Type 052D DDG News & Discussions

[PRC2025]

I believe the current rate of naval ship building is just about right. Building ships to replace current numbers in service is no longer suits the geopolitical situations in seas around China.

And extra numbers of ships are required as escorts of China's future airraft carrier groups, at least 3 of which is expected and this is excluding Liaoning which wil continue to be deployed as training and experimental ship.

The hostile gangs from east ocean and west ocean will increase in force, instigated by the desire to forestall China's military and economic progress and the fear of China's rise as a world leader.

Even if China builds 60 modern destroyers and frigates, she still lacks in number against sum of 60% of US Navy pivoted to West Pacific + Japan + Taiwan and South Korea. And with the increasing warm India - US military relations, ships from India might increase their presence in South and East China seas. Then we have the Asutralians and Vietnam.

So, I think China should increase her naval ships at least to match the sum of expected naval forces from above countries deploy to China's door steps in future.

That shouldn't be a problem if China starts spending as it should - between 3 and 4 percent of the GDP on defense. China is spending too little. All those countries you mentioned - except Japan, which has massive economic and demographic problems - spend more than China on defense regarding percentages of their countries GDP.

Second of all, China should cut the number of troops even more so. I don't see the point in having more than 800.000 or 900.000 groups, which should be highly skilled with latest weapons. The resources spent less on ground troops, means more cash for missiles, navy, air force, strategic forces, cyber warfare, etc, etc.

One must remember that the reason Japan can have still, but ageing air force and navy (except subs, which are very modern) it is because Japan barely have any ground troops at all.

The same goes for other "island" countries. China doesn't have any threat on the ground, so if China can restructure the ground troops and spend even more on navy and the air force, that can be done even with the existing budget.

Japan and Australia on the other hand, are very squized and don't have that kind of economic luxury to squeeze out some older ground troops, since they barely have any ground troops at all.

Second of all, I don't consider Australia or South Korea to be enemies and there is nothing that indicates that. Australia is was "down below" geographically, and if Australia gets too big ambitions, that will most probably irritate Indonesia a lot.

Regarding India and Vietnam - these two should also think a bit of countries that are very good friends and allies of China, such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos PR, Thailand and others, while at the same time, issues with India are not that huge and there are good possibilites to solve the issues between these two.

Also, do not forget. While Saudi-Arabia is pre-occupied or obsessed with Iran, I don't think that a Wahhabi-Islamic regime is going to look very favorably on a Hindu-nationalistic regime trying to dominate anything around the Gulf area. Saudi-Arabia har started to get their own naval ambitions and you can bet they definitely crash with India's in the Gulf-area.

But, I do agree with you - just in case, China should build up it's forces even more so, and I think we are seeing just the beginning of it now. So I do agree with you in general.

Anyway, one must not forget that China is going to sell 11 SSK submarines to Pakistan and Thailand (8+3) so that's a huge thing. I don't think there are any other countries that are producing SSK submarines that has total of 11 SSK on order from other countries.

Pakistan:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...na-finalize-8-sub-construction-plan/73634218/

Thailand:
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2016-07/05/content_7134524.htm

 

[Penguin]

China navy will be growing. By the time this block is obsolete, it will be a small block proportionally.

So, about 60 larger surface combattants (1500 tons an up) is just a small block proportionally? Proportionally to what, might I ask? What and how many other large combat ships are there in PLAN now or will be coming 10-20 years?

When exactly does 'small' start for you? What fleet expansion would be needed to arrive a such a 'small' proportion?

Even if PLAN built a mix of another 60 ships in the same or larger tonnage classes, that still makes the ships I mentioned 50% of the entire fleet (obviously not counting tiny stuff like the Type 022). 120 additional ships > 33%. 180 ships > 25% , 240 ships > 20% (which implies 12 ships per year, every year for 20 years, starting 2020).

6x type052C and 12x type052D DDGs, 25x type054A FFGs for PLAN ... building not end new DDGs will coming.

As I indicated in previous post. Point?

