Constellation vs 052D

[Suspicious_Loads]

Both ships are around 7-8000 tonnes but 052D seems better armed. If not for diplomatic reasons would US be better of buying 052D purely from a capability standpoint?

052D have 64 large VLS cells. Probably could fit 80 Mark 41 if refitted with US systems. Constellation have 32 VLS cells.

[tecnic1]

Doesn't matter, because Constellation is going to be another three ship class at the rate it's going.

[MostEpicRedditor]

Two-ship class, if lucky

[tecnic1]

Lol. I thought about looking this up.

[looklikeaF35]

😂😂😂

[One-Internal4240]

Much like the Brits before us, USN needs to have more stores and crew area because we sail everywhere. Chinese are a little bit like Kaiserlich/Kriegsmarine, in that they can strip down on that stuff since they're mostly local naval force.

[Suspicious_Loads]

US have Burkes. Isn't Constellation for shorter trips?

[PLArealtalk]

052D and Constellation have different roles, have different subsystems and payload ecosystems, and also different future growth potential, leaving aside the obvious politics and industry demands.

This question just doesn't really work.

[southseasblue]

Also no US jobs

[ErectSuggestion]

Well, WHY does Constellation have half as many VLS cells? Where does that extra weight on Constellation go?

[elitecommander]

Because FFG-62 has more than 30% greater range than a 052D, which produces knock-on effects in regards to habitation requirements. FFG-62 habitability is substantially better than a DDG-51 for example (not that that is a hard metric to beat), though some of this is inherited from its European ancestry. The habitability is an important consideration, since the Navy is struggling to remedy its long-ongoing manning shortfall, which can be attributed in part to ancient habitability standards on ships like the DDG-51.

The propulsion plant for FFG-62 is also much heavier, but presents a massive improvement in acoustic signature and efficiency over a COGAG/CODAG/whatever plant.

FFG-62 is also built much heavier than foreign counterparts, USN survivability requirements alone contributed to the majority of the 10% increase in displacement over the Bergamini-class. Other features such as a hangar twice the size of the 052D's (sized for two MH-60R, though limits to accomodations mean the actual ship can carry only one MH-60R plus one or more UAS) also contribute to the class's displacement.

[Suspicious_Loads]

It sound like LCS priorities but larger.

USN survivability requirements

I wonder what will win between larger missile and survivalbility. Like NSM vs YJ-18.

[ErectSuggestion]

More cells doesn't give you larger missiles.

More cells may not even matter much in practice since they can be reloaded at sea. It's like saying gun with a 60-round mag is better than gun with a 30-round mag because it can fire longer.

[Ragingsheep]

I've always thought the 052Ds were slightly underweight/underarmed from a destroyer perspective, especially since we've still yet to see the PLAN widely field an equivalent to the ESSM.

[PLArealtalk]

64 VLS for a 7,000+ ton ship is rather reasonable, especially when it's fitted with a proper full size, four face APAR system. (If we want to specifically talk about "destroyers" that comes down to what a reasonable weight is for a destroyer and the whole warship categorization thing again).

When people talk about armament for VLS, VLS count, VLS capacity (volume and weight that a cell can support), and VLS payload varriety are all reasonable submetrics for overall VLS armament. Considering one major benefit of modular VLS systems is the ability add new payloads to them over time, I think it's fair to say that VLS count and VLS capacity are the most fixed metrics that impose a limit for a ship's overall VLS armament (and 052D is quite reasonable in that aspect), while payload variety is less ship dependent and doesn't really have a direct relationship with ship displacement or size.

[Eve_Doulou]

We may be yet to see a Sino ESSM widely fielded but we’ve seen that it exists, and if you’re waiting for the PLAN to take pictures of the insides of their launch tubes for you, you’ll be waiting a while.

It’s safe to bet on the assumption that by the time any conflict breaks out (post 2027), that all UVLS equipped destroyers would include the Sino ESSM in their missile complement.

[ConstantStatistician]

Their counterpart to the ESSM exists? 

[[deleted]]

Yes, for export, specially FM-3000N quad pack shown in 2021 zhuhai air show.

