052/052B Class Destroyers
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Not so certain you can count South Korea into this. They'd probably be loathe to intervene on Japan's side in any conflict between Japan and China, or even between the US and China, for that matter.
The big questions here are: how much shipyard capacity does either side have? What are the naval budgets going to be like? How quickly can China develop and integrate modern battlefleet subsystems? Those are the questions that would solve this issue at a root level.
Not so certain you can count South Korea into this. They'd probably be loathe to intervene on Japan's side in any conflict between Japan and China, or even between the US and China, for that matter.
The big questions here are: how much shipyard capacity does either side have? What are the naval budgets going to be like? How quickly can China develop and integrate modern battlefleet subsystems? Those are the questions that would solve this issue at a root level.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
Add to the fact Japan's economy is a very long way from recovery (if at all with Abe and more QE).
Yes they have US help - at an increasing cost to the Japanese TAX payer. So I would say the balance of power will "equalize" sooner than many believe here.
Add to the fact Japan's economy is a very long way from recovery (if at all with Abe and more QE).
Yes they have US help - at an increasing cost to the Japanese TAX payer. So I would say the balance of power will "equalize" sooner than many believe here.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I agree with that. IMO, the US has only 2 unconditional allies in the west pacific: japan and australia. The others are allies of convenience.
I agree with that. IMO, the US has only 2 unconditional allies in the west pacific: japan and australia. The others are allies of convenience.
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
That is really a better way to put things splitting them as AEGIS and non-AEGIS
China has launched 1 x Type 052C + 2 x Type 052D in 2012
So lets say they launch 2 x Type 052D in 2013 and another 1 in 2014 and then 2 again in 2015 that would mean 5 x Type 052D plus the 2 in 2012 gives 7 DDG in total possibly 8 if they manage to get two out in 2014
8 Type 052D DDG is probably the number China is going to build, they would split like this
2 going to SSF as 172 and 173 to join the two Type 052C (170 and 171)
4 going to NSF as 118-121
And we already know that ESF gets the 4 x Type 052C as 150-153
That leaves 2 x Type 052D, they will probably go to ESF as 154 and 155 and if they make 10 DDG they can finish off the flotilla with 4 x Type 052D (154-157)
So back to the question, this give 6 x Type 052C and 8-10 Type 052D in and around ~2016 around 16 AEGIS vessels in the next 5 years for PLAN add to that off course the non-AEGIS
That is really a better way to put things splitting them as AEGIS and non-AEGIS
China has launched 1 x Type 052C + 2 x Type 052D in 2012
So lets say they launch 2 x Type 052D in 2013 and another 1 in 2014 and then 2 again in 2015 that would mean 5 x Type 052D plus the 2 in 2012 gives 7 DDG in total possibly 8 if they manage to get two out in 2014
8 Type 052D DDG is probably the number China is going to build, they would split like this
2 going to SSF as 172 and 173 to join the two Type 052C (170 and 171)
4 going to NSF as 118-121
And we already know that ESF gets the 4 x Type 052C as 150-153
That leaves 2 x Type 052D, they will probably go to ESF as 154 and 155 and if they make 10 DDG they can finish off the flotilla with 4 x Type 052D (154-157)
So back to the question, this give 6 x Type 052C and 8-10 Type 052D in and around ~2016 around 16 AEGIS vessels in the next 5 years for PLAN add to that off course the non-AEGIS
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
It all comes down to the economy. China is in no rush really. Her economy is heading to be the biggest in the world with much more potential to grow than Japan can ever dream of. This is a long race, not a short sprint. With that in my mind, there really is no contest. But then again it's pointless to start comparing navies on paper as though it means a great deal. Is it the recent developments from china that is prompting people to start comparison arguments again?
It all comes down to the economy. China is in no rush really. Her economy is heading to be the biggest in the world with much more potential to grow than Japan can ever dream of. This is a long race, not a short sprint. With that in my mind, there really is no contest. But then again it's pointless to start comparing navies on paper as though it means a great deal. Is it the recent developments from china that is prompting people to start comparison arguments again?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
I don't understand what this fascination with comparing the PLAN against the combined Japanese and South Korean navies is about, I don't think it makes much sense. With the way relations between the three are at present, the South Koreans are more likely to side with the Chinese to fight the Japanese than the other way around.
In addition, it should be noted that China has massive long term advantages because their ships are 100% indigenous while the Japanese and Koreans need to import key systems, and more critically, munitions from the US.
In peacetime, these imported systems are a massive drain of resources because of the profit margin the exporting companies are making, and that is money that is flowing out of the economy so is a net loss to the economy. You can see that in the rate of construction of new warships. In addition, for China, warship construction serves a similar purpose as stimulus spending in that it boosts the economy in addition to the military, that is why we are seeing such large orders for new ships from the PLAN in recent years, as they step in to provide some demand to help cushion the impact of the global downturn and massive drop in civilian shipping orders. That is simply not an option, or at least, does not work as well for South Korea and Japan. That is why you tend to see a slowdown and reduction in military orders in South Korea and Japan when their economy are sluggish, while opposite is turn with China. On top of that, Chinese military spending will naturally pick up when their economy is doing well.
In war time, the need to import munitions could be a massive achilles heel, since nations tend not to keep large stockpiles of expensive imported munitions in peace time, and the supply chain to these weapons would be unlikely to be as responsive to emergency demand as it would be the case if those plants were making munitions for their own countries. That is assuming that munitions deliveries will even take place after hostilities have broken out.
