052C/052D Class Destroyers

D

damitch300

Junior Member
Registered Member
Depends on what you mean with not much difference.
When a frigate has (lets say...) 30 off and destroyer 50.
And every officer has an average salary of 60k a year.
Thats a total of 1.8 mil for the frigate and 3 mil for the destroyer.
Then also you need bigger cabins for the officers and more expensive food.
The for the semi off(adjudant till corporal) 60 for frigate. 90 for destroyer.
And sailors are 60 for frigate and 90 for destroyer.
Lets say sem off is average of 35k a year and sailors 25k.
for the frigate:
1.8mil off
2.1mil sem off
1.5mil sailors
=5.4mil a year

for the destroyer:
3mil off
3.15mil sem off
2.25mil.
=8.4mil a year

Then also the expenses on training and education.
Well destroyers have more high classed so thats also more expensive...

My education to corporal is already 36k euros according to the navy...

Its peanuts for one ship.
But if you have either 30 frigates or 30 destroyers...
Count that 3mil difference without additions up...
Thats 90mil a year!

A rough estimated quess brings that to 100 a 110mil difference if you add food,education, etc etc
Count this on a timeframe of minimum 20 year lifespan of the ships.
2.2bil euros.

Trust me i am insane hahaha
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The figures you quote look like European wage levels, so they need to be adjusted downwards. So for a Type-54 frigate, lifetime wages might only account for 5% of the 300 million cost using your example.

For a Chinese destroyer, it would be a significantly lower percentage.

But I'm not disagreeing that there is a requirement for a frigate type vessel and AAW destroyer type vessel.

The argument that some came up with was that the crew increase from a Type 52D to Type-55 was a lot, but crew costs are not that important, plus there should be minimal increase in crew size because much of the crewing level is fixed e.g. one bridge crew, one engineering crew for the 4 engines etc etc
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
kriss said:
Considering 055 have a better sensor set and higher VLS count it's likely more cost efficient than 052D and also likely provide capability not available with 052D.

I agree that 054A is still a necessary element in a SAG, as you said, doing the dirty work. However 052D has the same mission coverage as 055 and 055 is better and likely more cost-efficient in those missions. The only exception might be ASW but that's why we keep 054A in the fleet right?
Click to expand...
You can't say the 055 "provides capability not available with 052D" and at the same exact time claim that "052D has the same mission coverage as 055". These are contradictory statements. IMO the former is probably going to ring closer to true; if I am right the PLAN intends the 055 to play the same role as the Ticonderoga class CG, namely the (only) platform besides a carrier that can provide the facilities for the AAW commander of the CSG, ESG, or SAG to orchestrate the defense of the fleet. You add one of these to any surface group and it will enhance the collective air defense of the entire group, not merely in the number of VLS cells it contributes, but also in the presence of a "nerve center" with which to coordinate the air defense of the entire group. A 052D barely has enough space for 64 universal VLS cells, so there is no way IMO it could house a separate (senior?) captain and his entire command staff along with the extra fleet-level C&C facilities to perform their work.

PanAsian said:
That also depends on whether the 055 is more survivable under attack than the 052D or 054A, or its equivalent of multiple 052Ds or 054As, and by how much.
Click to expand...
This is a very legitimate question given the technological disparity between the PLAN and USN (and JMSDF), and one to which I think the answer is definitely NOT twice as survivable, even if it has twice as many VLS cells as the 052D. If anything its survivability advantage is only somewhat enhanced by its bigger displacement and therefore ability to absorb more ASCM hits. How many more is anyone's guess.

PanAsian said:
My guess is the number of 052Ds and 055s will be limited until China can deploy the next wave of catch-up-to-cutting-edge technologies. Then the 055 will be upgraded and either take on the role of 052D successor as well or a new design will succeed the 052D.
Click to expand...
My guess is that it's far more likely that there is eventually a "052E" (or whatever) than that the 055 or its derivatives will supplant the 052C/D as the primary workhorse of the fleet. It's simply too large comparatively, too many eggs in one basket, and will likely possess capabilities that are not needed in multiples (namely AAW C&C facilities). I think this is the same reason that you typically don't see more than one Ticonderoga CG in a CSG, ESG, or SAG. The greater size disparity between the 055 and 052D vs the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke makes this specialization even more apparent IMO. Down the road I think it will become more apparent that the PLAN intends a three-tier blue water surface combatant fleet structure consisting of Type 055/As (the commander), Type 052D/Es (the workhorse), and the Type 054A/Bs (the grunt).

AndrewS said:
The argument that some came up with was that the crew increase from a Type 52D to Type-55 was a lot, but crew costs are not that important, plus there should be minimal increase in crew size because much of the crewing level is fixed e.g. one bridge crew, one engineering crew for the 4 engines etc etc
Click to expand...
The crew cost shouldn't be significantly more for a 055 than for a 052D. If there is increased automation in the 055, there could actually be LESS crew on the 055 than on the 052D. But even if there wasn't that much automation, there is no reason to assume that crew size increases are going to be directly proportional to ship size increases, in the case of 052D vs 055, at least.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
How much more survivable or useful is a Type-55?

The British navy have a nice concept where a destroyer deploys an airborne AESA radar or FLIR, which is powered by an electrical tether to the ship. If it hovered at a height of 300m, it would have a radar horizon of 70km.

A Type-52D is unlikely to have the space to deploy something like this, whereas the Type-55 has room to grow over the 30 year lifetime.

Ditto for lasers, railguns, UUVs, UAVs, etc

===
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
The figures you quote look like European wage levels, so they need to be adjusted downwards. So for a Type-54 frigate, lifetime wages might only account for 5% of the 300 million cost using your example.

For a Chinese destroyer, it would be a significantly lower percentage.

But I'm not disagreeing that there is a requirement for a frigate type vessel and AAW destroyer type vessel.

The argument that some came up with was that the crew increase from a Type 52D to Type-55 was a lot, but crew costs are not that important, plus there should be minimal increase in crew size because much of the crewing level is fixed e.g. one bridge crew, one engineering crew for the 4 engines etc etc
Click to expand...
AndrewS said:
How much more survivable or useful is a Type-55?

The British navy have a nice concept where a destroyer deploys an airborne AESA radar or FLIR, which is powered by an electrical tether to the ship. If it hovered at a height of 300m, it would have a radar horizon of 70km.

A Type-52D is unlikely to have the space to deploy something like this, whereas the Type-55 has room to grow over the 30 year lifetime.

Ditto for lasers, railguns, UUVs, UAVs, etc

===
Click to expand...
The 052D has almost certainly reached the limits of its design, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, that doesn't mean a "052E" wouldn't also be designed with the extra space and power capacity to provide a significant degree of future-proofing. In fact my vision for a 052E is a slightly larger 8,000 ton ship with 64-96 VLS cells, 2 helo hangars, and IEP.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
My latest Type 052C-C List

View attachment 29562
Click to expand...

052D number 10/DDG-156 overall was launched from JN, not DL

Two of the 052Ds (DDGs 120 and 157) that are currently under construction (that have been positively identified) are both at DL.

At present, there is no clear evidence of JN building its 10th (or 13th overall) 052D, but it is suspected that it's definitely happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top