PLAN Sovremenny DDG Refit/Modernization

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I am not so sure about rail guns on 055s. That would, IMHO, be repeating the same mistakes as the US DDG1000.

Rail guns, despite having greater range than traditional naval guns, are inherently a short ranged weapons system in comparison to the missiles a cruiser like the 055 can carry.

I agree that no 055 variant will ever emphasize rail guns in the same way as the Zumwalt class emphasized AGS (and in turn, dictating the possibility for two rail gun mounts) -- but I expect the 055 class to eventually get IEPS and to be the only initial ship in the Chinese Navy that is capable of mounting a larger caliber rail gun before smaller caliber guns are developed for future smaller ship classes with IEPS.

In that sense, I expect a future 055 variant to have rail guns as standard fit not because the rail gun would be any sort of significant offensive weapons system aboard the ship, but as a natural progression from the H/PJ-38 and to leverage the availability of IEPS.

They might consider developing a dedicated naval bombardment platform which emphasizes rail guns significantly, but I expect an IEPS equipped 055 variant to feature a rail gun as well.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Yes, they may get rail guns as rail guns become standard issue on new naval warships.

But I would not be surprised if the 055 is not the first class of PLAN ship to enter service with heavy rail guns.

IEPS will make sense for the 055 to all it to boost performance of those giant AESAs and future variants of them, as well as to mount next gen defensive laser and rail gun CIWS.

But heavy offensive rail guns are not really a mission critical part of the 055 package.

As such, it would make sense to develop that independently on a separate class, and only retrofit them in later once the technology has been thoroughly debugged and perfected.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yes, they may get rail guns as rail guns become standard issue on new naval warships.

But I would not be surprised if the 055 is not the first class of PLAN ship to enter service with heavy rail guns.

IEPS will make sense for the 055 to all it to boost performance of those giant AESAs and future variants of them, as well as to mount next gen defensive laser and rail gun CIWS.

But heavy offensive rail guns are not really a mission critical part of the 055 package.

As such, it would make sense to develop that independently on a separate class, and only retrofit them in later once the technology has been thoroughly debugged and perfected.

I'm not sure what "heavy offensive rail guns" will constituted, but I do expect an 055 (let's say 055A) variant with IEPS to field the first rail guns because like you said, they (i.e.: the main gun) are not really a mission critical part of the 055 package.

I do not expect them to go forward and develop a separate class of warship first specifically for rail guns as the first platform to field rail guns.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
@Jeff Head

Broadly agree, but I think once the Type-55 is proved out, they will phase out Type-52D production.

If the Type-55 is launched next year and works out, then I can see them stopping the Type-52D at 18 vessels and then moving to the Type-55 and staying there.
I don't see them doing that. The Type 052D is an excellent vessel that can have additional upgrades to its sensors and weapons (like the US des to the Arliegh Burkes) that the PLAN can standardize on which is something they desperately need. And it is cloe enough to parity to allow thm to do it.

The Type 055 is the new, larger (really a cruiser design) which the PLAN needs for its leadership, flagship, center piece role. which they can buld a good 20 of. They then can do the same thing as the Tico class does for the US Navy...that is, undergo upgrades to sensors and weapons. They are big enough to do that.

the envisioned fleet levels would be a huge change in the balance of power in WestPac, but I fail to see how China would simply stop most naval construction in its tracks to maintain that fleet level.[/quote[ They do not stop buildng immediately.

If they are going to build 30 or more Type 052Ds and 20 Type 055s, they have a lot of years building to do yet. Then they maintain that level, adding new designs when all of the one and two off modern designs reach the end of their service lie (Type 052 x 2, type 052 B x 2 , SOx x 4, Type 051B x 1, Type 051C x 2), and then again when the Type 052C reach the end of theirs...r just keep building that new desing through allk . I mean that will be 18 pf the newer class vessel then.

At that point, the would have 30+ Type 052Ds, 20+ Type 055s, and then 18+ of the new design. That's 70+ destroyers and cruisers.

At the same time, they will have 32+ FFGs that they will begin rebuilding around the same time frame. So they do not stop, they just standardize and then maintain while they constantly improve what they have.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
@Jeff Head
But also remember that in the 2025-2030 timeframe, China will have a significant larger economy than the USA and will possibly be spending more on the military as well.

So yes, the envisioned fleet levels would be a huge change in the balance of power in WestPac, but I fail to see how China would simply stop most naval construction in its tracks to maintain that fleet level.