So, in the long term, the growth potential of the PLAN is significantly greater than that of Japan or South Korea's navies, and the only realistic question is not whether, but when the PLAN will surpass them, what purpose does arguing about precisely when that might happen achieve?
I don't understand what this fascination with comparing the PLAN against the combined Japanese and South Korean navies is about, I don't think it makes much sense. With the way relations between the three are at present, the South Koreans are more likely to side with the Chinese to fight the Japanese than the other way around.
In addition, it should be noted that China has massive long term advantages because their ships are 100% indigenous while the Japanese and Koreans need to import key systems, and more critically, munitions from the US.
In peacetime, these imported systems are a massive drain of resources because of the profit margin the exporting companies are making, and that is money that is flowing out of the economy so is a net loss to the economy. You can see that in the rate of construction of new warships. In addition, for China, warship construction serves a similar purpose as stimulus spending in that it boosts the economy in addition to the military, that is why we are seeing such large orders for new ships from the PLAN in recent years, as they step in to provide some demand to help cushion the impact of the global downturn and massive drop in civilian shipping orders. That is simply not an option, or at least, does not work as well for South Korea and Japan. That is why you tend to see a slowdown and reduction in military orders in South Korea and Japan when their economy are sluggish, while opposite is turn with China. On top of that, Chinese military spending will naturally pick up when their economy is doing well.
In war time, the need to import munitions could be a massive achilles heel, since nations tend not to keep large stockpiles of expensive imported munitions in peace time, and the supply chain to these weapons would be unlikely to be as responsive to emergency demand as it would be the case if those plants were making munitions for their own countries. That is assuming that munitions deliveries will even take place after hostilities have broken out.
So, in the long term, the growth potential of the PLAN is significantly greater than that of Japan or South Korea's navies, and the only realistic question is not whether, but when the PLAN will surpass them, what purpose does arguing about precisely when that might happen achieve?
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
The comparisons are relavent and so are all the country's, I'm guessing that no one watched the JMSDF fleet review 2012?
Contributions came from where? Yes you guessed it, the American Cruiser USS Shiloh, Vice Admiral Scott H. Swift, commander of the US 7th fleet on board Austrialian frigate HMAS Sydney and Singaporean assault ship RSS Persistance
This review marked the 60th anniversary of the JMSDF and the centenary of the Japanese naval aviation, for the first time foreign naval vessels participated in this review and more importantly for the first time ever a foreign ship actually lead the review which was honoured to HMAS Sydney, all in all 50 ships took part
And to note, some of the naval units of JMSDF that were meant to take part on the review were called away on a mission to patrol the Senkaku island this included a E2 Hawkeye
And if that isn't enough maybe read on the recent Ameircan naval force staged 11 day operations named operation Keen Sword with Japan
So knowing Chinas naval inventory with not only its neighbours but also the combined neighbours is hugely important
By the way operation Keen Sword involved 37,000 Japanese and 10,000 Ameircans with plus a aircraft carrier
The comparisons are relavent and so are all the country's, I'm guessing that no one watched the JMSDF fleet review 2012?
Contributions came from where? Yes you guessed it, the American Cruiser USS Shiloh, Vice Admiral Scott H. Swift, commander of the US 7th fleet on board Austrialian frigate HMAS Sydney and Singaporean assault ship RSS Persistance
This review marked the 60th anniversary of the JMSDF and the centenary of the Japanese naval aviation, for the first time foreign naval vessels participated in this review and more importantly for the first time ever a foreign ship actually lead the review which was honoured to HMAS Sydney, all in all 50 ships took part
And to note, some of the naval units of JMSDF that were meant to take part on the review were called away on a mission to patrol the Senkaku island this included a E2 Hawkeye
And if that isn't enough maybe read on the recent Ameircan naval force staged 11 day operations named operation Keen Sword with Japan
So knowing Chinas naval inventory with not only its neighbours but also the combined neighbours is hugely important
By the way operation Keen Sword involved 37,000 Japanese and 10,000 Ameircans with plus a aircraft carrier
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
guys, let's move on from this China vs Japan stuff. This really will get no where. Japan has a really modern navy and China is catching up. China may catch up to Japan at some point in the future (you can also argue it will not). All we are going through here is how long it would take China to catch up or if it can. And then, we bring in the two countries economies and such. It really just drifts too far from the topic of this thread.
guys, let's move on from this China vs Japan stuff. This really will get no where. Japan has a really modern navy and China is catching up. China may catch up to Japan at some point in the future (you can also argue it will not). All we are going through here is how long it would take China to catch up or if it can. And then, we bring in the two countries economies and such. It really just drifts too far from the topic of this thread.
re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer
So back to the point of Type 052s. I have a simple question: assuming a typical anti-surface patrol, what sort of missile loadout would you put into the 64 VLS launchers, and why?
I've also read that the 052D can carry the CJ-10, which would give the Type 052D a strike capability better than nearly all other ships in its weight class (supersonic cruise missile with 4000km range at <10m CEP). Does the Type 052D have the C4ISR necessary to utilize such a powerful weapon?
So back to the point of Type 052s. I have a simple question: assuming a typical anti-surface patrol, what sort of missile loadout would you put into the 64 VLS launchers, and why?
I've also read that the 052D can carry the CJ-10, which would give the Type 052D a strike capability better than nearly all other ships in its weight class (supersonic cruise missile with 4000km range at <10m CEP). Does the Type 052D have the C4ISR necessary to utilize such a powerful weapon?