055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I wonder about the same subject so I consider these possibilities:
A) 4 classes (055, 052, 054, 056)
B) 3 classes (055/052 single replacement, 054, 056)
C) 3 classes (055, 052/054 single replacement, 056)
D) 3 classes (055, 052, 054/056 single replacement)
The single replacements would be towards the heavier side.

On one hand China faces potential opponents with a diverse range of capabilities, likely to significantly improve at the low end, as well as a diverse range of potential conflict intensity concentrated close to its periphery but likely to involve expeditionary opponents with cutting edge capabilities.

On the other hand while China has caught up at the high end of capabilities a lot it still needs to invest a lot more of its ultimately limited resources in high end areas in at least the air and sea domains relevant to its potential maritime conflicts where its capabilities are deficient, non-existent, or must keep pace i.e. large DDG/CG, LHD/LHA/CV, specialized naval aviation, rotary naval aviation, airlift, LR bombers, a variety of next gen technologies. Not to mention low end but large scale improvements needed for its amphibious/naval ground forces.

In order to balance and meet these needs I think C) above would make the most sense with the 056/replacement also skewing heavier/more capable. While if I understand correctly you are suggesting B) above as more likely if the 055 is of lesser specs than expected.

I see the future as being B rather than C. The Type 52 and Type 54 have different functions, which radically changes the cost. Even if they shared the same hill design.

Remember that China already overmatches everyone else combined at the low end in the Western Pacific (coast guard and routine naval presence with the Type 56). So even if potential low end adversaries improve, it doesn't make any difference.

So it is the high-end that China needs to focus on, yes.
 

Lethe

Captain
To be able to claim being on track, a timescale must really be included in the equation, otherwise it just becomes so loose as to be meaningless.

The timescale is the 30+ year service life of a surface combatant. Beyond that, new ships are replacing older ships. A sustained commissioning rate of one destroyer per year will support a fleet of ~30 destroyers, two per year supports ~60 destroyers, and three per year ~90 destroyers.

Remember that China already overmatches everyone else combined at the low end in the Western Pacific (coast guard and routine naval presence with the Type 56). So even if potential low end adversaries improve, it doesn't make any difference.

056 and even 022 are high-end assets within their limited domains, especially when supported by land-based assets and/or larger vessels.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The timescale is the 30+ year service life of a surface combatant. Beyond that, new ships are replacing older ships. A sustained commissioning rate of one destroyer per year will support a fleet of ~30 destroyers, two per year supports ~60 destroyers, and three per year ~90 destroyers.

Yes, but we have no way to predict how long a production rate will likely be sustained for, unless we have credible rumours or other such information to help guide us.

For example, for all we know they might build/commission 3 055s per year for only 10 years, and then not build any for another 10 years or something.




As for discussions about fleet structure, timespan must be considered.

for example, I can envision a three tier blue water capable fleet of large destroyer, destroyer and frigate being the primary make up of the blue water surface fleet until the mid to late 2020s, but by that time I wouldn't be surprised if they changed it up to something different, like possibly a two tier blue water capable fleet of only having large destroyers and large frigates.


056s should not be considered part of the discussion in regards to blue water capable surface combatants.​
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
I wonder about the same subject so I consider these possibilities:
A) 4 classes (055, 052, 054, 056)
B) 3 classes (055/052 single replacement, 054, 056)
C) 3 classes (055, 052/054 single replacement, 056)
D) 3 classes (055, 052, 054/056 single replacement)
Actually now that I think about, I don't believe B) to be a viable option. If there are going to be only two classes of blue water surface combatants, there is not going to be a "055/052" single replacement, it will just be a 055 or a variant of the 055.

I think the more likely possibilities are as follows:
A): 3 classes: 055/A (112 VLS), 052C/D/E (64 or 80 VLS), 054A/B (32 VLS)
B): 2 classes: 055/A (112 VLS), 054A/B (32-48 VLS)

Of these, the possibility of A) and B) is 100% and 0%, respectively, for the next 30-40 years. After that period of time the choice between A) and B) will become more relevant as the first 052C/D ships start to retire. Even if they stop building the 052 series some time in the next several years we won't know if they plan on replacing this class with a similarly-sized ship until it's almost time to retire this class, which won't happen for at least another 25-30 years from now; this is assuming they plan on keeping relatively constant 052C/D levels. OTOH if a "052E" starts popping out right after 052D stops, we'll know what type of structure the PLAN is planning. The only other exception to this uncertainty is if once the 052 class stops building the 055 build rate starts accelerating. That would also certainly be an augur of the times ahead.
 

Lethe

Captain
Yes, but we have no way to predict how long a production rate will likely be sustained for, unless we have credible rumours or other such information to help guide us.

For example, for all we know they might build/commission 3 055s per year for only 10 years, and then not build any for another 10 years or something.​
That is why one would say e.g. that PLAN is "on track for a ~60 destroyer fleet" rather than that "PLAN is building towards a fleet of 60 destroyers and will achieve this number by 2040". The second assumes knowledge and expresses confidence that the first does not. Again, consider how the term is used in sports. "He's on track to break the lap record!" does not mean "he will break the lap record" or even that it is likely that he will break the lap record. It means only that his performance to date is such that, if it is maintained, he will break the lap record.

Extrapolating from induction rates already achieved (as the "on track" phrase does, conditionally) falls far short of knowledge about the future, but it is nonetheless qualitatively different from the circumstance today whereby a claim that PLAN will build 90+ destroyers implies an induction rate that has yet to be demonstrated over even a short span of time, let alone a long one. My contention is that in the case where PLAN has demonstrated an induction rate of 3+ destroyers per year for three successive years, it would be reasonable for the figure of "90+ destroyers" to enter the conversation (in the same way that the lap record enters the conversation) as a possible future outcome, whereas today it is not reasonable.

