PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.

[AndrewS]

Nah, you wrote "I don't see any point in continuing production of both Type-52D and the Type-55" after you wrote 3 destroyers per year, which at that point in the conversation was referring to a combined 052D/055 annual production rate. Nice try, though.

I think it's pretty clear and obvious.

1st post: 3 large AEGIS air-defence destroyers per year.

2nd post: An argument that there is no point in continuing construction of Type-52D after the Type-55 is ready.

Given the low cost differential (est. 16%-25%) between the 2 types versus a much large increase in capability, it's obvious that it's better to stop Type-52D production entirely and move to Type-55.

 

[AndrewS]

what would be the endgame in terms of the number of

1. aircraft carriers
2. Type 055 cruisers (please don't nitpick about the classification, possible later designation of a class with A or for example X or whatever)
   
3. Type 052 destroyers
   
4. Type 054 frigates

?

as in (LOL OK my guess):

1. 6
2. 24
3. 24
4. 36

sum = 90 major (4k+) surface combatants including aircraft carriers since it's
PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.
(at that point they wouldn't grow, but would be retiring older copies while replacing them with either newly built, or with ships which are currently unknown)

What is the endgame?

At the moment, I think they're working to an end-strength of roughly matching the USN. So after another 20 years, it will end up something like this

6+ Aircraft Carriers
90+ Large DDG Type-55/52 (3 per year)
60+ FFG Type-54 (2 per year)
60+ OPV (one off)

But I imagine that they revise the desired force structure every 5 years, according to how much the economy has grown (as military spending tracks at approximately 2% of GDP).

So a 7% growth rate over the next 5 years results in an overall increase of 40%, in which case they would revise the desired end-strength upwards.

 

[Iron Man]

I think it's pretty clear and obvious.

1st post: 3 large AEGIS air-defence destroyers per year.

2nd post: An argument that there is no point in continuing construction of Type-52D after the Type-55 is ready.

Given the low cost differential (est. 16%-25%) between the 2 types versus a much large increase in capability, it's obvious that it's better to stop Type-52D production entirely and move to Type-55.

Except that you didn't actually say 3 "large" destroyers per year in your 1st post https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-167#post-386631, and in the context of the discussion where the other posters were talking about combined 052D/055, it's pretty obvious what that post was referring to. As an afterthought you posted subsequently in your 2nd post that you felt 052D should be discontinued in favor of "large" destroyers i.e. 055. Again, not to rehash the discussion, you don't know either the cost of the 052D or the cost of the 055, so a "cost differential" of "16%-25%" is just pure speculation here.

 

[Blitzo]

Except that you didn't actually say 3 "large" destroyers per year in your 1st post https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-167#post-386631, and in the context of the discussion where the other posters were talking about combined 052D/055, it's pretty obvious what that post was referring to. As an afterthought you posted subsequently in your 2nd post that you felt 052D should be discontinued in favor of "large" destroyers i.e. 055. Again, not to rehash the discussion, you don't know either the cost of the 052D or the cost of the 055, so a "cost differential" of "16%-25%" is just pure speculation here.

Considering his post #1665 in that thread about "3 destroyers per year" was followed by #1666 regarding his view that it would make no sense to build 052Ds alongside 055s, I think it's not unfair to interpret his statements on that day of 1st February 2016 as an expression of his belief that 3 055s would be built per year.

Now, I have no position on how much 055 may cost relative to 052D or what not, and no position on the rationale for or against continuing 052D production alongside 055... however I think it's reasonable to interpret his position back in 1st February last year as one where he believed 3 055s would be produced per year...



But at the same time I have a feeling that what you're describing about 3-4 055s under simultaneous construction and what he described about 3 055s produced per year are slightly different. I.e.: I think he in early 2016 was suggesting that the Chinese Navy in the future would produce 3 055s per year in some kind of sustained basis for a number of years, whereas what you describe about 3-4 055s under simultaneous construction is reflecting merely the current/recent past situation of where we saw the first four 055s all under simultaneous construction and is not a reflection of your belief that we will continue to see 3-4 055s under simultaneous production in a sustained manner for a number of years going forwards.

 

[Iron Man]

Considering his post #1665 in that thread about "3 destroyers per year" was followed by #1666 regarding his view that it would make no sense to build 052Ds alongside 055s, I think it's not unfair to interpret his statements on that day of 1st February 2016 as an expression of his belief that 3 055s would be built per year.

Yes, it could be argued so, especially in hindsight....

But at the same time I have a feeling that what you're describing about 3-4 055s under simultaneous construction and what he described about 3 055s produced per year are slightly different. I.e.: I think he in early 2016 was suggesting that the Chinese Navy in the future would produce 3 055s per year in some kind of sustained basis for a number of years, whereas what you describe about 3-4 055s under simultaneous construction is reflecting merely the current/recent past situation of where we saw the first four 055s all under simultaneous construction and is not a reflection of your belief that we will continue to see 3-4 055s under simultaneous production in a sustained manner for a number of years going forwards.

Not just slightly different, I would say.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, it could be argued so, especially in hindsight....

Considering it was never specified that he had to have made his prediction about "3 055s per year" in a single post, but rather merely about whether he had made a prediction about "3 055s per year", I think arguing it like so is more than reasonable.

Not just slightly different, I would say.

Indeed.

 

[Iron Man]

Considering it was never specified that he had to have made his prediction about "3 055s per year" in a single post, but rather merely about whether he had made a prediction about "3 055s per year", I think arguing it like so is more than reasonable.

Yeah, pretty convenient for him that it was in different posts.

 

[Blitzo]

Yeah, pretty convenient for him that it was in different posts.

There was never a stipulation that his prediction needed to be described in a single post. I'm not even sure why it matters for the previous discussion, whether his prediction was in a single post or not.

 

[Jura The idiot]

yesterday the USN did it:
8 minutes ago

now I watched VIDEO: USS Gerald R. Ford Conducts First Arrested Landing, Catapult Launch

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

... So after another 20 years, it will end up something like this

6+ Aircraft Carriers
90+ Large DDG Type-55/52 (3 per year)
60+ FFG Type-54 (2 per year)
60+ OPV ...

would mean 150+ major (4k+) surface combatants ... thanks for your opinion (my guess Yesterday at 6:40 PM was 90)