But while the USN is spread out around the world (like the British Navy before WWII), China still got to worry more about balancing against the combined force of Japanese, Indian, and ROK Aegis fleet. By 2020, Japan will have 8 (16, if including the 4 Akizuki frigates and the 4 helicopter carriers, with Japanese domestic AESA radars), ROK with 6 Sejong the Great, and Indian Navy with 5-6 Aegis equivalent vessels. Also, who knows what kind of warship the next U.S. administration would sell to Taiwan. If the U.S. is willing to sell decommissioned Ticonderoga class vessels Taiwan (wild guess, but possible), the U.S. would not only fulfill its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, but also create hundreds of jobs domestically. Therefore, the PLA might need at least 20-24 Aegis warship to simply balance against the combined force of regional powers, not to mention U.S. naval vessels in the Western Pacific.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
As others (and myself in the past) have said, the PLAN will probably aim to meet or surpass the combined capabilities of its potential competitors in the westpac region -- which I think is a necessary and realistic goal for the PLA's planners.
Naturally these potential competitors will include JMSDF as well as USN's pacific fleet, and PLAN will seek the ability to meet them in potential conflict with the intention to win... which will necessitate being both qualitative and quantitatively competitive, even if we do acknowledge some other potential PLA advantages in regards to naval warfare close to home such as land based air power and land based missile systems.
A few caveats regarding your consideration of aegis type ships:
- Including JMSDF's helicopter carriers are a bit much I think, they're no more an aegis type warship than Liaoning is simply on the basis of their radar. Including the Akizukis is sensible.
- ROKN is still dilly-dallying on actually building more aegis ships, and their proposed KDDX follow on to KDX-III from DSME has a proposed delivery timeframe of 2023-2027 at the earliest. KDX-IIA seems a bit more solid, but even then the earliest projected service date is 2019.
- The possibility of ROCN buying old aegis ships off USN is a pie in the sky for a host of reasons, with the budget of ROC military being one of the most obvious ones even if we ignore the political consequences of such a sell, not to mention the fact that USN won't be decommissioning aegis ships on a whim if they are still serviceable (or at least congress won't let them).
- The Indian Navy is basically a non entity in the western pacific given they are as much focused on Pakistan and Indian Ocean as China is in western pacific, so the idea that they'll be able to deploy one or two, let alone all their aegis type ships to westpac in a combat situation is unrealistic unless they're operating under the umbrella of a larger coalition (very premature at this point)
So yeah, I'd say by 2020 not including USN China will be facing 10-12 aegis type ships by JMSDF (4 kongos, 2 Atagos, 4 Akizukis, and possibly another 2 aegis ships ala Atago) as the most likely and immediate potential foe. ROK and PRC relations have warmed quite substantially in recent years, but if we do want to consider ROKN as a factor at this point if we hear an announcement of ROKN building a Sejong follow on tomorrow, at most they will have 3 Sejongs and one Sejong follow on, possssssibly two, if they work really fast for a total of 4-5 aegis types of their own by 2020. ROCN and IN aegis type ships are very unlikely to materialize as serious or even realistic threats in the region, so that leaves some 17 aegis type ships by JMSDF and ROKN, 12 if we only include JMSDF given China's fairly warm relations with ROK.
All this aside, I agree with you that the PLAN should be looking to match the combined modern surface combatant capability of its potential competitors, most notably the JMSDF and USN's pacific fleet DESRONs.
One good thing the PLAN has going for it, is its very competitive production rate of destroyers; and if it's sustained will eventually snowball into a similarly fast rate of commissioning. The other factor is a likely plan to develop a frigate with more credible aegis type capabilities in its 054A successor. 054A itself has many features of an aegis type ship and its combat system and CIC is actually heavily derived from 052C's, however it is somewhat hindered by a slow scan rate of its sea eagle radar. An updated 054A with a high scanning APAR and replacing the old hot launch VLS with the new common VLS and a correspondingly overhauled combat system will help PLAN make up the numbers and capability quite comfortably meaning PLAN doesn't need 90 odd 052C/Ds and 055s but can divide that number between 052C/Ds and 055s and also 054As and "054Bs".
