PLAN Sovremenny DDG Refit/Modernization
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
It has two 155mm guns which hjave extended range precision munitions out to 110 miles. One of these on each ship will be replaced with a 155mm rail-gun with a range out to near 200 miles.
It carries 80 PVLS cells and it is expected that 30-40 of them will have quad packed ESSM missiles ofr its own defense...120-160 missiles ecah for self defense...and it is also expected that it has enough electrical pwer to power the US Navy's Laser Weapon System (LWS) for CIWS when they are operational in the next five or so years.
so the vessel will have exactly what you say.
My point was, that the Navy needs the Ticonderoga crusier replacement more than it needs such a heavy fire support ship, and there were always going to be more hulls needed for that.
The Zumwalt hull form is big enough to handle everything that the CGX is going to need:
-New Dual Band Radar
-New AEGIS system
-128 PVLS cells
-New all electric power system
-Plenty of electrical for the new Radars and for Rail Gun and Laser CIWS
-A very much reduced radar cross section for stealth
I believe they should have pushed for 20 of these vessels to replace the Ticonderoga...and then that economy of scale would have allowed them to get to a half dozen variants that are the fire support gunships.
But they went about it wrong IMHO.
I think they should have put four big guns on the ship and skim on hangar space, anti-sub warfare suite, long range radars, large numbers of VLS tubes, etc. and use the extra room to put on more armour
I would like you to quote where exactly I stated or even just implied that "the notion of 20+ 055s being produced is a categorical and complete impossibility and only lies within the realm of fanboy dreams." That is your own misunderstanding of my statements which I am not responsible for.
I have previously myself stated it is entirely possible the PLAN could have 20+ 055s in the future. But this number is relative to the rest of the PLAN ORBAT. If we are talking about a claim of a future PLAN fleet consisting of 24 055X, 18 052X, and 30ish 054X, then yes, the 055 is IMO the "primary" surface combatant for a top-heavy navy that doesn't need that many cruisers. If on the other hand we are talking about a composition of 24 055X, 60ish 052X, and 60ish 054X, then clearly the primary combatant is the 052X class. The number of 055X is not the key, but rather its number in relation to the rest of the fleet. I never gave you some red line of "20+" 055s for this very reason.
I think even 10 years is optimistic for China to surpass the US in defense spending. That is, barring major unforeseen world events. Even then budget constraints will be relevant to China, just as they are to the US now.
"Deter" is not the same as "equal". I think even with a significantly smaller force China can effectively deter the US from intervening in a conflict (such as over Taiwanese reunification) that would cost significant blood and treasure, even if it did win in the bitter end. All China needs is that which will inflict such a heavy cost upon the US to achieve victory that its victory would be little more than a pyrrhic one, or at least the US needs to perceive that that is the most likely outcome of intervention. I don't think China is there yet, but maybe 10? 15? years from now, this may be a possibility.
Come on, you know you're just making these numbers up. I'm not even going to bother making a detailed response to costs that have no backing behind them at all except your personal opinion.
It's "Aegis" not "AEGIS", since Aegis is just a proper name (for Zeus's shield), not an acronym. In any case, even if the PLAN built up to this number you should recognize that the 052X class is smaller than the Arleigh Burke class, and that by the time we get out to that kind of timeline (second half of this century), the Chinese economy will probably be much larger than the US economy with similar if not larger global economic and geopolitical interests. Regardless, a 2/1 build rate also does not need to be sustained indefinitely, and can change as circumstances change.
In reply #17 you did say that Lethe's description of 055 production (which was 22 ships by 2030) would be grandiose and essentially expressed your disbelief to it? And in subsequent post #19 your quite strongly worded accusation of 055 production numbers being a reflection of Lethe wanting the Chinese Navy to "outpeacock" the USN also suggested your strongly entrenched opposition to the prospect.
Of course, I interpreted Lethe's meaning in post #16 to mean 055 would replace 052X "in production", and not "in service" -- i.e.: that by the mid to late 2020s 052X production would have ceased completely so that only 055s would be produced for a while -- but that there would still be substantial numbers of 052Xs obviously in service.
