055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Jeff Head]

The PLAN is making great strides towards a balanced modern fleet.

They will have numerous modern FFGs and have built accordingly.

Ultimately they will have a lot of modern capable DDGs, and the largest number of these will be Type 052C/D and any improvements made to them.

I view the Type 055 as much more than simply a larger Type 052D.

It is being built, I would bet, with significant command spaces so that in a large carrier group, or large amphibious group, it becomes the command ship for the defensive engagements...like a Tico class AEGIS cruiser does for the US.

So, I expect in the end the PLAN will have upwards of 36-40 modern FFGs, 24 or more of the Type 52C/D destroyers, and16-20 or so Type 55 DDGs.

That's a total of somewhere between 76 - 84 of these very modern major surface combatants. And this does not include the Sovs, the Type 051Cs or the Type 052Bs...which add another eight DDGs to the mix, or the probably 50-60 Type 06=56 light frigates.

If you take that first group and figure one Type 055, two Type 052D and two Type 054x FFGs fro a carrier group, and perhaps the same for a large amphibious grou, then you can easily support eight such groups at a time and have plenty of vessels left over for being in maintenance and for performing other SAG or individual missions.

I personally believe that is where the PLAN is going, and to maintain that balance they will maintain production on all three of the basic surface combatants, FFGs, DDGs, and CGs or larger DDGs depending on how you want to designate them) for the foreseeable future. My numbers may not be exactly right, but I believe this strategy is demonstrably what they intend.

 

[plawolf]

The PLAN is making great strides towards a balanced modern fleet.

They will have numerous modern FFGs and have built accordingly.

Ultimately they will have a lot of modern capable DDGs, and the largest number of these will be Type 052C/D and any improvements made to them.

I view the Type 055 as much more than simply a larger Type 052D.

It is being built, I would bet, with significant command spaces so that in a large carrier group, or large amphibious group, it becomes the command ship for the defensive engagements...like a Tico class AEGIS cruiser does for the US.

So, I expect in the end the PLAN will have upwards of 36-40 modern FFGs, 24 or more of the Type 52C/D destroyers, and16-20 or so Type 55 DDGs.

That's a total of somewhere between 76 - 84 of these very modern major surface combatants. And this does not include the Sovs, the Type 051Cs or the Type 052Bs...which add another eight DDGs to the mix, or the probably 50-60 Type 06=56 light frigates.

If you take that first group and figure one Type 055, two Type 052D and two Type 054x FFGs fro a carrier group, and perhaps the same for a large amphibious grou, then you can easily support eight such groups at a time and have plenty of vessels left over for being in maintenance and for performing other SAG or individual missions.

I personally believe that is where the PLAN is going, and to maintain that balance they will maintain production on all three of the basic surface combatants, FFGs, DDGs, and CGs or larger DDGs depending on how you want to designate them) for the foreseeable future. My numbers may not be exactly right, but I believe this strategy is demonstrably what they intend.

Fully agree on all points except one - I would expect numbers of the blue water element of the fleet to be slightly more, so that 9 carrier/amphibious groups could be easily deployed at the same time, 3 for each of the PLAN's fleets.

Although 9 is still possible with your numbers, given that home defence can pretty much be easily left to the 056s, 022s and others with minimal numbers of heavier ships to act as linchpins.

Also, TBH, I would not be surprised if we see an 052E or clean sheet design of similar displacement (which may or may not be the upcoming 054B/057 class), which will be a medium range workhorse ship designed with more upgrade potential so it could be more easily upgraded with upcoming weapons and technologies once they mature. So things like energy weapons, next gen sensors and battle management systems etc.

 

[PanAsian]

The PLAN is making great strides towards a balanced modern fleet.

They will have numerous modern FFGs and have built accordingly.

Ultimately they will have a lot of modern capable DDGs, and the largest number of these will be Type 052C/D and any improvements made to them.

I view the Type 055 as much more than simply a larger Type 052D.

It is being built, I would bet, with significant command spaces so that in a large carrier group, or large amphibious group, it becomes the command ship for the defensive engagements...like a Tico class AEGIS cruiser does for the US.

So, I expect in the end the PLAN will have upwards of 36-40 modern FFGs, 24 or more of the Type 52C/D destroyers, and16-20 or so Type 55 DDGs.

That's a total of somewhere between 76 - 84 of these very modern major surface combatants. And this does not include the Sovs, the Type 051Cs or the Type 052Bs...which add another eight DDGs to the mix, or the probably 50-60 Type 06=56 light frigates.

