055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[no_name]

I think it shows individuality. You would think there would be no feuds and everyone would get along nicely if - as some claimed - Chinese internet is tightly controlled and those forums are sponsored/backed by the government.

Still, why the watermarks, why~?

 

[Engineer]

Chinese weapon industry isn't really famous for its automation compared to other countries. If 055 is really going to be around 11,000 tons or even the extreme 13,000 tons, it would be comparable to King Sejong Great Class Destroyer. It's the latest batch of the Arleigh Burke, yet it still require 300-400 crews (according to Wiki). Even the super avant-garde Type 45 has regular crew size of 191. It's able to have so few crews due to much smaller displacement and its avant-garde internals, mostly electric with high level of automation.

Judging by PLAN's relative conservatism with utilizing new technologies, 055 probably won't be near the level of Type 45, probably most likely to be similar to later batch of Arleigh Burkes. If so, given the rumoured displacement of 13,000 tons, each ship would require at leat 300-350 crews. Then multiplied by 30, that's minimum 10,000 plus another 3000 to 4000 needed for rotations.

There is no evidence to support the notion that "Chinese weapon industry isn't really famous for its automation compared to other countries". In the old days when automation is not possible or affordable, the equipments that were manufactured are certainly not automated. When you look at modern Chinese equipments, they are as automated and sometime more automate than their Western counterparts. As one example, Chinese employs auto-loader in tanks, whereas the British and American are still using manual loading.

That sort of bias is what resulted in the ridiculous crew complement of 300~400 that you quoted. People conjure up crew size for Chinese ships simply by multiplying crew size on Western ships by a fudge factor of 1.5~2. When we look at actual crew complement on ships such as Liaoning carrier, we wee a complement of 1,000 (probably not including personnel for the air wings), which is much less than on Russian and American carriers. This indicates a higher level of automation on Chinese ships.

15 years isn't really that long. Training a generation of experienced and capable sailors require minimum 7 - 8 years. Even if China starts now, that's only 2 training batches. Considering this, each batch will be about 6000 - 8000 students. Does China even have that many naval academies to train this many sailors at the same time? Especially considering that they will be trained towards using the same equipments?

Why would China only starts the trainings for 052D now, and on top of that starts with completely new recruits? Such assumptions make no sense whatsoever.

Even if that's achieved, which isn't too hard given China's enormous resources, that means PLAN will have 30 055's on top the 28+ modern destroyers (including 052 and newer). That's about 60 - 65 (if more 052D's are built) modern destroyers in the PLAN. Then adding on another 33 modern frigates that's already in service, that's about close to 100 modern warships. Even USN only has 84 current surface combatants (Cruiser + Destroyer). A lot of those are retiring so the new addtions of Arleigh Burkes will only maintain the current status quo. Does China really need that many big warships? Considering it's not the world police nor is it going to "liberate" any rogue states.

You answered your own question. 60~65 ships will clearly be less than 84 that USN has.

When digging deep into the matter and really thinking about it, the claim of 30 ships in 15 years becomes a bit too overwhelming to take-in.

By no means am I saying China won't have a big navy. China will become a formiddable power along with the US to form the new duopoly and it will have an armadda to match it. However, this takes time and the advancement will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

When you say 30 ships in 15 years, that's just 2 ships per year. That's the build-rate for 054A class, and this rate excludes all other military ships that China is also building. I fail to see what is so overwhelming about this.

 

[Preux]

Guys I'll explain why the above photos are excessively flooded with watermarks.

There's great amount of rivalry and hatred between CDF and HSH forum. And it started off because some members in CDF re-posted HSH's photos but removed the watermark. Later on even the super moderators start to step in and accuse the other party, and it got so bad between them such that nowadays even mentioning the other forum's name will get your account banned or deleted.

Don't you mean CJDBY? CDF isn't really on HSH's radar as far as I know.

 

[Skywatcher]

That sort of bias is what resulted in the ridiculous crew complement of 300~400 that you quoted. People conjure up crew size for Chinese ships simply by multiplying crew size on Western ships by a fudge factor of 1.5~2. When we look at actual crew complement on ships such as Liaoning carrier, we wee a complement of 1,000 (probably not including personnel for the air wings), which is much less than on Russian and American carriers. This indicates a higher level of automation on Chinese ships.

Umm, where did you get the Liaoning 1,000 crew figure from?

And claiming that the Liaoning is more "automated" than the Nimitz is simply ridiculous. The Nimitz has 3,200 crew for the ship only, but those crew do a lot more functions that a lot of the Liaoning doesn't have.

 

[xiabonan]

Don't you mean CJDBY? CDF isn't really on HSH's radar as far as I know.

Sorry my mistake. CJDBY that is

 

[Blitzo]

Umm, where did you get the Liaoning 1,000 crew figure from?

And claiming that the Liaoning is more "automated" than the Nimitz is simply ridiculous. The Nimitz has 3,200 crew for the ship only, but those crew do a lot more functions that a lot of the Liaoning doesn't have.

I think verum's conclusions about the "lack" of automation on chinese ships and his thoughts about training time and structure are incorrect, however I also think the quoted part of engineer's rebuttal is also on shaky ground.

 

[Skywatcher]

I think verum's conclusions about the "lack" of automation on chinese ships and his thoughts about training time and structure are incorrect, however I also think the quoted part of engineer's rebuttal is also on shaky ground.

Agreed.

Though it'd be nicer to have some more crewers than the minimum level that automation theoretically allows you to get away with (more bodies are good for firefighting and other damage control activities).

 

[Lezt]

Umm, where did you get the Liaoning 1,000 crew figure from?

And claiming that the Liaoning is more "automated" than the Nimitz is simply ridiculous. The Nimitz has 3,200 crew for the ship only, but those crew do a lot more functions that a lot of the Liaoning doesn't have.

I think Engineer got it here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Q: What is the official organization of the aircraft carrier "Liaoning ship"? And how many personnel it has?

A: The aircraft carrier "Liaoning ship" is established as a division-level ship and staffed with 1,000-plus personnel.

It could be a lost in translation for 1000s or it could be that right now the carrier have a reduced crew.

 

[latenlazy]

It could be a lost in translation for 1000s or it could be that right now the carrier have a reduced crew.

Given that the Liaoning isn't fully operational with a complete air wing etc etc, I wouldn't expect it to have its max or usual complement.

 

[rhino123]

Actually it doesn't matter how many crews Liaoning has. Comparing it to the number of crews the US carriers has just doesn't make much sense. US carrier is bigger (much bigger), carries more aircraft, etc. Thus, with a reduced number of crews in Liaoning, doesn't actually meant Liaoning is more automated as compared to US carrier. Either way, it also doesn't make any sense for anyone claiming China had lesser degree of automation on their ships because there simply is no data that can be found easily, and without any solid information, how was anyone to proof that the Chinese had lesser degree of automation? That made no sense whatsoever.