If Lethe meant 055Xs replacing 052Xs wholesale in terms of service by 2030s, then I would agree with your position that such a prospect is unlikely.
Okay, then how about 20-24 055X, 24+ 052X, and ~48 054X? What would be the primary combatant class in such an orbat?
Too much of this discussion about 055's numbers cannot be seriously had without talking about the numbers of the rest of the blue water capable fleet, namely medium weight destroyers/052X and frigates/054X. (Or at least, it would be easier to avoid confusion if it is done this way)
So I'll lay my cards on the table and say that I think the ratio of large destroyers/055X; medium weight destroyers/052X; and frigates/054X in service will be something like 1: 1.2: 2.2, by the late 2020s.
So when Lethe says about 22 055Xs in service by 2030, I am envisioning medium destroyer fleet of about 26, and a frigate fleet of about 48.
The projections of future force ratio might vary in future as we get more news, but I do have a few red lines of my own, which is that the number of 055Xs in service will almost certainly not exceed the number of 052Xs in service, which will probably remain true until 2030 at least.
But beyond that, I can see 055Xs in service to reach near or even draw equal to 052Xs.
===
edit: going beyond 2030, it may well be possible that large destroyers of the 13k ton displacement will replace the 7-8k ton medium weight destroyer classification altogether, while a new large displacement frigate takes up the lower end of the slack to repalce 4-5k ton frigates and take on some of the lower end roles of the previous medium destroyers... but that's so far into the future that it is hard to seriously talk about it.
Last edited:
I did NOT express my disbelief of his numbers, which like mine and yours are totally conjectural (and as I said, totally relative), but in his belief that the 055 would become the main workhorse of the PLAN, the standard-bearer, so to speak.
Clearly he means the 055 to not merely replace the 052X in production, but to actually take over the workhorse position of that class by intention, by greater numbers, and finally by physical replacement. I don't really care exactly what the numbers are, nor are they relevant in isolation.
Why did your example numbers go from 24 055X to "20-24 055X", and from 24 052X to "24+" 052X?
If your assertion is that 055X to 052X ratio is going to be roughly even, then this is not a very dramatic or outlandish claim; we disagree only in details. If your assertion is that the PLAN will move to a binary hi:lo composition of 055X+054X, then I don't agree in the fundamentals. I think there will be niches for all three types of warships in the PLAN even into the distant future. A larger cruiser with extra C&C capabilities (and possibly "special" capabilities like ABM defense, railguns, lasers, etc.), a smaller, cheaper, more numerous multi-purpose destroyer focused mainly on fleet-wide air defense, and a frigate focused mainly on local air defense of nearby fellow escorts against saturation ASCM attacks, as well as good ASW capability.
Okay.
Well if he's suggesting that 055X will replace 052X in service by the late 2020s or by 2030, then I do find such a scenario unlikely, mostly because by then most of the 052Xs will still barely be 20 years old, if that at all.
So I'd be interested in his clarification, for whether he meant 055X will replace 052Xs in service by the late 2020s/2030, or if he meant 055X would replace 052X in production in the 2020s.
Why did your example numbers go from 24 055X to "20-24 055X", and from 24 052X to "24+" 052X?
Mostly in terms of timespan -- if it's between 2025-2030 (say, 2027, which is the minimum date to be considered "late 2020s" I think) then I expect 20-24 055X and 24+ 052X, if it's closer to 2030 I'd be happy to throw out ~24 055X and ~24 052X as I expect the first couple of 052Cs to probably be retired around then, and for a few extra 055Xs to be built/commissioned.
Okay, in that case we have no major disagreement.
I believe that the Type 052D in terms of numbers (relatively speaking) and function is going to be the workhorse destroyer for the PLAN for a long time to come, and in essence be their Arleigh Burke Flight IIA DDG. I would not be surprised to see them build in excess of 24 of them...maybe 30.
I believe the Type 055 is going to be their large, higher tech carrier and major vessel (like LHD) protector, and flagship. it will function more like a Ticonderoga cruiser. They will (IMHO) build more like 12-18 of those vessels.
