Why are Alibek and Aidan destroyers 9000 tons, 96 missile launching units, 052C, Horizon and British 45 all 7000 tons but only 50 units?

This is formulated by each country according to its own national conditions, potential operating objectives and costs.

In fact, air defense doesn't need so many missiles at all. Unless it's the US-Soviet Armageddon when Mars hit the earth during the Cold War, who has so many planes for you to fight ordinary countries?

Therefore, countries with low national defense pressure like Europe have few launching units.

Norway, in particular, has only over 5,000 tons of Aegis. I remember there are 48 launching units, but they only play sea sparrows, not even standard area bombs. . . Because there is no real maritime threat in Norway now, except terrorists.

But America is different. In addition to the standard air defense, its MK-4 1 has also made a lot of anti-submarine Aslock, and the most important thing is to leave room for the Tomahawk.

South Korea and Japan's Aegis basically copied Burke, so they also inherited a large bomb load. South Korea has the demand for land attack and also has weapons in this regard. Japan is not allowed to develop offensive weapons, but it has ambitions in this regard. . .

In addition, you have so many launch units, and it is not a small expense to buy missiles to fill them up. . . . . . .

If China is only for air defense, Unit 48 will be enough.

But considering the multifaceted nature of the land attack, this is not enough.

China also needs more launch units, but it faces an embarrassing problem, that is, China can't produce LM2500, a gas turbine with small size and high power.

Therefore, the displacement of destroyers in China can only be around 7,000 tons, and two gas turbines are installed.

If four sets are installed, the fuel consumption can't stand it, and it can only be expanded to more than 1 10,000 tons. China has no experience in building such a large destroyer, and the United States does not build such a large destroyer, which is too uneconomical.

This goes back to the question you mentioned, large tonnage or small tonnage.

This also varies from country to country.

The United States enforces the law globally, and his warships should consider both ocean-going operations and economic costs, so he thinks that the Burke class is really easy to use and is still under construction.

In the future, he will be divided into two directions, one is miniaturization, that is, littoral combat ships.

The other is large, that is, DDG 1000, but DDG emphasizes the long-range precision strike of naval guns, but the number of launching units has decreased.

Like Israel, his range of activities is very small. If you give him Burke, it's hard for him to turn back. . .

Like China, although it is gradually going abroad, it is unrealistic to say that global law enforcement is like that of the United States. Therefore, I think it is in line with our current national conditions and operational requirements to build more 7,000-ton destroyers, no matter how big they are, they are not economical.

Kirov, a gold-swallowing thing, will not be used in Russia unless there is no ship available.

I accidentally said so much, please add some points to accept it.