Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

All of the latest AC, ships and subs are all designed with computers (CAD). Western nations have an advantage in this field. You can always do a bit of snooping or maybe get an export version from a country that will play both sides, but you will always be one step behind, just an observation.
Of course, if you are only one step behind if you can field enough numbers, then you may still win. That seems to have been the Soviets PLAN.
OOPPS- I think I made a bad joke, or maybe a valid point.

Once again, today lots of advances are made due to computers. Not even computers themselves, but software. Computational power is a not a show stopper, however, as even though western countries may have some edge, the overall yearly increase in speed is such that today's chinese computers can be faster than state of the art stuff west offered five years ago. And in military one does not change the hardware that often. Even if you could afford to, there's the software requirement - paying salaries to programmers - which would become too costly if you had to have teams to churn new versions of software each year for hundreds of systems.

So, as long as we're talking about concepts that are widely in use today, it is perfectly within capabilities of ANY country with big enough pool of skilled programmers and enough money to hire them, (for military projects one'd have to have domestic programmers - same programmer will be more expensive in US than in china) to keep more or less same level of capability as western nations. To think that future generation of chinese targeting computers, slotted radars, datalinks and networking, jammers, rwrs, etc are subpar would be very dangerous for anyone who even ponders getting into conflict with them. In some areas chinese are behind yes, but it seems to be exclusively because of not fully understanding some concept, because of some technical problems, engineering lack of experience - like in engines, stealth or even manufacturing side of aesas. NOT software.

Totoro said:

Once again, today lots of advances are made due to computers.

In some areas chinese are behind yes, but it seems to be exclusively because of not fully understanding some concept, because of some technical problems, engineering lack of experience - like in engines, stealth or even manufacturing side of aesas. NOT software.

Click to expand...

The computer does not design technology, nor does the innovation behind technological concepts come from computer programming. Did you guys know that the Early U.S. and Soviet Space programs were done without any of these high-end computers? Just slide-rules. But I digress. The thing is, there has to be a knowledge base derived through many things. But as I've said before, if you're knowledge base is derived from picking apart components in order to understand a specific subset of technology, you're not building a technological foundation that will support a broad range of advancement. You will get some success, and perhaps be able to get by. But the ability to move beyond may not be forthcoming as a result of missing out on the R & D process. I've noted that PLAN's newest ships do not have anything on them that haven't been fielded by someone else first. There is no new innovations incorporated at all. They're not bad ships, but they do not match the current top of the line, and there's a reason for it.

Speaking in military terms, one needs to be able to assess current and future threats and be able to field systems that will meet these needs. For example, and I hate having to bring up USN. But they are the perfect example. The USN is innovating designs in naval engineering to meet future needs. Not fight wars of yesterday.

The USN is currently developing and fielding advanced UCAV's, UUV's, and USV's. They're developing greater networks for connectivity. Those UAV's that are hitting targets in the Mid-East are being controlled out of an Air Force Base in the CONUS. They're also incorporating newer designed strike missiles such as the RATTLRs, SM-3, SM-6 ERAM's, Sea based X-band radars, Remote mine-hunting technology, Littoral Combat Ships which are totally new and innovative with mission modules for specific mission sets. They're going beyond Aegis with DD(X) concepts, Laser technologies, etc. etc. and much more. This is stuff nobody else is doing. Nothing here reverse engineered, picked apart, or copied. This is how a naval technology infrastructure is built and is sustained. These concepts are built to support past, present, and future concepts in warfighting. And as a result, China is in no position to catch up anytime soon. In 30 years like someone suggested? Well, anything can happen. But China will never catch-up unless they lose their current method of technological advancement. And gaining this knowledge is the way to building an infrastucture that can make gains, and proceed with newer innovations. Unless the USA drops the ball, they will be in the lead for a long time to come.

I think we have discussed the issue nearly to death

China will choose whatever appropriate methods to suit her needs at a specific time period.

1. Currently, China is like a student just got his uni admission letter. US is like a post graduate with doctor degree. Some people may have extremely high confidence about china and think China should skip the learning stage and start inventing new things. Well, I agree, occasionally, some year 1 uni students can skip the whole education phase and become the most successful person, like Bill Gates. But, for a country, which path do you want to choose? I thought it's too obvious, but obviously many people think otherwise.

