroyers into production.

Kirovs were as big as they were because of their propulsion system which was a sort of half an half... nuclear and conventional.

A modern compact but much more powerful nuclear power plant would allow much better performance with a slightly smaller ship... perhaps in the 18-20K ton weight range with vertical launch systems and new radar and sonar systems but these ships also had significant amounts of computer processing power at a time when computers were enormous... I suspect replacing the electronics with modern equipment would free up enormous volumes of space and lots of personnel.

New mini anti drone and anti artillery SAMs would be excellent for ship use simply because CIWS needs to be accurate but don't need huge range so smaller missiles would be useful as well as bigger ones to take down launch platforms etc.

If the Type55 can be considered as a cruiser then the Burkes should be considered cruisers as well. As I've said the lines are being blurred but both are officially classified as Destroyers.

I agree... lots of blurring... what would a new Russian corvette be considered in the 1980s?

Better strike power than a destroyer of the time (Sovs and Udaloys had 8 Anti ship or anti sub missiles and 130mm or 100mm guns), and unlike the Soviet destroyers of the time they are fully multirole...

GarryB wrote:
Kirovs were as big as they were because of their propulsion system which was a sort of half an half... nuclear and conventional.

Its more a combination of factors that determined the size of the Kirov, but yes all the machinery was definitely a huge factor. For me the number one factor was the enormous area required to install the Granit and Fort missile armament.

GarryB wrote:

They are certainly building up an impressive fleet... wonder how their nuclear weapon stockpile and missile capacity is going... their core nuclear weapons capability was based on medium and intermediate range weapons to allow itself to fight its neighbours, but the US ripping up the INF treaty, they are going to want much longer ranged missiles in numbers that will make the US think twice about its bullying.

Well its clear that China is updating thier ICBM fleet. They are building over 200 new missile silos replacing all of missiles in the DF-5 class with the newer mirved DF-41.

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/07/china-is-building-a-second-nuclear-missile-silo-field/

Add to this a mimimum of 6 new SSBN, with probably more on the way.

Its more a combination of factors that determined the size of the Kirov, but yes all the machinery was definitely a huge factor. For me the number one factor was the enormous area required to install the Granit and Fort missile armament.

Their Kirovs were about their only multirole ships and that was because of their size.

The nuclear propulsion meant they could be big... same with submarines... nuclear powered subs can be bigger because of the extra power.

The Slavas had Vulcans, and the Kirovs had equivalent Granit missiles but also SS-N-14s as well so anti ship and anti sub weapons as well as torpedoes and other standard secondary weapons like RBUs etc.

The Sovremmenys had anti ship missiles and only secondary anti sub weapons like RBU launchers and torpedos, while Udaloy class destroyers had SS-N-14s anti sub weapons which also had a secondary anti ship capacity too, but the Kirov was designed to be able to lead a group of ships hunting enemy carriers or enemy ships or enemy subs.

Ironically with the UKSK launchers their new corvettes can be loaded with anti sub or anti ship missiles but also land attack missiles which the Kirovs and Slavas and destroyers never had...

US military support and grouping together allies in Asia is supposed to contain and isolate China... the funny thing is they did exactly the same thing in Europe with the Ukraine and Georgia and Belarus... and it has led to war... do they expect a different outcome in the Pacific?

And if so.... why.

China didn't want to make the US the enemy and neither did Russia but the US is not giving either of them any choice.

How long before their allies in the Pacific region realise they are as valuable to the US as Ukrainian civilians are...

I can understand supporting the worlds last military super power, but it is not acting like a military super power any more... and all the economic advantages of jumping into bed with the US are totally negated by getting into a fight with your neighbours... Russia or China... and the US wont help you... they are not really helping Kiev... they are making things worse by shouting that Russia is in trouble this time and getting its nose bloodied... problem is that their hopes of Putin being kicked out of office are further from the truth than when they started all this BS.

Anyway... nice ships China...

Latest Type-54A frigate under outfitting.

walle83 wrote:Latest update from the Dalian shipyard. Looks like another 5! destroyers are under construction. This is just sick.

That's right, here is perhaps a slightly clearer picture of the future destroyers.

Well, there is a huge ship building sector and the workers have to be kept busy. For the same reason Russia put 5+ cruisers/destroyers into service each year in the 70´s and 80´s.

Has anyone heard of this thing? I don't think there was ever serious competition for the J-20. I believe that India and China were both in negotiations for the FGFA deal. When India took the FGFA deal in 2007, China moved forward with the Mig1.44/ J-20 in 2008. Which is also why it took 5-6 years less time to develop than either the F-22, 35 or su 57.

Hole wrote:Well, there is a huge ship building sector and the workers have to be kept busy. For the same reason Russia put 5+ cruisers/destroyers into service each year in the 70´s and 80´s.

I think the general military buildup has more to do with this then keeping ship-builders busy. China has enough to do with orders on civlian ships for years to come. 247 ships on order by mid-year this year.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202206/1267922.shtml

One more Type-54A frigate launched. This should make 39 ships.

China releases video of an interception. But video suggests the HHQ-9B failed to intercept the target

Clearly a miss. Between 0:16 and 0:17 there are two vectors. HHQ-9B (3'O Clock) is late to the party and misses intercepting the AShM (8'O Clock).

https://asiatimes.com/2022/10/chinas-next-aircraft-carrier-likely-to-be-nuclear/?mc_cid=9add5e4f38&mc_eid=5455568640

They may have to bild another Type 003 CV, perhaps a bigger follow on to Fujan CV-18, if the nuclear propulsion isn't ready to be instaled & integrated in time, as China needs to have 4 carriers ASAP.
IMO the safer way to introduce NP to her carrier fleet is to test it on an icebreaker 1st.

Tsavo Lion wrote:https://asiatimes.com/2022/10/chinas-next-aircraft-carrier-likely-to-be-nuclear/?mc_cid=9add5e4f38&mc_eid=5455568640

They may have to bild another Type 003 CV, perhaps a bigger follow on to Fujan CV-18, if the nuclear propulsion isn't ready to be instaled & integrated in time, as China needs to have 4 carriers ASAP.
IMO the safer way to introduce NP to her carrier fleet is to test it on an icebreaker 1st.

I always thought it was a mistake not building two carrier at the same time. Two type-003 carriers would go a long way building up thier carrier fleet. Waiting for the nuclear propulsion to be ready will take years.

They appear to cross paths... with the target hitting the water before the intercepting missile blows past and hits the water beyond where the target hit the water... if the target had continued in flight I rather suspect the intercepting missile would have gotten close enough to destroy it with a proximity fuse.

walle83 wrote:I always thought it was a mistake not building two carrier at the same time. Two type-003 carriers would go a long way building up thier carrier fleet. Waiting for the nuclear propulsion to be ready will take years.

another option is to build the 1st CVN with a combined nuclear propulsion with steam turbine boost like on the Russian Kirov class CGNs, longer & wider, sporting 4 elevators.
Time will tell!

GarryB wrote:They appear to cross paths... with the target hitting the water before the intercepting missile blows past and hits the water beyond where the target hit the water... if the target had continued in flight I rather suspect the intercepting missile would have gotten close enough to destroy it with a proximity fuse.

HHQ-9B is a chinese copy of the Russian S-300N. This is what happens when you make cheap, substandard copies of the original system so that you don't have to pay license fee to the Russian designer.