055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

The USN is "ordering" more LCS than they need. Or to be more precise, its the US Congress that is doing the ordering for them. Wait, they are being "forced" into a 355 ship navy no matter what it takes, whether you want to keep older ships longer or cut out ballistic submarines for smaller, less expensive surface vessels, and all these are not being done in view of tactical requirements. They are given a shoe and they are forced to fit into it no matter what.

The PLAN is historically, a politically weak entity within the Communist Party, and if Xi JIng Ping wants a global navy to protect the String of Pearls, darn right he's going to get it. And then there are those Party bosses in the provincial level and major state owned firms, who maybe, say, lets get more ship building contracts for our shipyards to boost our GDP, keep my constituents happy and keeping a good job, and it will look good on my record when we are promoted. And for that reason I don't think there is an ultimate cap to the number of 055s and 052Ds China will build, other than a contractual one, which at the end, will only be replaced by another batch contract. What we are going to see is a defense industrial complex that will have to be fed for its own sake.

Again, I don't see how this counters what I had written before.

What you are saying here is merely that there are various motivations and factors that determine the number of a warship type that is eventually procured.

edit: obviously there is never a "cap" of warships that will ever be produced, as one class will always be succeeded by a next generation class or type.

When I threw out those hypothetical numbers of different warship types in the past it was to illustrate the different kind of deployment scenarios based on different fleet compositions. It obviously wasn't to suggest that those warship numbers may not be succeeded by a number of new generation warships in the future that will naturally further alter the composition of the fleet further into the future.

 

[tidalwave]

how would 2 055A with rail guns and stack against a carrier strike group?

 

[Totoro]

how would 2 055A with rail guns and stack against a carrier strike group?

Horribly. They'd likely be sunk before radars of any of their helicopters even spot the CSG ships. And even if for some strange reason they manage to get in position where their helicopters found one of the CSG destroyers, they would themselves be too far away from those destroyers to actually fire upon them with railguns. That being said, if the railgun isn't the weapon of choice, they might be successful with engaging the said CSG destroyers with YJ-18 missiles.

 

[AndrewS]

Exactly. You are going to have a runaway defense military industrial complex that has become addicted to contracts and whose habits will be difficult if not impossible to break.

I don't see China's shipbuilding as being runaway.

If we look at the requirements, China is the world's largest trading nation and most of that trade is seaborne.
And historically, that nation builds the world's largest navy to protect its global trade interests.

Simply in order to match the US Navy, that will call for steady state construction of 3 AEGIS destroyers per year, assuming a typical 30 year service life.

On the supply side, the Chinese economy is significantly larger than the US economy, so it can afford to sustain such a pace.

Then if you add in potential allied navies, China need 4 AEGIS destroyers per year, which again is very sustainable for the economy.

Upping construction to 6 AEGIS destroyers per year, is required in the short run, given that the Chinese navy is still very much smaller than the US Navy.

In the long-run, construction rates can drop down to 4 per year, as that can still feed 2 shipyards with constant orders and keep the production lines running.
But if China does fulfil its growth potential, sustained procurement of 6 per year for a global navy is feasible.

 

[Biscuits]

how would 2 055A with rail guns and stack against a carrier strike group?

The 055 can’t find the carriers except by helicopter and then radar without satellite support. The carrier group can keep sending planes until they find the destroyers.

That alone gives the CSG the element of surprise, which should be sufficient to win as the CSG could set up an all out strike to overwhelm the 055s.

With satellites, the situation changes. Twin powerful radars make them all but immune to all forms of attacks but an all out strike. With the CSG’s approximate position known, HQ-9s and HQ-19s can engage at the edge of their envelope.

Unable to sneak up on the 055s, the carrier escorts most likely do not have weapons on par with the YJ-18/100 or even the domestic version of the CM-401. Should some 055 be refitted with railguns, it would give them another option to put pressure on enemy escorts.

However, a common CSG has more than 3 destroyers as well as a submarine, so the CSG still has a numerical advantage and could strike back if allowed to get in range.

It’s meaningless to speculate how a A variant of the 055 would look since we have no clue what kind of upgrades it would carry.

 

[Biscuits]

The 055 is more comparable to Ticons.

No they’re not. US has 20 Ticos to 11 carriers + 10 LHA. China has 8 055s to 2 carriers and 1(?) LHA.

What even gave you that idea?

 

[Deleted member 13312]

No they’re not. US has 20 Ticos to 11 carriers + 10 LHA. China has 8 055s to 2 carriers and 1(?) LHA.

What even gave you that idea?

I dont see how that is an issue to begin with. Consider that the PLAN is still expanding, that there is certainly a next carrier in the pipeline. And that the 052D is still in production (far more than any other destroyers made so far). the 055 is ideally suited for what the Tico's do in a CBG, being the main surface to air defense coordinator.
The full number of 8 055s will only be fully completed in the early 2020s, by then the 002A will have been commission and the 003 would be close or just been launched, may even having it's first sea trials. 8 055s will leave 2 for each CBG, 1 in maintenance and 1 for crew training.

To compare the 052D to that of the Spruance in your earlier post is erroneous because the Burke was designed to replace the Spruance, and production of the Spruance was already completed by the time the first Burke was even launched. In comparison, the 052D is still in production alongside the 055 and is projected to see even more units built.

