052C/052D Class Destroyers

AndrewS · Oct 12, 2017

asif iqbal said:
Some claims that the module on the dock is that of Type 052E? What is the truth and is there even such a thing as Type 052E?

Notice 4 x Type 726 LCAC

Type 055 CG

What would a notional Type-52E bring to the table over a Type-52D?

And given the cost difference of 20% from Type-52D (5B RMB) versus Type-55 (6B RMB), what is the point of continuing with Type-52 hull construction?

Blitzo · Oct 12, 2017

AndrewS said:
What would a notional Type-52E bring to the table over a Type-52D?

And given the cost difference of 20% from Type-52D (5B RMB) versus Type-55 (6B RMB), what is the point of continuing with Type-52 hull construction?

Wait, where did we get those numbers for the 052D's unit cost?

As for what a notional 052E may bring over 052D, I think any changes they make will be a fair bit more conservative than what the change from 052C to 052D was. Maybe adding in an extra hangar, changing or upgrading a few of the sensors, some minor internal redesign... I doubt they will be able to put in IEPS.

AndrewS · Oct 13, 2017

Bltizo said:
Wait, where did we get those numbers for the 052D's unit cost?

As for what a notional 052E may bring over 052D, I think any changes they make will be a fair bit more conservative than what the change from 052C to 052D was. Maybe adding in an extra hangar, changing or upgrading a few of the sensors, some minor internal redesign... I doubt they will be able to put in IEPS.

The numbers have been floating around from various sources as I recall. But they look reasonable to me.

Those changes to create a Type-52E sound about right. But then you've essentially got a smaller version of the Type-55, which is much more capable for a little extra money.

So what's the point with yet another variant, when the Type-55 is already here.

Iron Man · Oct 13, 2017

AndrewS said:
If you look again, it's 90 over 30 years or 60 over 20 years. They both work out to 3 per year, which is a simplification.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree as to what China will build in the future.

Plus they're not my academics. They're from Harvard, Treasury and Singapore. Note that Singapore was offered a military alliance by the USA, but they politely declined because they needed diplomatic flexibility. And if you read the actual books, their analyses do come with sources and the rationale.

I'm still waiting for your numerical analysis on PLAN's ability to build and maintain 90 Aegis destroyers. Until then you're just smoking ganja. As for the academics, they aren't experts in every field or in every pronouncement they make. If they don't have sources, they're just giving personal opinions. Just like you.

AndrewS said:
The numbers have been floating around from various sources as I recall. But they look reasonable to me.

Those changes to create a Type-52E sound about right. But then you've essentially got a smaller version of the Type-55, which is much more capable for a little extra money.

So what's the point with yet another variant, when the Type-55 is already here.

What a weird thing to say. You could just the same say that the 056 is a smaller version of the 054A and the 054A is a smaller version of the 052D. You also don't have the data to say that the 055 is "much more" capable for a "little extra" money. You LITERALLY have no idea how much more capable the 055 is compared to the 052D, or how much more it costs! You seem to have a habit of making baseless personal conjectures and attempting to pass them off as established facts, when they are nothing of the sort.

FORBIN · Oct 13, 2017

Iron Man said:
I'm still waiting for your numerical analysis on PLAN's ability to build and maintain 90 Aegis destroyers. Until then you're just smoking ganja. As for the academics, they aren't experts in every field or in every pronouncement they make. If they don't have sources, they're just giving personal opinions. Just like you.

What a weird thing to say. You could just the same say that the 056 is a smaller version of the 054A and the 054A is a smaller version of the 052D. You also don't have the data to say that the 055 is "much more" capable for a "little extra" money. You LITERALLY have no idea how much more capable the 055 is compared to the 052D, or how much more it costs! You seem to have a habit of making baseless personal conjectures and attempting to pass them off as established facts, when they are nothing of the sort.

About with Henri K infos and others :
052D 600 millions $ and 055 about 1000 millions IIRC approximative ofc...

With China imposible to look for many years ofc i see out 1000 J-20s !

Fortunately Henry K is more serious

AndrewS · Oct 13, 2017

Iron Man said:
I'm still waiting for your numerical analysis on PLAN's ability to build and maintain 90 Aegis destroyers. Until then you're just smoking ganja. As for the academics, they aren't experts in every field or in every pronouncement they make. If they don't have sources, they're just giving personal opinions. Just like you.

What a weird thing to say. You could just the same say that the 056 is a smaller version of the 054A and the 054A is a smaller version of the 052D. You also don't have the data to say that the 055 is "much more" capable for a "little extra" money. You LITERALLY have no idea how much more capable the 055 is compared to the 052D, or how much more it costs! You seem to have a habit of making baseless personal conjectures and attempting to pass them off as established facts, when they are nothing of the sort.