If you take that first group and figure one Type 055, two Type 052D and two Type 054x FFGs fro a carrier group, and perhaps the same for a large amphibious grou, then you can easily support eight such groups at a time and have plenty of vessels left over for being in maintenance and for performing other SAG or individual missions.

I personally believe that is where the PLAN is going, and to maintain that balance they will maintain production on all three of the basic surface combatants, FFGs, DDGs, and CGs or larger DDGs depending on how you want to designate them) for the foreseeable future. My numbers may not be exactly right, but I believe this strategy is demonstrably what they intend.

Our thinking on this is similar. I anticipate 055 to be in the single digits though, with 052C/D in equal or larger numbers than 054A/A+.

 

[AndrewS]

We differ in where we see overlap. I see the 054x and 052x both belonging to the middle tier and just differ in role. As more rival assets and actions confront the PLAN especially in high tension low intensity operations which may go hot and high intensity I anticipate the PLAN will find the 052x necessary where previously the 054x sufficed while the 055 will still be overkill. This also works from the angle of better survivability and flexibility via dispersion, and cost constraints despite potentially better value in a 055 over a 052x.

Look at the notional cost estimates for each ship

Type-56: $100million max

Type-54: $350million approx

Type-52D: $800million approx
Type-55: $1000million approx

It is clear that the Type-54 is medium-end in terms of cost.

And that the Type-52D and Type-55 are high-end in terms of cost, which is primarily due to the fixed cost of the radar and electronic's suite (somewhere between $300-$500million based on costs for AEGIS and Russian land based systems)

The Type-55 is basically a larger version of the Type-52 with the same subsystems. So if you ever need a Type-52D in a situation, you might as well go for the Type-55 and get a lot more VLS capability for a somewhat more money.

There is an argument on having numbers and dispersion, but when you look at how many Type-56 and Type-54 are being built, along with projected production numbers for a large high-end destroyer - it simply makes sense to switch completely from Type-52D to Type-55 when it is ready.

China already has 20+ Type-52s anyway - which provide flexibility and dispersion to the future fleet of Type-55s that will be produced.

 

[AndrewS]

Fully agree on all points except one - I would expect numbers of the blue water element of the fleet to be slightly more, so that 9 carrier/amphibious groups could be easily deployed at the same time, 3 for each of the PLAN's fleets.

Although 9 is still possible with your numbers, given that home defence can pretty much be easily left to the 056s, 022s and others with minimal numbers of heavier ships to act as linchpins.

Also, TBH, I would not be surprised if we see an 052E or clean sheet design of similar displacement (which may or may not be the upcoming 054B/057 class), which will be a medium range workhorse ship designed with more upgrade potential so it could be more easily upgraded with upcoming weapons and technologies once they mature. So things like energy weapons, next gen sensors and battle management systems etc.

I think things like energy weapons, next gen sensors and battle management systems are better off in the larger Type-55 hull which should have a lot more power available than the Type-52 hull.

 

[AndrewS]

A few points.

Firstly, procurement costs are only one factor, you also have to bear in mind operational costs.

055 might be much more cost effective to buy compared to 052D, but given the much larger displacement and likely crew size, they will also be much more expensive to run, and would represent a bigger logistical burden for resupply, thus need more supply ships for the fleets. Those costs could also need to be considered and factored into the equation for deciding what ratio to buy the two types.

Secondly, a big badass cruiser is cool, but not every mission calls for such presence and firepower, as the USN has found out to its cost with its over reliance on Burkes and subsequent over-balance with the LCS, but that's a different discussion.

The PLAN is unlikely to face a problem of that level because of its heavy investment on Frigates, but the point remains that there are comparatively few missions where only an 055 and nothing less will do. For lesser missions, sending 052Ds will get the job done for less, both in terms of procurement and operational costs.

Thirdly, we need to remember that the currently PLAN fleet expansion is as much, if not more to do with giving Chinese shipyards a helping hand in a difficult market as it is with any imminent operational need from the PLAN.

As early as a couple of years ago, commercial shipping contracts were down from 40-70% in Chinese yards. That's a massive threat to the very existence of many yards.

The PLAN naval contracts are pretty much a form of government stimulus, designed to help yards weather the current rough times without having to make deep, painful cuts to core capacity that will be hard and expensive to reverse once the good times comes again.

In that context, efficiency is very much a secondary concern, and any additional costs incurred from setting up production at so many yards would also be offset greatly by the massive decline in commodity prices.

