MwRYum
Major
That depends on if the 055 will be the target iteration that the Chinese have been aiming for decades, or if 055 and 052D will form a hi-low combo in the future fleet buildup.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I believe it will be the latter.
Type 052D more numerous, with Type 055 as lynch pin in any major task group, be it carrier, large amphibious, or large surface action group.
You will see a carrier group with four Type 052C/D, two Type 054A and one Type 055...maybe two depending on the threat level.
But probaably usually just one ni peace time.
MwRYum
Major
I believe that having more 052D out there has more to do with the components techs' availability and what gaps the PLAN badly needed to plug. When the 052C hull finally cleared for serial production, the component tech for modular VLS also ready, thus we saw the 052C production ended with just 4 more hulls (those alloted weapon suites has to go somewhere, not wasted), and then switch to the bonafide multi-role DDG that's the 052Ds. The numbers of 052C/Ds gives the PLAN surface combatants an updated SAM umbrella that it lacks for so long, and the 052D will provide the offensive firepower projection even in the future carrier battlegroup, as the battlegroup heavy hitter will be ship-launched LACMs, carrier-borne airgroup won't bear that burden until CATOBAR carrier-aircraft package is realised and in numbers. That said, the 64 VLS slots on the 052D would mean an effective offensive firepower could only be realised with more ships.
However, with 055 and its (estimated at this time) 128 VLS slots, respectable offensive+defensive firepower can be achieved. Given that the common acknowledgement that the year 2020 is the crunch time for China (ie. risk of Sino-US war is high), even if the 055 Block I managed to launch in this year, they won't be in significant numbers for the battle order by 2020, thus there will be more 052Ds but once the 055 Block I gets the green light, we should see the 052D production run peters out, if all goes well that means in the year 2018.
The doctrine of operating so many DDG classes in the fleet pretty much dies out when multi-role ships becomes the norm around the world, in the PLAN it has more to do with the inconvenient truth of various constraints that it has to first overcome. But eventually the PLAN will consolidate its DDG compliment with more and more 055s, while anything "pre-052D" will gradually be replaced, meanwhile 052Ds will operate with 055 in the hi-low combo out of necessity and reality (too new to get the axe, so to speak, not to mention carrying the similar suites as the 055, alas with less VLS slots comes less firepower), but not out of doctrinal reason.
Nothing wrong with that (the last part in bold). The 052D with 64 VLS cells is hardly a lightweight for offensive/defensive firepower, especially in its weight category.
I definitely do not think 2020 has received "common acknowledgement" for anything.
I also do not think 128 VLS cells is necessarily any sort of benchmark for "respectable" offensive/defensive firepower which 64 VLS cells is not, considering these ships will be operating in conjunction with other fellow destroyers and frigates in a group.
I also think it is a mistake to suggest that a bigger ship with more weapons (like 055) is always better than having a number of smaller ships each with less weapons (like 052Ds or frigates), because that needs to consider benefits of smaller ships like tactical/operational flexibility. So I strongly disagree with this undertone I'm reading from you which suggests that a larger and more capable ship makes smaller ships somehow less relevant or obsolete.
Eventually all pre 052C and pre 052D ships will be phased out and retired, but that will still be a great number of years away. Standardizing their destroyers to an eventual class of warship with capable multirole and airdefence capabilities like 052D and beyond will be inevitable yes, but that has little to do with the role of 055s and more to do with the overall modernization of the Chinese Navy and having the shipbuilding industry reach a level of capability where they find its capabilities acceptable.
I think your dismissal of 052D and your lack of mention of frigates (054A and the future 054B) ignores the importance of having a fleet made up of a healthy balance of surface combatants of differing displacement and capability categories that are able to serve different roles in war time vs peace time in the most cost effective way.
I would be very seriously concerned if the Navy did not seek a healthy balance between large destroyers, medium destroyers and frigates for its blue-water capable surface combatant fleet in the future. I do not believe that seeking a medium destroyer category like 052C/D and having a frigate warship category in service are "compromises" at all, but rather sensible decision to allow them to fulfill their range of missions in the most optimal and cost effective manner.
