PLAN Sovremenny DDG Refit/Modernization

Blitzo · Aug 18, 2016

Iron Man said:
I don't understand why it's such a popular belief that a massive ship like the 12,000 to 13,000 ton Type 055 will be the main surface combatant of the PLAN when even the USN with a far bigger budget and far greater worldwide commitments does not have such a grandiose ambition. A long term build rate of 2 052D/Es and 1 055/As per year is a far more likely scenario IMO. You may have a few years early on where the 055 will play catchup given how many 052 series ships are already in the water and be constructed 2/year, but I believe that the long term trend of 055X:052X will be 1:3 or thereabouts.

Force structure of navies has been discussed on the forum before, and while I won't discuss the complexities of the Chinese navy's potential medium term force structure, I do think it's important to point out that it's likely the Chinese Navy's surface combatant fleet will maintain a significant number of frigate sized vessels as part of their orbat, so any projection of 055/X and/or 052/X production numbers need to keep in mind that they will probably be complemented by a big number of frigates too. So even if a relatively large number of 055s are produced alongside a similar (or only slightly higher) number of 052D/Xs, it does not necessarily mean it will be grandoise or ambitious or that 055s will be the navy's "main combatant," because the number of 055s and 052D/Xs needs to be considered alongside potential numbers of frigates too which will all form the Chinese Navy's blue water capable fleet.

The USN OTOH is a much more top heavy fleet, both now and will probably remain so in the foreseeable future, with a much larger number of 9k-10k ton class Burkes and Ticos, vs a smaller number of LCS/FFs for their blue water capable fleet.

Lethe · Aug 18, 2016

Iron Man said:
Why is the USN proceeding with the Flight III AB? Because it's cost-effective.

No, because they screwed up and restarting AB production was the least bad alternative. If USN were starting again from 2000 there would be no Zumwalt and no Flight III Arleigh Burke either. Rather there would be a ship that looks suspiciously similar to 055.

And this is coming from a country that spends several times more on its navy than China does. You think cost is not an issue for the PLAN that it can afford dozens of 12-13k ton cruisers as its primary surface combatants? I have said before that the 052D iteration has reached the ultimate limit of the baseline hull's capabilities, and that a 052E class will be (somewhat) bigger.

What makes you think that your hypothetical 052E class is going to be much cheaper than 055? Again, it is not the size of the hull that makes the ship expensive. Then weigh the marginal cost savings of 052E over 055 against reduced manufacturing and logistical efficiency and operational flexibility.

You want the PLAN to outpeacock basically every last navy in the world, including the USN, but I seriously doubt the PLAN has the same goal. It's bounded by more realistic and boring constraints like money and mission requirements.

On the contrary, I think the "boring constraints" that you speak of point to 055 as the logical successor to 052. It is you who seem to attach some symbolic significance to the fact that this would mean that China's large surface combatant would be larger than USA's large surface combatant. USA typically establishes the benchmark in most areas of military technology for reasons which are too obvious to go into here, but not always, and not in this case, for the reasons already discussed. 055 is not a big deal, China just happens to be in the position of launching the first all-new "large surface combatant" of the 21st century. Those that follow (from Russia, USA, India) will be very similar, if not more adventurous.

Blitzo · Aug 18, 2016

Iron Man said:
Yes, as you said, their DD21 plans fell into a heap. Why? Too expensive, too many "emerging technologies". Why is the USN proceeding with the Flight III AB? Because it's cost-effective. And this is coming from a country that spends several times more on its navy than China does. You think cost is not an issue for the PLAN that it can afford dozens of 12-13k ton cruisers as its primary surface combatants? I have said before that the 052D iteration has reached the ultimate limit of the baseline hull's capabilities, and that a 052E class will be (somewhat) bigger. Almost twice as big, like the 055? I just don't think so. You want the PLAN to outpeacock basically every last navy in the world, including the USN, but I seriously doubt the PLAN has the same goal. It's bounded by more realistic and boring constraints like money and mission requirements.

Dude, whenever the notion of 055 production possibly being higher than what you personaly believe, you almost always accuse it of being due to the other side wanting to "out-piss" other navies.
For the sake of discussion I think it's better to take the opposing argument in good faith instead of essentially calling them fanboys, especially if they're not exhibiting any other characteristics of fanboys.

and regarding "out-pissing" each other...
would you consider a fleet of 24x13,000 ton 055/Xs, 24 x 7,000 ton 052D/Xs, and 48 x 4000-5000 ton 054A/B frigates, to be more or less "out-piss-esque" than a fleet of some 80+ 9000-10,000 ton Burkes of various flights and Ticonderogas, along with some 20-30+ 3500 ton LCS?

foxmulder_ms · Aug 18, 2016

Why do you assume 055 will be massive 13,000 tons ship? I think it will be somewhat smaller ~10,000 which almost identical to new burke derivatives and three tier (054, 052, 055) blue navy for future PLAN seems too many so it is logical, at least to me, to assume PLAN will be acquiring basically two classes in the future: frigate 054B and destroyer 055.