There's a joke (chinese version), a hungry guy rushed to buy meat pies. He bought and ate 3 pies and still felt hungry, so he bought and ate a fourth one. Finally he felt full, but he was really angry: I should've only bought the fourth one! The other 3 are all waste of time and resources.

2. To expect China only follow one model or way to progress is too simple. The whole confusion about China is simply because China is changing rapidly. Yes, China does copy, steal, reverse-engineer things, but if you only look at these stuff then you are ignoring a far bigger picture. For example, in the 90s and early 2000s, almost all western observors only talked about the 2 Sovs and they did not believe China would've produce ANY domestic major surface combatant ships in a foreseable future. It's that kind of ignorance that blind them from seeing China's far more wide spreading indigenous R&D efforts. All those much talked about foreign source stuff, if you put them into the whole projects pictures, are only small percentages (although the very important percentages), and that percentage is getting smaller and smaller. At current stage and in the next couple of decades, I believe China will still try to look at any possible foreign stuff, at the same time keep growing her own R&D stronger and stronger.

BTW, Those new US techs mentioned by Sea Dog, None of them are "nobody else is doing", at least I know China is working on ALL of them. I would be utterly surprised if European countries are not working on them.

3. I suggest everybody to differentiate China's technical catching up efforts from challenging USN's war capabilities.

China is only gathering technical experience and capabilities to reduce the gap to leading navies like USN. It would be insane for anybody for any purpose (either extremely confident or extremely pessmistic about PLAN) to jump from that point to a completely different level: challenging USN's real combat capabilities.

The only thing I can add is that I think China has been deliberately taking a moderate pace in developing its surface combatants so far. PLAN was never well funded before, and only became well funded recently. And most of the money is siphoned off to subs since PLAN is centered around subs. And it's a wild card how much resources is being put into the carrier. We're only seeing a fraction of the money being given to developing surface fleet. But look at how much PLAN has advanced from Jiangweis to todays Type 052 series in such a short amount of time.

Sea Dog, I'm not sure you get the point everybody is saying. Having a technological lead doesn't mean you will win if your opponent can use his resources more efficiently to stay half a step behind technologically while fielding much more quantity. (Of course USN has far more quantity than anyone else for now.) And moreover, an opponent can be inferior in both quality and quantity but still be able to give the USN such a bloody nose it will be unacceptable for the US leadership to enter into the conflict.

Roger604 said:

Sea Dog, I'm not sure you get the point everybody is saying. Having a technological lead doesn't mean you will win if your opponent can use his resources more efficiently to stay half a step behind technologically while fielding much more quantity. (Of course USN has far more quantity than anyone else for now.) And moreover, an opponent can be inferior in both quality and quantity but still be able to give the USN such a bloody nose it will be unacceptable for the US leadership to enter into the conflict.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. I was addressing the point that PLAN will be catching up in 5 years or so. That won't be done. Not even in 15-20 years. And I highly doubt at this time PLAN can do much damage to USN at all. They only have a few warships of modern designs (I think 8-10). No current carrier capability. Their aircraft are dependant on land based support (range issues). The most dangerous aspect is definitely the diesel subs. But I've already explained why they aren't likely to chase down high speed surface combatants. And why their mobility is limited. The PLAN is not the new Soviet Navy. They got a long way to go before they field the ability to really bloody some noses. I think most people here understand China is only now in the process of modern evolution. She's not yet a dominating naval force of modern design. Having a handful of modern types, and currently not alot of expewrience running or fielding them does not give you this ability.

@zyun - Nice post.

About China's growth, I think you're correct. China is looking at growing her R & D, while concurrently absorbing modern technologies into domestic applications. And China has been very good at doing this. But no, many people saw China producing designs after accruing Sovremennys. The fact that China was building newer ships domestically has been a known quantity for quite some time. The question was, what types they are building, and what technologies we will see on them. There were also questions on their quality. The surprise came from the quality being as good as they were. That impressed everyone for sure. And China's ability to field modern domestic missiles also impressed a good amount of people because that showed maturity in that area.

And yes, we've talked to death about it. But when I say nobody else is working on them, that's because I don't see alot of evidence showing much of it from other sources. I don't see anybody working on LCS type ships with the newer mission modules, I don't see anybody working on anything like SM-3, I don't see anybody working on anything resembling the Sea basing for X-band radars, and I don't see alot of results from foreign UUV or USV concepts. True, others are working UAV's, but nobody has shown anything like Globalhawk, RQ-4 and the ability to actively use them now as UCAV's. That's what I'm talking about.