I agree that there is a considerable amount of overlap between the 052D and 055, and in normal times, 052D production may well be superseded with 055 production.

However, given the economic reality, the Chinese government will probably run both types in parallel to keep as many yards viable as possible.

Such a decision is especially evident in the way smaller ships like the 056 and coast guard ships are being built all over the place.

In a similar way, it may also be possible for the 054A and 054B/057 classes to be built in parallel, whereas in normal times you would expect production of the earlier type to be replaced with the newer.

WWII made the USN the power it has been ever since. The global economic downturn may well be doing the same for the PLAN.

Operating costs and crewing requirements should only see a marginal increase of less than 10% from the Type-52D to Type-55. There are just so many items on a warship that have a fixed cost and crew requirement - irrespective of whether the hull is 7500 tons or 11000 tons.

The Type-55 should be LESS of a logistical burden than the Type-52D because it will have more space for fuel, supplies, spares and repair workshops.

I agree the USN is has an unbalanced fleet of Burkes with very little in the way of medium-tier frigates. But the Chinese navy is most certainly NOT in this situation, as we can see from the overwhelmingly large Coast Guard for civilian presence and and Type-56 Corvette fleets for low-tier naval presence.

Plus China already has a fleet of 30+ medium-tier frigates, whereas the US LCS/Frigates are only just re-entering service.

Again, China already has 20+ destroyers in the Type-52 weight class which is more than adequate to bridge any possible mission gap between the Type-54 frigate and the Type-55 large destroyer.

So it would simply be more efficient to migrate fully from the Type-52 hull to the Type-55 from both a cost and capability point of view. And if a yard can build a Type-52D, it most assuredly has the capability to build a Type-55 which is just a larger version with the same subsystems.

And in terms of keeping yards busy, I reckon $80million of the additional $200million cost for the Type-55 is purely shipyard labour and steel for a larger hull.

Whilst the shipyard *crisis* played a big part in the current naval construction boom, I also think that the current procurement rate is sustainable because of the large increase in military budgets we've already seen and are likely to see in the future. Eg. a minimum 20% increase in the next 3 years.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Operating costs and crewing requirements should only see a marginal increase of less than 10% from the Type-52D to Type-55. There are just so many items on a warship that have a fixed cost and crew requirement - irrespective of whether the hull is 7500 tons or 11000 tons.

The Type-55 should be LESS of a logistical burden than the Type-52D because it will have more space for fuel, supplies, spares and repair workshops.

I agree the USN is has an unbalanced fleet of Burkes with very little in the way of medium-tier frigates. But the Chinese navy is most certainly NOT in this situation, as we can see from the overwhelmingly large Coast Guard for civilian presence and and Type-56 Corvette fleets for low-tier naval presence.

Plus China already has a fleet of 30+ medium-tier frigates, whereas the US LCS/Frigates are only just re-entering service.

Again, China already has 20+ destroyers in the Type-52 weight class which is more than adequate to bridge any possible mission gap between the Type-54 frigate and the Type-55 large destroyer.

So it would simply be more efficient to migrate fully from the Type-52 hull to the Type-55 from both a cost and capability point of view. And if a yard can build a Type-52D, it most assuredly has the capability to build a Type-55 which is just a larger version with the same subsystems.

And in terms of keeping yards busy, I reckon $80million of the additional $200million cost for the Type-55 is purely shipyard labour and steel for a larger hull.

Whilst the shipyard *crisis* played a big part in the current naval construction boom, I also think that the current procurement rate is sustainable because of the large increase in military budgets we've already seen and are likely to see in the future. Eg. a minimum 20% increase in the next 3 years.

I wonder if there are going to be some systems that will be somewhat automated in the 55 (compared to 052) to lessen the complement. Not as drastic as Zumwalt obviously but I'll be keen to find out. Since it has a double hanger for two helos we already know there will be additional crew required for helo detachment (8-12 + sailors/rotorhead)

 

[AndrewS]

I wonder if there are going to be some systems that will be somewhat automated in the 55 (compared to 052) to lessen the complement. Not as drastic as Zumwalt obviously but I'll be keen to find out. Since it has a double hanger for two helos we already know there will be additional crew required for helo detachment (8-12 + sailors/rotorhead)

In terms of automation and power systems, I think the Zumwalt and UK Type-45 destroyer have amply demonstrated that you don't want to experiment with new systems on a $1000+ million production warship, particularly when you could prove these systems out on a low cost $200million Coast Guard ship instead.