Then those two major vessel classes, and upgrades to them, will see the PLAN through the next couple of decades. They will be busy building both of them for quite a few more years in my opinion...then upgrading them for some more years after that.
Then, at the appropriate time, we will see the follow on designs conceived and then begin building.
But that will probably happen, for the Type 052D replacement, when the first Type 052C approaches end of life. IN the early to mid 2030s perhaps.
Then, around that same time frame or just a few years later, the same for the Type 055.
Anyhow, that is how I see it playing out.
Imagine a PLAN of the mid-2020s with
60-80 x Type 056
30-36 x Type 054A/B FFGs
04 x Sovs
02 Type 052B
02 x Type 051C
06 x Type 052C
30 x TYpe 052D
18 x Type 055
Taking the Type 056 numbers out...you end up with 98 very modern and capable major surface combatants for the PLAN inn the second half of the 2020s. That's a huge thing to consider, and will cause major change in the balance of power in the Western Pacific.
Perhaps in that same time frame they have
04 x Aircraft carriers (2 STOBAR and 2 CATOBAR)
03 x LHD
06 x LPD
Maybe the end up with
30 x LCACs
16 x LCUs
08 - 12 x Zubrs
Just a lot of things to contemplate...and we haven't even talked about their Naval Air or their Air Force modernization which is all happening at the same time.
it just pretty phenominal when you take it altogether.
A lot of people eyebrows will be raised over this...and it will be a major agent for change.
I believe the Type 055 is going to be their large, higher tech carrier and major vessel (like LHD) protector, and flagship. it will function more like a Ticonderoga cruiser. They will (IMHO) build more like 12-18 of those vessels.
Then those two major vessel classes, and upgrades to them, will see the PLAN through the next couple of decades. They will be busy building both of them for quite a few more years in my opinion...then upgrading them for some more years after that.
Then, at the appropriate time, we will see the follow on designs conceived and then begin building.
But that will probably happen, for the Type 052D replacement, when the first Type 052C approaches end of life. IN the early to mid 2030s perhaps.
Then, around that same time frame or just a few years later, the same for the Type 055.
Anyhow, that is how I see it playing out.
Imagine a PLAN of the mid-2020s with
60-80 x Type 056
30-36 x Type 054A/B FFGs
04 x Sovs
02 Type 052B
02 x Type 051C
06 x Type 052C
30 x TYpe 052D
18 x Type 055
Taking the Type 056 numbers out...you end up with 98 very modern and capable major surface combatants for the PLAN inn the second half of the 2020s. That's a huge thing to consider, and will cause major change in the balance of power in the Western Pacific.
Perhaps in that same time frame they have
04 x Aircraft carriers (2 STOBAR and 2 CATOBAR)
03 x LHD
06 x LPD
Maybe the end up with
30 x LCACs
16 x LCUs
08 - 12 x Zubrs
Just a lot of things to contemplate...and we haven't even talked about their Naval Air or their Air Force modernization which is all happening at the same time.
it just pretty phenominal when you take it altogether.
A lot of people eyebrows will be raised over this...and it will be a major agent for change.
@Jeff Head
Broadly agree, but I think once the Type-55 is proved out, they will phase out Type-52D production.
If the Type-55 is launched next year and works out, then I can see them stopping the Type-52D at 18 vessels and then moving to the Type-55 and staying there.
Remember that the successor to the Type-55 should be mounting a railgun and it may possibly mount a laser as well. And both these technologies are driving a requirement for IEPS and a larger hull than the Type-52D can provide.
But also remember that in the 2025-2030 timeframe, China will have a significant larger economy than the USA and will possibly be spending more on the military as well.
So yes, the envisioned fleet levels would be a huge change in the balance of power in WestPac, but I fail to see how China would simply stop most naval construction in its tracks to maintain that fleet level.
I would expect China to continue adding at least 2 more destroyers every year to the overall fleet in order to maintain the industrial/tech base. But if lasers and railguns result in a naval tech revolution, then production rates could continue at much higher rates.
