Ask anything Thread

[lcloo]

Why is the navy only planning on building 16 type 055s? Do they have something better planned by now that’ll start production right after the 055s? What’s wrong with having more 055s? The more the better?

I don't speak for PLAN nor the PLAN has announced their plans. However, in normal situation procurement of navy ships depends on needs and the perceived external threats.

In PLAN's procurement, my two cents is
1) the need for a large destroyer as lead escort ship for a battle group which could be aircraft carrier group or an amphibious assault group or others. Type 055 can be alternate command ship to an aircraft carrier or a type 076, or type 075. It can also be the command ship if the ships under its escort do not have fleet command capability.

2) Perceived external threats from US Navy, AUKUS, NATO, Japan and South Korea etc. How many type 055 should be procured to counter these threats, and how many is needed ready to replace battle damaged type 055 or take the place of those in dockyard under repair and maintenance. I can't give you how they calculate the number of type 055 required to counter these threats because it was never made known.

IMO, there should be at least 1 type 055 for protection of each aircraft carrier, type 076, type 075 and may be type 071 as well. If true, then they would need around 20 to 24 type 055.

Ship procurements are always in batches due to financial budget allocation, "16 types 055" procurement does not mean that 16 total type 055 is the definite total number. If there is need and there is allocation of funds, more could be built in future batches, and these are decided in each of the 5 years planning. You have to understand the relationship between national budget and military spendings.

 

[Blitzo]

Why is the navy only planning on building 16 type 055s?

Technically we don't know if 16 will be the final number. It might be, it might not be.

Do they have something better planned by now that’ll start production right after the 055s?

They'll have something after the 055s, but it doesn't necessarily need to start production right after the 055s.

What’s wrong with having more 055s? The more the better?

Because ultimately even for the PLAN, personnel and funding is not infinite and they operate within constraints of opportunity-cost and economics.

"The more the better" is not a useful way of looking at procurement.
Instead, think of it by asking "what do they need, what do they have currently to meet the need, what do they have in the pipeline that can better meet the need in the future, what are their resource/economic/industry/personnel limitations?"


If "the more the better" or "what's wrong with more XYZ" applied to procurement, then no military would have a finite limit for any of their systems.

Instead of looking at it from a perspective of "why can't they buy more?" -- instead ask "why should they buy more?"

 

[GiantCanofWater]

Are US submarines sitting outside the first island chain a super critical problem for the PLAN? I haven’t heard very much about Chinese ASW. Whether those helicopters or underground networks are truly effective. Will American submarines be effectively hampered with the bombing of local bases and thus shutting down their supply points? They can always come back and whittle down the PLAN even if it takes a long time can’t they?

 

[AndrewS]

I don't speak for PLAN nor the PLAN has announced their plans. However, in normal situation procurement of navy ships depends on needs and the perceived external threats.

In PLAN's procurement, my two cents is
1) the need for a large destroyer as lead escort ship for a battle group which could be aircraft carrier group or an amphibious assault group or others. Type 055 can be alternate command ship to an aircraft carrier or a type 076, or type 075. It can also be the command ship if the ships under its escort do not have fleet command capability.

2) Perceived external threats from US Navy, AUKUS, NATO, Japan and South Korea etc. How many type 055 should be procured to counter these threats, and how many is needed ready to replace battle damaged type 055 or take the place of those in dockyard under repair and maintenance. I can't give you how they calculate the number of type 055 required to counter these threats because it was never made known.

IMO, there should be at least 1 type 055 for protection of each aircraft carrier, type 076, type 075 and may be type 071 as well. If true, then they would need around 20 to 24 type 055.

Ship procurements are always in batches due to financial budget allocation, "16 types 055" procurement does not mean that 16 total type 055 is the definite total number. If there is need and there is allocation of funds, more could be built in future batches, and these are decided in each of the 5 years planning. You have to understand the relationship between national budget and military spendings.

It's more like you want 2 Type-055 for an aircraft carrier, given how valuable it is.

A single Type-055 would be appropriate for a Type-075/076.

But a Type-071 is ~$300 Mn, so it doesn't make sense to dedicate a Type-055 (~$900Mn) as an escort.

