052/052B Class Destroyers

Re: DDG 052C Thread

plawolf said:

Yes, I was being pretty conservative with the launch date expectations. If they are building two at the same time, we might see two launched by maybe 2015, but only the first is likely to be launched by 2015 if they were building the carriers concurrently.

Your expectation that the next 3 will be nuclear super carriers matches mine, and I think any more carrier China builds will be replacements for the Varyag and conventional indigenous carriers from the first 3. The total number of carriers the PLAN plan on having at any one time is unlikely to exceed 6 at the very most in the long term.

Click to expand...

I believe your first post, within the time frame mentioned, is pretty good. Anything beyond that is just too hard to say because of the many years between now and then, ie. will three nuclear carriers be added to the fleet or replace the older carriers as those nucs come on line.

I would be surprized to see a standing force of six carriers. I would expect more like 4-5 max...but again, too far in the future. I think three is a sure thing.

With three carrier, and with maintaining their other obligations at the same time alone, I would expect to see a total force of close to 12-15 052Cs or a combination of that and whatever comes next. I would expect to see more than 20-25 054As, or again, a combination of that plus whatever comes next. Probably trending toward the high number in each case.

But, we have to add to that, remember, there will also be at least 3 Type 071 LPDs and I expect that number actually to be close to be 4-6, and maybe some LPHs vessels to augment them 2-4. If you take into consideration the formation of phibron groups along with the carrier groups, then you probably will look at the total frigate + destroyer force being close to fifty vessels. Along with this they will need to augment their SSNs and will probably have 12-15 093s or whatever comes next with that force too.

Anyhow, I believe by 2020, if the PLAN wants to achieve this type of diversity with a modern force, they will, of necessity be approaching these kind of numbers and it will require, to that point, for them to continue a very aggressive building plan, even to reach this.

So:

3 Carriers
4-6 LPDs
2-4 LPHs
22-24 Modern DDGs
26-28 Modern FFGs
12-15 Modern SSNs

By the end of this year their numbers in that regard will be approaching:

1 Carrier
3 LPDs
0 LPHs
14 DDGs (Mixing the 52C, 52Bs, 51Cs and Sovs)
16 FFGs (54 and 54A)
4-6 SSNs

This means in the next nine years they would have to add 2 carriers, 2 LPDs, 2-4 LPHs, 10 DDGs, 10-12 FFGs and 8-9 SSNs, all of which they can accomplish, but they would have to continue building at the current rate.

Time will tell.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

I generally feel myself in sympathy with plawolf’s point of view, with some reservations.

First, you do not need three carriers to have one operational at any time. They are not submarines, and two will do the job. Which is why France had two and Britain is planning two.

Second, , I still like the idea of four carriers (famously named CHONGQING, TIANJIN, SHANGHAI and BEIJING). But I do not that more than one will basically be under construction at any one time, which will stretch the timeframe to the early 30’s. The PLAN does not have inexhaustible funds, either.

Third, I cannot see NSF as a true blue water fleet (look at its miserable position as to AOR’s). That role is reserved for SSF and ESF, witness their deployments to the Gulf of Aden.

Fourth, it is well established that ex VARYAG will go to SSF when operational (whenever that will be). No. 2 will possibly do likewise. But then nos. 3 and 4 will go to ESF (they will first have to develop suitable basing conditions for that, it is not certain that Zhoushan-Dinghai is ideal for carriers).

Fifth, the idea of PLAN being able to take on even a reduced USN (Gates is already planning to cut the number of deployable CSG to 9), that will never happen.

But a fleet of four carriers is a very different proposition than one, newly introduced ex-Soviet one. Two carriers in ESF should be able to balance a 7th Fleet composed of basically just one CSG, whether that one is based at Yokosuka, or Guam at some future date.

As to the idea of Chinese carriers being based en masse in the Indian Ocean, I would not spend one second thinking about it.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

If the Americans are smart, they would welcome this and offer the PLAN the joint use of some existing US naval bases in exchance for Beijing taking on an appropriate share of international naval patrolling and policing responsibilities (and costs), so the USN can be scaled back, to maybe a 8-9 ship fleet. Still more powerful than the PLAN by a fair margin, but much more affordable.

Allowing the PLAN to jointly us current US naval bases would build goodwill, and also remove any excuse for the PLAN to develop their own chain of foreign bases, so the USN can just kick the Chinese out and greatly limit their long-range deployment and combat capabilities if relations really go south without having to fire a shot.

But I fear that would require the USN to give up too much of the superiority it sees as its god given right, and more critically, would require the US to see China as a peer instead of an inferior, which will likely be too much for the lot on Washington, who sees America as without peer.

Click to expand...

Good analysis, but the premise that the United States is going to want China to take over some of the world's policeman roles so that it can scale back its own military expenditures is flawed. Despite America's public whining about its responsibility as the global policeman, our politicians and especially the military savors that role because it gives America influence. The military can keep asking for gargantuan budgets to ensure it can meet its "global responsibilities and obligations." As I described in another threads, bureaucracies tend to want to to grow their budget and their mission. It's part of organizational behavior.

When the U.S. talks about China becoming a responsible stakeholder in international relations, they are talking about paying more into to the UN, World Bank, and IMF budgets and free-floating the yuan in order to allow more Western exports to China. The U.S. is not asking China to raise military expenditures and develop an expeditionary army to take over the role of global policeman from America, so that America can reduce its own military expenditures. Far from it. The U.S. plays on that fear among China's neighbors in order to win more influence in Asia. Look at the reliable drumbeat from Sec. Clinton and Gates about how America is not abandoning the Pacific. If the U.S. were interested in China shouldering a greater burden of international security, they would be happy to cede security issues in Asia to China.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

I think the strategic picture is in flux right now and it may be possible for the US and China to be on friendlier terms in 5-10 years time but I definitely don't see the US actively ceding responsibilties/ rights/ capabilities to China militarily within this timeframe.

Also I think China realizes that carriers are a big investment and they really don't want to risk so much in 'one basket'. So it's more likely that the PLAN will have the Varyag and one catapult equipped carrier by 2015, after operating them for a few years they would then decide on building additional carriers of whichever type, in improved form, around 2020.

Re: DDG 052C Thread

The discussion about carriers and China’s global role somewhat derailed the debate about the question if China will have adequate escorts for her carriers. I think that this is largely a non-issue, because she obviously will have more than enough.

Maintaining cruising speed in destroyer/frigate construction, China should be able without at all exerting herself to build one destroyer and two frigates annually, which is roughly the current rate. That corresponds to the ability to sustain a fleet of 30 destroyers and 60 frigates, a 14 pct. increase over what she has today.

By 2030, China would then have 20 new destroyers and 40 frigates, which will be in addition to 11 existing destroyers (I think the LUHU class will have gone, their present mid-life update is exactly that, they will be gone in about 15 years) and 22 frigates (JIANGWEI II and JIANGKAI I/II).

This will easily provide escort groups for four carriers and a lot of other tasks besides.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

New Photos Of 112

¦^��: Type 052 (Luhu Class)

Type 730's, new countermeasures launcher, and I dont know what the thing under the tarp on the last picture, some sort of radar I assume.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

The pictures seemed a little dark. I fixed them.







[Note: Thank you to A.Man for the pictures.]

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

They are all scared of defection look like they are unsure how their soldier think who is the legitmate government of china.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

KingLouis said:

They are all scared of defection look like they are unsure how their soldier think who is the legitmate government of china.

Click to expand...

Where did this come from and what does it have to do with anything about the 052?