Equation
Lieutenant General
But China has the DF-21D, DF-26, and HGV that the US doesn't have to counter and neutralize any CV with or without CATOBAR.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
But China has the DF-21D, DF-26, and HGV that the US doesn't have to counter and neutralize any CV with or without CATOBAR.
Well we were talking about Aegis-like vessels like the 052C/D and 055, so the 054A was not part of the discussion. However, the 054B (or whatever it ends up being called) may end up being a mini-Aegis, so we'll have to see. It will probably have a role similar to that of the JMSDF's Akizuki class (a giant load of quad-packed MRSAMs paired with AESA fire control to defeat saturation attacks).
In any case, I don't think the 055 will be produced in very large numbers, at least not anywhere near the 052C/D series. I figure the PLAN will use this vessel as the C&C headquarters for the AAW commander of a carrier, amphibious, or surface action group, in similar fashion to how the Ticonderoga is used by the USN. Basically you need just one of these for a CSG, with the balance of the actual firepower being provided by smaller combatants such as the 052D and 054A.
IMO the 052D and the 054A are the best examples of the PLAN already putting the concept of "distributed lethality" into practice long before the USN decided to do this. These are smaller eggs in smaller baskets, dramatically unlike the 055, and of course the Arleigh Burke, all individually capable of AAW, ASuW, and ASW. A current composition of a USN CSG may be something like 1 CVN, 1 CG, 2-3 DDGs, and 1-2 SSNs. A future PLAN CSG may be more like 1 CV/N, 1 CG, 3-4 DDGs, 4-5 FFGs, and 1-2 SSNs.
MwRYum
Major
052D is and always will be the stop-gap solution until the 055 goes into full production, become the definitive workhorse in the future PLAN armada. 055 is to carry the similar combat suite as 052D, but with a bigger payload potential (thanks to bigger hull comparable to the Arleigh Burke class DDG) to do more. Depend on how long 055 need to get all the kinks worked out, (052C took a decade, but we know primary due to the powerplant issues), 052D will still be needed to replace whichever hopelessly outdated hulls there is (like the last of the Luda class DDG) in the meantime, then the 055 comes to take the baton.
We must be careful not to assume that just because the 055 is the largest escort the PLAN has produced to date, that this is any reason that it will or should "take the baton" as the main workhorse of the PLAN. In fact I think it should not, for the reasons I outlined above.
Last edited:
From what I read, previous to your post the discussion was about the general balance of naval power, rather than any discussion about only aegis type destroyers? Of course there's nothing wrong with only talking about aegis-type destroyers, but I was under the impression the theme prior to your post was about general naval balance.
Yes, that is what I thought for most of the last few years as well, but now I'm not as sure, because there are some rather strong indications the Navy may be strapping itself in for long term 055 production with rumours that multiple (three) shipyards will be getting 055 orders.
I suppose we'll see.
I think the Chinese Navy's force structure is less related to a desire to achieve "distributed lethality" in the way that the USN has described it (which is to make as many of their surface combatants and even some auxiliaries have anti surface capabilities as possible), but more a reflection of the Chinese Navy's own resources and resource limitations, and the kind of distances and locations at which they will be looking to operate at, and also differing philosophy of the value of medium displacement surface combatants vs the USN.
If anything I think the USN are a little unusual in their over emphasis on fielding an almost exclusively high displacement, high end surface combatant force in their Burkes and Ticos, and forgoing a medium end blue water capable frigate.
Of course, the LCS/FF partly fills the role of a frigate in the USN, but not quite like how the 054A does in the Chinese Navy at present, or even how the OHP class did in the USN back during the late cold war, mostly due to the lack of air defence capability beyond ciws.
Well the original post that touched off this latest flurry of posts was his prediction of 80-90 Aegis-like vessels, which is what I directly responded to.
A rumor is just a rumor. If three shipyards actually do get orders to simultaneously produce the 055, you may be on to something, but even then there are other possibilities, such as the PLAN just wants to put out a set number of cruisers in a short time period.
There is truth to the observation that the PLAN has been producing according to its abilities, but this is not mutually exclusive with the idea that it values and may have been planning a distributed lethality concept for a long time, which by the way is not exclusively referring to giving more ships more antiship capability, but refers also to a far more general concept:
A decision which they now obviously regret, and which hopefully the PLAN will not try to replicate. I think a high/medium/low mix of CG/DDG/FFG weighted more towards the medium end (052 series) is an ideal force distribution for the PLAN.
Oh right, that was about four pages back.
Though to be fair that post didn't make any statements about when that many aegis ships would be acheived by, but whatevs.
Well, let's wait and see.
It's still early days yet, and the first 055 hasn't even been launched. We know that JN is definitely building 055, DL is highly expected to build 055, and strong suggestions that HP LX will also be building them, so right now I'm not going to rule it out yet.
In terms of hardware, at this stage I think their implementation of distributed lethality is essentially to give more surface ships access to anti surface weapons and especially anti ship weapons that in the last decade or so have not been standard fit aboard all USN surface combatants (including many burkes, like IIAs).
Tbh when I first read of the USN's "distribute lethality" concept, I thought their description in terms of hardware implementation aboard surface forces would have been fairly standard for most navies -- i.e.: that it is the norm for most navies to have "distributed lethality" among their surface combatant fleet as standard.
I agree that the Chinese Navy should not seek to emulate the USN.
However, at the same time I think a better ratio of frigates to destroyers to large destroyers would be about 2:1:1, or even 1.5:1:1, in the long term "steady state" force composition.
I'm not convinced any of this beyond JN building the 055 is known or suspected vs just being rumored, or even more banal, just hopeful wishing transformed into rumor.
For now it may be just equipping ships with antiship weapons, but clearly the long term goal is a true distributed lethality of all combatants in most or all arenas of combat; this will include upgrading the LCS into a frigate, for example, and accelerating the use of UCAVs from escorts and UUVs from subs.
There are many missions for which a frigate is ideal, somewhat less than that for which a destroyer is ideal, and even less for which a cruiser is ideal, which like I said really only is more ideal than a destroyer in the case of the need to provide C&C facilities for a group of surface combatants including multiple Aegis-like vessels. I doubt the ratio will be 1.5:1:1, or even 2:1:1. 4:3:1 or 5:3:1 is more along the lines of what I think is likely to be the expected force structure.
Fair enough, but to me, these rumours seem like the kind of "rumours" from a few years back which suggested that 052D production will at least reach 12 vessels at the time when only a single 052D was launched, or that 052D would be built at both JN and DL years before we saw the first one at DL, or that 001A would be built at DL back when Liaoning was still under refit... in other words I don't think it's just wishful thinking.
This doesn't mean it's definitely going to happen, but I personally am willing to give it some level of credence.
Yes, well the lack of a clear definition of what the individual parts of "distributed lethality" makes serious discussion or comparisons difficult.
I do think that the initial descriptions of the idea revolved around distributing anti surface weapons among many/most of the USN's surface combatants. If the USN is saying the term more generally relates to flexibility and inter operation of new assets including the various assets of NIFC-CA and new LHAs and their F-35B air wings, as well as potential future unmanned assets as key components of distributed lethality, then that complicates the ability to make accurate comparisons.
Perhaps.
I see some value in having a healthy number of cruisers/large destroyers with ~100 or 100+ VLS and long endurance, to use them to make up the bulk of a few high capability surface action groups operating independent of large task forces like CSGs or ARGs.
But there are arguments and counter arguments to be made for any kind of force structure description.
And SM-3, THAAD you don't knowBut China has the DF-21D, DF-26, and HGV that the US doesn't have to counter and neutralize any CV with or without CATOBAR.
nah