Type 055 DDG. Why Chinese Navy call it 'The Return of Dreadnought' ?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Why Chinese Navy call Type 055 Guided Missile Destroyers 'The Return of Dreadnought'? it doesn't even has a size or featured qualities of Dreadnought Battleships even with updated definitions.
it still lacks of external hull armor, multilayers of it. let alone size, which it is about the size of CL

 

[r16]

without doubt they will define it to be a superior warship to anything that came before it . Just like the dreadnoughts had their own thing . If such a Chinese ship is so superior to any American ship and because it will be produced in higher numbers for a foreseeable future , there is no American naval superiority and Taiwan should not get the idea to declare anything to justify an 2027-30 war .

plus these threads should be in off-topic , like who sees them here ?

 

[Civinator]

without doubt they will define it to be a superior warship to anything that came before it . Just like the dreadnoughts had their own thing . If such a Chinese ship is so superior to any American ship and because it will be produced in higher numbers for a foreseeable future , there is no American naval superiority and Taiwan should not get the idea to declare anything to justify an 2027-30 war .

plus these threads should be in off-topic , like who sees them here ?

I see it here - and I agree that here is meant a technological quantum leap like it was from the old pre-dreadnoughts to the following dreadnought ships.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Big ships are all obsolete at this point. This one is just as vulnerable to missiles, launched by ship or thru land, as anyone else. It's the speed that matters at this point, but the extra protection is a bonus.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Big ships are all obsolete at this point. This one is just as vulnerable to missiles, launched by ship or thru land, as anyone else. It's the speed that matters at this point, but the extra protection is a bonus.

Does 'Extra protection' also means external armor platings in the same fashion as Dreadnought era warships but using Material Science Wunders like Chobham Armor?

 

[r16]

but ı saw it only by a fluke , the last 5 posts all across the forum when you log out . Nobody uses appreciable amounts of armour these days and while ı can't remember anything about it am pretty sure about once having read about ideas that Chobham style armour plate would not work against anti-ship missiles or whatever .

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Does 'Extra protection' also means external armor platings in the same fashion as Dreadnought era warships but using Material Science Wunders like Chobham Armor?

Definitively not. Modern anti ship weapons are just too powerful for any sort of passive armor to be viable. You'd literally need to put on meters of armor to ward off some of the nastier anti ship missiles out there. And even if you did for some reason decide to do that it wouldn't do you much good as all the bits of your ship that actually matter for combat capability such as sensors and communications equipment can't be armored. After all you can't put armor in front of a radar dish and expect it to work. So all you'd be doing is making your ship slower and massively more expensive in exchange of making sure that it can only get burned down to the water line instead of completely sunk.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Dones will end naval warfare.

 

[Quintillus]

I agree with what Civinator posted - the terminology is meant to propose that this is such a revolution in military affairs that everything prior will be rendered obsolete.

It reminds me of an article by Hillary Clinton that I read several years ago, likely in Foreign Affairs, that proposed much the same thing - the future of the navy was smaller, mobile missile cruisers, not more big and slow aircraft carriers. Nor something so expensive that you couldn't build a bunch of them - i.e. the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The point being that you need something that isn't an easy target, can strike from far off shore, and that can get close enough to enemy shorelines which are themselves defended by missiles to be of use.

Send three aircraft carriers, and their airplanes might shoot down a bunch of missiles, but like the battleships of WWII, sooner or later something is getting through, and you're losing a battleship/carrier. Send thirty swift missile cruisers, and even if you lose a few, you've still got a lot of missile cruisers. They might also be able to form effective screens to improve the odds of your aircraft carrier surviving, should you have a use for traditional aircraft.

As it is, that article was written circa 2019, and nothing was changing in the Navy at that time, and I'm not sure if anything has changed since then. But yes, I think the Chinese Navy has the right idea here, built enough "good enough" missile cruisers, with speed and accurate missiles, and it won't matter a whole lot if you are inferior in terms of capital ships.

Drones will end naval warfare.

Maybe close to shore, but not at high sea, such as in the Pacific or Indian Oceans.

We've seen in the Black Sea that Ukraine has utilized drones to impart significant damage on Russia's Black Sea Fleet, but they've also used traditional cruise missiles to the same effect, and my understanding is the latter is responsible for the larger part of the losses. And they've been most successful when Russian ships have either been lumbering along at idle or low speeds near the coast, or docked in port and not moving. See a ship that isn't moving, easy target, by the time it realizes what's going on it can't accelerate quickly enough to evade.