I would expect China to continue adding at least 2 more destroyers every year to the overall fleet in order to maintain the industrial/tech base. But if lasers and railguns result in a naval tech revolution, then production rates could continue at much higher rates.
I'm not sure how many other people are as optimistic about China having a "significantly" larger economy than the US in the 2025-2030 timeframe. I think if China barely squeaks past US GDP in nominal terms during that timeframe, it will still be a slightly optimistic (but achievable) projection. Even then, China will not be spending more than the US military by that time. If China starts at $150 billion in 2015 and increases by 10%/year for the next 10 years, which TBH I think is now unrealistic given China's slowdown, you still get 'only' $389 billion in 2025. Even if you think China is significantly underreporting and the true spending in 2015 was $200 billion, you are still left with $519 billion in 2025. Contrast that with US military spending at $638 billion in 2015. BTW I said 10%/year x10 years for the sake of simplicity. China's actual increase in budget for 2016 was only about 7% more than the 2015 budget, no doubt due in large part to China's economic slowdown. China has a LONG way to go to catch up with the US in defense spending. I think a more realistic timeframe is right around the middle of the century.

Rail guns, despite having greater range than traditional naval guns, are inherently a short ranged weapons system in comparison to the missiles a cruiser like the 055 can carry.

That represents and fundamental and irreconcilable clash in roles and missions to mount heavy rail guns on a missile cruiser.

Rail gun shooters, like the DDG1000, are in fact a modern reinvention of the classic gun line battleship. They got their big shinny new-gen boom stick, but needs to get real close to the enemy to use them.
Rail guns are first and foremost shore bombardment weapons. Also, the Zumwalt class, the only ship which could realistically carry a rail gun in the short to medium term, carries those big 155m AGS cannons primarily for the purpose of shore bombardment, just as the Zumwalt itself was designed primarily for littoral operations, including shore bombardment. The rail gun's antiship, antiair, and antimissile functions are theoretical and secondary to their primary purpose of destroying land targets quickly, accurately, cheaply, and at long range. This boom stick if it gets put into operation will function primarily as intended, whether or not any of those other functions pan out. Mainly because it's the easiest to implement.

Ideally, you would want to put your rail guns on your FFGs, or light FFGs like the 056 class, who can range ahead of the main fleet, while under the air defence umbrella of ships like the 055 and 052D, to engage enemy ships and shore defences with rail gun fire while being small enough to be hard to target in return, and also expendable enough that you can afford to use them in the aggressively offensive manner their primary armament demands.

Realistically speaking, it is unlikely that the power generators, rail guns and all other support systems could be miniaturised enough in the near or medium term to allow rail guns to be installed on ships so small.

The interim solution isn't to put rail guns on your biggest ships (unless it's a CIWS rail gun shotgun), but rather to put them on the smallest ship big enough to support it.
I don't think any navy ever intended or ever intends to put rail guns on small ships like corvettes or frigates, who in no way will have the ability to power those weapons. There is also no reason to use rail guns "aggressively". They can leisurely bombard shore targets from several hundred km away, exactly as they were intended to be used. Any antiair/antimissile use of a rail gun will be limited to WVR engagements. A BVR antiship version is a very interesting proposition but would require guided projectiles. If this can be successfully designed you would have a virtually guaranteed zone of antiship destruction for several hundred km all around you, assuming you could target the enemy ships; you wouldn't even need many ships in your SAG or CBG to have rail guns; one or two ships with rail guns would enough. Clearly the largest combatant ships like the cruisers would be the natural home for these rail guns. Regardless, I don't think these weapons are going to be used in close quarters slugfest engagements. I don't think any modern engagements between advanced navies will end up in close quarters except in utterly rare circumstances.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Rail guns are first and foremost shore bombardment weapons. Also, the Zumwalt class, the only ship which could realistically carry a rail gun in the short to medium term, carries those big 155m AGS cannons primarily for the purpose of shore bombardment, just as the Zumwalt itself was designed primarily for littoral operations, including shore bombardment. The rail gun's antiship, antiair, and antimissile functions are theoretical and secondary to their primary purpose of destroying land targets quickly, accurately, cheaply, and at long range. This boom stick if it gets put into operation will function primarily as intended, whether or not any of those other functions pan out. Mainly because it's the easiest to implement.

Just because that's how the USN wants to use rail guns is by no means any indication that that is the primary purpose of the technology.

