Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)

[antiterror13]

I agreed

I wouldn't be surprised if China would get ~70 052D/E and ~36 055/A and also ~80 054A/B/C

The cost advantages China have now in warship is very staggering. China could build 3 055A for every AB Flight III, and 055A is bigger and most considered more modern and more powerful significantly

Also China could build it in much faster rate, ~5 times more per year

Really interesting what would be in 2030, my guess is that China may have more powerful navy than US in Pacific apart from SSN and carriers

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Historically, the world's largest trading nation builds the largest Navy to protect its seaborne trade.

Today, China is the world's largest trading nation by a large margin and therefore China derives the most economic benefit.

So to protect this global trade, it makes sense to build the world's largest Navy by a significant margin.

That argues for significantly more ships and larger ships than the US Navy.

China has invested massively in BRI in order to reduce reliance on maritime trade, and due to its geographical position does not need to rely on the Navy to control maritime trade routes. Primary goal of PLAN (and PLA as a whole) is to push any potential conflict as far out from the Chinese coast as possible, with eventual goal of preventing any external naval/military force from being able to operate in the Northwestern Pacific. Secondary theater of operations for PLAN would be the seas between the Horn of Africa and the Straits of Malacca- with no good reason to operate any further beyond.

 

[jospence]

China has invested massively in BRI in order to reduce reliance on maritime trade, and due to its geographical position does not need to rely on the Navy to control maritime trade routes. Primary goal of PLAN (and PLA as a whole) is to push any potential conflict as far out from the Chinese coast as possible, with eventual goal of preventing any external naval/military force from being able to operate in the Northwestern Pacific. Secondary theater of operations for PLAN would be the seas between the Horn of Africa and the Straits of Malacca- with no good reason to operate any further beyond.

Even if the BRI is completely successful, if you look at the raw amount of international trade shipped, China will always be reliant to a large degree on maritime trade. 95% of China's international trade is conducted through sea lanes (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), and the global average for international trade is roughly 90%. So even if China can completely reorient how it conducts trade with the belt road initiative, you're going to see at minimum 80% (probably 85%) of China's international trade being done via the ocean. It's just a factual reality that China (and every other country) will be reliant on maritime trade.

I don't want to delve into discussion Taiwan reunification too much, but the single biggest motivator for China to achieve peaceful reunification is that the conflict would immediately cause an international financial crisis and take place over the busiest sea lanes in the world. The geopolitical ramifications will be staggering and probably beyond any of our comprehension. It would be the complete disruption of international trade for every major economy on earth.

 

[AndrewS]

I'm not really sure whether it would or wouldn't cut it. How much of a difference is there between a low tonnage destroyer and a high tonnage frigate?

We can see Frigate designs comprising a smaller rotating radar, compared to 4 large, expensive AESA panels for destroyers.
That translates into Destroyers having significantly:

1. longer range radar detection
2. better detection of stealthy aircraft
3. larger numbers of targets tracked

And when you have this capability increase, it makes sense to have a larger VLS counts with longer-range SAMs as well.

---

Remember in a carrier group, the job of an ASW Frigate/Destroyer is to physically block a submarine from approaching the carrier. That is inherently a risky role, so you want to use the smallest and most expendable ship possible. And when you use a smaller ship, it also becomes a much less attractive target, because a submarine has to reveal itself when it fires a torpedo.

Note that if a Chinese carrier group has to trade a Frigate for a Virginia SSN, that is so worth it as the SSN is ~10x more expensive than the Frigate. Plus the Frigate crew could abandon ship and be rescued.

The distinctions between the roles of ship classes have become pretty blurred, almost every modern ship functions as a destroyer-cruiser hybrid. And I'm not sure 45 ships really cuts it (obviously China is building more) either.

