055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[lllchairmanlll]

The issue is not simply about production capacity and capability to deliver. China might have grown strong economically but it doesn't have unlimited funding and there are always competing priorities. Force structure planning is grounded on missions requirement and future scenario planning and where China wants to be eventually. In my view, at a minimum it would need one type 055 for each CBG i.e. four. If China plans to mirror that number with its ARG it would need another four. In total it would need at least eight. Beyond that it is anyone's guess but not because its production facility needs to be kept busy.

What makes you think that PLAN will be operating 4 CBGs? Please post your source or it is just your comfortable imagination. Plus, one 055 DDG for each CBG is not a good configuration of future PLAN CBG. There will be at least 2 055 DDG if PLAN intends to build its modern CBG. For comparison, currently a normal USN CBG consists of 2 Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 2-3 DDG.

 

[latenlazy]

Given what we know about the 055 model, it is highly possible that a 055 will more expansive than a Burke Flight IIA on a unit basis. If you look at China's GDP per capita along with the current slowdown in economic growth, I doubted China can afford 62 ultra-expensive ships. When we get to 2030s, we might look back and say the type 054A(B) and type 052D(E) had been the PLA's most successful mass-produced warship, and 055...just like what eventually happened to the DDH-1000 Zumwalt class.

Different budgetary circumstances and procurement structures. Furthermore, I wouldn't presume that military spending is necessarily pegged to economic performance (I would also argue that China's slowdown isn't going to cripple it or last forever. There's a second wind to China's economic development, but that's a separate subject). To that point, the slowdown of the US's procurement has very little to do with how quickly the US economy is growing or what it's GDP per capita is.

 

[Brumby]

What makes you think that PLAN will be operating 4 CBGs? Please post your source or it is just your comfortable imagination.

Thanks for over rating my imagination. I can quote you 4 sources but I will not because I think your comment is somewhat petty given that we are talking about China watch.

Plus, one 055 DDG for each CBG is not a good configuration of future PLAN CBG. There will be at least 2 055 DDG if PLAN intends to build its modern CBG. For comparison, currently a normal USN CBG consists of 2 Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 2-3 DDG.

I do not have problem with differing views nor in debating them provided it is substantive, but yours is not. I suggest you actually try to understand what I had posted and what you are attempting to convey before interjecting because words have meaning. I said the number was grounded on mission requirements and the minimum was one. Implicit in that, the number leaves the option of more than one. In contrast, you took the position of two which means implicitly it discounted one. Simple logic dictates one or more is easier to defend than at least two regardless of the force structure reasoning behind that number which we haven't even discussed. Btw, Wiki source says one or two for a US CBG.

 

[SpicySichuan]

From a pragmatic perspective, is it possible to make a compromise for a cheaper ship between 052D and 055? Say based on the current 052D superstructure, just lengthen the ship by 6 more meters so another 32 VLS could be added to the aft section. Then maybe increase the power of the engine slightly to cope with the increase in tonnage (possibly from 7,500 to >8,000). Finally maybe replace the type 517 radar with a new AESA air search radar? That would enhance the 052D (E)'s firepower to that of 055, but with a cheaper cost.

 

[Brumby]

From a pragmatic perspective, is it possible to make a compromise for a cheaper ship between 052D and 055? Say based on the current 052D superstructure, just lengthen the ship by 6 more meters so another 32 VLS could be added to the aft section. Then maybe increase the power of the engine slightly to cope with the increase in tonnage (possibly from 7,500 to >8,000). Finally maybe replace the type 517 radar with a new AESA air search radar? That would enhance the 052D (E)'s firepower to that of 055, but with a cheaper cost.

What you are proposing is a simplistic view without relating to the cost structure and drivers of modern military vessels. The almost exponential rise in cost of modern warships are driven by complexities of design and weapon systems which typically accounts for 2/3 of the total cost of the vessel. Incremental tonnage has a more minor resulting impact on cost unlike commercial vessels.