Guys, the discussion is getting somewhat off topic. This is the Type 052D/C Thread.
Let's keep the discussion focused there.
We have a separate thread:
PLAN Carrier Strike Group
I am moving the discussion that was leaning towards the total escort group for those types of missions to that thread.
You can find the posts regarding that there, and can continue the discussion there.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS M<DERATION
Let's keep the discussion focused there.
We have a separate thread:
PLAN Carrier Strike Group
I am moving the discussion that was leaning towards the total escort group for those types of missions to that thread.
You can find the posts regarding that there, and can continue the discussion there.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS M<DERATION
I believe that the Type 052D is the Chinese answer to the Flight IIA Burkes. Yes, it has less VLS (64 compared to 96), and a smaller hanger (one helo vs two). But it matches in terms of overall mission and the PLAN is probably going to build a good number of them.
I believe that the Type 055 (which is OT on this thread) is the answer to the US Ticonderoga or other AEGIS cruiser.
But the Type 52D is a significant upgrade for the PLAN, a very good enhancement to the Type 052C, and simple leaps and bounds over earlier PLAN designs.
Any potential adversary is going to have to take those vessels very seriously.
For all of the SKOR, JMSDF, and US vessels with a similar mission (and I am talking about the SeJongs, the Kongos, the Atagos, the Burkes and Ticos) the disparity in total launch tubes climbs pretty high...and for AAW purposes, it is significant.
BNut that goes backl to the missions (particularly the US and JMSDF mission) which would envision having to take on both the PLAN vessels and the PLAN naval air where they will certainly need many more AAW tubes.
The PLABN mission of one that is more of defense...or modest projection down into the SS, where their own Naval land-based air can help with that projection.
So for war at sea purposes, where ASMs become telling the PLAN disparity in VLS tubes will not be as telling because the disparity will simply be offset with the PLAN's very strong land based naval air capability.
This means that the battle space will have to remain in range of them...and I believe that is going to be in keeping with the near to mid term goals of the PLAN in any case. In those time frames and in those circumstances , I believe the Type 052D is going to be a very good player...and that the PLAN has designed them to fit that capability and mission profile.
With them, in numbers of 18-24 or more (and I still believe we may see some "Flights" of the vessel), they PLAN now has the capability to meet those mission profiles and objectives where with other, older vessel type, quite frankly, they did not.
Once they contemplate being able to engage strongly in a battle space reaching further away, out of the range of their land based air, that is where their own growing carrier based air and vessels with more VLS will have to come into play.
Anyhow, I believe that the Type 052D is going to serve the PLAN adequately for the next 2-3 decades, given the parameters I have described.
I believe that the Type 055 (which is OT on this thread) is the answer to the US Ticonderoga or other AEGIS cruiser.
But the Type 52D is a significant upgrade for the PLAN, a very good enhancement to the Type 052C, and simple leaps and bounds over earlier PLAN designs.
Any potential adversary is going to have to take those vessels very seriously.
For all of the SKOR, JMSDF, and US vessels with a similar mission (and I am talking about the SeJongs, the Kongos, the Atagos, the Burkes and Ticos) the disparity in total launch tubes climbs pretty high...and for AAW purposes, it is significant.
BNut that goes backl to the missions (particularly the US and JMSDF mission) which would envision having to take on both the PLAN vessels and the PLAN naval air where they will certainly need many more AAW tubes.
The PLABN mission of one that is more of defense...or modest projection down into the SS, where their own Naval land-based air can help with that projection.
So for war at sea purposes, where ASMs become telling the PLAN disparity in VLS tubes will not be as telling because the disparity will simply be offset with the PLAN's very strong land based naval air capability.
This means that the battle space will have to remain in range of them...and I believe that is going to be in keeping with the near to mid term goals of the PLAN in any case. In those time frames and in those circumstances , I believe the Type 052D is going to be a very good player...and that the PLAN has designed them to fit that capability and mission profile.