These resources are divided among the North fleet, East Fleet, and South Fleet, and while each doesn't get even priority, in an ideal world they should probably be somewhat close to the same size. If we disperse the number of ships evenly, this would mean that each sea fleet gets 15 Type-052C/D destroyers and 5 Type-055 destroyers. Now if China gets to a point where it has 6 carriers (2 for each fleet), that means that many of those ships will have to be dedicated to to the carriers if China wants to have groupings similar to USN CSGs. If we apply roughly the same ship distribution where the USN has 1 cruiser and 3-4 destroyers, this would mean that of each sea fleet's destroyers, 2 of the 5 type-055 would be dedicated to carrier groups and 6 of the 15 Type-052C/D. Each fleet having only 3 Type-055 and 9 Type-052C/D would be nowhere near enough.

I also don't think we should use current USN escort structures as the ideal. We can see they've been trying to build a replacement Destroyer/Cruiser (Zumwalt/DDGX) and failing, which means they are retiring ships faster than they can replace them. The Constellation Frigates have been cancelled and were supposed to be used in CSGs and be in addition to the Arleigh Burkes.

During the Cold War, US CVBGs were envisioned to comprise:

2x Cruisers (Ticonderoga) for close-in escort
2x ASW Destroyers (Spruance) for the middle-zone
2x Air-Defence destroyers (Arleigh Burke) as pickets

Some years ago, we saw modernships publish a Chinese CSG diagram comprising:

2x Type-055 for close-in escort
1x Type-052C/D plus 1x Frigate for the middle-zone
2x Type-052C/D plus 2x Frigates as pickets

That does still imply 3-4 medium destroyers per carrier group.
And with 6 carriers, that is only half of the available Type-052C/D built to date

Now obviously this is omitting the role of frigates, but in speaking more broadly to the fact that China will probably want a lot more ships, especially low to mid range destroyers.

We've now got a total of 14 Type-055 and 45 Type-052C/D so far.

I think we are nearing the end of Type-052C/D production, and these will remain in service as the low-tier Destroyer.
Then we have the Type-055 as the middle-tier Destroyer, where production continues.

But now, there is also a requirement for shipborne ballistic missile defence and offensive hypersonic missiles.
So there will be a new high-tier (Destroyer/Cruiser) for this.

 

[AndrewS]

Even if the BRI is completely successful, if you look at the raw amount of international trade shipped, China will always be reliant to a large degree on maritime trade. 95% of China's international trade is conducted through sea lanes (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), and the global average for international trade is roughly 90%. So even if China can completely reorient how it conducts trade with the belt road initiative, you're going to see at minimum 80% (probably 85%) of China's international trade being done via the ocean. It's just a factual reality that China (and every other country) will be reliant on maritime trade.

I don't want to delve into discussion Taiwan reunification too much, but the single biggest motivator for China to achieve peaceful reunification is that the conflict would immediately cause an international financial crisis and take place over the busiest sea lanes in the world. The geopolitical ramifications will be staggering and probably beyond any of our comprehension. It would be the complete disruption of international trade for every major economy on earth.

If the US and China get into a full-scale war, it's likely to result in a global economic depression.

 

[AndrewS]

I agreed

I wouldn't be surprised if China would get ~70 052D/E and ~36 055/A and also ~80 054A/B/C

The cost advantages China have now in warship is very staggering. China could build 3 055A for every AB Flight III, and 055A is bigger and most considered more modern and more powerful significantly

Also China could build it in much faster rate, ~5 times more per year

Really interesting what would be in 2030, my guess is that China may have more powerful navy than US in Pacific apart from SSN and carriers

I think:

1. Increase the number of Frigates.
2. Reduce the number of 052D/E and replace with a new ~18000 tonne warship (for launching offensive hypersonic missiles and for ballistic missile defence)

 

[sunnymaxi]

I agreed

I wouldn't be surprised if China would get ~70 052D/E and ~36 055/A and also ~80 054A/B/C

The cost advantages China have now in warship is very staggering. China could build 3 055A for every AB Flight III, and 055A is bigger and most considered more modern and more powerful significantly

Also China could build it in much faster rate, ~5 times more per year

Really interesting what would be in 2030, my guess is that China may have more powerful navy than US in Pacific apart from SSN and carriers

3rd batch of 055 tender has announced even trio mentioned about fast pace construction of 055 destroyer.

there is also strong rumor of Sino-zumwalt class warship being currently under development.

so i can't imagine the scenario of Pacific in 2030. apart from carriers i don't see how US can compete with PLAN.