Will add another reason why having more 052Ds isn't bad. If you depend on a smaller number of larger ships with more missiles per ship, adversaries don't have to target as many assets to erode your offense power. If one 055 is disabled that could mean losing 128 cells in your flotilla. If you have two Type 052Ds instead they'd have to disable two ships to have the same impact. Having some smaller ships in the mix splits your offensive load across more baskets, giving you a measure of redundancy and resilience in combat.
MwRYum
Major
When 052D's rivals like the Arleigh Bruke-class Flight IIA has 96 cells, not to mention they're also much more numerous, then you should see why 64 cells is deemed inferior.
Probably you might have heard of "Cool War" or "Cold War 2.0", alas still obscure terms in public arena but with the Washington DC and the MSM are packed with China-haters, I do expect it'll become the buzz word when they finally get bored with Russia, within 12-18 months from now I reckon. THAAD at South Korea is just to "keep things fresh", but nowhere outmoded in the grand scheme of things to encroach and even walled-in China.
Not dismissal but realising its limitation. And since we're talking about DDGs here, so I omitted the FFGs for such purpose, but that doesn't mean I dismiss the purpose and contribution that smalller ships like 054A (and 'B if and where it is realised) and 056 series of corvettes. To focus on DDGs, 052D has its merits sure, but with - in Chinese lingo - "target model" 055 in the pipeline, it's just fair to say better model is incoming.
Yes, redundancy was also a significant factor, and depending on the degree of cooperative engagement capability and computing power aboard each ship (052D vs 055), two 052Ds with a total of 128 cells distributed among two ships may even allow for an engagement of more targets simultaneously than a single 055 with a total of 128 cells aboard one ship.
That said, those things along with the factor of flexibility also very much depend on what the 055's capabilities relative to 052D are in areas beyond merely VLS cells like combat management, CeC/datalinking, sensors, etc which we will not be able to know soon if ever.
Fortunately, a single 052D will probably never face a single Burke in 1v1 combat, as both will be part of their respective battlegroups.
So it is quite irrational to compare an 052D with a Burke as some kind of benchmark, rather we should be looking at overall fleet structure for the two navy's surface combatants and how well that allows them to complete their missions.
If one is interested in comparing two ships together for academic purposes only that is another matter -- but you are trying to compare them in an operational scenario.
Of course I'm not blind to China-US tensions.
But I see no reason to think why 2020 will be the year when things happen to hit the fan.
No, I do think you are dismissing it by saying it is "limited" because that inherently suggests that there is a certain benchmark that they are meant to meet, thus immediately meaning certain kinds of ships which are unable to reach that benchmark are somehow lesser.
What I'm saying is that the point of these smaller, less capable ships is that they are meant to operate as a task force, as a fleet, as a navy.
The capability of a single one of these ships vs a Burke or a Tico or whatever is largely immaterial to how they would realistically sought to be operationally deployed once the Chinese Navy is on the finishing end of its modernization and expansion.
Yes, an 056/A, or 054A, or 052D may not be the equal of a Burke, but the question we should be asking is why on earth should we expect them to be? And if we really do want to conduct a thought experiment for the Chinese Navy wanting a Burke weight class/capability ship as a major surface combatant then how would that effect their overall surface combatant fleet structure and thus, the other missions and roles they are expected to perform?
Jura The idiot
General
here's an argument against 'using two of Type 052D instead of one Type 055': the crew sizes
(2*280 instead of 350+; numbers based on the discussion in
Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
#2326 Jura, Oct 31, 2016
#2223 Bltizo, Oct 20, 2016)
(2*280 instead of 350+; numbers based on the discussion in
Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
#2326 Jura, Oct 31, 2016
#2223 Bltizo, Oct 20, 2016)
It's not an either or. Having multiple form factors can create synergies you don't normally get with one.