With them, in numbers of 18-24 or more (and I still believe we may see some "Flights" of the vessel), they PLAN now has the capability to meet those mission profiles and objectives where with other, older vessel type, quite frankly, they did not.
Once they contemplate being able to engage strongly in a battle space reaching further away, out of the range of their land based air, that is where their own growing carrier based air and vessels with more VLS will have to come into play.
Anyhow, I believe that the Type 052D is going to serve the PLAN adequately for the next 2-3 decades, given the parameters I have described.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I agree Jeff. Speaking stricly from an operating environment standpoint the 052s were designed more for SCS operations and 055 more global in scale. Like I said many times PLAN is very detailed oriented and good at future forcasting. I'm sure it has not lost on them that the PLAN of 2030-2050 would be very different from the PLAN of 2015 in terms of areas of operations. Just like the PLAN of 2015 is vastly different than PLAN of 1995 not just from a sophistication standpoint but areas of operation and power projection
055 is not just bigger for the sake of 'bigness' but will likely have much better crew environment, much better seakeeping abilities not to mention bigger weapons loadout. In the coming decade/s their theater of operations will exceed far beyond SCS deep into the Pacific and well into the Indian ocean etc and their vessels will reflect those capabilities that goes with long haul missions.
That is the next evolutionary step for PLAN. Expanding areas of operations which is seldom talk about.
Yes we've known that JN will be building 8 052Ds and DL 4 052Ds ... each, at least.
Those pictures don't show D7 I think, but possibly D8?
I'll be curious if JN builds a D9 given the current projection is only 8 052Ds for JN before moving onto 055. But if they do continue with 052D while also building 055 (which we should see evidence of soon I think), that would have some implications for the future force structure.
Ultra
Junior Member
China's DDGs Set To Outnumber Neighbors'
By Wendell Minnick 9:19 p.m. EST January 8, 2015
TAIPEI — China's Navy will outnumber the largest competitor in the region — Japan — in the number of phased-array radar-equipped destroyers in 2018, if production continues on schedule.
On Dec. 22, China commissioned its fifth 052C destroyer, the Jinan, leaving one last ship of that type to be finished.
The People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN's) procurement of Luyang-class Type 052C/Ds and Type 055 guided-missile cruisers with phased-array radars will provide long range anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) support to four planned carrier strike groups. They will also provide coverage for high value units such as 20,000-ton Type 081 amphibious assault ships, said Tony Beitinger, vice president of market intelligence for AMI International.
"AMI anticipates that the PLAN will build: six Type 052Cs, eight 052Ds and six Type 055 cruisers. The 052Cs are already in the PLAN inventory while the 052Ds are under construction and will enter service by 2018. The new cruiser design should start construction by 2016 and conclude in 2024."
Toshi Yoshihara, author of the book, "Red Star Over the Pacific," said, excluding the US Navy, this buildup will "tilt the naval balance of power in maritime Asia." The only two other Asian navies with warships of equivalent capability are Japan's, with six phased-array radar-equipped destroyers, with plans to build two more, and the South Korean Navy, with three similar destroyers.
China's new destroyer deployments will "significantly increase the PLAN's ability to operate at distance, with its own AAW capability much improved," said Bernard "Bud" Cole, author of the book, "The Great Wall at Sea." It will make the PLAN more formidable in the face of possible opposition from Japan or other Asian naval and air forces, he said.
The question is whether confidence matches competence. Most sources agree the ships will be no match for destroyers deployed by Japan, South Korea and the US Navy.
"One swallow does not make a spring; neither does any specific vessel make a comprehensive operational picture in the maritime theater," said Ching Chang, a research fellow at Taiwan's ROC Society for Strategic Studies.
"The 052C/Ds have a long way to go in terms of matching the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class," Chang said. "Please check the signal cables' arrangements to the mast and the navigation light allocations on the stern. It is pathetic to spend so much money to build a major combatant with such a low level of industrial discipline."
One-to-one comparisons are problematic, Yoshihara said. "The 052s have to be put in the context of China's unique strategic and operational needs. Individual ship capabilities and total ship numbers may fall short compared to the US Navy. But, the 052s may be good enough for China's local circumstances."