 

[nang2]

So, about 60 larger surface combattants (1500 tons an up) is just a small block proportionally? Proportionally to what, might I ask? What and how many other large combat ships are there in PLAN now or will be coming 10-20 years?

When exactly does 'small' start for you? What fleet expansion would be needed to arrive a such a 'small' proportion?

Even if PLAN built a mix of another 60 ships in the same or larger tonnage classes, that still makes the ships I mentioned 50% of the entire fleet (obviously not counting tiny stuff like the Type 022). 120 additional ships > 33%. 180 ships > 25% , 240 ships > 20% (which implies 12 ships per year, every year for 20 years, starting 2020).


As I indicated in previous post. Point?

It is not 60 ships a year. You are just confusing with the total number and building rate. It is absurd to replace 12 ships a year when it is not even building with that rate.

 

[lcloo]

So, about 60 larger surface combattants (1500 tons an up) is just a small block proportionally? Proportionally to what, might I ask? What and how many other large combat ships are there in PLAN now or will be coming 10-20 years?

I don't think you are the type that forgo doing homework and post in haste. However, this is what PLAN has in service right this moment. This list excludes DDG and FFG that are still officially in commission but are assigned to naval academies/collages for trainng purposes.

There are 23 destroyers commissioned and in active service. Out of this 23 ships only 2 are old 051 class. This number of 23 ships excludes 4 old destroyers still in commission but are used for training purpose.

There are 51 frigates above 1,500 tonnes (in fact they are all above 2,000 tonnes), 22 ships are modern 054A, the rest are 29 older ships need to be replaced urgently as a good number of them have done service for more than 33 years.

So the total number of the DDG/FFG above 2,000 tonnes are 74 ships. And they have to be replaced each and every year as they reach their 30 years service life. Just to maintain this number of ships in future, you have to build 3 ( 74 ships/30 years = 2.47) DDG/FFG each year.

And 60 ships quoted is not a block, it is number of ships in service. And as you can see it is an understatement really. To be more accurate, 74 DDG/FFG currently are in service.

 

[Penguin]

It is not 60 ships a year. You are just confusing with the total number and building rate. It is absurd to replace 12 ships a year when it is not even building with that rate.

I think you failed to understand my post as I have never said or suggest 60 ships a year. And I amd NOT confusing total number an building rate. Today, 60 large surface ships is NOT a small proportion. For it to be a small proportion in 2040, there would need to be significant expansion of the fleet, unless you like retiring ships well before they are worn out (which doesn't seem to be a PLAN habit). In short, you can't really defend you claim that 60 ships is really 'only a small proportion' .

I don't think you are the type that forgo doing homework and post in haste. However, this is what PLAN has in service right this moment. This list excludes DDG and FFG that are still officially in commission but are assigned to naval academies/collages for trainng purposes.

There are 23 destroyers commissioned and in active service. Out of this 23 ships only 2 are old 051 class. This number of 23 ships excludes 4 old destroyers still in commission but are used for training purpose.

There are 51 frigates above 1,500 tonnes (in fact they are all above 2,000 tonnes), 22 ships are modern 054A, the rest are 29 older ships need to be replaced urgently as a good number of them have done service for more than 33 years.

So the total number of the DDG/FFG above 2,000 tonnes are 74 ships. And they have to be replaced each and every year as they reach their 30 years service life. Just to maintain this number of ships in future, you have to build 3 ( 74 ships/30 years = 2.47) DDG/FFG each year.

And 60 ships quoted is not a block, it is number of ships in service. And as you can see it is an understatement really. To be more accurate, 74 DDG/FFG currently are in service.

100*(22/51) = 43% > not a small proportion.
maintaining fleet numbers means a constant proportion of ships, i.e. NOT going down in the proportion of new versus old ships that you have today.

'above 2000 tons' conveniently excludes 20+ type 056, which themselves replace a huge number of smaller patrol ships.

