Italy DDX, the new destroyer of the Italian Navy

[chiphocks]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1516817556023259156

Pretty much the same like the previous design.

too much empty space in front of the main gun, i think they can put it a little bit forward to add more missiles

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628330666365448192

 

[Gary]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628330666365448192

As much I'm in awe about the DDX 96 strong VLS, I'm constantly reminded that the USN commissions similarly powerful destroyer every 1.5 year or so for the last 30 years and China even better.

I like the trend of larger ship with larger magazine depth.

 

[Afif]

As much I'm in awe about the DDX 96 strong VLS, I'm constantly reminded that the USN commissions similarly powerful destroyer every 1.5 year or so for the last 30 years and China even better.

I like the trend of larger ship with larger magazine depth.

And I am thinking the strategic logic behind larger ships for small/medium navies are becoming more and more unsound with the induction supersonic/hypersonic AShM or HGV in the near future.

If I really want to expend big money, the first priority would be an small SSN fleet.

 

[Gary]

And I am thinking the strategic logic behind larger ships for small/medium navies are becoming more and more unsound with the induction supersonic/hypersonic AShM or HGV in the near future.

If what you imply as small/medium include the Italian navy, then imo you are wrong. While Italy is not a superpower, I do not consider its naval arm the Marina Militaire (MM) to be in the league of the small or medium. Yes medium in size but not the scope and responsibility.

All great power navies has one raison d'etre that is sea control. That is to control a particular body of water while at the same time denying its use by the enemy partially or completely. For that you would want the biggest fleet, the biggest hulls and the most advanced technology available to be put to sea.

As a single nation and seeing from a single nation perspective. Italy's naval arm, the Marina Militaire isn't sufficient to do sea control, but as part of the larger NATO alliance, the MM is compelled to achieve sea control in alliance with other members. For that they'll need a very big ship able to stay at sea for a very long period of time and deep enough magazine. While at peace this is useful to maintain order and in war its useful to achieve sea control. And in this case this objective (sea control) is something that is achievable with the collective might of NATO members.

For the other side, once sea control is not realistically achievable, the one course of action is sea denial that is to deny your enemy control at all cost while not trying to achieve one.

And this sea denial is what the "real" small/medium navy , the likes of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa is realistically build for. For them a naval arms race is a dreadnought moment, they'll never be able to catch up let alone level the playing field. So for them having big ships the likes of Arleigh Burkes, Type 45s are not as crucial. For them as long as the enemy couldn't freely use the sea or kept the other side as fleet in being is enough. Hence many of these countries opted for corvettes or frigates and some coastal defense weapons.

So this has nothing to do with hypersonic tech being proliferated. Even though to be honest anti HGV test is something that is currently being tested in destroyer class ships.

People like to talk on why the German F125s is such a dumb project without realizing the true purpose on why Germany build such a big ship with very light armaments. Because for them the priority is presence at sea as long as possible with less time docking. And I'm quite realistic when I said that in the intended area of operation, they will not find anything of opposition that couldn't be handled by RBS-15 and RIM-116s.

 

[Afif]

If what you imply as small/medium include the Italian navy, then imo you are wrong. While Italy is not a superpower, I do not consider its naval arm the Marina Militaire (MM) to be in the league of the small or medium. Yes medium in size but not the scope and responsibility.

All great power navies has one raison d'etre that is sea control. That is to control a particular body of water while at the same time denying its use by the enemy partially or completely. For that you would want the biggest fleet, the biggest hulls and the most advanced technology available to be put to sea.

As a single nation and seeing from a single nation perspective. Italy's naval arm, the Marina Militaire isn't sufficient to do sea control, but as part of the larger NATO alliance, the MM is compelled to achieve sea control in alliance with other members. For that they'll need a very big ship able to stay at sea for a very long period of time and deep enough magazine. While at peace this is useful to maintain order and in war its useful to achieve sea control. And in this case this objective (sea control) is something that is achievable with the collective might of NATO members.

For the other side, once sea control is not realistically achievable, the one course of action is sea denial that is to deny your enemy control at all cost while not trying to achieve one.

And this sea denial is what the "real" small/medium navy , the likes of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa is realistically build for. For them a naval arms race is a dreadnought moment, they'll never be able to catch up let alone level the playing field. So for them having big ships the likes of Arleigh Burkes, Type 45s are not as crucial. For them as long as the enemy couldn't freely use the sea or kept the other side as fleet in being is enough. Hence many of these countries opted for corvettes or frigates and some coastal defense weapons.

I understand my comment was very short and wrongly articulated.

I shouldn't have said because of hypersonics large ships became dumb idea.

What I meant to say is, in general it is not very logical for stand alone small/medium navies to invest in heavy surface ships for mainly two reason.

first and foremost, it constrain the operational distribution of the fleet over a larger area given the lack of ship numbers.

Secondly, if the big boy gets hit ( which is very possible, specially when fighting a superior adversary ) the cost of loosing it outweighs the benefits of having such huge capability concentrated in single platform. ( cause unlike superpowers, you can't afford loose a such big destroyer/cruiser )

That is why i think, given the strategic logic of stand alone small/medium navies is denial/deterrence, four medium size SSN like baracuda would be far more effective than even four heavy multi billion dollars destroyers/cruisers.

And you are right about Italian navy, I actually didn't thought of their strategic logic within the broader context of NATO.

From that point of view, it would make sense for them to have such large combatants ship.

Last but not the least, I am only talking about hypersonics in this context because I think, even though we will sea hypersonic interceptor coming online following the induction of hypersonic weapons, still i think it will pose relatively greater threat to surface ships than their subsonic counterparts.

Thus, loosing a the risk of large surface ship becomes higher.

 

[Nilgiri]

The Italian fleet composition plan for 2030 - 2035 with the DDX destroyers (and 3 new LPD etc) included.

All credit to original owner.

 

[Nilgiri]

A buddy forwarded this to me earlier with some translation involved from Italian.... (dunno where he sourced it from, so TIFWIW), the tonnage is apparently going to get to ~ 14.5k for this class:

New details are emerging about the 2 new destroyers that will join the DORIA CLASS DDGs in the Italian Navy's fleet.

The first detail concerns the displacement, which at the moment can be estimated at 14,000-14,500 t full load; a significant displacement, in fact, which has thus led us to “force” the title with the categorization “heavy cruiser”.

Another “big” innovation concerns the radar complex that Leonardo is developing based on the experience of the PPA KRONOS DBR. In particular, it is still a dual-band radar with fixed faces that, however, adds the S band to the X band (instead of the C as on the KRONOS DBR). The most interesting aspect is that the S band, in addition to early warning and detection, will also provide missile guidance, thanks to the truly significant size and power of the antenna.

This is one of the reasons that, in fact, led to the progressive “enlargement” of the DDX and that do not allow us to think of the DDX simply as larger PPAs. For the rest, 80 cells are currently confirmed, with A-70 and A-50 launchers.

However, according to RID, the new A-70 NG (Next Generation) multi-missile launcher, studies for which have already begun, could also “appear” on the ships in the future. It will be able to use RJ-10 (the supersonic anti-ship version of the FC/ASW), ASTER and the AQUILA anti-ship interceptor.

@Anmdt et al.

 

[TR_123456]

The Italian fleet composition plan for 2030 - 2035 with the DDX destroyers (and 3 new LPD etc) included.

All credit to original owner.

Now,thats a navy!
Except maybe some more submarines.