054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
compared to other countries, China already has just as many if not more shipyards building military ships (US included). The amount of special expertise involved in making a shipyard capable of building certain type of ships takes years to build up. You can't just do it. Where are they going to get that kind of money from? If there is one thing China can't complain about, it would be shipbuilding rates.
The 022s use friction stir type welding with its special aluminum composition. This is an advanced form of welding, and having a number of yards do that across the breadth of the Chinese coast is quite an achievement. You don't have a lot of shipyards around the world doing FSW.
As for large ships and nuclear submarines, the real limit is not imposed by production capability, but rather once they're made, where are you going to put them? Nuclear submarines for example, there isn't that many places you can put them in China. Just by looking at the available bases, caves and piers, you can make a good theoritical estimate to the maximum number of nuclear submarines the PLAN can hold.
Ditto with the larger ships, including DDGs, LPDs, etc,. China can support a lot more smaller ships because there are way more places to dock and service them.
As for expecting newer DDGs, lets hope to see more photographs coming from the new Jiangnan yard, not just aerial shots from airliners, but hopefully within. Although I don't encourage someone to actually do it and do things that would otherwise be unlawful inside China.
As for large ships and nuclear submarines, the real limit is not imposed by production capability, but rather once they're made, where are you going to put them? Nuclear submarines for example, there isn't that many places you can put them in China. Just by looking at the available bases, caves and piers, you can make a good theoritical estimate to the maximum number of nuclear submarines the PLAN can hold.
Ditto with the larger ships, including DDGs, LPDs, etc,. China can support a lot more smaller ships because there are way more places to dock and service them.
As for expecting newer DDGs, lets hope to see more photographs coming from the new Jiangnan yard, not just aerial shots from airliners, but hopefully within. Although I don't encourage someone to actually do it and do things that would otherwise be unlawful inside China.
That is another thing I want to quote at, China aims to posses blue water Navy, it has and must expand its nuclear submarine bases.. US Navy operates more than or almost 70 nuclear powered submarine.
Atleast it would be nice to see PLAN operating 4 or 6 Nuclear powered Ballistic Missile submarines and about 12 or 24 Nuclear powered attack submarine.
It will surely gives PLAN more capability to retaliate in a larger amount of Submarine Ballistic Missile Launches. And really good underwater fighting capabilities...
I don't think a handful of submarines are enough, but I am not also pushing PLAN to have these numbers right away. Since they are developing even better submarines.
What I am pointing out was expansion of overall capacity of shipyards and bases.
Maggern
Junior Member
It is important so see the relativity here. China does not need 11 or 12 carrier battle groups, 100 ssbns and 200 surface ships to actually reach its goals. The US will not assign everything they have to beat down a Chinese attack on Taiwan, or anything else in the near seas. The US has global interests, the safety of transfer through the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Malacca...China does not
First and foremost, China needs a submarine force that is capable of at least giving the illusion of a nuclear threat. Nuclear weapons are not realistic to really use, their value is in the mere presence of themselves. All China needs the next ten or twenty years is for the US to realize that they will not be able to contain China in the China Seas ,and that a global presence with global deterrence is not a realistic or even a practical choice as of now.
The same is the situation for ordinary SSNs. They do not need to sink all US nuclear subs. If they sink 90% in 2009, the US will have a hard time. It's simply not yet a battle between to nations of equal powers, equal ambitions or even interests. You have to compare US interests in the Western Pacific and China's interest. Only then can you reach a realistic goal for a submarine force.
First and foremost, China needs a submarine force that is capable of at least giving the illusion of a nuclear threat. Nuclear weapons are not realistic to really use, their value is in the mere presence of themselves. All China needs the next ten or twenty years is for the US to realize that they will not be able to contain China in the China Seas ,and that a global presence with global deterrence is not a realistic or even a practical choice as of now.
The same is the situation for ordinary SSNs. They do not need to sink all US nuclear subs. If they sink 90% in 2009, the US will have a hard time. It's simply not yet a battle between to nations of equal powers, equal ambitions or even interests. You have to compare US interests in the Western Pacific and China's interest. Only then can you reach a realistic goal for a submarine force.
Right now, with three bases, I can speculate that Jianggezhuang base can hold about 6 to 8 subs, Xiaopingdao will hold about 2 subs, and Linying at Hainan will hold about 6 to 8 subs. That's around 14 to a max of 18. As a note, the conventional submarines don't share the same bases and berthing facilities as the nuclear subs. Even in Hainan, the SSKs assigned there are not staying in the same base as the nuclear subs but on another base close to it.
You can increase the numbers by assuming that subs are going to do rotation; some will be in the docks, some on on the caves and piers and some will be in patrol constantly. Still, not that much, probably raise the numbers to 25 or even 30 if you're optimistic. In short, that's some limited base infrastructure you have there to hold a large blue seas fleet.
Applied to other ships, I cannot see anymore than two locations where China can hold an aircraft carrier. That means with the current base infrastructure, you can only hold two at most. Larger DDGs might also be limited in their maximum numbers. Littoral ships on the other hand is easy, so China can actually maintain large numbers of smaller ships like the FACs.
Without some major infrastructure development and new bases, the PLAN isn't going to grow much larger than one of the larger European navies.
You can increase the numbers by assuming that subs are going to do rotation; some will be in the docks, some on on the caves and piers and some will be in patrol constantly. Still, not that much, probably raise the numbers to 25 or even 30 if you're optimistic. In short, that's some limited base infrastructure you have there to hold a large blue seas fleet.
Applied to other ships, I cannot see anymore than two locations where China can hold an aircraft carrier. That means with the current base infrastructure, you can only hold two at most. Larger DDGs might also be limited in their maximum numbers. Littoral ships on the other hand is easy, so China can actually maintain large numbers of smaller ships like the FACs.
Without some major infrastructure development and new bases, the PLAN isn't going to grow much larger than one of the larger European navies.
Londo Molari
Junior Member
Is this the Type 054 thread?
Some pictures from HP shipyard showing that the 3rd 054A from there is about to be launched. It's kind of interesting to see the some of the sensors on this pictures. I can't see them too clearly, but I get the feel that the sensors and minor weapon systems are slightly different from previous ones. Also, it seems bridge looks a little different. I still can't see the aft-mast, so I don't know what's going on there.