Next Generation Destroyer thread (after 055, 052D)

[ACuriousPLAFan]

You don't get it don't you? If you think China, a communist, is going on the same track as USA in terms of ideology and politics, then you're absolutely right. Military is always the extension of politics.

US transferred plenty industrial capabilities to other nations to gain more profits, if China learns then it will hold tight the status of being world's factory.

Looks like you don't even know what you are talking about - But that's not even in the scope of discussion of this thread anyway.

In terms of VLS speed rate they show no difference - 1.57 * 112 ~ 3 * 64

"No difference" is wrong. There's 16.

Also FYI, in the eyes of the PLAN planners - There're actually way more factors to consider than a mere VLS increase rate across the fleet.

What I see is PLAN is very urgent expanding its fleet in quantities, doubling in numbers but sacrificing sailing in long range and top speed.

052D is the best solution combating near the first island chain, using a frigate size full with some aspects of cruiser fire power.

Producing 052D now is the same reason as producing 054AG with the 100mm cannon.

And 20000-ton surface combatants are definitely very far from being a necessity for the PLAN for beyond-1IC operations.

Here's ONE crucial point which you seem to totally ignore in your arguments - It's not just about size of warships, but also the scale at which these fleets of warships that can be fielded and deployed for ocean-wide, medium-to-high intensity, complex and demanding operations.

What's the use of struggling to field and upkeep such massive warships (which will only be available in limited numbers so as to not break the PLAN's coffer and starving other concurrent procurement and R&D projects in the PLAN and related departments & institutions, let alone many other navy-related stuffs) that can only cover several areas at once and losing one or few means a non-insignificant degradation to the combat capabilities of the PLA(N) across the board in an all-out IndoPac conflict?

 

[Dante80]

Three predictions

1. When a future 052 replacement does come around in a decade or two, it is probably not going to have more than 64 VLS cells. Having more VLS cells would not be the reason for PLAN replacing 052. As we have already seen by active shipbuilding programs, PLAN does not seem to have a need for an Arleigh Burke equivalent. Partly I guess because independent action is not and will not be a big priority for its big surface combatants.

2. Larger cells than UVLS for PLAN surface combatants is not a thing, and it is not going to be a thing. UVLS is large enough for what PLAN wants in future expansion. It was actually designed with said expansion in mind, hence its enormous diameter when compared to other VLS examples.

3. The reason ballistic missile surface ships was not, is not and will not be a thing is pretty simple. Launching a missile of this class immediately gives away your precise location. And while a SSBN is slow, it can keep hiding underwater, thus requiring assets in the immediate area for countering it. A surface ship is slow and cannot do that.

 

[DDG181]

Looks like you don't even know what you are talking about - But that's not even in the scope of discussion of this thread anyway.

My whole point is the industrial capacity decides what ship you are building, and ideology decides whether losing that capacity or not.

0.3 billion population feed 70+ Brukes,
1.4 billion population feed 70 055 is not even close,

Also for reference -
price of COGAG ABF3 - 2 billion USD
price of COGAG Type 055 - 0.88 billion USD - again not even close

70 13000 ton DDG is far behind the industrial capacity of PRC.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

My whole point is the industrial capacity decides what ship you are building, and ideology decides whether losing that capacity or not.

0.3 billion population feed 70+ Brukes,
1.4 billion population feed 70 055 is not even close,

Also for reference -
price of COGAG ABF3 - 2 billion USD
price of COGAG Type 055 - 0.88 billion USD - again not even close

70 13000 ton DDG is far behind the industrial capacity of PRC.

There are much, much more things to consider for the higher ups of the PLAN when working on their upcoming/next-gen/future warships of just about any category. In fact, definitely way much more than mere "muh industrial capacity" "muh VLS cells" "muh population" "muh cheaper than opposite" "muh ideology" "muh much bigger = much better" which can be uttered by literally any average Joe on the streets.

In reality, there are rock-solid realities and tailored requirements that the PLAN must abide by in order for things to work properly as envisioned.

Real life is far from being simple, easy, straight-forward, and I-think-so-hence-it-must-be-so. Seriously.

 

[montyp165]

There are much, much more things to consider for the higher ups of the PLAN when working on their upcoming/next-gen/future warships of just about any category. In fact, definitely way much more than mere "muh industrial capacity" "muh VLS cells" "muh population" "muh cheaper than opposite" "muh ideology" "muh much bigger = much better" which can be uttered by literally any average Joe on the streets.

