Ask anything Thread

[AndrewS]

I don't think even counting Major surface ships is a good method since it counts small ships like type 054A as same as a Burke.

US has much bigger destroyers in the Burkes. Even a Type 052D is not an equal of a Burke due to smaller VLS count and smaller displacement.


A better method maybe counting VLS/slanted launchers of all major ships. Another good method will be count total displacement of destroyers and frigates in both navies. US is still ahead on these things.

Another bigger advantage US has is its VLS cell missile variety. They have SM-2,3,6 for Air and missile defense. China only has HQ-9. They also have quad packed missiles ability, which China also lacks.

Just a few comments:

1. I'd rate the Type-052D AESA radars as significantly better than the Burke PESA radars. This is critical because the radar system is what detects, tracks and targets incoming aircraft and missiles.

2. The US Navy needs a large variety of SAMs because there are so many types of antiship missiles that have been developed by China.

In comparison. the HQ-9 (along with the HQ-16) are sufficient because the Chinese Navy realistically only faces slow subsonic missiles.

 

[simonov]

Just a few comments:

1. I'd rate the Type-052D AESA radars as significantly better than the Burke PESA radars. This is critical because the radar system is what detects, tracks and targets incoming aircraft and missiles.

2. The US Navy needs a large variety of SAMs because there are so many types of antiship missiles that have been developed by China.

In comparison. the HQ-9 (along with the HQ-16) are sufficient because the Chinese Navy realistically only faces slow subsonic missiles.

Is both type 055 and 052D bring hypersonic SSM?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Is both type 055 and 052D bring hypersonic SSM?

The only publicly-known hypersonic AShM deployed onboard PLAN warships right now is the YJ-20/21, which requires a full-length UVLS to fit.

The 055 DDGs certainly do (based on official announcements). In the meantime, the 052D/DG DDGs should also be able to do the same as well, granted the 052D/DG DDGs are equipped with full-length UVLS cells (which I think they do).

 

[Wrought]

The only publicly-known hypersonic AShM deployed onboard PLAN warships right now is the YJ-20/21, which requires a full-length UVLS to fit.

The 055 DDGs certainly do (based on official announcements). In the meantime, the 052D/DG DDGs should also be able to do the same as well, granted the 052D/DG DDGs are equipped with full-length UVLS cells (which I think they do).

052D is confirmed to have some 9m cells, but the exact number is not clear.

 

[Lethe]

Revised to reflect recent USN announcements (that I had previously overlooked) of service life extensions for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Relative to the previous chart, the changes add five ships to USN's count (three Ticos, two Burkes), manifesting progressively over the 2027-2029 period.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

View attachment 156176

Revised to reflect recent USN announcements (that I had previously overlooked) of service life extensions for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Relative to the previous chart, the changes add five ships to USN's count (three Ticos, two Burkes), manifesting progressively over the 2027-2029 period.

Im guessing the PLAN one stalls around 2028-2029 because that’s when a lot of ships might be retiring but I would think there would still be rapid expansion in the navy

 

[Lethe]

Im guessing the PLAN one stalls around 2028-2029 because that’s when a lot of ships might be retiring but I would think there would still be rapid expansion in the navy

The only PLAN ships I've projected to retire over the period are the Type 052 destroyers DDG-112 Harbin and DDG-113 Qingdao.

Most likely, there won't be a "tailing off" of PLAN growth in 2029 or the near future thereafter, it's just that there is insufficient visibility into developments in that timeframe to chart them with confidence, which is also why the chart ends where it does. I've deliberately been conservative on the PLAN side because the basic point -- that of an imminent convergence in the number of USN and PLAN major surface combatants -- comes through regardless, and I don't want it getting lost in nitpicking about the notional delivery schedules for e.g. 055s #15 and #16, or a second batch of 054Bs.

 

[Tomboy]

The only PLAN ships I've projected to retire over the period are the Type 052 destroyers DDG-112 Harbin and DDG-113 Qingdao.

Most likely, there won't be a "tailing off" of PLAN growth in 2029 or the near future thereafter, it's just that there is insufficient visibility into developments in that timeframe to chart them with confidence, which is also why the chart ends where it does. I've deliberately been conservative on the PLAN side because the basic point -- that of an imminent convergence in the number of USN and PLAN major surface combatants -- comes through regardless, and I don't want it getting lost in nitpicking about the notional delivery schedules for e.g. 055s #15 and #16, or a second batch of 054Bs.

So basically this assuming PLAN do not laydown any new ships from now forward and thus only counting ships observed to be under construction.

 

[Lethe]

So basically this assuming PLAN do not laydown any new ships from now forward and thus only counting ships observed to be under construction.

More specifically, the chart assumes that only future PLAN combatants that are currently observed to be under construction will enter service by end 2029.

We can safely assume that there will be more combatants going forward. But we cannot safely assume that any combatants that we cannot presently recognise as being under construction will enter service by end 2029. Such combatants, particularly if they crest to visibility by the end of this year, may enter service by end 2029, but that is not the same thing as being able to assert with confidence that they will. Again, this chart is deliberately conservative on the PLAN side because it is intended to highlight a specific phenomenon (that of USN-PLAN convergence in this particular domain) in a way that cannot readily be undermined.

If you include 056A, the conversation is about the inclusion of 056A and what it does and doesn't bring to the table. If you exclude LCS, the conversation becomes about the exclusion and merits of LCS. If you are more expansive on PLAN, the conversation is about how you are counting paper ships in service of a nationalist fantasy. If you are more skeptical of USN shipbuilding plans, the conversation again becomes that you are trying to juice the numbers in service of a nationalist fantasy. So I exclude 056A, include LCS, am somewhat conservative on PLAN and arguably slightly generous on USN (e.g. I have allowed that DDG-135 USS Thad Cochrane will sneak in by end 2029 despite not having been laid down yet), and the result is still clear: convergence.

 

[TheWanderWit]

052D is confirmed to have some 9m cells, but the exact number is not clear.

From what I recall, it should have at least 16 cells out of its 64 that are of the 9m depth.