Making speculative assumptions about scenarios lying two decades in the future has often been a dangerous exercise; fantasizing in 1986 about China as a leading 21.st century power in global trade, industry and technology would have probably evoked general amusement at best or a forced commitment to the next clinic for the mentally ill at worst.

In absence of better analysis tools history can sometimes offering advice if a general pattern of behaviour can be perceived repeatedly. (remember: technology changes fast, society much slower but homo sapiens only in the very glacial pace of evolution!) The US surpassed the British Empire´s industrial output likely around 1886 (although newer sources maintain that this point could have been already reached in 1880/81, I think this is the more accurate estimate) but militarily (navally i.e.) the US could not challenge Britain for 20 to 25 years to come after reaching this decisive junction. Only after the instructive world cruise of ´the great white fleet´ 1907-09 ordered by ´bully boy´ Ted Roosevelt and the very first presence of the US president himself as a respected arbiter in the Algeciras Conference of european powers during the first morocco crisis (1906/07) the US were generally accepted as a major power in her own right.

China overtook the US industry output probably around 2000 (as a raw indicator steel output surpassed US´s in 1994 but steel consumption only in 2000 consistently, in ´06 China will consume around 400 mt steel vs. 110 mt US consumption) and if you draw a historical parallel with the US´s own history China will be a level peer competitor probably in the year 2020. Additionally it would be unwise to overestimate naval power in the emerging global equilibrium since China is mainly a continental power with an oceanic extension whereas the US is a prototypic oceanic power per se. Accordingly the USSR was able to mount a significant challenge to US hegemony although US naval superiority was considerable throughout the entire cold war. (Perhaps rivalry for dominance in space and in ´virtual space` will gradually replace the old ways...)

@dear swimmerxc:
Unfourtunately a cold war is pointless by definition (at least for sane persons) but it is much more pointless to whom who lost that gigantic struggle disgracefully. (i.e. Russia/USSR) China´s leadership held military expenditure deliberately low (in proportion to GDP) for more than two decades now and we should be aware that all the significant strides of the last 10 years have been achieved with a lower level of relative expenditure than that of the US (and also Russia e.g.). Taking the impressive growth dynamic, low state debt, healthy fiscal balance and giant monetary reserves into account the US would face a surprisingly resilient and persevering adversary who would certainly not collapse under economic pressure like the Sovietunion. Let´s hope that both governments in Beijing and Washington do not start a 21.st century cold war since both of their people would regret it at least in their badly plundered purses. :roll:

Unless the USA drops the ball, they will be in the lead for a long time to come.

Click to expand...

That can easily come if that growing 8 trillion dollar debt blows.

I don't see anybody working on anything like SM-3,

Click to expand...

Active radar guided SAMs? Note that the 052Cs do not have illuminators like the SPYs. Either the seekers on those HHQ-9s are already active, and that surely must be one hell of an electronic scanning array that can do continious wave illumination on a large number of targets.

But the ability to move beyond may not be forthcoming as a result of missing out on the R & D process. I've noted that PLAN's newest ships do not have anything on them that haven't been fielded by someone else first. There is no new innovations incorporated at all. They're not bad ships, but they do not match the current top of the line, and there's a reason for it.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Certainy I have major doubts on what you said.

For one thing the PLAN does not announce as to what its future plans are. So unlike other countries you don't hear this and that advance projects ad nauseum because the PLA does not play on the same rules. By the time you hear about the PLAN's projects, they're already on the water and months away from commissioning.

The Type 22 with its stealth features and high speed jet propulsion double hulled catamaran design is a combination that is only just being fielded by the Europeans. How can the Chinese copy these from someone else when the others are only just beginning to field them, right at about the same time the Chinese are also commissioning them? Even if someone fielded similar features, It certainly don't look like any of the European designs, and the closest thing in concept was the Skjolds of Norway, and the Type 22s have far bigger missiles to boot. Look at Sweden's stealthy Visby class corvettes and they're only being launched right at the same time frame as the Type 22s. There was only one Skjold and at 2002-2003, it was in the US as the USN was studying it for its Littoral Combat Ship. However by 2004, we got four Type 22s swinging out of Chinese harbors, and while Norway plans to get five new Skjolds built, China added four more and at least a dozen more Type 22s are spotted being under construction.

