Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

True that true that. In NZ, the Royal NZ Navy only has three Frigates. But one is always on patrol/duty/visits etc for weeks if not months on end. That is something we see quite less for PLAN. Even their SSNs and SSBN only operate mainly around the coast, and I guess in terms of training and doctrine and sea hours, PLAN can still be classed effectively as a coastal fleet, despite the potential.

Trips to other countries however, I think are good for the PLAN. They are long voyages over deep waters. Its ashame only 167, 113 and 112 have been given most priority in overseas visits (though I guess quite a few sets of crew have experienced overseas visits onboard these ships).

Shichang and a number of replenishment ships have also accompanied these destroyers. Good news. Trains up replenishment crews. I think thats a bonus for PLAN.

A handful of Jiangweis have also conducted overseas visits, which is good news too.

As much as 'I think' and 'I hope', it probably won't happn. But I guess it probably doesn't hurt in future small scale conflicts if China chooses to deploy one or two surface combatants to troubled regions, or international naval exercises/expos. China is in security council, its army and PAP have done so much for UN, and its air force probably has conducted numerous logistic flights to support these men. Yet we have seldomly seen the navy out there. I mean, in Operation Desert Storm and subsequent conflicts with Iraq, the Japanese Navy, Pakistani Navy and even Russian Navy and New Zealand, have sent ships to the Persian Gulf. There are benefits for PLAN to do something like that as well.

If PLAN fears it would lose men if it ever got attacked...well I don't think terrorist groups would be able to fire AShMs any time soon at major combatants operating hundreds of miles off the coast. But if it keeps PLAN crews on edge...good, its part of the experience.

Gives PLAN opportunity to operate in areas never operated in before. Especially Persian Gulf...while you are on a temporary deployment, might as well familiarize the crews/equipment with the area. Even if it mean one ship, the information gathered will be invaluable to future PLAN ships.

PLAN can exercise with other navies. That is always a bonus.



In terms of a Chinese DDX, no that is not going to happen anytime soon.

China already possesses tech for VLS SAM, and PAR radars. Lets say it will take another 5 years to perfect such technology.

Give 10 years until PLAN perfects command/control and stealth technology for ships.
Then give at least 15 years until we see Chinese Vertical launched Land attack cruise missiles to develop.
Give 20 years until PLAn acquires high quality sonars and shipboard ASW weapons.

So really, we won't see something like DDX until at least 20-25 years.

tphuang said:

054A is still smaller than F-124. Do you know how much it cost? 052B is 300 million each, do you think 054A can be that expensive? probably 250 million? still much cheaper than the 750 million+ price tag of 052C and 051C. It's definitely not too small for long duration mission. It's going to be as large as Luhu class DDG and Luhu is having no problem sailing to US.

Click to expand...

I think the final unit cost for the 054A ma vary a lot from the 054, based on equipment, weapons, and number produced. i.e. if they opt to use HQ-18 SAM system and build 8 ships, the cost of HQ-18 system integration can be spread out over 8 ships instead of 2.

I don't know what the unit cost of the 054 is, but we could cite the F-22P export to Pakistan at ~$187.5 million each. Since the 054 is more advanced, I'd lean toward ~$250 million estimate.

For the 054A, if PLAN opt for traditional air/surface search radar and improved HQ-7 (in VLS cels?), that shouldn't add more than $50 to $100 million over the unit cost of a 054. So, say ~$300 to $350 million.

But if they opt for APAR style radar and HQ-18 system, the unit cost could double. If we assume (based on S-300V price + licensing fee, cited from Pakistani defense forum) a HQ-18 group with 48 missiles cost ~$200 million USD, then the unit cost of the 054A could go to $500+ million USD, which is comparable to the Spanish F100 Frigate's unit cost ($385 million euros).

Another example would be the price difference between the 052B and 052C. The 052B was estimated at $400 million USD, vs. the 052C at "up to" $800 million USD. The high cost is attributed to new APAR radar system, HQ-9 SAM VLS system, and C4I systems.

chicket9 said:

China already possesses tech for VLS SAM, and PAR radars. Lets say it will take another 5 years to perfect such technology.