Shooting at targets on land is essentially no different from shooting at targets at sea. Shore bombardment is no more easy than ship engagement in terms of rail gun technologies. The big difference is the precieved operational need and risks associated with getting into position to use rail guns in the desired fashion.

The USN is primarily looking at shore bombardment because it is the world's biggest and most powerful navy by a long way, so do not really expect to have any difficulty in bludging any other navy to destruction the 'old fashioned' way with massed long range missile and air strikes.

The PLAN, being the far smaller navy, would be far more interested in focusing on how to leverage new tech to overcome the numerical superiority of established naval powers.

I don't think any navy ever intended or ever intends to put rail guns on small ships like corvettes or frigates, who in no way will have the ability to power those weapons.

That is more to do with the limitations of technology rather than a lack of desire. Present any navy with a miniature railgun and power source small enough to mount on Frigates and you will see entire new generations of frigates designed to mount them very quickly, as well as vast resources developed to developing tactics and strategies to make the most use out of them.

There is also no reason to use rail guns "aggressively". They can leisurely bombard shore targets from several hundred km away, exactly as they were intended to be used.

Again, that is only looking at things from the prospective of the USN, who has the numbers to whittle down enemies at range, so can afford to sit back to take minimal risks.

Naval weapons development has always been a case of an arms race been spear and shield. Currently, the shield is winning, but rail guns could be one of the technologies that could break that balance and tip it in favour of spear again.

Current generation of AA DDGs can defend against swarm attacking conventional AShM attack with a very high degree of probability of success almost to the point that munitions load would be the primary limiting factor.

The USN doesn't really care, because it has the numbers to pretty much always turn up with more AShMs than the enemy has SAMs, so can win by default.

But for anyone who does not enjoy that sort of overwhelming numerical advantage, they will need to be more innovative.

Here is where rail guns can become a game changer if used aggressively.

You mount rail guns on the smallest, fastest ships you can put them on, use the rest of your conventional fleet to protect them from enemy air and AShM attacks until those line breakers can get within a few hundred NM of the enemy fleet, and they can use those rail guns to devastate the enemy fleet.

Any antiair/antimissile use of a rail gun will be limited to WVR engagements.

No reason why it has to be. If anything, using co-operative engagement with rail guns should be considerably easier than with missiles because of the speed advantage of rail guns, meaning your off board sensor asset does not need to keep the enemy painted as long.

Clearly the largest combatant ships like the cruisers would be the natural home for these rail guns.

Why would that be if you remove the technological bottleneck with the size of the rail guns and the power source issue from the equation? Remember, combat is always a two way street against peers or near-peers. If you can shoot at them, they are shoot right back at you.

If you put rail guns on cruisers while the opponent put rail guns on frigates, your cruisers will need to be at the vanguard of the fleet to engage those frigates, hardly an ideal trade.

Regardless, I don't think these weapons are going to be used in close quarters slugfest engagements. I don't think any modern engagements between advanced navies will end up in close quarters except in utterly rare circumstances.

That wI'll only be the case if it's a far more powerful navy bullying a much smaller one.

Even today, if two similarly matched navies, like the UK RN and French navy, were to engage in a major fleet action against each other, they will probably run out of AShMs before the enemy runs out of SAMs, and not be able to inflict much significant damage to each other before running out of AShMs.

If they wish to continue the engagement and bring about a definitive outcome, they will have to close to within gun range and do things the old fashioned way.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Totally agree. Economically, in term of nominal GDP I think China and the US would be roughly the same in 2025-2030 (even in PPP China is already bigger now) .... but militarily, China is stil long long way to catch up to the US. Currently, there is no doubt China is the 2nd strongest in term of economic and military just behind the US .. but the gap is huge in military. In Economy, I'd say China is roughly 75% of the US. But in military, I'd say China is only roughly 35% of the US military strength

But in ~2030 China military would be roughly 60% of the US ... hopefully
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
@Ironman

China already has a larger economy in terms of actual output that the USA.

At even 5% growth, China's economy will double in size in 14 years, which is far more than a mature US economy can achieve.

It's not a big stretch to think that China will be a lot bigger than the USA after 2025.

Even the National Intelligence Council is expecting China to be bigger than the USA by 2030, but in their report below, they haven't looked at the latest developments in terms of R&D or the shift to services and consumption

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In any case, can you imagine any US politician or policymaker saying that China will be a lot bigger than the USA?
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
@plawolf

In the future, I would see guided railgun rounds that could operate in the AAW role, in addition to anti-ship and shore bombardment roles.

