055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
sorry then

No need to be sorry, I wasn't criticizing you.



my whole point has been (it'll sound generic :) but want to say it anyway) one thing is the ability to acquire new warships, another thing is the ability to man the new warships ... irrespective if it's for example PLAN, USN, RN (for which it's known issue Aug 31, 2016) or LOL my favorite Brunei Navy ... I think that's all what I have to say now

Yes, everybody knows this. Any increase in fleet size will obviously be accompanied by an increase in manpower.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Just to make the point, if the PLAN really wanted 128 VLS on the 055, it wouldn't be that hard to stretch the hull a bit to fit one more row of VLS, which means if they really wanted that many missiles they would have made it happen.
 

Lethe

Captain
Well it depends on what we call "long term". I imagine China won't sustain a 3 unit/year destroyer production rate over the "long term" if we consider that to be 20+ years, but I can imagine them sustaining it over like 10+ years or something (just throwing a number out there).

I see their past and present and near term future naval procurement as being a case of modernization+expansion, where their goal is to both rapidly modernize their capabilities as well as to expand the capacity of those modern capabilities. Eventually I think they will modernize and expand to a "critical mass" level where they will be satisfied with the extent of their capabilities in being able to achieve their core strategic missions to an acceptable degree of risk, whereupon they will move from rapid modernization and expansion, to a more steady pace of modernization and sustainment or at most a more steady rate of expansion.

So IMO what we've seen over the last decade or so was the first phase/early part of modernization+expansion where they produced a small to medium number of capable and competitive but not world leading capabilities to provide an interim/immediate capability and seed/training for future assets, while also heavily investing in R&D and infrastructure to allow them to build future more advanced and more complex ships in greater numbers.

Now going forwards I think we may see a more robust, synchronized push of modernization+expansion (building on the R&D and infrastructure investments of the previous phase) to reach the "critical mass" of modernization+capacity in the medium term future.

I agree with your general characterisation of past, present, and future, however I believe that if China continues to produce 2 destroyers and 2 frigates per year, such rate is not only sufficient to deliver a fleet comparable to USN in the long-term, but is capable of delivering significant expansion and modernisation over the medium-term as well, i.e. your "10+ years" -- let us say to 2030.

If China commissions 2 destroyers and 2 frigates each year between 2017 and 2030 that equates to 28 of each type. The 28 destroyers will replace 8-11 existing destroyers (051s, 052s, maybe 051B and 956As), therefore increasing total destroyer numbers by 17-20 over the period. The 28 frigates will replace 13-19 existing frigates (053H1s, 053H2, 053H1Gs, maybe earlier 053H3s), therefore increasing total frigate numbers by 9-15 over the period. Thus, even at the more modest level I suggest, the total number of major surface combatants increases from the current number of 76 ships to 102-111 over the period. Improvements in tonnage and technology terms will, of course, be much greater.

It is certainly possible for China to embark upon a more rapid (and less sustainable) path of expansion by producing 5-6 major combatants each year over the 2020s rather than 4, but beyond producing the undesirable long-term effects that I mentioned in my previous post, such a path seems incongruent with what we have observed to date in China's approach to military development. China's willingness to reduce military spending growth in line with broader economic performance these past few years suggests to me that PLAN is unlikely to try to rush for a "USN-level Navy" when a more modest schedule will in any case deliver that outcome over time.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I doubt that China will seek to maintain destroyer production at 3 units per year because such a rate, if sustained over the long-term, translates to a fleet of 90+ destroyers. Coupled with robust numbers of frigates and corvettes, such a fleet would be clearly (and in my view, unnecessarily) superior to the US Navy.

Maintaining production at a steady rate of 2 destroyers, 2 frigates per year translates to a fleet of 120 blue water surface combatants, which is comparable to the US Navy.

Of course it is possible that China could vary its production rate over time (beyond the minor variations -- gaps and overlaps -- that are inevitable) but doing so creates its own long-term problems when those peaks and troughs reappear later on. USN is facing such problems in the 2020s through mid-2030s, as vessels commissioned during the surge of the Reagan years retire faster than new builds can replace them.

Unlike almost every other nation in the world, China has the resources and requirements to produce warships at a rate high enough to benefit from economies of scale, while avoiding the boom-and-bust cycles that smaller powers have to deal with, and which inevitably lead to inflated costs and schedule delays. In the absence of a compelling near-term threat, it would seem unwise to discard or diminish this advantage.

I think they're planning on 3 AEGIS destroyers per year till 2025 at least.

But why wouldn't they continue at 3 AEGIS destroyers per year afterwards?

Today, China is already the world's largest trading nation and largest net overseas investor.

And by 2025, it is likely that the Chinese economy will be 50%+ larger than the US economy in terms of actual output, and larger on an exchange rate basis as well.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Remember that world's pre-eminant maritime trading nations normally ends up building the world's largest navy to protect its trade and ensure freedom of commercial navigation.

Plus both the US and UK have worked to a 2 power standard previously (at sea for the UK, on land for the US because it was already unchallenged at sea).

That would make for a much larger Chinese navy which would be able to dominate the western Pacific .

Plus such an overwhelmingly bigger navy would make it obvious to Taiwan that military resistance is futile, and therefore bring about a reunification without a war
 

Lethe

Captain
I don't think it is impossible that China could eventually come to possess naval and other military capabilities clearly superior to those of the United States, but such a prospect is one for the mid-century period. As such, even if the PRC did plan to displace the USA as the world's leading military power (as opposed to aiming for parity or near-parity), I'm not sure that accelerating warship construction in the 2020s would be the best way to bring that about. Rather, China would be better off ensuring its R&D processes are sufficient to deliver next-generation capabilities in the 2030s able to match or overmatch American equivalents.

Over the coming decade we are anticipating a significant increase in PLAN nuclear submarine construction as well as the operation of increasing numbers of large vessels with correspondingly high operating and personnel costs: most obviously aircraft carriers, but also LHDs, LPDs, large replenishment tankers, etc. PLAN has enough on its plate without accelerating destroyer production beyond 2 units per year, when that level is already sufficient to sustain a fleet of 60-65 destroyers.
 
Last edited:

Janiz

Senior Member
Plus such an overwhelmingly bigger navy would make it obvious to Taiwan that military resistance is futile, and therefore bring about a reunification without a war
What does it have to do with Type 055? Mods, please do something before certain users derail another thread (again) 'liberating' Taiwan...
 

delft

Brigadier
The number of 055 and other vessels should not be measure against the total USN fleet but should be build to prevent USN to be used to intimidate China and neighbours of China. Under such a circumstance USN looses much of its utility and it should be enough to allow Asia to develop economically without warlike interference.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
What does it have to do with Type 055? Mods, please do something before certain users derail another thread (again) 'liberating' Taiwan...

It's very simple actually.

If China has a sufficiently large sea-control surface navy, it can isolate Taiwan from any effective outside support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top