055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

obj 705A

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is no indication whatsoever that PLAN is shooting for a 200 destroyer navy.
there is no indication that the PLAN does not want 200 DDGs either, it is anybody guess how many DDGs Beijing wants, all speculation, many people chose to underestimate the ambitions of the PLAN because it's safer to have a conservative estimate, 10 years ago if some one told you the DDG production rate will increase so much that the PLAN will launch 9 DDGs in a single year in 2019 then I'm pretty sure your answer would have been "There is no indication whatsoever that PLAN intends to increase production rate to
9 destroyers in 2019".
 

by78

General
High-resolution launch images.

49280426117_a6fb48cbdf_k.jpg

49280425597_610f79252f_k.jpg
 
For the past 20 years, we've seen Chinese military spending at a modest 2% of GDP.

But 9 DDGs this year would eventually mean a fleet of 300 DDGs. Last year, it was 7 DDGs.

Even my previous high estimate was only 6 DDGs per year.

If this indicative of Chinese military spending overall, it begs the question, the US and Russia routinely spend almost twice as much (4% of GDP) on the military.

So has China switched to a permanently higher level of military spending?

If so, congratulations are in order for the American national security establishment.

With the trade war and China designated as military enemy number one, they've hastened the day when China displaces the US military from the Western Pacific.
wait Andy three-hundred now? well you surged since Jul 29, 2017
What is the endgame?

At the moment, I think they're working to an end-strength of roughly matching the USN. So after another 20 years, it will end up something like this

6+ Aircraft Carriers
90+ Large DDG Type-55/52 (3 per year)
60+ FFG Type-54 (2 per year)
60+ OPV (one off)

But I imagine that they revise the desired force structure every 5 years, according to how much the economy has grown (as military spending tracks at approximately 2% of GDP).

So a 7% growth rate over the next 5 years results in an overall increase of 40%, in which case they would revise the desired end-strength upwards.
and recently you'd been just at two-hundred
Oct 11, 2019
The US military has a rule of thumb that a doubling of the procurement rate typically results in a 20% decrease in cost.
Depending on how you interpret this, this translates to cost saving of 20-40%
And for a technical service like the Navy or Air Force, equipment procurement/maintenance costs account for the majority of the Total Lifecycle Cost.
There are published studies on this. For lack of any better analyses, this estimate will suffice.

PPP is the correct way to measure military spending for China.
The vast majority of Chinese military development, production and operating costs are incurred with a domestic Chinese cost base.
We can see this with the published export prices of various Chinese military equipment.

---
Your commercial ship construction comparison as a internationally traded good fails.
Look at the cost difference between Chinese yards and US yards for commercial ships.
And the US military is not going to be producing ships overseas, but will be using high-cost shipyards located in the USA.
---

Estimating future PLAN fleet strength is a big question, but from a resourcing point of view, as I said previously:

1. My low estimate is now 3 destroyers per year - which results in around 100 in total.
That just aims for parity with the US Navy.
That would already be "affordable" given China's GDP is 30% larger in terms of PPP.

2. My high estimate is 6 destroyers per year - which results in 200 in total.
That aims for twice the size of the US Navy, which would be more than enough for overmatch.
With economies of scale, this would cost 60%-80% over the low estimate.
And would be really affordable if China's GDP grows to twice the size in 10-15years. And that only needs China is sustain 5-6% growth per year.

Sure, you can disagree with the high estimate of 200 destroyers, but let's say China only aims for a fleet only 30% larger.
That is almost certainly sustainable given economies of scale and how China's GDP in already 30% larger today in terms of PPP.

No matter how you look at it, the point remains that China should be able to build a larger naval fleet that could dominate the 1st Island Chain and then beyond.

And from a requirements perspective, China will probably build a larger navy because it wants:
1. Military security for the mainland Chinese coast
2. To protect its global trade/investment interests (it is the largest trading nation)
3. For Taiwan contingencies

four-hundred coming?
 

obj 705A

Junior Member
Registered Member
@Jura yeah I believe it's just like what you said 2 years ago, China will likely make do with a total of 48 DDGs of the type 052D & the type 055, which means DDG production rate in 2020 will be reduced to around 2 per year & then after 9 years DDG production will be stopped completely especially since China will most definitely collapse in 2011 as what our trustworthy analyst Gordon Chang has told us.
_______________________________

seriously though while nobody knows how many DDGs the PLAN will have eventually (ie: after several decades) however there are two realities that you need to accept when making estimates:-

*first one is that in regards to surface ships, the Chinese shipbuilding reigns supreme above all else, US shipbuilding is at a distant second.