How did the Chinese knew things like serragated window edges to minimize radar reflection? They got them in the windows on the Type 22, and the only other places I've seen them are on the windows of F-117s and B-2s.

crobato said:

That can easily come if that growing 8 trillion dollar debt blows.

Click to expand...

If the US economy comes crashing, pretty much everybody else does too. You're forgetting where China's money comes from.

Active radar guided SAMs? Note that the 052Cs do not have illuminators like the SPYs. Either the seekers on those HHQ-9s are already active, and that surely must be one hell of an electronic scanning array that can do continious wave illumination on a large number of targets.

Click to expand...

No. BAE systems is utilizing Active Radar guided Aspides in their newer ship designs. The USN is going in the direction of SM-6 ERAM for this. No I'm talking shipborne ballistic missile defense (kinetic hit-to-kill) of SM-3 of the same ambition. And other forms as well as layering.

I don't know. Certainy I have major doubts on what you said.

Click to expand...

That's fine. That's why this is a forum.

For one thing the PLAN does not announce as to what its future plans are. So unlike other countries you don't hear this and that advance projects ad nauseum because the PLA does not play on the same rules.

Click to expand...

Right. But on the same note, you don't see any evidence for alot of stuff that is claimed as gospel. And as far as the new stuff, you see alot of the same old technologies that others have fielded before them. Like I said, no new innovations.

By the time you hear about the PLAN's projects, they're already on the water and months away from commissioning.

Click to expand...

Not true. These newer PLAN ships have been known about for years before they hit the water. We're still hearing about type 093 & 094 and there's not one shred of evidence that they actually exist yet. J-10 has been a known quantity long before it's first test flight in the late 90's. I think the only real surprise was the Yuan SSK. But it also looks earily similar to a Kilo so it might have been missed for obvious reasons.

The Type 22 with its stealth features and high speed jet propulsion double hulled catamaran design is a combination that is only just being fielded by the Europeans. How can the Chinese copy these from someone else when the others are only just beginning to field them, right at about the same time the Chinese are also commissioning them?

Click to expand...

Nope. The Scandinavians have had concepts for these technologies many years before PLAN started fielding anything like them. From what I understood, The US Navy expressed some type of interest in the adaptation of ceramic hull forms from this same program. That was back in the late 80's.

Even if someone fielded similar features, It certainly don't look like any of the European designs, and the closest thing in concept was the Skjolds of Norway, and the Type 22s have far bigger missiles to boot.

Click to expand...

This is true here. I'll give you this point. But the general concepts are still exactly the same.

Look at Sweden's stealthy Visby class corvettes and they're only being launched right at the same time frame as the Type 22s. There was only one Skjold and at 2002-2003, it was in the US as the USN was studying it for its Littoral Combat Ship.

Click to expand...

LCS is not being built to this standard at all. LCS is a completely different concept and subset of technologies. Once you see them, you'll see what I'm talking about. It'll be soon.

However by 2004, we got four Type 22s swinging out of Chinese harbors, and while Norway plans to get five new Skjolds built, China added four more and at least a dozen more Type 22s are spotted being under construction.

Click to expand...

Good for China. I knew the Type 22 would be successful once they got em' going.

How did the Chinese knew things like serragated window edges to minimize radar reflection? They got them in the windows on the Type 22, and the only other places I've seen them are on the windows of F-117s and B-2s.

Click to expand...

OK, but what does this prove? That they copied American innovation in minimizing radar reflections in windows? I'm not sure I follow you here on this last point.

well still we live in the hype that Type22 has some sort of military value and should be used as an example of chinese maritime thecnology achievments.

As it was mentioned by Sea Dog, the western nations were all aware of the concepts that Type22 fields but did not choose them becouse the idea behind Fast attack craft had become to its end. All the new western missile boats presents newer generation by fielding larger hulls for bigger and stronger mast to carry more stable radar platform and the number one priority, AAW and Anti-missile defences. Thats why all these "surface" effect vessel concepts were not taken into production as they didn't allowed large tonnage of more ECM, AAW missile system and other countermeasures and also the growing topweigth proplem by stronger masts.

There have been exactly these concerns about Norwegians but the financical elements denyed them the change to desing more proper vessel (the surface effect boats sucked awfully money) and they were forced to settle on the Skojld desing.

Type22 is in otherhand, a rather sad example of the mentioned desing methods that china is forced to relye and a good boat in its own field and class, whit exelent qualityes...but unfortuanetly those qualityes hasent got anything to do whit modern tactical requirments.