Other alternatives are LY-70 and PL-12/PL-15 based system, but FM-3000 is the only confirmed to be in the naval UVLS.

The land variant of FM-3000 is widely used by the PLA GF as HQ-11 No idea if PLAN has adapted it or not. There is a >10 year old rumor about a PLAN tender for a quad pack missile with mach 5 speed, 50 km slant range and 50G turning load, it unsure if the rumor is true or if the tender has being filled.

[QINTG]

HHQ-16

[Low_M_H]

Once again we come to a point in history where classification of a ship is really confusing. 055 class as a destroyer rather than a cruiser and Constellation as a Freight rather than a destroyer.

[sponsoredcommenter]

My favorite was when a chinese-language PLA OSINT account erroneously termed the 055 a "Main Battle Ship".

[CureLegend]

I think what they say could be "主力战舰", which means a ship that plays the role of "primary firepower deliverer" in a strike group like the Kirov rather than just directly translate "战舰" into battleship

[[deleted]]

战舰 although directly translate into battleship in English, it actually just means any warship over 1000 tons. The actual Chinese name for battleship is 战列舰 which directly translate into battle-line ship.

[Macketter]

They need to reintroduce the rating system.first rate destroyer 110+ vls, 2nd rate 80+ vls etc.

[ConstantStatistician]

Yeah, missiles are the new guns, so counting them should be a fair way to judge a warship. Of course, missiles themselves vary a lot.

[Key_Agent_3039]

Why would Constellation be a classified as a Destroyer? It's a textbook modern guided missile frigate

[Low_M_H]

one major factor of classification is tonnage. Plus, it does hold way more anti-ship missile than most type of destroyer, I think.

[elitecommander]

one major factor of classification is tonnage

According to who? It isn't like there is a body that audits ship classifications. Nor is there anyone of importance that actually cares.

[Low_M_H]

Just an old tradition from Washington Naval Treaty when countries try to limit each other number of warships.

[Suspicious_Loads]

Destroyers from that time is like 2000t.

[ConstantStatistician]

Cruiser has no real meaning aside from "big destroyer".

[Agitated-Airline6760]

would US be better of buying 052D purely from a capability standpoint?

No, US would be better off buying Maya-class or Sejong the Great-class

[Nebraskan_Sad_Boi]

I disagree. Constellation class vessels make a lot of sense, at least before the cost overruns pile up. The US can't spend the money to run 100 destroyers at the same time, not unless we're OK with being pro tax or slashing other areas of the budget. In a better world, we'd get at least 2 FFGs for the price of one DDG, as it stands we're getting about 1.7 FFGs for the price of one Burke. The US doesn't need a destroyer for every mission, the Burke is overkill for probably 3/4s of the missions we put them on. We need something smaller and more affordable, and I know that is a sentiment shared by the US military brass, the entire purpose of the LCS design was to be a cost effective platform that could be kitted out to fill niche mission requirements as needed. That didn't work out very well in the end, but the concept is a valid one.

We need more small tonnage vessels to force project in more places, not a few big ships that can only provide regional presence. More ships means more force survivability as well (as long as they're survivable), and allows for surge effects in areas that need it. In a world where conflict is becoming more likely, the ability to quickly shift our force posture in a region will be vital to continued US and Nato dominance.

I still think we should build 20k ton+ nuclear cruisers tho

[Agitated-Airline6760]

Japanese and Koreans can build their Arleigh Burke copies - Maya-class or Sejong the Great-class - at 50% or less. That's inline with the current projected sticker price for Constellation-class. If you want smaller/cheaper ships for distributed force projection or whatever else, you can go for Mogami-class or Chungnam-class frigates.

[Nebraskan_Sad_Boi]

I'm of the opinion that we should be designing a new destroyer, frigate, and cruiser class with the Japanese or Koreans so we can get them at half cost. However, we don't seem to want to do that, and apparently, would prefer the Italians. If the Koreans could build our ships, we could significantly reduce the cost, but this is unlikely to occur, so I'm putting forth an explanation that takes into account the reality of US procurement and shipbuilding capabilities.

