The Zumwalt-class destroyer is regarded by other countries as the benchmark they hope to surpass in future, then in what direction will America’s destroyers develop and what will be its future leading destroyers after the number of Zumwalt-class destroyer is reduced?
We know that America’s large weapon platform usually leads the world trend, but now that the U.S. seems to be at a loss where its destroyers will go, in what direction should other countries develop their own mid-sized surface vessels? What about China?
We won’t make a technical analysis because the technologies applied to current mid-sized surface vessels, including integrated electric propulsion (IEP), more advanced phased array radar, electromagnetic gun and laser-based ship-borne weapon, will continue to develop. The key is the direction of technological development for such vessels.
It’s known to all that main battle tanks (MBT) have three main performances: fire power, defense capability and maneuverability, and now there is also the information capability. When a new tank is designed, these four capabilities have to be ranked and only one can be prioritized.
This is the same issue for mid-sized surface vessel, whose main capabilities traditionally include anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine and land strike. Which one of them will be the priority in the future?
In previous designs, American destroyers all had their core capabilities. For instance, the Spruance-class destroyer was focused on anti-submarine capability because American aircraft carriers faced the greatest threat from submarines of the former Soviet Union at that time, while the Aegis destroyer was focused on anti-aircraft capability because there were more air threats then and breakthroughs in anti-aircraft technologies were required.
The Zumwalt-class destroyer, however, is focused on land strike with a long-range naval gun, which was meant to carry out long-distance land strikes at a low cost. Its stealth firing and anti-aircraft capability are both designed according to the concept of “land strike from sea” and aimed to enable the destroyer to approach the enemy’s coast as much as possible.
But despite its stealth firing and anti-aircraft capabilities, the Zumwalt-class destroyer cannot enter the enemy’s near-shore fire area unless covered by aircraft carrier. Now that aircraft carrier cannot be counted on, reduction of Zumwalt-class destroyer is inevitable.
What capability will American mid-sized surface vessel prioritize in the future? It seems that they will emphasize the anti-missile capability, especially anti-ballistic missile, on the basis of anti-aircraft capability.
The biggest threat to aircraft carrier now is from anti-ship ballistic missile, so anti-missile capability is necessary to protect aircraft carrier because it can fend off the enemy’s anti-ship missile.
The U.S. is strongly promoting the deployments of global anti-missile system, which includes mid-sized surface vessels, but they won’t be able to serve as leading destroyers if their anti-missile capability won’t be powerful enough.
Will other countries follow America’s lead? Will China proceed in the same direction as the United States? I think there will be some changes.
The U.S. used to lead the trend because other countries faced the same problems as it, but now the key problem faced by the U.S. is anti-missile capability, whereas the navies of other countries don’t have such a high and urgent demand on this capability.
Therefore, when designing their future mid-sized surface vessel, including destroyer and frigate, other countries should consider which capability to prioritize based on their national needs. I believe different countries will have different priorities in that regard in the future.
In fact, China’s mid-sized surface vessel have experienced changes of focus over the years. From the 1950s to 1970s, its destroyers were focused on anti-ship capability. At that time, the fundamental purpose of vessel design was to sink the target vessel with one-time volley of enough anti-ship missiles, and the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine capabilities were to guarantee that the anti-ship missiles could be in shooting position.
After the 1980s and 1990s, China’s key combat capability turned to focus on air defense, which gave rise to “Chinese Aegis” such as type 052C and type 052D guided-missile destroyer, because mid-sized surface vessel should be capable enough to survive the battlefield in that age, and they couldn’t survive without strong regional and short-range anti-aircraft capability and multi-layer air defense network.
China has solved this problem today. Its Defense White Paper explicitly stated that the Chinese Navy’s strategy is offshore defense and open-sea escort, the latter is the mission of mid-sized surface vessel. Anti-ship capability is out of question now, and China is also able to fend off saturation air strike thanks to its considerable progress on ship-borne air defense technology with the commissioning of type 052C and type 052D guided-missile destroyer.
While cutting its Zumwalt-class destroyers, the U.S. is producing Virginia-class nuclear submarines in large quantities, and countries surrounding China are energetically developing advanced conventionally powered attack submarines.
This means that China may face more underwater threats in the future. As anti-submarine capability is China’s weakness now, more importance will be attached to it when China designs its future mid-sized surface vessels.