Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette
Yes but as stated that there is no international standard, I can easily make the argument that the 055s are the DDGs and the 052Ds are the FFGs therefore no need for a near term 5000 ton 054A successor and it will meet your personal definitions. The 5000 ton cutoff on tonnage is arbitrary as German and Dutch frigates exceed your 5000 ton cutoff and are lead ships in their respective navies. We can have 40+ 055s and 20+ 052C/Ds combined with the existing 20 054As as the 40+ FFGs to meet your ratio. That's why I rather not analyze the needs of a navy based on some ratio.
I never said there was an international standard, I stated that I believed there is a healthy ratio which navies should adhere to.
You said names of classes of warships were unimportant.
I agreed, and clarified that the names I used were to refer to specific groupings of ships based on what I think makes sense. If you want to call 055s DDGs and call 052Ds FFGs then that is fine, you can try and argue for your position, if you think that makes sense.
Disagree on 052Ds or 055s being inefficient on lower intensity blue water missions as a given. China does not have oversea bases nor as many alliances. A larger vessel may not need as frequent refueling/resupply so more time spent on duty. That's efficient. A routine run of the mill operation such as escort can become something else such as the Libya evacuation in 2011. Then all the capabilities of the ship can be called into service and the more capability, the better.
A larger ship may not need as frequent refuelling and resupply, yes, but it also has far more weapons and sensors than you need for a lower intensity blue water mission: many VLS, extensive command and control capabilities and massive APARs. Most of those capabilities won't be used on a lower intensity mission, just like how using Burkes to chase pirates doesn't make good use of its SPY-1 arrays, its 96 VLS and massive missile loads, etc. So, inefficient.
More importantly, taking away a ship with the aforementioned high intensity capabilities for lower intensity blue water missions means you lose those capabilities where they might be more relevant, whether for escorting CSGs and task forces, or more likely in PLAN's case, to stay in home waters and maintain a credible deterrence.
I don't know why folks consider ASW as a lower intensity mission. One would think if you're hunting a sub, then the enemy may have other units out there hunting you.
You misread what I wrote. I said "lower intensity missions
comma ASW" -- that is to say, ASW missions are not considered a lower intensity mission.
Ok, so again, how does the 054A not meet that role and how many task groups are deployed at any given moment for the Chinese navy?
That depends on how extensive the PLAN's future blue water missions are, what the rest of its fleet is like, and what the regional geopolitical climate is like.
And neither of us can predict what the world might be like in ten years.
But sure, let's say, in ten or fifteen years, China has... 3 CSGs, and 3 ARGs. Each of those would require at least 2 FFGs each, possibly 4, for escort. Of course, none of those CSGs will all be at sea at once, and none of those will all be available to go out to sea at once given crews need to be rested on land and the ships will need to have time for refit and maintenance.
Even then, if we use the minimum say only 2 FFGs for each CSG and ARG, then that is 12 FFGs. There are 8 FFGs left, and only 2/3-3/4 of those will be available for blue water lower intensity missions at any one time given transit/rest/maintenance cycles.
And of course, that leaves no FFGs for non CSG, ARG and low intensity missions.
(If we assign 4 FFGs for each CSG and ARG, then you're left with a deficit in FFGs.)
That's without looking at specific factors for China. They have economies of scale. Aside from the US, no other country is building classes of naval vessels in the numbers that China has been recently doing. Just look at the number of C/Ds launched in such a short time frame, means cost per unit will go down. Now of course, you can argue that a new 5000 ton frigate can take advantage of these factors too. But you still need to put in R&D costs to bring the design to fruition. So that works against it. Just because a 5000 ton frigate is 67% the tonnage of a 052D doesn't mean it will translate to 67% of the cost. Does China have a lower end AESA already available? If no, you will need to spend money to develop this. And if you're simply arguing for a ship with shorter range weapons, shorter range radars, and other sensors with smaller overall displacement, then why not just keep building more 054As with universal VLS since you feel 20 is not enough? Production line hasn't closed yet.
054A is a smaller hull with limited room for future growth, which is why fitting new subsystems on the 054 hull probably isn't a very good idea. Not enough rooms to house both new technologies as well as room for growth. (Btw I'm not saying this is definite, the next generation frigate might be based on the 054 hull. I am skeptical, but I'm not ruling it out)
As for subsystems -- of course R&D will cost money.
But running a larger ship with a larger crew with more capable subsystems will also cost money, and more importantly, it will cost you capability that could be used more efficiently elsewhere.
Whether it makes sense to invest in a new, smaller frigate with lower running costs allowing for more hulls, or to purchase larger destroyers with higher running costs meaning less hulls and to only have destroyers and current frigates for low intensity missions is a question that needs answering.
Or, on the flipside, I can ask why the PLAN decided to do expensive R&D and produce it when they had enough 053H3s that could also do blue water missions, why didn't they just produce more 052Cs instead, if developing 054A may have been too expensive or not worth it?
Hell, why does any navy develop frigates, if the R&D for frigate subsystems are too expensive?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a destroyer performing duties in the Western Pacific. Your definitions of which class operates where is far too rigid.
I never said there was anything wrong about a DDG performing duties in westpac... In fact, if you look at reply 2151 from yesterday, I clearly state that I expect DDGs to operate in westpac.
And I've lost count already but how likely is it you have all 054As deployed far and away at any given moment?
All classes of a ship will never be deployed at any given moment, usually there will be a fraction of them at home port, either under maintenance, or simply giving its crew a rest.
How likely it is for the PLAN to need to deploy all 054As in ten or fifteen years -- who knows. But if they're deploying all their FFGs on blue water lower intensity missions that means no FFGs at home for beyond-green-water ASW roles as part of CSGs, ARGs, or SAGs.
You gave the Type 26 as an example and I will point out by the time the first Type 26 gets commissioned, the oldest Type 23 will be about 30 years old. That's about right and that's when I see designing a 5000 ton frigate in the Chinese navy makes sense, when it's time to replace the oldest 054A. Right now, resources would be better allocated on other projects like LHA. Build an enlarged 056B perfect for first island chain ASW ops so the 054As can be deployed further out. Continue building out 052Ds and developing the 055. To circle back to relevancy to this thread, that's where I see the next batch of 056s should evolve into, larger and more ASW capability.
Regarding Type 26 replacing Type 23 -- I cite it as an example of a generational improvement in technology.
I do not cite it as a model of naval ship procurement which the PLAN will follow. The Royal Navy might only see a need for a dozen frigates in service at any one time, and that might be an acceptable critical mass for them. But for the PLAN, I see the need for more.
----
I do not think our differences in opinion are able to be reconciled. Clearly you trend towards a fleet that is "hour glass" shaped, with many larger ships and many smaller ships that make up the overall fleet. I trend towards a fleet that is cylindrical, with about equal numbers of larger ships, medium ships, and smaller ships.
Views on something as complex as future orbat is dependent upon a vast array of opinions not to mention projections about the future, and trying to resolve those opinions and projections is impossible.
I'm willing to end the discussion here. As interesting as it was, there is simply no end to it.