It reminds me of the integrated electric propulsion system that China has put on some of its Coast Guard vessels, precisely for similar reasons.

And if the Type-55 has twice as many helicopters as the Type-52D - presumably it has twice the capability in a number of useful scenarios.

 

[Blitzo]

Look at the notional cost estimates for each ship

Type-56: $100million max

Type-54: $350million approx

Type-52D: $800million approx
Type-55: $1000million approx

It is clear that the Type-54 is medium-end in terms of cost.

I think your position is too dependent on estimating the notional, potential cost of the ships, and that makes it very difficult to either defend or challenge the position.

Personally I doubt that 055 class will cost only 1/4 more than 052D, given it will likely displace over 13,000 tons at full whereas the 052D is estimated to displace only over 7,000 tons. That difference in full displacement lends itself to the addition of many additional subsystems in both quantity and type which 055 will have which 052D will not.
A good number of the 052D's existing major subsystems will be multiplied by two on the 055, from estimated VLS count to the ship's gas turbines (4 QC-280s vs 052D's 2 QC-280s). Then there are additional new subsystems including the expected X band AESA, the aft VSR, which 052D will not be equipped with (and 055s will be saddled with the R and D cost of these subsystems only, because 052D will not field them). There are also helicopter costs, given 055 will be able to accommodate two vs the 052D's single (and 055 may be able to accommodate the Z-18F which would also be significantly larger, more capable and thus expensive than a Kamov or a Z-9 on an 052D).
If 055 is equipped with a new generation combat system, that is also another significant cost.

So therefore I strongly disagree with the notion that 055 is merely a "larger sized 052D," because based on the present consensus and rumours that we have it will be quite a bit more. This is even ignoring future variants of the 055 which may field IEPS and railguns and laser, which in turn adds even more cost to the 055 programme (though they could be seen as their own individual classes, technically speaking).

I myself would not be surprised if a 055 costed anywhere from 30% more to 50% more relative to a 052D.

 

[AndrewS]

I think your position is too dependent on estimating the notional, potential cost of the ships, and that makes it very difficult to either defend or challenge the position.

Personally I doubt that 055 class will cost only 1/4 more than 052D, given it will likely displace over 13,000 tons at full whereas the 052D is estimated to displace only over 7,000 tons. That difference in full displacement lends itself to the addition of many additional subsystems in both quantity and type which 055 will have which 052D will not.
A good number of the 052D's existing major subsystems will be multiplied by two on the 055, from estimated VLS count to the ship's gas turbines (4 QC-280s vs 052D's 2 QC-280s). Then there are additional new subsystems including the expected X band AESA, the aft VSR, which 052D will not be equipped with (and 055s will be saddled with the R and D cost of these subsystems only, because 052D will not field them). There are also helicopter costs, given 055 will be able to accommodate two vs the 052D's single (and 055 may be able to accommodate the Z-18F which would also be significantly larger, more capable and thus expensive than a Kamov or a Z-9 on an 052D).
If 055 is equipped with a new generation combat system, that is also another significant cost.

So therefore I strongly disagree with the notion that 055 is merely a "larger sized 052D," because based on the present consensus and rumours that we have it will be quite a bit more. This is even ignoring future variants of the 055 which may field IEPS and railguns and laser, which in turn adds even more cost to the 055 programme (though they could be seen as their own individual classes, technically speaking).

I myself would not be surprised if a 055 costed anywhere from 30% more to 50% more relative to a 052D.

$38 million for an extra 1.6million man-hours of labour
$45 million for an extra 3600 tons of displacement for hull and equipment
$90 million for an extra 6 VLS modules with 8 cells each
$27? million miscellaneous

Total: $200million extra

All these figures are calculated from the Type 54 detailed cost breakdown and the known displacement/cost/labour for the Type-55 and the Burke.

Miscellaneous includes the SWOP of 2 diesel engines for QC-280 gas turbines and should cover the other stuff that you mentioned, with the exception of the additional helicopter. The combat management system and radars should be the same as the Type-52D, and they should share the same software upgrade cycle to add new capabilities. We see the same thing happening with AEGIS on the Burkes and Ticoderogas.

Also remember that additional air assets vastly increase the air and sea control bubble that the ship can monitor and therefore control.

And even if the Type-55 is at the high end of your cost estimate and is 50% more expensive than the Type-52D, it still has at least 75% more VLS cells and 100% more helicopters. Again, it is still worth going with the Type-55 instead of the Type-52D.