 

[Biscuits]

I dont see how that is an issue to begin with. Consider that the PLAN is still expanding, that there is certainly a next carrier in the pipeline. And that the 052D is still in production (far more than any other destroyers made so far). the 055 is ideally suited for what the Tico's do in a CBG, being the main surface to air defense coordinator.
The full number of 8 055s will only be fully completed in the early 2020s, by then the 002A will have been commission and the 003 would be close or just been launched, may even having it's first sea trials. 8 055s will leave 2 for each CBG, 1 in maintenance and 1 for crew training.

To compare the 052D to that of the Spruance in your earlier post is erroneous because the Burke was designed to replace the Spruance, and production of the Spruance was already completed by the time the first Burke was even launched. In comparison, the 052D is still in production alongside the 055 and is projected to see even more units built.

3 055s were launched this year. I think we can expect the first batch to be finished by fall 2020.

By then, China will at most have 3 operational carriers, and that is a very optimistic guesstimate.

I don’t buy the rumor that says 055s will only be “coordinators” or “flagships” since it’s painfully obvious they are built
as multirole surface combatants.

Yes, it has a really strong radar and lots of VLS, but so has the Burke compared to the Luda. Does that make the Burke a coordinator ship?

China itself designated the ship DDG, not CG. Maybe later on they will build a CG. Maybe in the form of the semi submersibles we’ve seen in concept sketches.

 

[Tam]

I don't see China's shipbuilding as being runaway.

If we look at the requirements, China is the world's largest trading nation and most of that trade is seaborne.
And historically, that nation builds the world's largest navy to protect its global trade interests.

Simply in order to match the US Navy, that will call for steady state construction of 3 AEGIS destroyers per year, assuming a typical 30 year service life.

On the supply side, the Chinese economy is significantly larger than the US economy, so it can afford to sustain such a pace.

Then if you add in potential allied navies, China need 4 AEGIS destroyers per year, which again is very sustainable for the economy.

Upping construction to 6 AEGIS destroyers per year, is required in the short run, given that the Chinese navy is still very much smaller than the US Navy.

In the long-run, construction rates can drop down to 4 per year, as that can still feed 2 shipyards with constant orders and keep the production lines running.
But if China does fulfil its growth potential, sustained procurement of 6 per year for a global navy is feasible.

Cost is unlikely an issue. Chinese destroyers are going to cost much less than the $1.85 billion being charged for a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke. But the USN are doing year to year contracts which makes the ships expensive. Using a 10 ship block contract, the Flight III Burke will only cost $1.75 billion --- cheaper --- despite the massive cost of the SPY-6 AESA radars.

China could be buying ships in massive multiyear contracts --- I suspect the Type 054A contract is a straight up 30 ship deal, which will drive the cost to the ground. I think the 052D might be another massive 30 ship deal, and the Type 056 a massive 60 ship deal. Mega deals may not be unusual, if not typical, with the Chinese ship building industry --- COSCO has a current multiyear order for 25 ore carriers for example and each of these are huge ships that cannot go through the Panama or Suez Canals. Previously China procuring ships on a single ship class (Type 051B), or dual ship contracts (Type 052, 052B, 054) are the ones that end up being more expensive. Type 052C, only on a six ship contract, may end up being more expensive than a Type 052D, if the 052D is on a 30 ship block contract, despite the technological advancement on the 052D.

If China procures only 8 of Type 055 on a multiyear contract, its going to be lot cheaper than a single ship contract. But its going to much much cheaper per ship if you do a massive 20 or 30 ship contract.

So the question is what kind of negotiation is made?

I think max, JIangnan and Dalian maybe able to output 4 destroyers for each shipyard every year, for a maximum of eight, using their assembly line modular construction. This kind of modular construction favors large block contracts, so you can be building all the modules somewhere, even if the dry docks are filled assembling the ships.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

3 055s were launched this year. I think we can expect the first batch to be finished by fall 2020.

By then, China will at most have 3 operational carriers, and that is a very optimistic guesstimate.

I don’t buy the rumor that says 055s will only be “coordinators” or “flagships” since it’s painfully obvious they are built
as multirole surface combatants.

Yes, it has a really strong radar and lots of VLS, but so has the Burke compared to the Luda. Does that make the Burke a coordinator ship?

China itself designated the ship DDG, not CG. Maybe later on they will build a CG. Maybe in the form of the semi submersibles we’ve seen in concept sketches.

Of course the 055 can function as a multicombat surface vessel, but that does not preclude it from performing additional combat duties. Seeing that it mounts a far more complex radar and communication system than any preceding class, it's command and control functions are clearly superior to any current PLAN vessel
And your comparison of the Burke to the Luda is both perplexing and confusing, because in the end the Burke is certaintly not within the same class as the 055. But if you must ask then the answer is yes, the Burke can also function as a command ship, although that job is best left to the Tico due to their larger and more complex command centers.
And while China calls the 055 a "destroyer", note that the mainstream media has refer to it as "Large Destroyer". Which is at best a misnomer, and at worse a complete lie. This is not the first time a vessel's designation has been muddle due to political or other obscure reasoning, see the Zumwalt, Sejong the Great and the Iver Huitfeldts for example. The Sejong the Great class in particular is designed to lead a SAG as both flagship and air defense coordinator.

And even then, even if by the most extreme reasoning the 055 can be shoehorned into the term of "Destroyer", nowhere there exist an official rule book that stats a DDG cannot do the job of a CG. These terms were given historically to differentiate between different ship class of different weight, with such differentiations being ever less and less meaningful with the years.We have seen frigates crossing over into what is thought to be previously DDG territory (Ghroskov class), and vice versa.