Broadly agree, but I think once the Type-55 is proved out, they will phase out Type-52D production.
If the Type-55 is launched next year and works out, then I can see them stopping the Type-52D at 18 vessels and then moving to the Type-55 and staying there.
Remember that the successor to the Type-55 should be mounting a railgun and it may possibly mount a laser as well. And both these technologies are driving a requirement for IEPS and a larger hull than the Type-52D can provide.
But also remember that in the 2025-2030 timeframe, China will have a significant larger economy than the USA and will possibly be spending more on the military as well.
So yes, the envisioned fleet levels would be a huge change in the balance of power in WestPac, but I fail to see how China would simply stop most naval construction in its tracks to maintain that fleet level.
I would expect China to continue adding at least 2 more destroyers every year to the overall fleet in order to maintain the industrial/tech base. But if lasers and railguns result in a naval tech revolution, then production rates could continue at much higher rates.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I am not so sure about rail guns on 055s. That would, IMHO, be repeating the same mistakes as the US DDG1000.
Rail guns, despite having greater range than traditional naval guns, are inherently a short ranged weapons system in comparison to the missiles a cruiser like the 055 can carry.
That represents and fundamental and irreconcilable clash in roles and missions to mount heavy rail guns on a missile cruiser.
Rail gun shooters, like the DDG1000, are in fact a modern reinvention of the classic gun line battleship. They got their big shinny new-gen boom stick, but needs to get real close to the enemy to use them.
A missile cruiser, especially an air defence focused one like the 055, wants to stay in the back field to fully exploit the range advantage of its sensors and missiles.
To squeeze both roles and systems into one ship not only drastically increases the cost of such a ship, but also creates conflicting priorities what just what the ship is supposed to be doing. Should it close with the enemy to use its rail guns? In which case it's long range missiles and AESA radars are wasted. Or does it stick back to make the most of its missiles and sensors and not be able to use its rail guns?
The US saw that problem, so they decided to not put any Aegis radar or heavy long range missiles on the DDG1000, making it a classic battleship. Which is good in the sense that it doesn't force the captain to waste half the potential of the ship no matter what he does; but is bad in that in doing so, they are forcing their captains to take those eye-wateringly expensive battleships right down the throats of the enemy to be effective.
Against 2nd and 3rd tier opponents, those rail guns would no doubt be absolutely devastating and pretty economical compared to popping million dollar missiles dozens at a time. However, I have serious reservations about the ability of those ships to get within rail gun range of the coast of a top tier opponent and survive long enough to do anything worthwhile until the outcome of the war has already been decided and enemy defences comprehensively smashed. In which case it begs the question of what is the point in such expensive glass cannon battleships?
Ideally, you would want to put your rail guns on your FFGs, or light FFGs like the 056 class, who can range ahead of the main fleet, while under the air defence umbrella of ships like the 055 and 052D, to engage enemy ships and shore defences with rail gun fire while being small enough to be hard to target in return, and also expendable enough that you can afford to use them in the aggressively offensive manner their primary armament demands.
Realistically speaking, it is unlikely that the power generators, rail guns and all other support systems could be miniaturised enough in the near or medium term to allow rail guns to be installed on ships so small.
The interim solution isn't to put rail guns on your biggest ships (unless it's a CIWS rail gun shotgun), but rather to put them on the smallest ship big enough to support it.
Quite fortunately, that actually brings us back to the subject at hand - on offensive oriented DDG.
The Sovs will never get rail guns, but the PLAN may well design a follow-on replacement class to perform very much the same role as the Sovs, of a fleet spearhead, ship-killing line-breaker breaker class. But instead of using missiles, they will be using rail guns.
Such a scenario may actually be more relevant than most would think, especially as fleet air defences improve against traditional AShMs and even hypersonic AShMs with new laser and rail gun CISW.
So it could be that two opposing fleets are so good to shooting down incoming missiles they run out of offensive missiles to shoot at each other (most modern DDGs carry dozens or even over a hundred air defence missiles, yet typically only carry 8 AShMs so it's hardly an unlikely scenario). In which case having rail gun armed line-breakers could be the different between stalemate and victory.