Chang calls it dangerous and lethal to believe that the PLAN will completely emulate the US Navy in either hardware or software.
"The mission role of the 052-class destroyer may not be necessarily identical to any equivalent of other navies," he said.
There are many indications revealing that PLAN exercises with destroyers are conducted differently from the US Navy. "The PLAN surface combatants coordinate intensively with the bombers from either their Navy or aviation units or their [People's Liberation Army Air Force] colleagues." This is also true with their joint operational exercises conducted by surface combatants with their shore missile batteries, fast attack missile boats, and submarines, Chang said.
Chang warned that it might be fun for military fans to compare the 052C/Ds with the Arleigh Burke, but "we should remember that the maritime campaign was not and will not engage pairwise between equivalent combatants."
AMI's Beitinger said that although the 052s are primarily being built for fleet air defense within a larger carrier group force structure, "they also will have the capability to contribute medium/long range air defense of national infrastructure, coastal and offshore, in an integrated national air defense system."
James Holmes, professor of strategy, US Naval War College, said that if China can mass shore- and ship-based armaments against US task forces, the outcome could be very different than what ship-to-ship comparisons imply.
"The naval balance depends on where on the map a confrontation takes place," he said. "In all likelihood, that will be in the China seas or adjacent waters, within reach of shore-based components of Chinese seapower. These are the great equalizer. Or could be if Chinese armaments live up to their billing."
The new destroyers will serve as PLAN's "workhorses," giving the Navy more flexibility, Yoshihara said. Roles include forming surface action groups, joining amphibious task forces, and pickets for carrier strike groups. "In a Taiwan contingency, the 052s could also provide area-wide air defense coverage near or over the island, complicating Taipei's ability to defend its airspace."
Holmes added: "It is true that our Burkes carry more rounds of ammunition, more fuel, and so forth than the Type 052s. But it's also true that PLA Navy task forces will operate under the protective umbrella of shore-based tactical aircraft and missiles. And they will have missile-armed patrol craft and diesel submarines to act as offshore pickets."
Carrier Issues
The 052D and 055 ship construction schedules mirror the three-ship aircraft carrier program underway. The three conventionally powered carriers are to enter service between 2020 and 2024 in addition to the aircraft carrier Liaoning, which entered service in 2012, AMI's Beitinger said.
The multimission 052C/Ds and later the 055 guided-missile cruisers will provide long-range air defense as well as a more balanced AAW/point defense, anti-surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare capability compared to earlier major surface combatant designs.
The PLAN will probably employ one cruiser and two destroyers as part of a carrier strike group or amphibious group, he said.
The PLAN remains in the nascent stages of carrier operations and training and will continue to incrementally integrate additional ships, submarines and aircraft into a strike group structure over the next decade, Beitinger said.
AMI expects regional countries will view these developments as a "significant threat to stability, particularly as the PLAN refines and perfects its ability to operate a carrier or amphibious strike group and project power at sea or over land."
As for the US and Taiwan, "the PLAN will further develop its anti-access/area-denial capabilities using ballistic missiles, submarines and carrier strike groups as part of a layered strategy to control and deny access to areas of the South China Sea and East China Sea," Beitinger said.
Interesting article. What is interesting is this part:
"The 052C/Ds have a long way to go in terms of matching the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class," Chang said. "Please check the signal cables' arrangements to the mast and the navigation light allocations on the stern. It is pathetic to spend so much money to build a major combatant with such a low level of industrial discipline."
What is he talking about? I thought the arrangements are fine.
I saw this article a few months ago and while it is decently intentioned it's a bit of a mess. Their projection of 8 052Ds is way off, and obviously that last part about signal cables and stern navigation lights is ridiculous and confusing. Actually it's just very confusing, there's two or three layers of confusion in that paragraph it's almost embarrassing to pick apart.
So yeah, this isn't really an article I would post in support of any position, apart from maybe that some PLA watchers really need to step up their game.