 

[Lethe]

Crewing is a major cost over the lifetime of a vessel also. Despite being significantly larger, I would expect Type 055 to have a similar crew complement to 052D, just as 052D has a complement similar to the much smaller 051s and 052s.

 

[PanAsian]

They could...but will they need to?

As I say, I expect six to twelve Type 055s. I expect twelve to eighteen Type 052Ds, And clearly the six Type 052Cs are it for that class.

With their probably twenty-four Type 054As...and maybe additional Type 054Bs, and up to 36 very modern DDGs, they are going to have the second largest combatant Navy in the world next to the US Navy, and they are all going to be very modern and capable vessels.

We shall see.

By the time all those 055's and 052D's are in service other forces in the region would have also added assets, and subs and CV/LHD/equivalents are also combatants.

Relatively the PLAN would still not be that large a force when compared to combined USN (mainly 7th but likely also elements of 3rd, 5th, & 6th fleets), JMSDF, ROKN, and ROCN assets, the VPN and PN should probably be included as well in the immediate neighborhood. This is not even taking into account plausible addition of other neighborhood forces the RAN, RMN, TNI-AL, RSN, and RTN. Or the possible involvement from further afield of elements of the IN, RN, MN, RCN, or RNZN. Am I missing any more acronyms?

Realistically in a total war scenario the whole SLOC protection mission is a pipedream for China, it has no chance of being able to do so and probably knows it so they would be focusing on landlines instead (puns intended). The best it could hope for is dominating the seas within the first island chain or contending it enough to prevent significant maritime threats to the homeland.

 

[Lethe]

Thanks for illustrating why China's naval buildup is unlikely to slow over the next couple of decades. Parity with USN is what PLAN will be aiming for, and there's no reason to think they won't get there in the end.

 

[Pmichael]

total war scenarios are silly at best anyway.

 

[vesicles]

By the time all those 055's and 052D's are in service other forces in the region would have also added assets, and subs and CV/LHD/equivalents are also combatants.

Relatively the PLAN would still not be that large a force when compared to combined USN (mainly 7th but likely also elements of 3rd, 5th, & 6th fleets), JMSDF, ROKN, and ROCN assets, the VPN and PN should probably be included as well in the immediate neighborhood. This is not even taking into account plausible addition of other neighborhood forces the RAN, RMN, TNI-AL, RSN, and RTN. Or the possible involvement from further afield of elements of the IN, RN, MN, RCN, or RNZN. Am I missing any more acronyms?

Realistically in a total war scenario the whole SLOC protection mission is a pipedream for China, it has no chance of being able to do so and probably knows it so they would be focusing on landlines instead (puns intended). The best it could hope for is dominating the seas within the first island chain or contending it enough to prevent significant maritime threats to the homeland.

All the acronyms that you quoted may by allies, but they certainly won't send ALL their ships to a conflict with any country, let alone China. Normally, only a few nation s would lead a coalition while others might just send a few. Just look at the Gulf War. Although it was a coalition, t was mainly the U.S. and some UK forces. The same goes with any conflict in the history. and this is especially the case in a fight with China. Let's face it. While the US and a few other nations like AUS can be sure that China won't attack their homeland, the others cannot. Actually, China will probably attack these countries' homeland in an all out war in the scenario described by you. In fact, China will let them know ahead of time, as a warning, that they will be attacked if they decide to join the fight. How many of these countries will still want to join the fight with such warning? Most likely, they will stay back and watch. In fact, that's what has been done by most nations in any conflict in the history.

I mean, why waste precious resources in a fight that you will lose no matter which side wins? The cost of fighting alone, not even talking about casualties and attrition etc, will probably bankrupt most of these small nations. Just think about how expensive it was to fight Iraq in the first Gulf War. Fighting China will cost something multiple magnitudes more. How many small nations can afford even a fraction of the cost? Most of these nations have serious domestic unrest. The rebels will no doubt take this opportunity to overthrow the govn'ts. China won't even have to send bombers and missiles. All they have to do is to supply arms to the anti-govn't elements in these nations. They will be too busy sending anything to join the fight with China...