As such, rather than having heavy rail guns on the 055, IMHO, it could make more sense for the PLAN to design a Sov replacement class to mount railguns on. Automate it as much as possible to cut down on crew; stuff it to the gills with FL2000s and CIWS; maybe even give it a trimaran hull form and massively oversized engines to give it LCS like sprint speeds.
Sounds exactly like the kind of 'assassin's mace' weapons the PLA is especially fond of.
Rail guns, despite having greater range than traditional naval guns, are inherently a short ranged weapons system in comparison to the missiles a cruiser like the 055 can carry.
That represents and fundamental and irreconcilable clash in roles and missions to mount heavy rail guns on a missile cruiser.
Rail gun shooters, like the DDG1000, are in fact a modern reinvention of the classic gun line battleship. They got their big shinny new-gen boom stick, but needs to get real close to the enemy to use them.
A missile cruiser, especially an air defence focused one like the 055, wants to stay in the back field to fully exploit the range advantage of its sensors and missiles.
To squeeze both roles and systems into one ship not only drastically increases the cost of such a ship, but also creates conflicting priorities what just what the ship is supposed to be doing. Should it close with the enemy to use its rail guns? In which case it's long range missiles and AESA radars are wasted. Or does it stick back to make the most of its missiles and sensors and not be able to use its rail guns?
The US saw that problem, so they decided to not put any Aegis radar or heavy long range missiles on the DDG1000, making it a classic battleship. Which is good in the sense that it doesn't force the captain to waste half the potential of the ship no matter what he does; but is bad in that in doing so, they are forcing their captains to take those eye-wateringly expensive battleships right down the throats of the enemy to be effective.
Against 2nd and 3rd tier opponents, those rail guns would no doubt be absolutely devastating and pretty economical compared to popping million dollar missiles dozens at a time. However, I have serious reservations about the ability of those ships to get within rail gun range of the coast of a top tier opponent and survive long enough to do anything worthwhile until the outcome of the war has already been decided and enemy defences comprehensively smashed. In which case it begs the question of what is the point in such expensive glass cannon battleships?
Ideally, you would want to put your rail guns on your FFGs, or light FFGs like the 056 class, who can range ahead of the main fleet, while under the air defence umbrella of ships like the 055 and 052D, to engage enemy ships and shore defences with rail gun fire while being small enough to be hard to target in return, and also expendable enough that you can afford to use them in the aggressively offensive manner their primary armament demands.
Realistically speaking, it is unlikely that the power generators, rail guns and all other support systems could be miniaturised enough in the near or medium term to allow rail guns to be installed on ships so small.
The interim solution isn't to put rail guns on your biggest ships (unless it's a CIWS rail gun shotgun), but rather to put them on the smallest ship big enough to support it.
Quite fortunately, that actually brings us back to the subject at hand - on offensive oriented DDG.
The Sovs will never get rail guns, but the PLAN may well design a follow-on replacement class to perform very much the same role as the Sovs, of a fleet spearhead, ship-killing line-breaker breaker class. But instead of using missiles, they will be using rail guns.
Such a scenario may actually be more relevant than most would think, especially as fleet air defences improve against traditional AShMs and even hypersonic AShMs with new laser and rail gun CISW.
So it could be that two opposing fleets are so good to shooting down incoming missiles they run out of offensive missiles to shoot at each other (most modern DDGs carry dozens or even over a hundred air defence missiles, yet typically only carry 8 AShMs so it's hardly an unlikely scenario). In which case having rail gun armed line-breakers could be the different between stalemate and victory.
As such, rather than having heavy rail guns on the 055, IMHO, it could make more sense for the PLAN to design a Sov replacement class to mount railguns on. Automate it as much as possible to cut down on crew; stuff it to the gills with FL2000s and CIWS; maybe even give it a trimaran hull form and massively oversized engines to give it LCS like sprint speeds.
Sounds exactly like the kind of 'assassin's mace' weapons the PLA is especially fond of.