*the second is that China is a 14$ trillion economy & it's adding a Germany to it's GDP every 4 or 5 years, in other words China has all the money they want in order for them to equal & surpass the USN in tonnage & numbers, if the US has 100 DDGs then China too can easily have 100 DDGs, if after several decades the US would increase it's DDGs to 200 then China too can do that, especially since Chinese DDGs are much cheaper than their American counterparts, those who would still remain in denial, prefering extremely conservative estimates that disregard the absolute superiority of Chinese shipbuilding & the immense economic might of China.. well I would throw them in the same basket as Gordon Chang & Minnie Chan even if they are supporters of China.
personaly I avoid trying to predict the exact number of DDGs that China will have because I'm sure even Xi Jinping himself doesn't know since he will not rule China forever that is why in general I always say.. China will have a navy comparable to that of the US, it could be a little bit smaller or a little bit lager or an exact equal.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
wait Andy three-hundred now? well you surged since Jul 29, 2017

and recently you'd been just at two-hundred
Oct 11, 2019

four-hundred coming?

My low estimate is still 100 DDG, which is 3 per year.
And my high estimate is still 200 DDG, which is 6 per year.

The problem is that we're now up to 9 per year, which implies 300 DDG.
But 300 is just way too many in my opinion, given that even 200 means a large margin of superiority.

So, an estimate of 400 will not be forthcoming.

I just used that 300 number to get people thinking.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Even if you build 6 to 9 destroyers a year, your total ship fleet may not be that high.

You expect to have ships decommissioning. It may appear that the PLAN is growing from nothing because no one pays attention to the old ships anymore, or they are so technologically obsolete, they are regarded as zero value in modern naval warfare. These old ships are going away one by one, the Ludas, the Jianghus, the Jiangweis. Your total number may not be growing as fast as it looks when decommissions are factored, only that your fleet looks a lot newer. There is a difference between the PLAN retiring ships and the USN which looks to retire ships soon. With the PLAN you're retiring Ludas, which are post WW2 design destroyers hacked with short range SAMs and antiship missiles, while in the next few years, the USN might have to retire Ticonderoga class cruisers, and already they are debating about not updating a number of them due to cost. The PLAN is retiring ships that have no longer has any combat value, other than training and coast guard patrols, while the USN is retiring a number of still powerful warships.

Build growth may start to look more like build replacement once a number of post Luda type ships begin decommissioning.

After the Ludas are retired, I suppose the last of them are next year, you would go on to the next class. So you're looking at the range of 2 x 052, 2 x 052B, 1 x 051B, 2 x 051C and the 4 x Project 956. As some of these ships have just been MLU'ed and in preparations to be done so, the MLUs may add another 10 years of like, although in my opinion, even these MLUs are already technically obsolete by the next decade. I also think that some of these ships, like the two already stripped down 054 and the two already stripped down 052B might still be in danger of having their MLUs being cancelled, and it will be the end of these four, though in -my- subjective opinion, the odds are still likely the upgrades will push through. If I were policy maker, I would be more ruthless and scrap all four ships. Let the Guangzhou and the Wuhan be reborn as a new 052DL or 055. The Maanshan and the Wengzhou I would turn into experimental frigates to test new technologies.

In the next five years, I would think the Type 052 class, both the Harbin and the Qingdao, would go. They might even go earlier, and pass their names to new 052DL or 055.

A sudden acceleration in decommissionings can see both Type 051C, the Shenyang and Shijiazhuang, go the way to their end. I don't know if these ships will still be MLU'ed. Their S-300 based RIF-M systems are aging, literally, electronically, mechanically and technologically. These are still late Cold War stuff. Both ships still have the previous ECM and ESM systems that were issued before the Type 052C overhauled the PLAN's EW systems with the introduction of the modular Type 726 ESM and ECM systems. Steam engines are not the most popular with the PLAN these days, they are a pain to maintain and man. My verdict. Both these ships have to go, even prematurely, and pass their names and pennants to 052DL or 055.

136 Hanzhou is in trials and 137 Fuzhou is already being refitted. But I think these ships are already obsolete other than being YJ-12 launching platforms, which is the same case as 167 Shenzhen. I will give these ships another five years, optimistically. Logically, the PLAN should think about retiring them prematurely even after the refits. 138 Taizhou and 139 Ningbo, both ships still active, should have their MLU plans cancelled and look for premature retirement, and the names of both ships passed on to new 052DL or 055.

Who knows, the budget for making surface warships can suddenly be reallocated to say, a surge in building nuclear attack submarines. I may expect something like that to happen if the Type 095 worked out alright.

