052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
It's been circulating for a few months now, originally by big shrimps, I think.
The notion of three shipyards producing destroyers has definitely become much more accepted over the last few months on other boards.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The spread between 3 shipyards is almost certainly more to do with the current world economic downturn, especially in commercial shipping orders rather than PLAN operational or strategic needs.
Naval contracts are a form of government stimulus package designed to help Chinese shipbuilders weather the current global economic downturn, as such, it makes sense to spread that between as many yards as practically feasible (a key reason why so many different yards are building 056s and coast guard cutters).
Naval contracts are a form of government stimulus package designed to help Chinese shipbuilders weather the current global economic downturn, as such, it makes sense to spread that between as many yards as practically feasible (a key reason why so many different yards are building 056s and coast guard cutters).
I doubt it's only that; I'm sure it's also related to the overall pace of new induction and modernization that the Chinese Navy is seeking.
I find it hard to imagine the Navy would blindly procure additional ships that they do not need or even worse, that they cannot afford to maintain, crew and operate, simply to give shipyards work.
====
Some accounts I've read suggest that they want JN to focus on 002 and 055, HPLX to produce 052D (and potentially produce 055 in due course), and for DL to produce 052D and 055 (possibly producing 055s at a different yard location in due course) as well as 001A and other carriers.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Whoever said anything about blindly doing anything?
You also need to give the PLAN and Chinese government a little more credit than to think they could make as basic a mistake as to blow their entire budget on new hulls and not have enough left for crews and operations.
Strategic plans are made based on resources available. If the PLAN originally had a 5 year plan to commission 5 ships a year, and the Chinese government later said, we are going to buy you another 5 ships a year, it would totally screw up the PLAN's original plan, but do you think they will be upset or complain about it?
It's easy to adjust your plans for MORE resources than you originally budgeted for, it's when budgets are unexpectedly cut that you can run into serious problems.
Although it is worth keeping an eye on average time from build completion to formal commission of new built PLAN ships.
If that starts to lag, then it could be an indications of additional orders being made beyond what was originally planned for, and the PLAN starting to run into bottlenecks like crew training as a result.
... okay, but none of that supports your original assertion that producing destroyers at three shipyards is "almost certainly" due to the economic situation and not related to the Chinese Navy's operational or strategic needs.
The way you said that the purchase and production was not related to the Navy's needs implied that they were building more ships only for the sake of giving shipyards work, and that the Navy would not be able to effectively absorb the new construction and integrate them into their order of battle.
====
Of course, my belief is that the Navy's plan was always to broaden construction of destroyers among more shipyards -- to not only provide more competition among the shipyards and prevent monopolies, but also to provide redundancy in case one shipyard goes under or even comes under attack. Of course, the benefit of having multiple shipyards work on destroyers simultaneously also means they can commission more destroyers per year as well, assuming they've financially planned for it... (edit: after all, each given shipyard I'm sure has a physical limit as to the number of destroyers they can produce in a given timeframe) -- with an enlargement of destroyer commissionings also having been planned as well.
The same goes for the 056s, though being smaller ships they can be built at far smaller yards.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Doesn't it? And I never said creating work for the shipyards was the ONLY consideration, just the primary for extending the construction to a 3rd yard.
What needs do you see the PLAN having, that is so urgent as to justify them needing to have three yards working near full tilt simultaneously to meet right now just for DDGs?
All that about encouraging completion and building strategic redundancy was already met with two yards able to build 052Ds, what extra benefit does adding another yard bring to the table in that regards? Especially when we consider the fact that the 055 is just around the corner, if it hasn't started building already?
The overlap in building of 052C2 and 052D DDGs was already a good illustration of planning and organisation that does not really fit with the meticulous standards we have come to expect of the PLAN.
Chinese naval modernisation is a long term project expected to take decades to come to full fruition.
What we are witnessing now is a full tilt sprint that is almost certainly unsustainable in the long term, and I just don't seem any pressing operational or strategic needs that would justify the extra expense such a rapid build up is costing China and the PLAN.
The only way that makes sense is if the decision wasn't purely based on PLAN operational needs or strategic plans.
But, it's not like they are building a million life rafts or other stuff of no real operational value.
These are world class destroyers that any navy would be pleased to get, so it's a good problem for the PLAN to have at the end of the day.
They will easily and happily adjust their plans and resourcing to accommodate and make best use of all the additional ships they are getting.
My argument is that they never planned on getting so many ships, and they would not have done if not for the global economic downturn killing the civilian shipping demand.
Okay, I have two counter arguments.
One, is around your description of your position as "almost certainly". I think we do not have anywhere near enough evidence to suggest that it is "almost certain" that the additional destroyer production is due to the economic downturn and not due to the Navy's own strategic and operational needs. I think it can be described as possible, or a potential factor, yes, but not "almost certain".
Second, is our probable divergence in opinion surrounding what the Navy's own strategic and operational needs actually are in the first place. I do believe that the navy and the Chinese military at large is quite meticulous in their long term planning (edit: but yes it doesn't always pan out exactly where they want). But I disagree in your interpretation that the navy does not need "such a rapid build up" of potential destroyer production.
I believe that the navy needed and still needs a large and "rapid" (by most international standards) massing of new surface combatants for their needs going forward in the next few decades, and this includes mass production of a sizeable number of destroyers at a fairly prompt pace... And that the navy had planned for this in mind for quite a while.
The strategic needs for such a force includes the standard aspects of power projection as well as conducting high intensity operations closer to home; though obviously it's hard to describe this without both of us first stating how many destroyers they may be looking to build in the first place and within what kind of timespan. I personally thinj a force of ~50 modern aegis style DDGs and ~50 modern FFGs by 2025-2030 is a likely force that the navy may require (in terms of modern, blue water capable surface combatants, not including subs, carriers or other power projection ships or shorter range ships like corvettes).
This isn't to say that I believe my position is an "almost certain" explanation for why an expansion or destroyer production to three yards is occurring. But I do believe that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that it is "almost certain" that the expansion of production is due to economic considerations and unrelated to the Navy's strategic and operational needs, and I also think there is a viable counter position to say that such an expansion in destroyer production may have been part of the Navy's plans.
In other words, if you replaced "almost certain" to "possible" then there would be no disagreement from me
plawolf
Lieutenant General
At this point we seem to be mainly disagreeing over semantics which boils down to judgement and experience.
Both of us have said our peace, and neither is likely to convince the other, so best to agree to disagree and move on, since we will just be rehashing the same core points if we continue.
Both of us have said our peace, and neither is likely to convince the other, so best to agree to disagree and move on, since we will just be rehashing the same core points if we continue.