055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Sorry, but that's really not an accurate statement
Originally the DDX, then the DD21, and finally the DDG-1000 the program was going to be a class of 32 ships, with the large R&D spread out over that entire build. The R&D that has gone on with the Zumwalts is simply amazing stuff, and will be a game changer for the Zumwalts, as well as other vessels who will make use of that technology in the future.
But now, it has to be spread over three ships...not 32. So saying it is "procurement gone wild," as if though each ship will cost $7 billion is just not dealing with the realities of the situation as it developed.
Now, in 2013, the actual cost of the USS Zumwalt, DDG-1000, is going to come in at about $3.5 billion dollars. The second, the USS Monsoor, DDG-1002, is now expected tp cost $2.5 billion, and the third, USS Lyndon Johnson, DDG-1002, is now expected to come in at just over $2 billion. That's a total of $8 billion for all three ships, each of which is a 14,500 ton, high-tech cruiser sized fighting vessel with absolute cutting edge technology.
That's will be an average of $2.66 billion per vessel, which is high, but when you compare it to the $1.2 billion unitary cost for the 9,400 ton Arleigh Burke IIA, it is not terribly out of kilter, especially, as I say, since the build was cut back to just three vessels.

My $0.02 is that the only honest way to present costs is total program cost. This applies to the Zumwait as well as any other country's program. A dollar (or yuan or euro) spent is still a dollar on the bottom line.

Suppose if China spent $6 billion to build 6 x 052C DDG's and the R&D cost is another $6 billion. No matter how much the Chinese Navy want to say that the R&D benefited the later 052D class, or that the program ended with just 6 ships, the honest figure is still $12 billion ($2 billion per unit) to the taxpayers who paid for it.
 

drunkmunky

Junior Member
I would much rather the PLAN halt new destroyer construction and focus on carriers, to allow the Type 55 to develop technologies based on the operation of the Type 52D.

That's my 2cents. Wait and see, be cautious as to how and what kind of mistakes are made by the U.S.

iirc littorial 5 has had a lot of issues, as has another naval program that I don't seem to recall off the top of my head, maybe it's the Ford carrier cost escalation.

Rushing out a Type 55 chassis without the technological advance is pointless imo other than regional positioning and geopolitical power based off of military strength, something that is already extremely escalated at the moment.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Suppose if China spent $6 billion to build 6 x 052C DDG's and the R&D cost is another $6 billion. No matter how much the Chinese Navy want to say that the R&D benefited the later 052D class, or that the program ended with just 6 ships, the honest figure is still $12 billion ($2 billion per unit) to the taxpayers who paid for it.
1st, the R&D costs that were suposed to be split among 32 vessels were only split among 3...so that makes a huge difference whatever portion you amortize over those vessels.

2nd if other vessels directly use those systems that were developed with the Type 052C in your scenario, then the cost for those systems can justifiably be amortized over those other vessels too. Whether it is the APARs, the new VLS cells, the 130mm gun, etc., etc. If there is success in R&D that benefits later systems, the justification for the R&D extends to those systems. This is not an unusual practise.
 
Last edited:

FarkTypeSoldier

Junior Member
I would much rather the PLAN halt new destroyer construction and focus on carriers, to allow the Type 55 to develop technologies based on the operation of the Type 52D.

That's my 2cents. Wait and see, be cautious as to how and what kind of mistakes are made by the U.S.

iirc littorial 5 has had a lot of issues, as has another naval program that I don't seem to recall off the top of my head, maybe it's the Ford carrier cost escalation.

Rushing out a Type 55 chassis without the technological advance is pointless imo other than regional positioning and geopolitical power based off of military strength, something that is already extremely escalated at the moment.

I dont think the PLAN would halt its new destroyers such as 052D, the latest 052C no. 152 Jinan are months away from deploying and when the last 052D are built, the matured hull might just be a main chasis for 055 and to be developed beyond. Technologocial advances are going progressively and steadily for China and its defence force.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
I'm still of the belief the USN should have requested a more conservative ship.
Conventional flared hull as big as zumwalt is now, but cut the AGS and PVLS, design the deckhouse a little more conventionally, and ignore all aspect stealth.
Stick in as many Mk-41 VLS as they can, with a forward Mk-45 gun, and DBR or AMDR, powered with zumwalt's same IEPS.
There they got a CGX probably at significantly lower cost than zumwalt, with more firepower too, and most importantly, can perform a realistic and necessary mission.

Perhaps, but lets give the Zumwalt (as to mission deploy) a chance and see what this bad boy can do.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I would much rather the PLAN halt new destroyer construction and focus on carriers, to allow the Type 55 to develop technologies based on the operation of the Type 52D.

That's my 2cents. Wait and see, be cautious as to how and what kind of mistakes are made by the U.S.

iirc littorial 5 has had a lot of issues, as has another naval program that I don't seem to recall off the top of my head, maybe it's the Ford carrier cost escalation.

Rushing out a Type 55 chassis without the technological advance is pointless imo other than regional positioning and geopolitical power based off of military strength, something that is already extremely escalated at the moment.

That would be true IF the US and China are enemies and are at each other's throats constantly matching each others tech ship to ship and every other military equipment, like the former Soviet Union and the US during the cold war.

