Future PLAN Forecast Thread: Number, disposition, etc.

[EDIATH]

Not sure about this obsession about tonnage or number of VLS. Are we suppose to consider the role a ship's gonna play first? Current surface combatants around 10k tons were all built with ballistic missile defense role assigned beforehand, yet we haven't heard anything about PLAN seeking such capability (Second Artilary's job?). Also land attack is handled by submarine force or the future carrier wings in PLAN, destroyers are left only with traditional roles such as fleet air defense or ASW, excessive number of VLS and/or huge diplacement seem rather redundant for a "traditional" PLAN destroyer (like their European counrtparts).

Also as bd popeye pointed out, a large destroyer must be wide enough to keep pitch & roll under control, which increases the drag and therefore requires even more powerful engines for propulsion. Not so easy to achieve. They might as well build more medium-sized ships as they could, it would offer more combat potential than a few "super" ships.

 

[plawolf]

The fact that PLAN surface combatants have not performed land attack duties may be more down to them not being suited to do so without a VLS capable of handling LACMs and less down to doctrine.

 

[Blitzo]

Not sure about this obsession about tonnage or number of VLS. Are we suppose to consider the role a ship's gonna play first? Current surface combatants around 10k tons were all built with ballistic missile defense role assigned beforehand, yet we haven't heard anything about PLAN seeking such capability (Second Artilary's job?). Also land attack is handled by submarine force or the future carrier wings in PLAN, destroyers are left only with traditional roles such as fleet air defense or ASW, excessive number of VLS and/or huge diplacement seem rather redundant for a "traditional" PLAN destroyer (like their European counrtparts).

The role any future PLAN destroyer should play is... being multirole.

I could be wrong, but I think the sensors and missiles required for BMD on ships like the sejong and AB IIA do not make up a significant addition of mass compared to the sheer number of multi role VLS. Just because a destroyer is 10k tons, doesn't mean it's designed for BMD.

On the land attack subject -- I bet if the PLAN had a simple, versatile platform (multi role VLS) which they can stock up with LACMs, they would definitely do so. Better to have destroyers capable of performing ASW, Air defense, land attack so they can be refitted at dock to specialize in these tasks if need be.
But beggers can't be choosers.

Though I suppose having over 100 VLS is a little unnecessary for the PLAN at the moment. I even read an article a while back on information dissementation that not all USN AB's had full VLS with missiles.

Also as bd popeye pointed out, a large destroyer must be wide enough to keep pitch & roll under control, which increases the drag and therefore requires even more powerful engines for propulsion. Not so easy to achieve. They might as well build more medium-sized ships as they could, it would offer more combat potential than a few "super" ships.

Well that depedns on the competency of the shipyard and suppliers. I agree medium-sized ships would be the way to go (~9000 tons, which I think is the modern weight class for "medium") instead of over 10k tons (such as the DDX, which is facing many hurdles at the moment).

I suppose we'll see with the follow on to the current destroyer being built, as this "052C+" by the sounds of it isn't offering a major improvement over the current one.

 

[EDIATH]

By the word "medium" I actually mean a 7000-8000-ton ship like Type 45. All modern destroyers are essentially multi-role, albeit emphasizing on one or two roles from the pool. An air defense destroyer with the aim for BMD normally requires more standardized VLS if the dimension of BD intercepting missiles is in line with standard SAMs, otherwise a whole new bunch of VLS must be fitted on the ship. As a result the tonnage has to go up if other tasks are not to be compromised on a BMD destroyer. I'm not saying PLAN would never acquire BMD capability on surface combatants, however a ship-launched BMD missile is normally developed in the first place about which there is no sign from PLAN, it's just a little premature to speculate a BMD capable destroyer at this stage.

Speaking of Type 45 DDG, I wouldn't recommend it at all to PLAN's needs apart from the size of it. The centre of mass looks dodgy & there are only 48 VLS & no SSM launcher. I say 64 VLS is the minimum requirement for a ship at 8000-ton full displacement (sufficient to twice engage roughly a dozen Mach 2 incoming threats from 120km distance per batch with 2-3 missiles per target firing at 5 sec. apace). Before they come up with a better engine solution, it's really not a bad idea to produce medium-size DDGs en mass to replace as many 051 ships as they can, infinitely better than waiting for the next breakthrough on engine tech. (another 5 years?) when neighbors' bigger toys become a possibility. Not to mention 2 medium-size ships always beat one twice as big in every way.

