052C/052D Class Destroyers

Instead of counting numbers we should care about quality more. The bulk of USN are cold war stocks. I believe a smaller but more advanced navy can take on larger outdated navy.

A smaller but more capable navy is capable of blue sea operation. The fighting capability will be equal or greater than USN in few years. They can make do with less numbers because there is no global deployment that necessitate large number. 50 Destroyers + 4 carriers concentrated in Asia Pacific is actually incredible force density. Sufficient to have total control over regions between Japan to Indonesia. If it grows any larger, then it is a sign of expanding control further beyond those regions.

Tomboy said:

IMO in 10 years China could potentially have half has much carriers as USN assuming 004 goes well theres nothing stopping them from building two carriers at once if the situation calls for it since the 004 design is already proven. Plus next generation DDG would likely start surfacing in late 2020s after atleast one more batch of 052Ds, by the time when next gen DDGs form any considerable numbers PLAN could have enough carriers in service to allow true blue water ops anywhere. Never hurts to plan ahead anyways

Click to expand...

Your scenario in 10 year's time still has the US Navy with a carrier fleet which is 2x larger than China.

So in blue water operations, without outside support, we're highly likely to see catastrophic losses amongst the Chinese Navy.

AndrewS said:

Your scenario in 10 year's time still has the US Navy with a carrier fleet which is 2x larger than China.

So in blue water operations, without outside support, we're highly likely to see catastrophic losses amongst the Chinese Navy.

Click to expand...

A load of codswallop! you have not read mcuh about China's navy and its planning!

AndrewS said:

Your scenario in 10 year's time still has the US Navy with a carrier fleet which is 2x larger than China.

So in blue water operations, without outside support, we're highly likely to see catastrophic losses amongst the Chinese Navy.

Click to expand...

Carriers are the sole means for USN to deliver offensive payloads against adversial surface assets, but the same is not true for the PLAN.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Carriers are the sole means for USN to deliver offensive payloads against adversial surface assets, but the same is not true for the PLAN.

Click to expand...

Carrier aircraft are not just about offensive payloads.
Far more important is the air superiority and reconnaissance mission.

10 years is realistically just not enough time to build a large enough fleet of aircraft carriers.

But I do expect that in 20 years, the Chinese Navy will have a larger carrier force than the US Navy.

AndrewS said:

Carrier aircraft are not just about offensive payloads.
Far more important is the air superiority and reconnaissance mission.

10 years is realistically just not enough time to build a large enough fleet of aircraft carriers.

But I do expect that in 20 years, the Chinese Navy will have a larger carrier force than the US Navy.

Click to expand...

You're assumptions that the number of carriers will be the decisive factor in a blue water engagement is based on over simplistic and outdated model of thinking.

HardBall said:

Probably not necessary for the mission set, as long as quad-packing of shorter-range munitions are possible. Not really a great from cost perspective.

Keep in mind that other classes of destroyers that have 90+ VLS usually have additional missions where they are the primary combatant, such as TLAM or SM-3. If you already have a large surface ship like type 055, there is generally no need for your smaller surface combatants to be packed to the gills with missiles.

If you can have 64 tubes, with 32 long range SAMs, another 32 quad-packed short range SAMs, and 24 more for anti-ship and ASW rockets, that should be more than enough for most missions.

Click to expand...

Considering UVLS is very big 850mm, significantly bigger than US MK-1. So there might not only quad-packed possibility, could be more, like 5 or 6 or more missiles per VLS. And potentially 2 big (but smaller than regular) in one UVLS. @Blitzo has done sketch in the past

AndrewS said:

Your scenario in 10 year's time still has the US Navy with a carrier fleet which is 2x larger than China.

So in blue water operations, without outside support, we're highly likely to see catastrophic losses amongst the Chinese Navy.

Click to expand...

The key is SSN which China is still behind the USN, but in 10 years time I think with more 093B and new 095, China will be very very powerful in SSN

FriedRiceNSpice said:

You're assumptions that the number of carriers will be the decisive factor in a blue water engagement is based on over simplistic and outdated model of thinking.

Click to expand...

Air superiority is outdated?

AndrewS said:

Air superiority is outdated?

Click to expand...

There won't be air superiority if the carriers get damaged or sunk