Blitzo · Aug 18, 2016

foxmulder_ms said:
Why do you assume 055 will be massive 13,000 tons ship? I think it will be somewhat smaller ~10,000 which almost identical to new burke derivatives and three tier (054, 052, 055) blue navy for future PLAN seems too many so it is logical, at least to me, to assume PLAN will be acquiring basically two classes in the future: frigate 054B and destroyer 055.

The "assumption" of 055's displacement is reflective of the chain of fairly consistent rumours from big shrimps.

If 055 is only 10,000 tons full displacement then that obviously changes the dynamic of the discussion, but for now the general consensus is that 055's full displacement will probably be around 13,000 tons.

Iron Man · Aug 18, 2016

Lethe said:
No, because they screwed up and restarting AB production was the least bad alternative. If USN were starting again from 2000 there would be no Zumwalt and no Flight III Arleigh Burke either. Rather there would be a ship that looks suspiciously similar to 055.

This may or may not be a possibility, but then the PLAN isn't the USN either. The USN wanted to introduce a whole slew of new-fangled technologies requiring large amounts of available power on-demand, something the AB's power systems cannot handle. The result is a massively over-priced ship, something the PLAN would be stupid to try and replicate. Even then the Zumwalt was not meant to be THE replacement class for the AB class, since the original requirement was only 32 ships (compared to 62 ABs), then 24, then 7, then finally 3.

Lethe said:
What makes you think that your hypothetical 052E class is going to be much cheaper than 055? Again, it is not the size of the hull that makes the ship expensive. Then weigh the marginal cost savings of 052E over 055 against reduced manufacturing and logistical efficiency and operational flexibility.

Smaller hull, less crew, less electronics, less weapons, no AAW C&C facilities. What else do you need?

Lethe said:
On the contrary, I think the "boring constraints" that you speak of point to 055 as the logical successor to 052. It is you who seem to attach some symbolic significance to the fact that this would mean that China's large surface combatant would be larger than USA's large surface combatant. USA typically establishes the benchmark in most areas of military technology for reasons which are too obvious to go into here, but not always, and not in this case, for the reasons already discussed. 055 is not a big deal, China just happens to be in the position of launching the first all-new "large surface combatant" of the 21st century. Those that follow (from Russia, USA, India) will be very similar, if not more adventurous.

Ok then, let's see how many of these countries "follow" by introducing their own 12-13,000 ton cruisers intending them to be their respective navies' primary surface combatants.

Bltizo said:
would you consider a fleet of 24x13,000 ton 055/Xs, 24 x 7,000 ton 052D/Xs, and 48 x 4000-5000 ton 054A/B frigates, to be more or less "out-piss-esque" than a fleet of some 80+ 9000-10,000 ton Burkes of various flights and Ticonderogas, along with some 20-30+ 3500 ton LCS?

No, it's not about the total tonnage, it's about the flashiest toy. I think even fanboys recognize that it would be extremely difficult to out-tonnage the USN during this lifetime, unless circumstances change dramatically and unforeseeably.

foxmulder_ms said:
Why do you assume 055 will be massive 13,000 tons ship? I think it will be somewhat smaller ~10,000 which almost identical to new burke derivatives and three tier (054, 052, 055) blue navy for future PLAN seems too many so it is logical, at least to me, to assume PLAN will be acquiring basically two classes in the future: frigate 054B and destroyer 055.

It will be bigger than the AB for sure. Just the beam is already confirmed to be wider and by extension, the length will be as well, especially since the AB is already unusually wide for its length.

Blitzo · Aug 18, 2016

Iron Man said:
No, it's not about the total tonnage, it's about the flashiest toy. I think even fanboys recognize that it would be extremely difficult to out-tonnage the USN during this lifetime, unless circumstances change dramatically and unforeseeably.

Okay, so my follow up question, is why is the prospect of having ~8 vs ~12 vs ~24 total 055/Xss different to each other in terms of wanting the "flashiest toy", considering we are all aware that each of those potential different numbers of 055 will likely occur with an associated relative increase or decrease of 052D/X numbers?

Even if 055s are produced in numbers such as ~24, it will be far from the Chinese Navy's "primary" surface combatant class, because all indications are that they will retain sizeable numbers of frigates and medium weight destroyers in service in large fractions as well.

as I've stated in a few of our previous discussions, I personally am not fully certain either way about how many 055s will end up being produced, but from where I'm standing I think the prospect of over 20+ 055s being produced is within the realm of possibility, though it's also possible substantially less such as 12 or even less may only be produced. Yet you seem to believe that the notion of 20+ 055s being produced is a categorical and complete impossibility and only lies within the realm of fanboy dreams. I do understand there are certain thresholds or red lines that everyone must have in terms of future projections, but your choice of threshold seems a little arbitrary, at least from where I'm standing.