That is why I see railguns being emphasised more heavily in the future, and new larger IEPS ships being required.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Just because that's how the USN wants to use rail guns is by no means any indication that that is the primary purpose of the technology.

Shooting at targets on land is essentially no different from shooting at targets at sea. Shore bombardment is no more easy than ship engagement in terms of rail gun technologies. The big difference is the precieved operational need and risks associated with getting into position to use rail guns in the desired fashion.
Shooting at land targets is a whole nother animal compared to shooting at ship targets. The inability of a bunker to move means the rail gun doesn't need any real time targeting and doesn't need guided projectiles. All it needs is to fire at its maximum rate. A moving ship target absolutely requires real-time targeting information and terminally-homing projectiles, unless you're counting on complete surprise. Even then you get only one free shot before the target is either destroyed or starts to maneuver, meaning if you're using unguided projectiles they will immediately become useless.

The USN is primarily looking at shore bombardment because it is the world's biggest and most powerful navy by a long way, so do not really expect to have any difficulty in bludging any other navy to destruction the 'old fashioned' way with massed long range missile and air strikes.

The PLAN, being the far smaller navy, would be far more interested in focusing on how to leverage new tech to overcome the numerical superiority of established naval powers.
The USN is primarily looking at shore bombardment first because it is the easiest technology to develop, but it is also looking at rail guns as antiship, antiaircraft, antimissile, and even antiballistic missile weapons.

That is more to do with the limitations of technology rather than a lack of desire. Present any navy with a miniature railgun and power source small enough to mount on Frigates and you will see entire new generations of frigates designed to mount them very quickly, as well as vast resources developed to developing tactics and strategies to make the most use out of them.
How do you know a frigate-sized rail gun mount is even physically possible?

You mount rail guns on the smallest, fastest ships you can put them on, use the rest of your conventional fleet to protect them from enemy air and AShM attacks until those line breakers can get within a few hundred NM of the enemy fleet, and they can use those rail guns to devastate the enemy fleet.
I'm not sure why I would want such expensive weapons to be on the smallest possible ships in the fleet, which would be destroyed much more easily; I would rather have them on the largest ships given their expense. Smaller doesn't equate with faster speed. Actually, it usually equates with lower speed, because you start getting these CODOG or CODAD ships that are inadequately powered to achieve 30+ knots.

Why would that be if you remove the technological bottleneck with the size of the rail guns and the power source issue from the equation? Remember, combat is always a two way street against peers or near-peers. If you can shoot at them, they are shoot right back at you.

If you put rail guns on cruisers while the opponent put rail guns on frigates, your cruisers will need to be at the vanguard of the fleet to engage those frigates, hardly an ideal trade.
Again, you have yet to demonstrate a frigate-sized rail gun is even possible. You are already assuming this is the case and go on to make assumptions based on this unfounded assumption.

That wI'll only be the case if it's a far more powerful navy bullying a much smaller one.

Even today, if two similarly matched navies, like the UK RN and French navy, were to engage in a major fleet action against each other, they will probably run out of AShMs before the enemy runs out of SAMs, and not be able to inflict much significant damage to each other before running out of AShMs.

If they wish to continue the engagement and bring about a definitive outcome, they will have to close to within gun range and do things the old fashioned way.
Doubtful. I think they would just retire, refuel and rearm in the most ridiculous stalemate cases. This isn't even counting SSNs in the mix, which aren't intercepted by SAMs.

@Ironman

China already has a larger economy in terms of actual output that the USA.

At even 5% growth, China's economy will double in size in 14 years, which is far more than a mature US economy can achieve.

It's not a big stretch to think that China will be a lot bigger than the USA after 2025.

Even the National Intelligence Council is expecting China to be bigger than the USA by 2030, but in their report below, they haven't looked at the latest developments in terms of R&D or the shift to services and consumption

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In any case, can you imagine any US politician or policymaker saying that China will be a lot bigger than the USA?
Most people and economists measure the size of a country's economy by its GDP, not by "output", whatever you mean by that. And depending on exactly what you mean by "a lot bigger", a term which is totally non-specific, yes, it may in fact be a "big stretch". As for R&D or shift to services, these things mean nothing if they don't translate into measurable increases in GDP, since that is what we are measuring. IMO 2030 is a reasonable projection for Chinese GDP to have overtaken US GDP in nominal terms, but it certainly won't be "a lot" bigger than the US by then, unless some massive unexpected event occurs.
 
Top