Looks like a stupid idea
Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Why?
I think it was a real question
But remember that the Type-051 and Type-052 hull forms were dual development paths.
But the Type-052 was chosen for mass production once it was good enough. There's no reason to go back to a less mature Type-051 hullform, and it assumes that this hull is the optimal size. It is now a lot easier to expand Type-052 series construction than to start up Type-051 series.
But everyone is moving to a larger Type-055 sized hull and VLS count anyway.
Just look at the specifications for the US DDG(X), Italian DD(X) and German F-127
---
In addition, he states he has "faith" that both China and the US will come up with a successor to the Arleigh Burkes and Type-052D.
But as stated previously, China already has a functional successor to the Type-052D. The Type-055 is in mass production, with 14 units launched in the past 9 years. In comparison, everyone else has yet to have a single hull in the water.
---
In addition, he seems to have missed China's strategic requirements.
Historically, the world's largest trading nation builds the largest Navy to protect its seaborne trade.
Today, China is the world's largest trading nation by a large margin and therefore China derives the most economic benefit.
So to protect this global trade, it makes sense to build the world's largest Navy by a significant margin.
That argues for significantly more ships and larger ships than the US Navy.
---
Such a requirement would match up with Pentagon reporting that China plans on building 6 new aircraft carriers in the next 10 years, for a total of 9. (Such a force implies large destroyers like the Type-055)
I've noticed that this assertion is now being repeated by the Lowy Institute, AEI and Foreign Affairs magazine. You would think that these organisations have the informal contacts to confirm this.
Otherwise it is going to be embarrassing.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure he mentions China's seaborne trade as the single biggest reason for China to rapidly expand its navy, but I might be remembering a different video of his. I suppose the Type 055 is a functional successor to the Type 052, but I think his point was more about a hull of roughly similar or slightly more tonnage which can be mass produced in similar numbers to the Type 052D.
The hull keep diving into the water?
Lethe
Captain
I respect anyone who is willing to put themselves out there to discuss complex matters in a non-clickbait, non-sensationalised fashion. I am not familiar with the author's other work and make no comment in that broader regard. Nonetheless, having listened to the first half of this presentation I am largely disappointed. The 051 series developed considerably over the decades, and deserves more coverage than it is given here, particularly the experimental/transitional examples in the 1980s that effectively form a bridge to 052. The presentation is very light on technical detail. Particularly in this format, I can understand not wanting to impose upon the viewer a parade of acronyms and numbers, but a certain level of detail is required to create a compelling narrative. The viewer could be forgiven for not registering that HHQ-7 and HHQ-16 are actually very different systems providing very different levels of capability, or even that these destroyers are actually getting larger over time.
Scattered references are made to the genesis of particular systems and methods of indigenisation, but these are not as effective as they could be largely due to the lack of political context, i.e. the transitions between the period of direct Soviet assistance, the Sino-Soviet split, improved relations with the west and fruits thereof, cessation of those military-industrial relationships post-1989, exposure to late-Soviet technology following the end of the Cold War via Russia and Ukraine, and the relationship of all of the preceding to consistent efforts towards domestic development. Obviously this is not a political presentation, but the connections are so direct and illuminating that the narrative really suffers without them. Most of the discussion about 051B focuses on use of Ukrainian gas turbine propulsion, which is flatly incorrect, that being a property of 052B. I have not yet listened to the second half of the presentation.
Last edited:
There's no need to have too high expectations. It's already quite an achievement to find channels and videos on YouTube that aren't idiotic...
When you lower your expectations you also lower your standards.
But the issue is that a Type-052D successor with slightly more tonnage doesn't cut it. My guess is that additional space for a modernised version (for speed/endurance/electricity/weapons/sensors) has resulted in the previously mentioned 9000-10000 tonne general purpose destroyer specification.
But note that the Type-055 is in the 12000-13000 tonne range. That would only be a 33% difference in displacement, and the actual cost difference should be even lower. There should be very little difference in mass producing a Type-055 versus a 9000-10000 tonne Type-052D successor.
And if I look at the mission of the Type-052D and Type-055, they are exclusively tasked with preparing for a high-end conflict. (The Frigates are the ships conducting distant presence and escort missions).
When considering that there are already 45 ships in the Type-052C/D class, this should be enough for the next 10years.
In particular, for picket ships screening aircraft carrier groups, I think the Type-052C/D is a better choice than the Type-055 (which has too much capability/cost for this role). The same applies to the ASW mission in carrier groups.
And if/when there is a shortage of Type-052C/D, we should have the Type-057 Frigate in service. If it fast enough to keep up with an aircraft carrier, it can replace the Type-052C/D previously allocated to the middle-zone ASW mission in carrier groups.
I'm not really sure whether it would or wouldn't cut it. How much of a difference is there between a low tonnage destroyer and a high tonnage frigate? The distinctions between the roles of ship classes have become pretty blurred, almost every modern ship functions as a destroyer-cruiser hybrid. And I'm not sure 45 ships really cuts it (obviously China is building more) either. These resources are divided among the North fleet, East Fleet, and South Fleet, and while each doesn't get even priority, in an ideal world they should probably be somewhat close to the same size. If we disperse the number of ships evenly, this would mean that each sea fleet gets 15 Type-052C/D destroyers and 5 Type-055 destroyers. Now if China gets to a point where it has 6 carriers (2 for each fleet), that means that many of those ships will have to be dedicated to to the carriers if China wants to have groupings similar to USN CSGs. If we apply roughly the same ship distribution where the USN has 1 cruiser and 3-4 destroyers, this would mean that of each sea fleet's destroyers, 2 of the 5 type-055 would be dedicated to carrier groups and 6 of the 15 Type-052C/D. Each fleet having only 3 Type-055 and 9 Type-052C/D would be nowhere near enough. Now obviously this is omitting the role of frigates, but in speaking more broadly to the fact that China will probably want a lot more ships, especially low to mid range destroyers.