Give 10 years until PLAN perfects command/control and stealth technology for ships.
Then give at least 15 years until we see Chinese Vertical launched Land attack cruise missiles to develop.
Give 20 years until PLAn acquires high quality sonars and shipboard ASW weapons.

So really, we won't see something like DDX until at least 20-25 years.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with that. It took China only about 5 years (late 90's to 2003/04) since the beginning of structural modernization to improve from making old Jiangwei's to making Type 052 series! We have not seen the latest advanced for a couple of years. I think it will take China another 5 years (2003/04 to 2008/09) to catch up to the current state of the art in Japan and Korea (the Kongo and KDX classes), then another 5 years after that (2013/14) to develop the first of the wave piercing designs.

Roger604 said:

I can't agree with that. It took China only about 5 years (late 90's to 2003/04) since the beginning of structural modernization to improve from making old Jiangwei's to making Type 052 series! We have not seen the latest advanced for a couple of years. I think it will take China another 5 years (2003/04 to 2008/09) to catch up to the current state of the art in Japan and Korea (the Kongo and KDX classes), then another 5 years after that (2013/14) to develop the first of the wave piercing designs.

Click to expand...

But the problem with that is that China did not develop this technology indigineously. China merely absorbed/purchased a bulk of the modernization in 052 series ships. That's undeniable. Anybody could have advanced like that using that model for development. But from that model, the technology is not mastered like one who has done the R & D and built a foundation of knowledge from that. China has advanced, yes. But not in anyway that will progress it to this high level of naval engineering proficiency. From the radars, to the VLS, to the PAR , it has been absorbed in some way from secondary sources. So....

I would say chickets estimation is more likely.

But this is not necessarily a stop for China. It just means that it will take alot longer to develop the naval engineering component. China's navy has seen great advancement, and may just see a carrier in service soon. But I can't agree on the level of growth based upon what we've seen so far, and how it has been done.

I have to respectfully disagree. What you say makes no sense from any engineering standpoint. If you can implement a domestic design of foreign technology, you essentially have mastered that technology. That's how the Japanese and the Koreans are able to do this with electronics. This line of argument is as thin as back in the 1930s when Americans and Europeans were claiming that the Japanese cannot master aircraft design and engines because they were "copies". Not long after they were getting their asses kicked by Zeroes.

Facts:

China is able to implement operationally various technologies into indigenous designs.

Low RCS technology -> Type 022 FAC. Look closely on the windows---same serragated designs as in the F-117 and B-2.

CIWS -> Type 730 CIWS.

Electronic scanning radars -> Type 052C, AWACS, HT-233 and H-200 radar systems. The variety of electronic scanning arrays seen not just in the PLAN but also in the PLAAF and PLA ranging from early warning radars to artillery spotting radars, tells you this area is one that has been comprehensively mastered.

Land attack cruise missile technology -> HN series and DH-10. It seems to me that the YJ-62 might be an AshM version of the DH-10. Due to the variety of cruise and antiship missiles, this area is another that has shown comphrehensive mastery in all areas.

Area defense SAM system -> HQ-9, HH-9, KS-1A.

VLS -> At least the rotary type. A squared wet launch design has long been sighted on ship 870 along with the rotary design. I think the development of a Chinese multirole VLS launcher like the MK41 is the next important step.

It would probably take a decade before the DDX takes to the water in the West. It would probably be before 2020 that the next generation Chinese destroyer takes to the water.

Look at the history of China's ASHM as an example of this development.

C-801 being heavily derived from the Exocet and original Harpoons. The development of the C-801K with its improved rocket motor exceeded the range of the first Exocets by nearly a hundred percent.

Yet not too long after in the early to mid nineties, China has mastered the development of small turbines is able to air breath the C-801 to the C-802 design. The air breathing version of the Exocet isn't expected until the first prototype flies in 2007. At this point, the C-802 is not only able to match the range of the Harpoon, but even exceed it.

Refinements in the missile design and engine increased both the speed and range of the missile into the YJ-83. At this point, China is able to add datalinks that can command guide the missile during its midphase flight. This allows the missile not to use its seeker radar to the last moment, reducing warning times to the target, and provides some operator flexibility. This time, the missile extends its lead range over the Harpoon and the nearest Russian equivalent, which is the Uran aka Switchblade.