 

[Racek49]

It's more like you want 2 Type-055 for an aircraft carrier, given how valuable it is.

A single Type-055 would be appropriate for a Type-075/076.

But a Type-071 is ~$300 Mn, so it doesn't make sense to dedicate a Type-055 (~$900Mn) as an escort.

In an ongoing conflict, the price of what the ship is carrying and the tactical importance of the cargo are more important, which determines the escort. Price is second only to this.

 

[AndrewS]

In an ongoing conflict, the price of what the ship is carrying and the tactical importance of the cargo are more important, which determines the escort. Price is second only to this.

Yes, that is what the assessment takes into account.

Hence two Type-055 for an aircraft carrier, because the carrier plus its airwing is far more valuable than a Type-075/076

---

Also remember that a force structure that overemphasises defensive escorts come at a cost.
A smaller number of escorts for each carrier, could mean an entire extra carrier group.
And that would provide extra defensive and also offensive airpower at long range

 

[Racek49]

yes

 

[AndrewS]

Well, to illustrate the problem, I would recommend as an example the fate of the cruiser Indiasnopolis, carrying the first atomic bomb. Heavily protected on the way to the target, a lonely journey back and the sinking by Captain Hashimoto's submarine.

A better example would be the current US carrier fleet.

A CVN costs $13 Bn with another ~$6 Bn for the airwing
There are supposed to be 5+ Arleigh Burkes as escorts, costing a total of $17.5 Bn
Plus a SSN. Call it $3 Bn for a non-VPM version.

That is a total of $40 Billion

---

Now, suppose the carrier group standard now requires an extra Arleigh Burke as an escort.
With 11 carriers, that is an extra $33 Bn.

That would be enough for an additional carrier group, but with only 2 Burkes instead 5.

So overall, you have an extra carrier group with fewer surface escorts than the standard of 5.
But you can offset this by combining with another full-strength carrier group (which does have 2 Burkes as close-in defence, 2 Burkes as pickets, and 1 Burke roaming)

---

So you can see there is a tradeoff between [the number of escorts] versus [the number of carrier groups]

And my gut says that an extra carrier group is a better choice than an extra surface escort for US carriers.

 

[Racek49]

A better example would be the current US carrier fleet.

A CVN costs $13 Bn with another ~$6 Bn for the airwing
There are supposed to be 5+ Arleigh Burkes as escorts, costing a total of $17.5 Bn
Plus a SSN. Call it $3 Bn for a non-VPM version.

That is a total of $40 Billion

---

Now, suppose the carrier group standard now requires an extra Arleigh Burke as an escort.
With 11 carriers, that is an extra $33 Bn.

That would be enough for an additional carrier group, but with only 2 Burkes instead 5.

So overall, you have an extra carrier group with fewer surface escorts than the standard of 5.
But you can offset this by combining with another full-strength carrier group (which does have 2 Burkes as close-in defence, 2 Burkes as pickets, and 1 Burke roaming)

---

So you can see there is a tradeoff between [the number of escorts] versus [the number of carrier groups]

And my gut says that an extra carrier group is a better choice than an extra surface escort for US carriers.

In war, no fighting general counts money. He only cares about deploying his forces as effectively as possible. And he has the appropriate means to do so.
By the way, the carrier strike group is not only a large strike force, but also a nice collection of targets for our missiles, or submarines and aircraft.. But I would leave the rest of the thinking to the professionals, planning for these situations is something inaccessible to us laymen. Greetings

 

[AndrewS]

In war, no fighting general counts money. He only cares about deploying his forces as effectively as possible. And he has the appropriate means to do so.
By the way, the carrier strike group is not only a large strike force, but also a nice collection of targets for our missiles, or submarines and aircraft.. But I would leave the rest of the thinking to the professionals, planning for these situations is something inaccessible to us laymen. Greetings

Fighting generals always want more, but resources are always limited.
And it didn't address the point I made. Is it better to have an extra carrier group, or add an extra surface escort to every existing group?

---

These days, I think the odds of China actually getting into a serious war with the USA is ~10%.