China maintaining 90 AEGIS destroyers in 30 years time, which comes to the year 2047.

Yet the national security council in Washington DC is being told to contemplate a wealthy hi-tech China which has an economy some 3x the USA by the year 2040.

And we're probably looking at China being 2x larger than the USA around 2028. And China today is already 20% larger than the USA.

So is there any doubt that China can easily build and sustain 90 AEGIS destroyers if it has an economy which is only twice the size of the US?

I actually did do a cost versus capability analysis of the Type-52D versus Type-55 in a previous post some time ago. It details the assumptions and estimates, and the conclusions still stand.

asif iqbal · Oct 13, 2017

Question when is Type 052E due to come out ? After 18 x Type 052D?

If so this puts us into the post 2020 time frame

By which time most likely Type 055A/B will be in development

So really we can be looking at Type 052E and Type 055A

Iron Man · Oct 13, 2017

AndrewS said:
China maintaining 90 AEGIS destroyers in 30 years time, which comes to the year 2047.

Yet the national security council in Washington DC is being told to contemplate a wealthy hi-tech China which has an economy some 3x the USA by the year 2040.

And we're probably looking at China being 2x larger than the USA around 2028. And China today is already 20% larger than the USA.

So is there any doubt that China can easily build and sustain 90 AEGIS destroyers if it has an economy which is only twice the size of the US?

I actually did do a cost versus capability analysis of the Type-52D versus Type-55 in a previous post some time ago. It details the assumptions and estimates, and the conclusions still stand.

You're just making a bunch of assumptions which at this point you are obviously unable to demonstrate numerically. The US is unable to maintain 90 CGs/DDGs right now with its current GDP without massive deficit spending, so what is your basis for saying that China could do so even with a larger economy? Of course you have no basis, just personal opinions. Thank you for your opinion; we all have one.

PiSigma · Oct 13, 2017

Iron Man said:
You're just making a bunch of assumptions which at this point you are obviously unable to demonstrate numerically. The US is unable to maintain 90 CGs/DDGs right now with its current GDP without massive deficit spending, so what is your basis for saying that China could do so even with a larger economy? Of course you have no basis, just personal opinions. Thank you for your opinion; we all have one.

I agree with iron man. One of the things to consider is what does China need for her destroyer force. Unlike the USA which patrols every ocean and sea, China in 2050 will most likely only patrol the western pacific and maybe Indian ocean (less than WP) with some excursions to the eastern pacific and Atlantic oceans. In that case, why would they need 90 aegis? They simply don't.

Also, China will mostly learn from US's current problem of being a top heavy navy, which is why I see them building more corvettes and frigates. Corvette for first island chain, frigates for everything else with destroyers and large destroyers for surge/contingency.

One of the things to remember is that construction cost is always lower than operating/maintenance cost. Even if China is able afford to build 90 destroyers, manning them and operating them will be way more expensive.

AndrewS · Oct 13, 2017

PiSigma said:
I agree with iron man. One of the things to consider is what does China need for her destroyer force. Unlike the USA which patrols every ocean and sea, China in 2050 will most likely only patrol the western pacific and maybe Indian ocean (less than WP) with some excursions to the eastern pacific and Atlantic oceans. In that case, why would they need 90 aegis? They simply don't.

Also, China will mostly learn from US's current problem of being a top heavy navy, which is why I see them building more corvettes and frigates. Corvette for first island chain, frigates for everything else with destroyers and large destroyers for surge/contingency.

One of the things to remember is that construction cost is always lower than operating/maintenance cost. Even if China is able afford to build 90 destroyers, manning them and operating them will be way more expensive.

Have a think about a notional conflict over Taiwan. How many ships and aircraft would China need to break through the first island chain (potentially Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines) and obtain maritime superiority within the second island chain?

Then there is also securing chokepoints like the Malacca Strait (and beyond) to ensure commercial shipping can continue to flow freely.

If you run your own models of what China could reasonably be spending in 10 years, you can see that 90 AEGIS destroyers is not top heavy because there are so many more frigates (60+), corvettes (60+) and large coast guard ships (120+) as well.

And the *rule* as I understand it is that maintenance, overhauls and repairs is like buying a ship 3x over.

052C/052D Class Destroyers

AndrewS

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

AndrewS

Brigadier

Iron Man

Major

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

AndrewS

Brigadier

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major

PiSigma

"the engineer"

AndrewS

Brigadier