Has PLAN crept ahead of ROKN in technology terms?

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Five years ago with the advent of the KD1 destoyers, I think it was pretty clear that 1:1 South Korean warships were ahead of the PLAN.

The KD-2 is a very impressive destroyer and the KD-3 will of course be an AEGIS warship. The recent long range cruise missile tests and indiginous anti-ship missile developments suggest that ROKN is continuing on the upward trend.

But has PLAN caught up or even passed them? :coffee:
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Five years ago with the advent of the KD1 destoyers, I think it was pretty clear that 1:1 South Korean warships were ahead of the PLAN.

The KD-2 is a very impressive destroyer and the KD-3 will of course be an AEGIS warship. The recent long range cruise missile tests and indiginous anti-ship missile developments suggest that ROKN is continuing on the upward trend.

But has PLAN caught up or even passed them? :coffee:
I guess it all depends on which area you are looking at. There are some areas that ROKN really can't compete with PLAN like having nuclear subs, large aircraft carriers (assuming that Varyag/or some indigenous one goes in service), experiment ships and replenishment ships.

but we can compare some areas where they both have vessells.

In terms of destroyers, a good indication will be when 052D (or whatever the 052C descendent is called) comes out. It would be interesting at that to compare KDX-3 with 052D.

In terms of submarines, the u-214s should be superior to any diesel subs that PLAN has.

And then for amphibious platforms, we have Dokdo class vs 071, Dokdo class probably wins out due to its ability to hold helicopters and superior air defense suite. And until 071 actually shows what kind of LCAC it uses, Dokdo wins in that area too.

For frigate, it's quite a mismatch to compare Ulsan class to 054A. So, let's just compare 054A to KDX-1. I would say that the air defense tilts to 054A with 2 Type 730 vs 2 Goalkeeper and 32 HH-16 vs 16 Sea Sparrow (not ESSM). ASuW power is about the same with 8 YJ-83s vs 8 Harpoon, but 054A does have OTH targetting with that Bandstand clone. 054A also looks far more stealthy. 054A does win out, but 054A is only coming out now, whereas KDX-1 came out in 98.

if we compare 054AB to KDX-2, you have a more even match up, both have relatively stealthy hull, KDX-2 has slightly better air defense with RAM + goalkeeper + 32 ESSM compared to 2 Type 730 + 32 HH-16. But after KDX-2 got SM-2, it clearly is the more advanced ship.

So, I guess after a little comparison, Koreans do have a technological advantage over PLAN, but PLAN has far more shipping classes than ROKN.
 

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
So, let's just compare 054A to KDX-1. I would say that the air defense tilts to 054A with 2 Type 730 vs 2 Goalkeeper and 32 HH-16 vs 16 Sea Sparrow (not ESSM). ASuW power is about the same with 8 YJ-83s vs 8 Harpoon, but 054A does have OTH targetting with that Bandstand clone. 054A also looks far more stealthy. 054A does win out, but 054A is only coming out now, whereas KDX-1 came out in 98.
I think that Type-051B/Type-052B are more in the KD1 comparables. The KD1 has strength in its two Lynx helicopters with Western sensors and most importantly Sea Skua missiles - the PLAN has a notable weakness in helicopter launched missiles and increasingly is only equipping its DDGs with a single helicopter (though Type-051B has two). The Type-052B has better SAMs and the Chinese boats have twice as many SSMs but overall I think it's quite even.

But the point is, and you rightly pointed this out, that the KD1 came some years before the PLAN fielded a comparable platform.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think that Type-051B/Type-052B are more in the KD1 comparables. The KD1 has strength in its two Lynx helicopters with Western sensors and most importantly Sea Skua missiles - the PLAN has a notable weakness in helicopter launched missiles and increasingly is only equipping its DDGs with a single helicopter (though Type-051B has two). The Type-052B has better SAMs and the Chinese boats have twice as many SSMs but overall I think it's quite even.

But the point is, and you rightly pointed this out, that the KD1 came some years before the PLAN fielded a comparable platform.

actually, if you look at the displacement. You have 054A at just over 4000 tonnes compared to KDX-1 at just less than 4000 tonnes, that's a pretty good comparison. KDX-2 is at around 5000 tonnes, but still closer in displacement to 054A than 052B. To me, 052B is a class that's totally not needed. It's just there, because the technology leap from 052/051B to 052C is too great.
 

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
Five years ago with the advent of the KD1 destoyers, I think it was pretty clear that 1:1 South Korean warships were ahead of the PLAN.

The KD-2 is a very impressive destroyer and the KD-3 will of course be an AEGIS warship. The recent long range cruise missile tests and indiginous anti-ship missile developments suggest that ROKN is continuing on the upward trend.