 

[dingyibvs]

But the issue is that a Type-052D successor with slightly more tonnage doesn't cut it. My guess is that additional space for a modernised version (for speed/endurance/electricity/weapons/sensors) has resulted in the previously mentioned 9000-10000 tonne general purpose destroyer specification.

But note that the Type-055 is in the 12000-13000 tonne range. That would only be a 33% difference in displacement, and the actual cost difference should be even lower. There should be very little difference in mass producing a Type-055 versus a 9000-10000 tonne Type-052D successor.

And if I look at the mission of the Type-052D and Type-055, they are exclusively tasked with preparing for a high-end conflict. (The Frigates are the ships conducting distant presence and escort missions).

When considering that there are already 45 ships in the Type-052C/D class, this should be enough for the next 10years.

In particular, for picket ships screening aircraft carrier groups, I think the Type-052C/D is a better choice than the Type-055 (which has too much capability/cost for this role). The same applies to the ASW mission in carrier groups.

And if/when there is a shortage of Type-052C/D, we should have the Type-057 Frigate in service. If it fast enough to keep up with an aircraft carrier, it can replace the Type-052C/D previously allocated to the middle-zone ASW mission in carrier groups.

It's not really an issue if we consider a ~10k displacement destroyer as part of a next generation fleet structure, rather than one that fits into the current generation. It's like the 054B, which makes a lot of sense if you look at it as something that fits into the current generation fleet structure. People are only disappointed because they thought it would be a part of the next generation.

Basically, if you consider a theoretical fleet structure of a 15+k displacement cruiser, a 9-10k displacement destroyer, and a sub-7k displacement frigate as the next generation fleet, then everything will make sense. The stretched 052D, the 054B, and an upgraded 055(A?) would then be transitional products.

 

[SanWenYu]

Even if the BRI is completely successful, if you look at the raw amount of international trade shipped, China will always be reliant to a large degree on maritime trade. 95% of China's international trade is conducted through sea lanes (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), and the global average for international trade is roughly 90%. So even if China can completely reorient how it conducts trade with the belt road initiative, you're going to see at minimum 80% (probably 85%) of China's international trade being done via the ocean. It's just a factual reality that China (and every other country) will be reliant on maritime trade.

I don't want to delve into discussion Taiwan reunification too much, but the single biggest motivator for China to achieve peaceful reunification is that the conflict would immediately cause an international financial crisis and take place over the busiest sea lanes in the world. The geopolitical ramifications will be staggering and probably beyond any of our comprehension. It would be the complete disruption of international trade for every major economy on earth.

China's reliance on maritime shipping in peace time won't necessarily be the same in war time.

With less than 20% of the world's population, China is producing more than 50% of the manufactured goods in the whole world. Likely more than half of the raw materials imported by China are exported again either processed or as parts of manufactured products.

When war breaks out, China will definitely scale back the manufacturing that is only for exports. When rationing is required, domestic demands for raw materials will drop, too.

Also keep in mind that China has sufficient, if not vast, reserves of most raw materials, even though they are sometimes less economically viable than the imported ones in peace time.

 

[AndrewS]

China's reliance on maritime shipping in peace time won't necessarily be the same in war time.

With less than 20% of the world's population, China is producing more than 50% of the manufactured goods in the whole world. Likely more than half of the raw materials imported by China are exported again either processed or as parts of manufactured products.

When war breaks out, China will definitely scale back the manufacturing that is only for exports. When rationing is required, domestic demands for raw materials will drop, too.

Also keep in mind that China has sufficient, if not vast, reserves of most raw materials, even though they are sometimes less economically viable than the imported ones in peace time.

Yes, but given time, China has the capacity to ensure trade continues even in a conflict.

T he old, official PPP data shows China has an economy some 30% larger than the US. The latest price surveys indicate the Chinese economy is now twice the size of the USA

So China can build a significantly larger Navy to control the global oceans and ensure its seaborne shipping continues to operate.