055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[gelgoog]

China needs to come up with a new engine and propulsion architecture, possibly based on a marine version of CJ-2000 engine core, if you look at the European frigates and the Constellation class frigates, or the Japanese Mogami class, they have an architecture with one large MT30 gas turbine, and two diesels. China needs to develop something like that instead of using four diesels.

Having larger gas turbines possibly combined with electric propulsion could also allow China to reduce the amount of engines used in the destroyers. For example the Zumwalt class hull uses two MT30 gas turbines and IEPS.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

China needs to come up with a new engine and propulsion architecture, possibly based on a marine version of CJ-2000 engine core, if you look at the European frigates and the Constellation class frigates, or the Japanese Mogami class, they have an architecture with one large MT30 gas turbine, and two diesels. China needs to develop something like that instead of using four diesels.

Having larger gas turbines possibly combined with electric propulsion could also allow China to reduce the amount of engines used in the destroyers. For example the Zumwalt class hull uses two MT30 gas turbines and IEPS.

Believe they are working on that, or well better turbines/generators as well as IEPS.

With IEPS possibly being used for 054B?

Anyways, for now they are just adding numbers, as they need more numbers, even if they might kinda awkwardly run into the problem off having to wait on sailors and not sailors having to wait for new ships.

 

[Godzilla]

Believe they are working on that, or well better turbines/generators as well as IEPS.

With IEPS possibly being used for 054B?

Anyways, for now they are just adding numbers, as they need more numbers, even if they might kinda awkwardly run into the problem off having to wait on sailors and not sailors having to wait for new ships.

So with IEPS, would it be possible to mount some kind of HRSG on the GTs in these marine engines or would the efficiency gains not be enough to offset the space constraints and become a maintenance nightmare with the corrosion problems at sea? Siemens is building a power plant in Mexico using seawater on the HRSGs so if someone comes up with a creative way of layout the HRSG on a ship it might work?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

After 2030, I would expect shipbuilding to shift towards aircraft carriers and less towards destroyers/frigates

Considering the shortfall of modern and near-future-era destroyers and frigates in the PLAN compared to the USN, JMSDF and ROKN peers, China's construction fever of destroyers and frigates could still be going strong into the early 2030s.

Of course, with the maturing of carrier operations, marine nuclear propulsion system and stealth technology for submarines, we would see a gradual uptick of constructions of newer CVs, LPDs & LHDs, SSBNs & SSNs and SSKs starting this decade.

However, I think we would see the increase in procurement rates of flatdecks and submarines will happen concurrently as the increase in procurement rates of surface combatants starting this decade as well.

The PLA-navy is building an average of 6 destroyers per year ( 2 Type 055 and 4 Type 052D ).
At this rate within 12 years 6 x 12 = 72
Add this to the 50 China currently have 50 + 72 = 122 destroyers by year 2035
Let's just say 120 destroyers.
Let's also assume that 120 is good enough.

Besides, there is something else that definitely necessitates an rapid increase in major surface combatant procurements by the PLAN.

Here's the list of PLAN DDG classes in service right now:
055 - 7 (+1)
052D/DL - 25
052C - 6
051C -2
052B -2
956E/EM - 4
051B - 1
052 - 2

Then there's this list of PLAN FFG classes in service right now:
054A - 31 (+4)
054A - 2
053H3 - 8
053H1 - 2

Out of the total 49 (+1) DDGs and 43 (+4) FFGs listed above, only 38 (+1) of the DDGs and 31 (+4) of the FFGs are equipped with features and capabilities that actually fulfill the requirements for present and near future naval warfare scenarios, i.e. 7 (+1) 055s, 25 052Ds, 6 052Cs and 31 (+4) 054As.

For the remainder 11 DDGs and 12 FFGs - Despite them being sequentially upgraded to modern-day standards - Would either have to be retired from active frontline service and be relegated to rearguard duties within the FIC, or be retired from PLAN service entirely.

In essence, in order for China to expand and upgrade her navy across the board simultaneously in order to compete and outmach all of her rivals in the Westpac, the rate of newer warships that are being introduced into the PLAN must be at least twice or thrice as high as the rate of older warships that are being phased out of active frontline service or retired from the PLAN.

Now, it's not just a quality game but also a number's game. China cannot afford to lose out, in order to not repeat the same mistakes as the Qing Dynasty in the 19th century.

