Future PLAN orbat discussion

Bhurki said:

I do understand that last year was a high density phase of the staggered production run and average rate has always been 4-5/annum.
However, what irks more is the absence of any news/rumours about follow-on classes among the impending dead ends of current class runs.

Click to expand...

That is what China is and China does. They try to hide news of anything to the last moment. They have been tracking leakers and closing their social media accounts. If you're a long time watcher you should be used to this.

At least there are leaks to point out that XX4B is a go. The biggest most undeniable pointer yet is the new radar on the second mast of the Type 075. You are not going to create a new radar set just to put on two ships. The Type 075 itself may provide some clues to XX4B, and I expect HDZ and the same engineering team responsible for the 075 to be behind XX4B's design.

Bhurki said:

I do understand that last year was a high density phase of the staggered production run and average rate has always been 4-5/annum.
However, what irks more is the absence of any news/rumours about follow-on classes among the impending dead ends of current class runs.

Click to expand...

What absence of rumours?

As recent as last year we had rumours that an 054B/057 was in the works, that an 052E may follow 052D, and even before the first 055 was launched we were informed that a successor 055A would follow it.


I would be surprised if we didn't see 054B/057 emerge within the next three years, and if we don't see 052E or 055 within the next 4 to 6 years respectively.

Bltizo said:

...

BUT, that doesn't mean we may still not see a slight pause in production. Remember after all, that the Chinese Navy didn't launch any new destroyers between the second 051C (early 2007) and the third 052C (October 2010) for a period of about three and a half years, so it's not like pauses in production are new.

Click to expand...

I think, that's the normal way; testing two different types in the same role, correct something, made it better and start producing the best type after that

Regarding pauses in shipbuilding....one has to remember that the one regarding Destroyer production was due to the shipyard being relocated, and not due to lack of orders!

steve_rolfe said:

Regarding pauses in shipbuilding....one has to remember that the one regarding Destroyer production was due to the shipyard being relocated, and not due to lack of orders!

Click to expand...

Technically true, however they could have ordered ships from Dalian if they wanted them earlier as well.

The overall point is that the PLAN is not new to pauses in surface combatant construction and there should be good reasons for it when they happen. With the likely pause in some surface combatant construction that may be coming up, the reason is likely due to moving onto a new generation of combatants.

Bhurki said:

I do understand that last year was a high density phase of the staggered production run and average rate has always been 4-5/annum.
However, what irks more is the absence of any news/rumours about follow-on classes among the impending dead ends of current class runs.

Click to expand...

The average was actually 3 destroyers launched per year from 2012-2017
But then there was a sharp increase to 7 destroyers in 2018, then 10 destroyers in 2019.

That looks more like an emergency arms buildup to me, rather than the high density phase of a planned, staggered production run.

Bltizo said:

I think both of you have it the wrong way around.

IMO it is launching 10 major combatants in a year is what is abnormal, and is a result of happy coincidence of 052D production rate reaching its peak and ongoing 055 production.

Click to expand...

If you strip out Type-55 construction, we still see a large surge in Type-52D construction.
Type-52D production was steady at 3 per year. Then we saw 4 launched in 2018, then 8 launched in 2019.

Yes, Type-52D production is probably at its peak, but such a large increase last year isn't consistent with a 5 year plan and budget cycle.

Particularly given the timescales for naval shipbuilding, and the history of the Chinese MIC producing steady numbers of replacement military ships/aircraft over the decades, even if those systems are already obsolete.

---

We can also see that Type-56 Corvette production was steady at 8 per year since 2012.
But in 2019, we saw an increase to 12 ships launched.

Given that there are already 59 ships launched, why start surging construction now?
The extra construction surge wouldn't make a big difference to the overall fleet size.
And again, this occurred in the middle of the 5 year budget cycle.

---

Combined with the almost complete breakdown in US-China relations over the past 3 years, it looks like an unplanned naval buildup to me.

After building 7 destroyers in 2018, and then 10 destroyers in 2019, it looks like the need is still there, as the main adversary is more hostile than ever. But we just cannot see any new stuff just yet.

AndrewS said:

If you strip out Type-55 construction, we still see a large surge in Type-52D construction.
Type-52D production was steady at 3 per year. Then we saw 4 launched in 2018, then 8 launched in 2019.

Yes, Type-52D production is probably at its peak, but such a large increase last year isn't consistent with a 5 year plan and budget cycle.

Particularly given the timescales for naval shipbuilding, and the history of the Chinese MIC producing steady numbers of replacement military ships/aircraft over the decades, even if those systems are already obsolete.

---

We can also see that Type-56 Corvette production was steady at 8 per year since 2012.
But in 2019, we saw an increase to 12 ships launched.

Given that there are already 59 ships launched, why start surging construction now?
The extra construction surge wouldn't make a big difference to the overall fleet size.
And again, this occurred in the middle of the 5 year budget cycle.

---

Combined with the almost complete breakdown in US-China relations over the past 3 years, it looks like an unplanned naval buildup to me.

Click to expand...

Well, obviously any naval procurement is a reflection of the assessment of strategic priorities as determined by the govt and military.

However my point is that the fact that we've seen production rate of destroyers reach a peak last year doesn't mean that we should treat it as the new normal, nor does it mean that it would be unreasonable to expect production to potentially pause in the near future.

I would think they would need to slow down on the 055 so they could accumulate operating and testing experience on the first 8 to 12 samples to find out what they did wrong and what they can use to improve on the next batch. Normally PLAN tends to build around two class samples to obtain operating and testing data before going on to build the rest quickly. The fact they went on so quickly to build eight samples is unprecedented and quite a bit of a surprise.

As for the 052D, even in its extended form, the design is starting to get long in the tooth, and they need to think ahead in planning for a destroyer viable in the technological environment 2030 to 2040. Still if they are planning to continue to build the DL form, they would need some testing and usage data to determine if its viable to continue work on this model, improve the model or work on the next model instead.

The last thing you need is to mass produce something in that in a few years, you found yourself in a large pool of obsolete material. That's the situation the PLA has been before.

For them to reach over 70 Type 056 and 30 Type 054A is already too much in my opinion. The production on these should have stopped before and transit to more advanced designs earlier, like years before. But since you already have this, the next thing in mind, not just for a successor but to plan for their midlife refit aimed at updating their electronic sensors and suites.