In reality, there are rock-solid realities and tailored requirements that the PLAN must abide by in order for things to work properly as envisioned.

Real life is far from being simple, easy, straight-forward, and I-think-so-hence-it-must-be-so. Seriously.

The reason why ships of a given type (whether it be frigates, cruisers, aircraft carriers etc) scale up in size relative to performance over time is that cost of operations does not scale logarithmically with size increases (but rather levels out geometrically), which is why even if there is a high initial procurement cost the actual operational cost doesn't cost more per tonnage especially if the crew size is the same size as a smaller vessel. A ghetto example of what I'm referring to would be a Type 71 type hull with the armament fit and equipment of a 055 + quad pack DF-21/26 launchers for AShBM work, with a flight deck for aerial drones and a rear dock for UUVs. A better optimized design would be able to do all this more efficiently and be better future proofed on top of that.

 

[charles18]

I genuinely can't understand why some people want battlecruiser equivalents in 2024.

Such a ship would have enough firepower to sink an aircraft carrier at standoff ranges and cost 1/3 as much.
I think a more appropriate question is why would you not want this?

Obviously such ships would not work alone. They would depend on other platforms such as satellites, drones, and frigates.....just like how carriers never travel alone.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

The reason why ships of a given type (whether it be frigates, cruisers, aircraft carriers etc) scale up in size relative to performance over time is that cost of operations does not scale logarithmically with size increases (but rather levels out geometrically), which is why even if there is a high initial procurement cost the actual operational cost doesn't cost more per tonnage especially if the crew size is the same size as a smaller vessel. A ghetto example of what I'm referring to would be a Type 71 type hull with the armament fit and equipment of a 055 + quad pack DF-21/26 launchers for AShBM work, with a flight deck for aerial drones and a rear dock for UUVs. A better optimized design would be able to do all this more efficiently and be better future proofed on top of that.

What you've just described is literally what Ma Weiming has suggested (i.e. "全能舰"), which has no anchor to the grounds of reality.

Go back up the thread and previous thread(s) and re-read what I have explained many times already. I ain't got any more energy to waste on what is basically the same, repetitive argument.

 

[BoraTas]

My whole point is the industrial capacity decides what ship you are building, and ideology decides whether losing that capacity or not.

0.3 billion population feed 70+ Brukes,
1.4 billion population feed 70 055 is not even close,

Also for reference -
price of COGAG ABF3 - 2 billion USD
price of COGAG Type 055 - 0.88 billion USD - again not even close

70 13000 ton DDG is far behind the industrial capacity of PRC.

?????????

These are so weird claims that I don't know where to start from. Japan has 100 times the shipbuilding capacity of the USA. Which country is building more warships? The USA. In numbers, tonnage and even in capability. Obviously, shipbuilding capacity is far less important than your naval spending.

That population argument is even weirder. Population literally has zero implications beyond a potentially bigger economy. I said potentially because per capita productivity is just as important. And no, economic size or population don't determine the size of the military you need. Your national goals and the threats you face do. No country looks at the shipyard capacity to decide what to build. If they decide they don't have enough shipyard capacity to face the threats then they expand the shipyard capacity.

Having 70 Type 055s might not be beyond the size of the Chinese shipbuilding industry, but it is certainly beyond the budget of PLA, especially if we aren't assuming a single-dimensional focus on building more 055s.

Such a ship would have enough firepower to sink an aircraft carrier at standoff ranges and cost 1/3 as much.
I think a more appropriate question is why would you not want this?

Obviously such ships would not work alone. They would depend on other platforms such as satellites, drones, and frigates.....just like how carriers never travel alone.

If the goal is lobbing BMs, DDGs could do it just fine as demonstrated by the 055. A carrier can protect its escorts and use its aircraft for ISR. It can also attack more sustainably to more distant locations than such a ship. So there aren't any grounds for a dedicated conventional BM carrier. If big missiles were such a guarantee, believe me, PLA would just another another module to the 055.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If the goal is lobbing BMs, DDGs could do it just fine as demonstrated by the 055. A carrier can protect its escorts and use its aircraft for ISR. It can also attack more sustainably to more distant locations than such a ship. So there aren't any grounds for a dedicated conventional BM carrier. If big missiles were such a guarantee, believe me, PLA would just another another module to the 055.

In short: Yes, that's basically my original line of thought. I should've explained more clearly beforehand.