The PLAN and US Navy are like apples and oranges in comparison with such different mission concepts. Even as China develops it's navy further to become a true blue water navy with carriers that doesn't mean their mission is primarily to hunt or track US ships and vice verse. Because that would be very expensive and costly for both sides. Look what happened to Soviet Russia? Plus the Soviet didn't have the advantage of an integrated economy with the US like China has right now thanks to globalization and changes to the global economic trades.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
1st, the R&D costs that were suposed to be split among 32 vessels were only split among 3...so that makes a huge difference whatever portion you amortize over those vessels.

2nd if other vessels directly use those susyems that were developed developing the TYpe 052C in your scenario, then the cost for those systems can justifiably be amortized over those other vessels too. Whether it is the APARs, the new VLS cells, the 130mm gun, etc., etc. If there is success in R&D that benefits later systems, the justification for the R&D extends to those systems. This is not an unusual practise.

R&D cost in China' military is funded somewhere else, is not part of defence budget, also foreign purchases is not part of it either
 

Preux

Junior Member
I would much rather the PLAN halt new destroyer construction and focus on carriers, to allow the Type 55 to develop technologies based on the operation of the Type 52D.

That's my 2cents. Wait and see, be cautious as to how and what kind of mistakes are made by the U.S.

iirc littorial 5 has had a lot of issues, as has another naval program that I don't seem to recall off the top of my head, maybe it's the Ford carrier cost escalation.

Rushing out a Type 55 chassis without the technological advance is pointless imo other than regional positioning and geopolitical power based off of military strength, something that is already extremely escalated at the moment.

Military procurement isn't Civilization V, except in the matter of budget allocation, industrial and research capacity allocated for specific programmes are not freely transferable. China has one very efficient destroyer yard, two strong frigate yards and one destroyer yard that we haven't seen working for a long time, two sonar research facilities, two main radar & EW consortia and about three missile research and production complexes all of which would provide good support for a hypothetical cruiser... carriers, both in terms of shipbuilding, materials, naval architecture and pretty much everything else would only have so much overlap, so you can't even say halt construction to work on carriers, it isn't a sensible position to take.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
I'll reply here rather than in 054a thread.

What seems certain about 055: that it will bear the designation 055. While that seems very silly to point out, i wrote it here to accentuate the certainity of an incoming project. PLAN's history doesn't seem to care if the next surface combatant is a corvette, frigate or destroyer. They all get 05x designations, in historical order as the development projects get started.

Knowing that, and knowing that 056 is already building, it is quite likely 055 project has been started before anything even came of 056 project. Also, it came sometime after 054 project (but not necessarily after 054a project). Since all these projects are of different complexity, it is quite possible/likely they each need a different amount of time to complete R&D, design etc.

Maybe 054 was always planned to be 054a, from the start. But perhaps VLS and some other systems weren't ready. But hull and propulsion were. So we got a test batch some years in advance.

In the same sense, maybe 055 is in design and development since 2005. or whenever. And maybe, just maybe, the whole project is running late. Late in the sense that 052d is to 055 what 054 was to 054a, only in reverse. Meaning certain subsystems were ready, like VLS and radar suite, but propulsion/transmission werent ready. And without them one can't really make the hull either. While this is all just guessing, granted, there are cues and precedents for it. We know China has had problems with gas turbines, and even more so specifically with turboshafts. And marine turbines could be regarded as really big turboshafts.

What if 052d is really somewhat of an uplanned version? Maybe back in mid 2000s or whenever 055 was started, 052d didnt even exist as a plan. But its development got prolongued and PLAN leadership really wanted the new toys - radar/vls etc. So an interim solution was created.

Moving onto the next point. Does 055 has to be a large combatant? No real evidence is there for it, but i would agree here it is most likely. 054 is fairly recent, as is 056. So we have smaller end of future fleet covered. What is left is destroyers, which China does lack in numbers (One cant call Ludas destroyers really) and 052 hull/propulsion is of older design than 054 and dates to 052b, which would make it some 15 years old.

So, knowing that even the 052d does sport a pretty old fashioned hull, and knowing there's still relatively few destroyers, it's likely 055 is going to be a destroyer sized ship. If indeed development started sometime in the middle of last decade or perhaps latter years of last decade, it's also plausible we should see that ship within next few years.

I proposed before that 052d was perhaps a result of a 055 delay. There may be more explanations. Maybe 052d is a budget version of 055, if 055 was decided to be too expensive to be procured in large numbers. In my opinion that's still a bit less likely version as it'd still leave 052d with an old class hull, not really suited for a modern day destroyer. If true, it'd mean we could see yet another new class of destroyer soon, in addition to 055. IF 055 is a 12000 ton behemoth (which we don't know, no proof yet) then a whole new class of technologically similar but size-wise a bit smaller destroyer is plausible. But frankly, so many different classes and subclasses launched within a decade or so all performing similar roles doesn't seem too likely.

As a final side note, is it not possible CCTV made a mistake when they said 6400 was full displacement of 052c? cctv isn't always accurate, plus the matter of displacement is really often mixed up even in serious military publications. Comparing with other ships in history and their sizes, 052c really does look as if 6400 would be its basic displacement. Unless the ship has a record shallow draft. Which, when takes into accoun the heavy systems and superstructure it sports - doesn't seem likely.
 

drunkmunky

Junior Member
For me, the type 52D is already on par with other advanced destroyers around the world.

I would like to see development in its operation and electronic warfare capabilities but I'm under the impression that those types of development require use and review.

It took a couple of years of operating the 52C before the 52D started construction. It makes sense for me that the development of the Type 55 would take the same period of time, as per previous comments regarding the industrialized military process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top