But has PLAN caught up or even passed them?

Well, that depends on if we're talking about Korean-developed or American and European developed. ROKN is able to stay ahead by buying Western weapons, but China can build its own weapons at its own pace and upgrade them or alter them as they see fit. In that way, the ROKN is behind and has been for some time.
 

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Indigeously speaking, Korea has one area where China is technologically more advanced: land attack. While We've heard of ALCMs from H-6s, we haven't heard anything about LACMs from ships. The closet to it is the YJ-62 which isn't confirmed for land attack. We know China got Kh-55s from Ukraine, but the HN-5 isn't anywhere around as matter.

Here's Korea's LACM:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
To compare single vessels vs. other is bit pointless as specially in this case when the spearhead of both navies are so close together. We need to look this thing from another perspective...

The orginal question was "is PLAN ahead of ROKN in terms of technology?" Yeas it is, if you look the thing in purely technological terms. China has produced most of it's latest stuff (tough in many case, the russian participation or influence is transparent) indegeniously, where as South Korea has relyed on imported stuff.

But does it means PLAN is better than ROKN? No...The capabilies of fleets cannot be determine on equipment alone, let alone focusing on the newest and sexiest ones only. More important factors is the naval doctrines, the overall idea what your navy is about to do and the long term development in the naval area.

What is interesting is that both of these navies are in transition phase, and actually in quite same phase. Both are transforming form coastal force into bluewater navy (it's easily argued that they might run against each others) with new type of ships entering service which are new form the very concept and level not just from the hardware.
So which one of the runners have better base for this? I'd say ROKN. PRC naval history started IMO in 1990 when they finaly had world class major surface ships being introduced. Before that the PLAN was embarashing example of almoust complete neglement of dedicated naval branch and mirror to the other general level mistakes made in PRC troughout it's early days. So in the event of this new rising the base of chinese naval development was quite poor.
ROKN in other hand had quite ballanced little navy fitted with perhaps not the state-of-the-art equipment, but still good western stuff packed with the western naval knowlidge and doctrines.

China had to do it's naval build-up alone mostly, tough it had considerable help from various western sources in it's early efforts (Mainly Luhu class ddgs). But as that class and the 025T class frigates to Thailand shows, there was major proplems to get the chinese shipbuilding industry to mach the requirements of rest of the world in the terms of quality. The sad events of 1989 came really in the worst possiple time to PLANs modernisation program and it stalled it almoust a decade. But luckily what happened two years later gave another change to china...the russian naval supermarket was now open. The next phase of PLAN modernisation is clearly russian led and its offsprings are the "third gen" vessles like 052B/C, 054/A and ofcourse the 956E/Ms alongside with various russian equipments being manufactured (propaply with licence agreements) by the chinese.

ROKN naval buildup is the opposite. It has enjoyed the markets of western naval systems and ROKNs major new surface combatants has the latest western systems and most of the important stuff comes from USA. One might say it's down to whose teacher is better, Russia for China or USA and rest of the western world for Korea...
So while PLAN gets the points of doing it from the hardway, symphaty isen't one that counts in the naval warfare zones.

But China has some elements that in the long term (decades) gives its huge advantage. China is rising superpower where as ROK can be a major local/continental player at best. China will have the capabilites of superpower and also the requirements of it. The need for chinese naval buildup is therefore much larger than ROK's one so I'm quessing the expansion of PLAN will continue long after ROK has reached it's roof.
It took almoust entire lenght of Soviet unions life to become a serious bluewater navy from coastal force tasked to limited reach opertations. If China can squeese even one or two decade from it's own transition, we should all be proud of her...:china:
 
Last edited:

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Personally, I like S. Korean navy's "rapid response group" doctrine. By 2020 they plan to have 2-3 rapid response groups, each centered on a Dokdo class LPX, with 6-7 KDX, several FFX, and 2-3 SSX submarines.

I think this is a good model for the PLAN to emulate. PLAN has 3 main fleets and each should form its own rapid response group centered around a large LHD. Like S. Korea the PRC doesn't have long-distance oversea territory to cover. All territorial claims by the PRC are within land-based aircraft strike range. Carriers can wait, I think the $ is better allocated toward LHD's with better helicopters and combat UAV's, as well as ASW Frigates and AD Destroyers.

If combat UAV's replace manned fighters in the future, it may not even be necessary to field large aircraft carriers. Smaller, stealthy combat UAV carriers might be the key to naval dominance by 2050.
 

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
I don't think it really matters where each country got their technology from, that's a political and cost factor, it doesn't change what they have and haven't got. Remember that ROK has indiginous anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles anyway so they are hardly 'poor' in that department anyway.
 
Top