I would expect a degree of consistency in PLAN build/induction rates because it has the requirements and resources to sustain such consistency, and because consistency aids industry (both affordability and maintenance of strategic skillsets) and maintenance of the force structure. That is not to say there will not be gaps, or periods of acceleration/deceleration according to politico-economic-technical circumstances of the moment.​
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That is why one would say e.g. that PLAN is "on track for a ~60 destroyer fleet" rather than that "PLAN is building towards a fleet of 60 destroyers and will achieve this number by 2040". The second assumes knowledge and expresses confidence that the first does not. Again, consider how the term is used in sports. "He's on track to break the lap record!" does not mean "he will break the lap record" or even that it is likely that he will break the lap record. It means only that his performance to date is such that, if it is maintained, he will break the lap record.​

Hmm I think starting such a sentence with "on track to" has subtext within it inherently suggesting such a rate of construction (or running speed or whatever) will be maintained for a given duration.

In the case of what we are talking about, I do not think it is safe for us to not explicitly make that qualifier clear, because otherwise it will make one assume that the rate of construction will continue to be maintained for that given duration.


I would expect a degree of consistency in PLAN build/induction rates because it has the requirements and resources to sustain such consistency, and because consistency aids industry (both affordability and maintenance of strategic skillsets) and maintenance of the force structure. That is not to say there will not be gaps, or periods of acceleration/deceleration according to politico-economic-technical circumstances of the moment.

That is a reasonable premise to argue for, however I think at this stage we cannot confidently say that there will be a duration where the Navy will have consistent annual build/induction rates for us to infer that if the Navy does end up building/inducting 3 055s per year that it will continue for a decade or more or what not.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Extrapolating from induction rates already achieved (as the "on track" phrase does, conditionally) falls far short of knowledge about the future, but it is nonetheless qualitatively different from the circumstance today whereby a claim that PLAN will build 90+ destroyers implies an induction rate that has yet to be demonstrated over even a short span of time, let alone a long one. My contention is that in the case where PLAN has demonstrated an induction rate of 3+ destroyers per year for three successive years, it would be reasonable for the figure of "90+ destroyers" to enter the conversation (in the same way that the lap record enters the conversation) as a possible future outcome, whereas today it is not reasonable.

I see, well I can understand the logic behind that, but I think even with 3+ destroyers per year for three successive years, it would be a bit much to start talking about 90+ destroyers, unless there are additional credible rumours suggesting that may be the case.
 
DMJV0B-V4AArz3b.jpg

source, well ...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Some musings on the large chinese VLS system and its viability for frigate and corvette sized ships:

What are the roles of such ships in PLAN? Since long range AAW and cruise missile attack seems to be served by destroyers, frigates seem to be relegated to an ASW role, local area AAW and some general antishipping capability. Corvettes seem to be tasked with ASW and antishipping. Both also require some missile self defense capability, with corvettes not required to be as potent in that regard as frigates.

Thus, what is needed for frigates? Efficent way to store local area defense SAMs, ASW missiles, Antishipping missiles and perhaps some longer reach self defense missiles. (longer reach than HQ10 offers)

If frigates are to use the new, common VLS system, what needs to be done to fully utilize their potential on such ships? A new weapon, instead of HQ16 is definitely needed, as HQ16 is just awkwardly and inefficiently sized for the new VLS.

While China can devise a missile of their own or is maybe already testing such missiles, let me just pick one existing missile as perfect design for our VLS. Russian made 9M96 missiles. It is fairly compact, only 15 or so cm longer than HQ16 in its boostered, long range variant. It would fit the 7m long variant without any issues, length wise. Or PLAN could devise another length of its VLS - basically as long as the VLS on 054a, with slightly bigger protrusion over the deck.

Retrofitting existing 054a with such new VLS would enable 16 cells being installed forward, with some room/weight to spare around the entire new VLS module. Depending on exact size of its missiles and their launch method, such modernized 054a could feature 2 to 4 Yu8 rocket launched torpedoes per cell and/or 3-4 9M96 sized missiles per cell. That'd amount to, say, 8-16 Yu-8 and 36-48 9M96 comaparable missiles. (and the 8 slanted antiship missile launchers)

If one wanted to do a little bit more tinkering underneath those 054a and change the footprint of its VLS well, 20 cells could fit up front, if a new 4 cell module was devised. And by changing the footprint i don't mean increasing overall area but managing its width and length.

Some new, elongated 056 variant could also house such VLS, even if just 4 cells. That would still give it some decent Yu8 capability. Or if the variant is made a little bigger, then even a proper 8 cell could be installed, with half of the cells being self defense 3.3 m long ones, probably nicely packed with missiles.

Again, designing a custom made missile would be more efficient. Using a Tor like missile would not use the entire length of the VLS, but its width would prevent more than 4 missiles being packed. Using CAMM like missile design/capabilities would enable at least 6 if not 8 missiles to be packed inside.)
Of course, the tech may not be there yet to get CAMM like capabilities from such a small size. But eventually the tech will get there.
 

delft

Brigadier
Th number of destroyers needed will depend to some extent on the number of ships of other types, aircraft carriers, LHD, LPD. USN could use a small number of huge aircraft carriers because of its large superiority over the Soviet fleet. With the development of new long range weapons against aircraft carriers by several countries and the fact that the Chinese fleet will remain to be much smaller than USN it might be better for China to develop smaller carriers possibly of several kinds which all will need escorts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top