Further progress, including the use of frequency agility on the seeker, leads to the next generation long range subsonic AshM, the YJ-62, and TV optical systems on the C-701 and YJ-63. The YJ-63 is another example of fast progress. China got the Kh-59ME in the year 2001 and by 2005, they have an indigenous design that does the very same thing (TV guided man SLAM type missile) with at least double the range.

Let me add more.

At one point in time, China required actual samples of the product to be copied before they could analyze it and replicate it. The J-7C/D from the MiG-21MF is a classic example. So is getting the MiG-23s from Egypt. Even then they were not successful in some of these technologies, like the R-25 engine from the MiG-23.

By the eighties, they still needed samples to actually do their copies, or even require licensing. Examples are the Z-9 from the Dauphin and the PL-8 from the Python 3.

Then something happened. At some point, they stopped needing actual working samples of the thing in question to successfully develop their own prototypes and put them into operation. It seems all they needed was just the general specifications and theoritical concept of the item.

Mere three years after Israel was forced to deny the Phalcon system, and a mere two years after China entered talks with Russia to possibly procure some A-50 Mainstays, China is flying four A-50 style prototypes with phase array radar. No working foreign prototype needed.

China is also flying balance beam phase array radars and yet no Erieye from Sweden is ever shipped to China.

China got its Type 730 CIWS operational, long before they got Kashtans from Russia.

China didn't get a copy of a Burke just to produce its 052C either.

Likewise, the Type 22 has no foreign equivalent at this moment in full operation and production.

Sea Dog said:

Anybody could have advanced like that using that model for development. But from that model, the technology is not mastered like one who has done the R & D and built a foundation of knowledge from that.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be biased here but based on your assumptions, all the US did with their rocket design in the 50's was take Von Braun from the Germans and copy their idea.

And you think Europe could of done this?

Right. And you both make good points. I won't deny the advancements made. But if you look at all the stuff fielded, there is no new innovation incorporated in any of it. Somebody else came along and pretty much did it first. You provide excellent examples Crobato, but they still don't surpass the field. And in some ways, don't measure up to things that are already out there.

And you have to admit, even the most diehards out there, that alot of the equipment and technologies incorporated into PLAN's newest vessels have come from secondary sources. Whether it was purchased, copied, reverse-engineered, etc. The stuff on them are known quantities, that have already been fielded. There is not one example of anybody absorbing high level technologies, then surpassing the entire field. Not one. Toasters, and DVD players are not this type of technology. Reverse-engineered technology is never as good as the original. And you Cannot establish a credible technology base using this model of development. Any engineer worth their salt will tell you the same. There is alot of trial and error that take place that the copier/absorber will miss out on.

Thusly, they will probably not be able to modify the existing technology very well, nor are they likely to advance it. That is not mastering the technology. In military applications, there is not one example in modern times where it's worked out for anybody.

China may have modern and capable missiles, but they have done alot of the work themselves. But even so, their missiles are no better than the rest of the field out there. And range is useless, due to the fact that your sensors/networks aren't developed enough to utilize the range built in. Trust me, I've worked this area. Using 200 Km in any missile is highly unlikely for various reasons. Yes, it also depends on who your foe is, but this is one aspect of Chinese missiles that get the coverage, where this option is not the most important. There are alot of navies that have less range missiles but better sensors and networks for detection, tracking, localizing, and targeting contacts. And the developed networks allow better sea space situational awareness. China has not mastered these technologies. And if they have, they certainly have not demonstrated it. Putting this stuff, that is known technology, on a ship is not innovating new technologies. Nor is it a demonstration of the mastery of it. Nor are we likely going to see the continued rapid progress, since they've gotten up to this point. I honestly got to say I see a bottleneck coming up in PLAN development once these new ships are fielded. And again, it's due only to the way China has pursued it's own naval development that will cause this.

The art of reverse-engineering has reached an advanced level in China indeed and in the coming years China will surprise many western analysts with indigenous high-tech weapons systems created by merging foreign and domestic technology very creatively.

