There's a need for China to build Zumwalt type radar evading style destroyers.

MwRYum said:

Before China ever progress to something like the DDG-1000, first their main workhorse of the fleet have to be at Flight III Arleigh Burke class level - tonnage, firepower, automation, powerplants, everything. 052D is hardly at Flight I level.

Besides, this is the exact honey trap US buried USSR into - "arms race". China has the need to bolster its capabilities and technologies to make up the 30-years gap, but have to wary from taking a wrong step into arms race with the US.

The global austerity in economy gives invaluable opportunity for China to catch up, but not rush for the moon.

Click to expand...

Because China lacking in other areas and hard to catch up, then this stealth shaping which they can do, can become an equalizer against USN regular shaped Burke class destroyer.

So, it makes even more sense to incorporate that feature to compensate for lacking in other areas.

MwRYum said:

Before China ever progress to something like the DDG-1000, first their main workhorse of the fleet have to be at Flight III Arleigh Burke class level - tonnage, firepower, automation, powerplants, everything.

Click to expand...

I seriously hope you're not arguing the PLAN needs to follow the USN fleet building approach before they can develop a particular ship of a particular capability. They are different navies of different countries with different missions.

The USN has 62 active Arleigh burke class destroyers of various flights in service, and 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers in service.
The PLAN do not need dozens upon dozens of 9000-10000 ton "workhorses" of the fleet before building larger surface combatants. There's no reason why they cannot have a main blue water DDG force of 052Ds, and a smaller (but still greater than 3!) force of zumwalt-weight-class CGs.

Besides, even the USN do not have Flight III burkes in service yet, and the zumwalts will hit the water before them! Lol, so the point is moot.

052D is hardly at Flight I level.

Click to expand...

I think we need to distinguish between capability and relative levels of technological advancement... Clearly Flight I burkes (as well as all burkes) have a greater missile load than 052D, but you'd be hard pressed to argue Flight I burkes have better electronics or radar or shaping.

Besides, this is the exact honey trap US buried USSR into - "arms race". China has the need to bolster its capabilities and technologies to make up the 30-years gap, but have to wary from taking a wrong step into arms race with the US.

The global austerity in economy gives invaluable opportunity for China to catch up, but not rush for the moon.

Click to expand...

One side does seem to be more likely on the verge of bankrupting itself in military development, but I do not think it is china.

Besides, I think Tyrone's question has been rephrased as "is there a need for china to build zumwalt-weight surface combatants with zumwalt level stealth"... and the lion's share of zumwalt's costs are from things other than its shaping (yes, stealth is more than just radar, but let's get real here; the mass of new technologies installed upon DDG-1000 is why it's so expensive).

TyroneG said:

Because China lacking in other areas and hard to catch up, then this stealth shaping which they can do, can become an equalizer against USN regular shaped Burke class destroyer.

So, it makes even more sense to incorporate that feature to compensate for lacking in other areas.

Click to expand...

Actually AB's are carefully sloped on both sides of the ship, along with most of the deck structures and other exposed doodads, all of them sloped at the same angle as the hull sides. The same goes for the 052B/C/D, 054A, and 056. The Zumwalt just takes that sloping to extremes and hides more strutures internally to further reduce RCS. While this hull shaping helps to reduce the chance and range of detection, it is the internals that really put the ship ahead of the rest. PLAN can 'hyperslope' new destroyers all they want, but they won't be "equalizers" unless the rest of the ship is up to snuff as well.

t_co said:

Put more simply, there's less of a need to land on beaches against nations with substantial anti-shipping missiles now.

The only case in which I could see the Zumwalt being useful would be a knife fight in the close confines of the Persian Gulf, where the Iranians could employ short-range radars and AShMs to risk USN assets. But otherwise, the Zumwalt is a case of overspending, I think. If the USN wants to make a ship stealthy, it should focus on the large ships...

Click to expand...

The fact that US Naval planners prepared for, designed for, and then were able to get approved and built the Zumwalts tells you that they definitely see, in the future, the need for amphibious assault on beach-heads from their LHDs, LHAs and LPDs where heavy gun fire support will be required. And now they shall have it.

Thinking that a Zumwalt would engage one on one in a knife fight of any sort would in fact be a good case for overspending, because that is not what it is designed to do and would be a vast overkill in such a scenario, and far too risky for such a capitol asset. Engaging other navies or ground forces in sterength as a part of a larger group however is precisely what she is designed for.

The US Navy did focus on a large capitol ship for stealth...and it is the Zumwalt. She is a LARGE vessel, over 600 ft in length, a beam of 80 ft, and a displacemnt in excess of 14,000 tons.

She will do a very good job of what she was designed for...supporting Amphibious Ready Groups in putting large numbers of troops ashor and ensuring that within 80 miles or so of shore, that they have all the fire support they need.

Now, if the PLAN were ever to design and build such a ship, they might be more oriented towards surface fighting with some sort of arsenal ship. The Virginia's, with their 80 PVLS cells can engage in that type of capability too...but they also have the clear capability of engaging ground (or other surface) targets out to 80-90 miles with their 155mm (that's basically 6") guns, and doing so with a design criteria for very heavy, very accurate fire rates.

Mysterre said:

Actually AB's are carefully sloped on both sides of the ship, along with most of the deck structures and other exposed doodads, all of them sloped at the same angle as the hull sides. The same goes for the 052B/C/D, 054A, and 056. The Zumwalt just takes that sloping to extremes and hides more strutures internally to further reduce RCS. While this hull shaping helps to reduce the chance and range of detection, it is the internals that really put the ship ahead of the rest. PLAN can 'hyperslope' new destroyers all they want, but they won't be "equalizers" unless the rest of the ship is up to snuff as well.

Click to expand...

Well, I think if the stealth ship can get close enough to the regular Burke class destroyer anything can happen.

An analogy of would be the J31 stealth fighter with 2 RD-93 or WS13 engines matching against F35. Clearly internally the J31 cannot match in techonology level of a F35, but because it's stealthy it can get close to the F35 and once it does that, anything can happen.

Common sense right, once two person get close to each other, one side technical weaponry advantage would be neutralized, and hand to hand combat takes over.

t_co said:

As for China needing to build Zumwalts or not, it boils down to whether China wants to engage in "naval CQC" against an adversary in the littoral waters of the South China Sea or East China Sea. If not, China should be focusing on other naval technologies.

Click to expand...

As an armchair admiral, I would vote on "other naval technologies". Specifically, ASW.

Instead of Zumwait class ships, I would rather spend the money on better ASW helicopters and ships like the Dokdo class.