Money can also be allocated to say, a large midlife refitting program for the Type 054A. In my opinion, the type is already obsolete but there are ways within the PLAN's component library to upgrade the ship with AESA radars, and better antiship missiles including YJ-12 or a new generation antiship missile.

I can see the potential for a mid life refit of the Type 052C. Don't expect to see an integrated mast however. The main Type 346 radars can be overhauled and replaced with new modules. The back end systems can be replaced with something with more up to date computing power and higher speed networking. The YJ-62 antiship missiles can be replaced by YJ-12 or a new generation anti ship missile.

If you have so many surface warships, what are they going to do in the meantime? You will end in a situation where the ships are competing for missions or they will get under deployed, where they will end up sitting in ports doing nothing. You better think of reasons to give these ships, these crews and officers something to do, and you're going to end up looking more and more like the USN doing patrols here doing FONOPs there and god knows what of any real value.
 
My low estimate is still 100 DDG, which is 3 per year.
And my high estimate is still 200 DDG, which is 6 per year.

The problem is that we're now up to 9 per year, which implies 300 DDG.
But 300 is just way too many in my opinion, given that even 200 means a large margin of superiority.

So, an estimate of 400 will not be forthcoming.

I just used that 300 number to get people thinking.
Oct 13, 2019
in this Internet naval buildups here people should at least mention manning and maintenance requirements/capabilities

for instance, assuming two crews rotations for each of two-hundred destroyers would mean about one-hundred thousand well-trained sailors, LOL
so it'd of interest to hear of expanding training facilities and so on, if that was what's going on
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Some of the old ships being MLU’d could well end up as military aid gifts rather than return to PLAN frontline service if the PLAN is keen to replace older ships without totally writing off any investments they already made on the MLU.

That could also be why the MLUs are progressing so slowly, if the PLAN is shopping around for foreign clients willing to part finance the (most expensive) electronics and weapons suite upgrades.

If Pakistan is keen on expanding its surface fleet rapidly on the cheap, this could be an excellent opportunity, especially with the two 054s; and maybe 051Cs as well, if they want to add fleet air defence to their toolkit. Since the 051Cs are using Russian radars and SAMs, I think the PLAN could potentially let them go ‘as is’, with only minimal modifications to allow them to network with the rest of the Pakistani fleet needed.

On a broader note, I think the length of the current and future global trade slumps would also be a massively important factor in PLAN capital ship procurement, although the correlation is likely to be the opposite of what many may think.

China sees shipbuilding as a core strategical national security industry, that means it will do all in its power to help it weather the current, and any future slump in commercial shopping demand; and the way China can do that is with military naval contracts.

The length of time new PLAN capital ships spend tied up at port after launch and even handover is an import indicator imho of how much the current warship building boom is beyond the PLAN’s original plans.

It is very out of character for the PLA to have such major hardware assets sitting ideal waiting on crews and/or subsystems, because the PLA is normally so meticulous and forward thinking that when they put plans into action, things normally run like clockwork. In addition, the PLA has always operated under the unofficial motto of ‘people wait for kit, not the other way around’. In that the PLA would much rather have fully trained up crews waiting on new kit to be completed than to have new kit sitting around for crews to be trained up sufficiently to start using them.

All of this points to the current shipbuilding pace as an unplanned for outlier rather than part of some Chinese master plan. And as such, it would be dangerous to assume that the current pace of warship construction is to be the new normal going forwards, especially if there is a global economic recovery and commercial orders picks up again.

In my view, the current capital ship production rate is determined primarily by the minimum actively levels needed to keep Chinese yards employed, to avoid having to lay off large numbers of highly skilled workers. That would not only create social and economic instability to the shipbuilding cities of China, but would also be skills that are expensive and time consuming to re-generate if lost.

The current breakneck speed at which Chinese yards are pumping out new warships are also likely to be impacted by the lack of commercial orders, as shipyards are likely to be putting far more people on shift to work on the warships than would normally be possible if they also had a massive commercial order book to work on.

All of this means that if there is a major global economic recovery in the near to medium future, with commercial shipping orders picking up once more, I would expect PLAN capital ship production to start easing off to a more conventional rate.

Conversely, if the current trade war and global economic slump continues, I would expect PLAN capital ship production to carry on at its current breakneck pace, if not accelerate.

From an overarching strategical point of view, this also makes good sense, because good relations between China and the US would be a critical contributing factor to fostering a global economic recovery and boom. If Sino-US relations markedly improve, there would also be less cause for China to need such a massive and powerful navy, since everyone knows there is only one foe China would need such a navy to counter. OTOH, if the current Sino-US trade war and general great power competition continues and intensifies, we are probably looking at a new Cold War, in which case the new arms race is well and truly on, and the PLAN would make every ship it can get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top