 

[taxiya]

Well, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that those name are not Taiwanese/Minannese pronunciation, it's mandarin, but in Wade–Giles spelling, which is another romanization system beside of Hanyupinyi

In fact, the only one name that was sort of ‘colonial’ should be 高雄 Kaoshiung, as it was actually Japanese Kanji of Hakka pronunciation of the place. The original name of Kaoshiung 高雄 was 'Takao' 打狗, when Japanese occupied the place, they thought the 打狗 was not delight enough, which is true..., so replace the 打狗 with 高雄 in the same pronunciation in Japanese.

Honest speaking, I don't think people will bother to change the name, it's a costly process with no actual meaning. Plus, 高雄 is actually a very nice name with good meaning.

They are not Mandarin pronunciation just like Peking is not mandarin, nor are they Minnan pronunciation. Wade-Giles is an approximation attempt by non-Mandarin/non-Chinese speaker, not an representation to Mandarin. They remains in usage just like some westerns insist using Peking instead of Beijing.

For example, 北 in Taipei is Pei in Wade-Giles, similar as Pe in Peking. The mandarin pronunciation of 北 starts with a sound of B like Book in English or Buch in German, not P like Park in English or Preussen in German. There is no way to mix these two letters in any romanization scheme whether in mainland China or Taiwan.

Another example, Chu in Hsinchu (新竹), although Taiwan's romanization may choose different letters to represent the X sound in Pinyin in place of Hsin, there is no way to use "ch" to represent the consonant of 竹 because "ch" in most languages in the world represent something like cheese and chair in English.

ROC government used Chinese radicals (pieces of Chinese characters) instead of Latin letters for most of time up to the 1990s. To avoid using Pinyin Latinization, they invented their own scheme which strongly resembled Pinyin which is redundant and politically "incorrect", so it was dropped. So Taiwan is left stuck to Wade-Giles spelling. It is a self created mess out of political fanaticism.

 

[charles18]

...
In essence, in order for China to expand and upgrade her navy across the board simultaneously in order to compete and outmach all of her rivals in the Westpac, the rate of newer warships that are being introduced into the PLAN must be at least twice or thrice as high as the rate of older warships that are being phased out of active frontline service or retired from the PLAN.
...

I agree.
In fact I find it confusing that the PLA-navy is "only" building an average of 160,000 tons of warships per year, especially in today's uncertain geopolitical environment. China easily has the industrial capacity to build 200,000 tons per year, perhaps even 240,000 tons. A good place to start would be to begin construction on 2 aircraft carriers at the same time instead of just 1.

 

[gelgoog]

I would also double the amount of Type 055 destroyers. I think there is no need to upgrade the design in the short term. And its hull is basically the most capable of all Chinese ships. The US has dozens and dozens of way less capable Arleigh Burke ships with no more modern replacement in sight.

 

[Moonscape]

I agree.
In fact I find it confusing that the PLA-navy is "only" building an average of 160,000 tons of warships per year, especially in today's uncertain geopolitical environment. China easily has the industrial capacity to build 200,000 tons per year, perhaps even 240,000 tons. A good place to start would be to begin construction on 2 aircraft carriers at the same time instead of just 1.

There's a Chinese saying when it comes to making large purchases: 买得起，养不起

The cost of initial construction is only a fraction of the total lifetime costs of a warship. Crewing, maintenance, and other on-going costs are significant. Resources aren't infinite, and each type of weapons system experiences diminishing returns. It's probably better to build many different types of complementary weapons than focusing on only ships.

 

[Tetrach]

Your comments about procurement etc makes me think of the dritish Daring class program... A class of 6 ships but with the availability of 1-2 at best at all time (when in comparison, french and Italian programs have each 2 ships which are most of the time at sea).

As said previously by someone else, cost of maintenance, crewing, support infrastructures... To acquire a ship is one thing, to operate it at its fullest potential is something else. For now the PLAN is doing a great work of getting experience around carrier operations. There's nothing to rush, unless Mister Xi is planning something big.

 

[Blitzo]

I agree.
In fact I find it confusing that the PLA-navy is "only" building an average of 160,000 tons of warships per year, especially in today's uncertain geopolitical environment. China easily has the industrial capacity to build 200,000 tons per year, perhaps even 240,000 tons. A good place to start would be to begin construction on 2 aircraft carriers at the same time instead of just 1.

It's not just a matter of building more ships, it's a matter of balancing near term procurement versus long term opportunity cost.

Sometimes building too many ships too early means you have less flexibility in future procurement, or even worse can become aged and suboptimal as newer technologies emerge.



I also really do laugh when people say the PLAN "only" has 38 modern destroyers and 31 modern frigates or something etc... People really seem to forget that just over a decade ago, the PLAN still only had two 052Cs.

The third 052C (052C restart production) was only commissioned in early 2013, which was the first step of the PLAN building the destroyer fleet we are seeing now.