And personally I don't think land attack is a priority for PLAN's surface combatants, or any other navies around the world except USN. It would be a pleasant surprise if they manage to integrate LACM system onboard without dramatically changing the hull structure or increasing displacement, otherwise there is no need for a PLAN-version DDX within the next decade at least.

 

[Blitzo]

An air defense destroyer with the aim for BMD normally requires more standardized VLS if the dimension of BD intercepting missiles is in line with standard SAMs, otherwise a whole new bunch of VLS must be fitted on the ship. As a result the tonnage has to go up if other tasks are not to be compromised on a BMD destroyer. I'm not saying PLAN would never acquire BMD capability on surface combatants, however a ship-launched BMD missile is normally developed in the first place about which there is no sign from PLAN, it's just a little premature to speculate a BMD capable destroyer at this stage.

The Europeans are thinking about integrating a naval version of the storm shadow cruise missile into their SAM VLS cells. And multi role VLS also offers the ability to quad pack smaller SAMs and fitting ASW weapons such as ASROC.
Having a BMD missile doesn't necessitate a common VLS -- multi role VLS's are conceived due to the need to be... multi role.

(And I never mentioned the PLAN acquiring BMD destroyers; though apparently HQ-9 and HQ-16 have limited ABM capability)

Speaking of Type 45 DDG, I wouldn't recommend it at all to PLAN's needs apart from the size of it. The centre of mass looks dodgy & there are only 48 VLS & no SSM launcher. I say 64 VLS is the minimum requirement for a ship at 8000-ton full displacement (sufficient to twice engage roughly a dozen Mach 2 incoming threats from 120km distance per batch with 2-3 missiles per target firing at 5 sec. apace).

Well type 45 is 7000-8000- tons, so if you want say, 64 VLS then an increase to 9000 tons isn't impossible. Personally I feel the 052C should be able to do many of the things the type 45 can -- they both have long range SAMs and powerful AESA radars. 052C has YJ-62, so I'd say its surface strike is superior to Type 45 for the moment.

Before they come up with a better engine solution, it's really not a bad idea to produce medium-size DDGs en mass to replace as many 051 ships as they can, infinitely better than waiting for the next breakthrough on engine tech. (another 5 years?) when neighbors' bigger toys become a possibility. Not to mention 2 medium-size ships always beat one twice as big in every way.

Very true, I suppose beggars can't be choosers

And personally I don't think land attack is a priority for PLAN's surface combatants, or any other navies around the world except USN. It would be a pleasant surprise if they manage to integrate LACM system onboard without dramatically changing the hull structure or increasing displacement, otherwise there is no need for a PLAN-version DDX within the next decade at least.

No need for a DDX, but having say twelve DH-10s in addition to your standard load of HQ-9s would allow for much greater flexibility. In any taiwan scenario, destroyers can sail to the far side and get a good surround in missile saturation.
(maybe we should rename this thread to "ideal plan destroyer" or something)

I suppose it's naive for me to think it's simply choosing a size for a common VLS to fit all the available missiles you require, and meddling about with the wiring a bit in the ship and the missile itself and then saying it's good?
I just don't see any major technical challenges in development of a common VLS if you've already developed one.

 

[tphuang]

The fact that PLAN surface combatants have not performed land attack duties may be more down to them not being suited to do so without a VLS capable of handling LACMs and less down to doctrine.

the new DDGs should have a 130 mm caliber main gun that would be used to attack surface target like AK-130 on Sov. At the same time, the launchers for YJ-62 can easily be replaced by tubed launchers for LACMs (052C is capable of this already). So if that's what PLAN chooses, it would do this.

 

[montyp165]

WRT the engine issue I'd think that the COGES (combined gas-electric-steam) approach would be very effective in improving combat efficiency, the concept is such that it can even be implemented in automobiles which have many more stop-start cycles than ships. Gas turbines produce electricity and provide heat to steam turbines which then power electric generators.

 

[EDIATH]

The Europeans are thinking about integrating a naval version of the storm shadow cruise missile into their SAM VLS cells. And multi role VLS also offers the ability to quad pack smaller SAMs and fitting ASW weapons such as ASROC.
Having a BMD missile doesn't necessitate a common VLS -- multi role VLS's are conceived due to the need to be... multi role.

(And I never mentioned the PLAN acquiring BMD destroyers; though apparently HQ-9 and HQ-16 have limited ABM capability)

Well type 45 is 7000-8000- tons, so if you want say, 64 VLS then an increase to 9000 tons isn't impossible. Personally I feel the 052C should be able to do many of the things the type 45 can -- they both have long range SAMs and powerful AESA radars. 052C has YJ-62, so I'd say its surface strike is superior to Type 45 for the moment.