China´s civilian shipbuilding industry has made giant strides in the last five years (see tphuangs postings in his new thread) and korean experts estimated recently that Korea remains only 2,5-3 years technologically ahead of their chinese counterparts and that by 2010-12 this gap will likely have completely vanished! Just to remind you: korean shipbuilders are currently technological worldleaders and they are superior to japanese rivals as far building times and type flexibility is concerned. Needless to say that in the US not even one shipbuilding company exists which would have the slightest chance of surviving the intense competition with east asian civilian shipbuilders. Of course building destroyers and carriers is a completely different matter to building liquid gas tankers (although these things are quite expensive: 250-300 million $!) but having a giant civilian ship industry certainly does no harm to china´s defense capabilties.

@swimmer:
Actually the US ´imported´ not only Mr. von Braun but also almost the complete scientific and engineer elite of Peenemünde during operation ´Paperclip´ in 1945/46. Several hundred of german experts were ´put to use´ in US industry and of course their past was forgotten as long as they were of any use for the US military. Unfourtunately those past came acutely alive as Mr. von Braun had delivered to them what they wanted (putting americans on the moon ahead of the russians) and suddenly Mr. von Braun was referred to as ex-Nazi, german dr.strangelove, dangerous opportunist and even war criminal. Certain powerful groups in Washington arranged that after 1972 he was denied physical access to capitol hill and further humilation was steadily heaped on him. Some experts maintain that he was certainly lucky dying from cancer in 1977 since he would have been deported back to Germany a couple of years later. Tragically von Braun constituted a living example of Lenin´s theory of the ´useful idiot´ who cannot comprehend that he is expendable after having been exploited thoroughly.

Hi Violet Oboe. You make valid points also. But we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I will say that no nation has ever reverse-engineered itself to the top. And that's the premise of the argument. That one can absorb/copy/reverse-engineer a first rate technological base using that as the developmental model. Never has been the case. Making a ship for civilian uses is a much different philosophy than designing a first rate naval ship, encompassing systems designed to fully counter current and foreseeable naval threats. And also, there is not one thing that PLAN is currently fielding that someone else hasn't done first. And has done so while building the technological knowledge base that comes from the R & D phase of development.

The 'copier' will not have that benefit and will have a more difficult, if not impossible time, advancing the design. Look how the Soviets tried this same approach with Skywatch. They got some early US Aegis design information, yet failed miserably to implement something similar in their navy. Their system was full of holes and had tracking, and coordinated fire control problems.

Sea Dog said:

Hi Violet Oboe. You make valid points also. But we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I will say that no nation has ever reverse-engineered itself to the top.

Click to expand...

That's completely false. See what the Soviet did to the Rolls Royce Nene turbojets and what the Japanese did to the Pratt and Whitney radials they got from DC-3s in the thirties.

And that's the premise of the argument. That one can absorb/copy/reverse-engineer a first rate technological base using that as the developmental model. Never has been the case.

Click to expand...

Tell that the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese how they not only reverse engineered ICs but quickly produce their own to become the top of the semi conductor industry.

Simply said, what you say isn't vouched for by history.

Making a ship for civilian uses is a much different philosophy than designing a first rate naval ship, encompassing systems designed to fully counter current and foreseeable naval threats. And also, there is not one thing that PLAN is currently fielding that someone else hasn't done first. And has done so while building the technological knowledge base that comes from the R & D phase of development.

The 'copier' will not have that benefit and will have a more difficult, if not impossible time, advancing the design. Look how the Soviets tried this same approach with Skywatch. They got some early US Aegis design information, yet failed miserably to implement something similar in their navy. Their system was full of holes and had tracking, and coordinated fire control problems.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. With systems these complex, you either master them or you don't. They either work or they don't. The Soviets mastered the theory but lacks the electronics to fulfill them. Electronics happens to be a field which the Chinese are surprisingly competent (ask any computer giant). That's the difference why Skywatch failed and why the 052C succeeded.


There is no such thing as a half assed half copy implemention of an extremely complex system and expect it to work without understanding its very fundamentals, theories and concepts.