But before that, and as a reply to your previous post:

I think if PLAN really wants big missile launchers it could just add them to its future carriers. I know giving carriers surface combatant missions is usually a bad idea but procuring a class of CGs to just have a few dozen big launchers would be a massive misuse of resources. As long as the said launchers don't go through the hangar (as they do in the Russian Kuznetsov) they should be OK. Much better than procuring a whole new class to just have them. I genuinely can't understand why some people want battlecruiser equivalents in 2024.

Adding such huge, potential powder keg source onto warships with massive significance for the navy operating them and only available in very low numbers isn't particularly a good idea. A lucky hit or an unlucky accident could potentially render an entire CV or LHD incapacitated, if not outright sunk with the addition of such massive quantities of explosives onboard. A couple UVLS cells for quad-packable MRSAMs (if not HHQ-16s and/or HHQ-9s) should be a good idea for CVs and LHDs, but only up until that.

This brings the notion that large surface combatants (i.e. DDGs and CGs) should be the ones carrying the larger diameter strike missiles in LVLS cells, instead of CVs and LHDs. They are available in greater numbers, able to be present in larger numbers of regions at once, more flexible in their deployments, and are naturally more expandable than proper flattops.

Instead of attempting to construct 20000-30000-ton pipe-dream warships that would be a total waste of precious, finite peacetime and wartime resources - Proper modifications and iterations of the normal, frontline surface warships currently operating in the PLAN today are definitely enough for such endeavors.

Retaining the 64 UVLS-cell count for the 052D/DG-successors and the 112 UVLS-cell count for the 055-successors (if not marginally increasing the number of UVLS cells by a maximum of 16 for both warships) - All while having the option to swap certain numbers of the UVLS cells onboard with smaller numbers of LVLS cells is certainly more than enough.

For the sake of giving examples:
1. A 052D/DG-successor DDG of 9000-10000 tons (at full load) with original loadout configs of 64 or 80 UVLS cells can have alternate loadout configs of 48 UVLS + 6-8 LVLS cells or 64 UVLS + 6-8 LVLS cells; and
2. A 055-succesor DDG/CG of 15000-16000 tons (at full load) with original loadout configs of 112-128 UVLS can have alternate loadout configs of 80 UVLS + 12-16 LVLS cells or 96 UVLS + 12-16 LVLS cells.

These LVLS cells must be capable of not just carrying larger, heavier and even longer-range strike missiles, but also multi-pack certain missiles in each individual LVLS cell, which would otherwise only be able to fit one unit per UVLS cell.

Most importantly, if anything - The ability of swapping UVLS cells with LVLS cells onboard the surface combatants of the PLAN must be:
1. Applicable across significant portions of the major surface combatant fleet of the navy (i.e. not only for the selected few, "unique-type" warships);
2. "For-but-not-with", i.e. said CGs and DDGs must function properly and conduct their respective roles in the navy, with or without the addition of LVLS cells; and
3. Providing visibly greater benefit in terms of strike range or strike volume than without LVLS cells.

 

[TK3600]

?????????

These are so weird claims that I don't know where to start from. Japan has 100 times the shipbuilding capacity of the USA. Which country is building more warships? The USA. In numbers, tonnage and even in capability. Obviously, shipbuilding capacity is far less important than your naval spending.

That population argument is even weirder. Population literally has zero implications beyond a potentially bigger economy. I said potentially because per capita productivity is just as important. And no, economic size or population don't determine the size of the military you need. Your national goals and the threats you face do. No country looks at the shipyard capacity to decide what to build. If they decide they don't have enough shipyard capacity to face the threats then they expand the shipyard capacity.

Having 70 Type 055s might not be beyond the size of the Chinese shipbuilding industry, but it is certainly beyond the budget of PLA, especially if we aren't assuming a single-dimensional focus on building more 055s.


If the goal is lobbing BMs, DDGs could do it just fine as demonstrated by the 055. A carrier can protect its escorts and use its aircraft for ISR. It can also attack more sustainably to more distant locations than such a ship. So there aren't any grounds for a dedicated conventional BM carrier. If big missiles were such a guarantee, believe me, PLA would just another another module to the 055.

Where is American expansion of shipyard capacity? I heard their ships are low in maintnence, outdated, missing capability (frigate), so where are the expansion? They certainly get a large budget. So where is the expansion if you have money and the needs. Shouldn't it pop up like magic on demand?