AndrewS · Aug 18, 2016

@Ironman

Couple of points on your analyses

Sometime in the next 5-10 years (when the Type-55 is being produced), it is highly likely that China will be devoting a larger amount of economic output to military spending than the USA.

This is based on China already having an economy that is larger than the USA in terms of actual output, which is still growing much faster. At the same time, China is devoting a modest 2% of GDP to military spending.

Therefore the budget constraint argument is not really relevant to China.

===

In terms of requirements, China would like to have a large enough navy to deter any US actions in the Western Pacific. And China does have the budget for a significant fleet of AEGIS destroyers.

===

Plus China could use this as a stimulus package, as China does have the spare shipbuilding capacity lying around, and not enough investment opportunities elsewhere.

===

Larger ships are better suited and more cost effective with regards to emerging technologies eg. UAVs, UUVs, lasers, railguns. The additional hull/machinery cost of a Type-55 over a Type-52D is probably around $100M on the total cost of $500-$800M for a Type-52D. But the larger Type-55 hull has a lot more space for additional VLS and other new weapons.

===

Ref "A long term build rate of 2 052D/Es and 1 055/As per year is a far more likely scenario"

That long term build rate would result in a steady state Chinese fleet of 90 AEGIS ships (Type-52D/55), as they typically have a 30+ year service life.

It would also be better to have Type-55 production at 2 per year instead of 1 per year - as it results in a large increase in production/cost efficiency. The same applies to most vessels.

Jeff Head · Aug 18, 2016

Lethe said:
No, because they screwed up and restarting AB production was the least bad alternative. If USN were starting again from 2000 there would be no Zumwalt and no Flight III Arleigh Burke either. Rather there would be a ship that looks suspiciously similar to 055..[/
QUOTE]
I thikn the ship would look suspiciously similar to Zumwalt, but would be the CGX in fact.

Then they could build the multi-role, fire support version of it later...when they had justified a build of 20 to replace the 22 Ticos.

But they went for the fire support Iowa replacement first...which was a mistake... first when they really were desperately needing the replacement for the Ticos at that pint and the Zumwalt hull could have been an optoimum answer for it.

For the CGX, they could keep the all electric...and the new radar...and the PVLS, but make that its focus. 128 PVLS with the new radar and AEGIS all the way.

The AGS...leading to the Rail gun is nice...but it was also premature...they should have waited on the fire support version until the rail gun was ready.

Anyhow, those are my sentiments on it.

Blitzo · Aug 18, 2016

Jeff Head said:
I thikn the ship would look suspiciously similar to Zumwalt, but would be the CGX in fact.

Then they could build the multi-role, fire support version of it later...when they had justified a build of 20 to replace the 22 Ticos.

But they went for the fire support Iowa replacement first...which was a mistake... first when they really were desperately needing the replacement for the Ticos at that pint and the Zumwalt hull could have been an optoimum answer for it.

For the CGX, they could keep the all electric...and the new radar...and the PVLS, but make that its focus. 128 PVLS with the new radar and AEGIS all the way.

The AGS...leading to the Rail gun is nice...but it was also premature...they should have waited on the fire support version until the rail gun was ready.

Anyhow, those are my sentiments on it.

I think what Lethe is suggesting is that if the USN were to start over back in 2000 with a fresh design for DDX/CGX based on what they had learned now, they would have chosen a far less ambitious hull and far less ambitious subsystems to develop than what they ended up choosing for DDG1000 class, at least to start off with.... and that such a hull may have been very similar to the 055 class if not on overall configuration but at least in overall dimensions and displacement.

For the last few years I'd always believed that the USN should never have gone the tumblehome hull and never sought such all encompassing stealth, and should not have introduced so many new subsystems into their intended next generation surface combatant.
Instead, they should have chosen certain new subsystems to develop (such as IEPS, automated damage control, and perhaps new generation command/control ship control mechanisms) and ignored things like AGS, PVLS, and avoided extensive stealth, and used a conventional but new and large flared hull (about 13k tons full), with room for future growth and expansion. That way, initial ships of the class would use mostly existing weapons and sensors like SPY-1, Mk-45 gun, Mk-41 VLS (while also having new subsystems like IEPS, combat management, etc introduced on hull 1), and incrementally introduce newer subsystems like AMDR-S, rail gun, DEW, etc with new ship flights and with backwards refit of things like rail gun and DEW to initial ships possible as well. Each new ship flight would have more and more redesigned outwards geometry as well to suit stealth requirements if necessary.

PLAN Sovremenny DDG Refit/Modernization

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Lethe

Captain

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

foxmulder_ms

Junior Member

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

AndrewS

Brigadier

Jeff Head

General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General