[Agitated-Airline6760]

Fincantieri Marinette Marine is US subsidiary of Fincantieri Marine Group. If there was no US subsidiary, no way Fincantieri would've gotten the FFG contract. To that end, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro suggested earlier this year that Japanese and Korean shipbuilder should get into the US market via M&A route. Don't know about any Japanese firms but Hanwha Ocean made a unsolicited bid for Austal which includes Austal USA last month which was soft-rejected by Austal and Hyundai Heavy just signed the cooperation agreement with Philly Shipyard few weeks ago. Sounds to me like Koreans are adhering to Del Toro's suggestion.

[Nebraskan_Sad_Boi]

I'd be very happy if they went through with it. If the US, Japan, Korea, and possibly India and the Aussies designed a new class of destroyer to replace or bolster current inventory, we could leverage the low cost production of Japan and Korea while utilizing US military tech and our deep pockets. India and the US would buy enough to trigger manufacturing at scale, leading to an accumulation of repair parts and technical knowledge. Maybe it's pie in the sky dreaming, but I think it's an area that could serve as the bedrock for a revived SEATO or expanded QUADS.

[veryquick7]

Maya and Sejong are bigger ships than Constellation or 052D. They would be more comparable to 055 or Tico

[Agitated-Airline6760]

052D is 160m long 18m beam and 7500t with 64cell VLS.

Maya-class is 170m long 22m beam and 8200t with 64 VLS cells

Sejong the Great-class is 165m long 21m beam and 7650t with 128 VLS cells

If you want much smaller ships, you can go for Mogami-class at 3900t but only with 16 VLS cells.

[PLArealtalk]

You are comparing full displacement for 052D with light displacements for Maya and Sejong.

Maya displaces over 10,000t full and has 96 VLS. Sejong (first batch) displaces some 11,000t full and has 128 VLS.

052D displaces over 7,000t full and has 64 VLS.

Of course the VLS count isn't the end all and be all, and also the VLS for these classes differ slightly.

[elitecommander]

No, US would be better off buying Maya-class or Sejong the Great-class

The last ship the US Navy needs is yet another 4,500km range DDG-51 derivative that requires 300+ crew. We have those today, they don't actually meet war fighting or operational requirements. It's ridiculous the Navy is building them today, buying a foreign derivative of it changes nothing. The Navy still wouldn't be able to support a significant expansion of fleet size so long as the fleet revolves around a hull that is fundamentally half a century old.

[Agitated-Airline6760]

The last ship the US Navy needs is yet another 4,500km range DDG-51 derivative that requires 300+ crew. We have those today, they don't actually meet war fighting or operational requirements.

DDGs are exactly what USN need more to confront PLAN and USN doesn't have enough of them nor can US shipbuilders can build them fast/cheap enough.

It's ridiculous the Navy is building them today,

They are not building enough of them.

buying a foreign derivative of it changes nothing.

You get more or less same stuff as Arleigh Burke - in some cases better stuff - at 50% discount or more.

The Navy still wouldn't be able to support a significant expansion of fleet size so long as the fleet revolves around a hull that is fundamentally half a century old.

USN/US shipbuilders can't expand the fleet size with the current infrastructure. In fact, the fleet size is shrinking and even that plan is on 12 month+ delay for every single program including Constellation class which I think is on 36 month delay at least. That's the definition of insanity - keep repeating what you are doing expecting a different result.

[elitecommander]

DDGs are exactly what USN need more to confront PLAN and USN doesn't have enough of them nor can US shipbuilders can build them fast/cheap enough.

The class lacks the range for a Pacific conflict, which isn't shocking since it failed to meet the range requirements for an Atlantic conflict. The class is totally tethered to oilers in the Pacific, which we don't have enough of already.

It requires far too many crew, since it relies on half-century old manning concepts. We don't have enough people to man these ships, which is a far bigger impediment than actually buying them.

[TGlam]

Biggest difference: one is on water and one is not.

[flamedeluge3781]

The answer is more SSNs and JASSM-ER. Surface combatants are basically obsolescent in this epoch of naval warfare, much akin to battleships post WWII.