Very true, I suppose beggars can't be choosers

No need for a DDX, but having say twelve DH-10s in addition to your standard load of HQ-9s would allow for much greater flexibility. In any taiwan scenario, destroyers can sail to the far side and get a good surround in missile saturation.
(maybe we should rename this thread to "ideal plan destroyer" or something)

I suppose it's naive for me to think it's simply choosing a size for a common VLS to fit all the available missiles you require, and meddling about with the wiring a bit in the ship and the missile itself and then saying it's good?
I just don't see any major technical challenges in development of a common VLS if you've already developed one.

I quite agree with what you said about the "multi-role" feature. Multi-role in a modern sense should be based on standardization of weapon components and sensor integration, in contrast to old Soviet Navy's mammoth "multi-role" warships. Apart from the size of missiles or wiring under VLS, combat system integration is no small task, and it might affect the hull design too as there might be a shift of mass centre (is it true Indian Navy is fitting their ballistic missiles on destroyers?)

As we know 052C DDG equips 48 VLS with slightly over 7000 tons displacement, I'm sure they can add another couple of 6-cell sets on a 8000-ton enlarged version. The risk is low and gain palpable. However, I would be interested to know where to proceed after that. Are they going to stick with HQ9 and the 6-cell VLS or the more compact HQ16 system?*

Ps, maybe we shouldn't bring taiwan scenario into this discussion. Besides PLAN is unlikely to risk a surface fleet into far sea without sufficient air and underwater coverage, and the necessity of surgery-style cruise missile attack against a distant enemy seems very remote to me as they are pretty vocal on condemning the "gun-ship policy.

 

[Blitzo]

I quite agree with what you said about the "multi-role" feature. Multi-role in a modern sense should be based on standardization of weapon components and sensor integration, in contrast to old Soviet Navy's mammoth "multi-role" warships. Apart from the size of missiles or wiring under VLS, combat system integration is no small task, and it might affect the hull design too as there might be a shift of mass centre (is it true Indian Navy is fitting their ballistic missiles on destroyers?)

If you design a new ship from the ground up, then you should be able to easily compensate for having a common VLS. Even then, it shouldn't be impossible to install a common VLS as a refit on older ships -- the USN has done this time and time again with arming Ticos and Spruances with Mk-41s.

I think the Indian Navy had a few ships equipped with ballstic missiles for nuclear deterrent because they lacked SSBNs. They weren't VLS though, more makeshift erector launchers.

As we know 052C DDG equips 48 VLS with slightly over 7000 tons displacement, I'm sure they can add another couple of 6-cell sets on a 8000-ton enlarged version. The risk is low and gain palpable. However, I would be interested to know where to proceed after that. Are they going to stick with HQ9 and the 6-cell VLS or the more compact HQ16 system?*

From what tphuang has said it seems like the current 052"D" is more of an 052C+; not being an entirely new class, but just refining some aspects and adding a few VLS cells and a new gun.

The PLAN have really caught themselves between a rock and a hard place with their SAM choice. If they had the time and money, I'd once again suggest a Mk-41 equivalent -- but they'll either have to make the HQ-9 hot launch, or upgrade the HQ-16's range comparable to SM-2ER. This will be for the real 052D though (admittedly it's a bit premature to speculate what the follow up will be like), the 052C+ currently under construction probably still uses the six fixed revolver VLS, but who knows. Maybe they'll surprise us.

Ps, maybe we shouldn't bring taiwan scenario into this discussion. Besides PLAN is unlikely to risk a surface fleet into far sea without sufficient air and underwater coverage, and the necessity of surgery-style cruise missile attack against a distant enemy seems very remote to me as they are pretty vocal on condemning the "gun-ship policy.

Yeah, I was just giving an example of how surgical strikes like what the US did in the gulf war could give the PLA a decisive advantage. Doesn't necessarily have to be against Taiwan, though if it was they'd have air cover and sub escorts -- flankers at least have a very large combat radius.

(btw if the PLAN were to launch LACMs against a hypothetical far seas enemy in the far future, it wouldn't be gunboat diplomacy -- it'll be a surgical strike, which is different to intimidating an enemy with a simple show of force. sending aircraft carriers into a narrow strait would be an example of it though :roll

 

[ZTZ99]

Nobody knows what the 052D is going to be like, whether it's "052C+" or whatever else. Nobody knows whether there is even a 052D currently being built, questionable speculation on shadowy photos included. When I say "nobody" I mean nobody on the internet. Let's just wait and see what the new destroyer design is going to look like. It will show its face soon enough.