You cannot deny though that when you stream in a large number of new ships (say >= 60) over a short span of time (say <=10 years), they will also all reach retirement age in a relatively narrow timeframe. That is, unless you retire good ships in less time than their planned service life (=capital destruction) and wear out others well beyond their planned service life, giving you an average service life of 30 years (But doing that affects fleet quality/capability. So, you would have to invest in more maintenance and modernizing those older ships a bit in order to keep them in action and relevant = incur extra lifetime and operational costs).

 

[Beidou2020]

That shouldn't be a problem if China starts spending as it should - between 3 and 4 percent of the GDP on defense. China is spending too little. All those countries you mentioned - except Japan, which has massive economic and demographic problems - spend more than China on defense regarding percentages of their countries GDP.

Second of all, China should cut the number of troops even more so. I don't see the point in having more than 800.000 or 900.000 groups, which should be highly skilled with latest weapons. The resources spent less on ground troops, means more cash for missiles, navy, air force, strategic forces, cyber warfare, etc, etc.

One must remember that the reason Japan can have still, but ageing air force and navy (except subs, which are very modern) it is because Japan barely have any ground troops at all.

The same goes for other "island" countries. China doesn't have any threat on the ground, so if China can restructure the ground troops and spend even more on navy and the air force, that can be done even with the existing budget.

Japan and Australia on the other hand, are very squized and don't have that kind of economic luxury to squeeze out some older ground troops, since they barely have any ground troops at all.

Second of all, I don't consider Australia or South Korea to be enemies and there is nothing that indicates that. Australia is was "down below" geographically, and if Australia gets too big ambitions, that will most probably irritate Indonesia a lot.

Regarding India and Vietnam - these two should also think a bit of countries that are very good friends and allies of China, such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos PR, Thailand and others, while at the same time, issues with India are not that huge and there are good possibilites to solve the issues between these two.

Also, do not forget. While Saudi-Arabia is pre-occupied or obsessed with Iran, I don't think that a Wahhabi-Islamic regime is going to look very favorably on a Hindu-nationalistic regime trying to dominate anything around the Gulf area. Saudi-Arabia har started to get their own naval ambitions and you can bet they definitely crash with India's in the Gulf-area.

But, I do agree with you - just in case, China should build up it's forces even more so, and I think we are seeing just the beginning of it now. So I do agree with you in general.

Anyway, one must not forget that China is going to sell 11 SSK submarines to Pakistan and Thailand (8+3) so that's a huge thing. I don't think there are any other countries that are producing SSK submarines that has total of 11 SSK on order from other countries.

Pakistan:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...na-finalize-8-sub-construction-plan/73634218/

Thailand:
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2016-07/05/content_7134524.htm

China spends far too little on military considering the disputes China is involved.

$10+ trillion economy that spends only $150 billion on military is disgraceful.

5% of GDP should be spent on the military.

Hopefully the problems in SCS, ECS, THAAD deployment will make the Chinese leadership realise they need to stop being an appeasing country and start to show some backbone.

The world takes China's timidness as a sign on weakness. China thinks being timid will stop problems, but it has the opposite effect where others challenge your weakness.

 

[帅的一匹]

China spends far too little on military considering the disputes China is involved.

$10+ trillion economy that spends only $150 billion on military is disgraceful.

5% of GDP should be spent on the military.

Hopefully the problems in SCS, ECS, THAAD deployment will make the Chinese leadership realise they need to stop being an appeasing country and start to show some backbone.

The world takes China's timidness as a sign on weakness. China thinks being timid will stop problems, but it has the opposite effect where others challenge your weakness.

military spending shall rise to 4% of GDP.

 

[Brainsucker]

I don't agree with that. China may only spend 1.5% of their GDP for military purpose. But they also spend 2.5% of their GDP for research (raised from 2.2% of their GDP) . I think that's already okay for me. With big research spending, they can invent a lot of high tech faster. That' mean better weapons / better technology for their military in near future. I know that not all the research budget goes to military technology. But still they can help when the war erupts.

 

[lcloo]

I think you failed to understand my post as I have never said or suggest 60 ships a year. And I amd NOT confusing total number an building rate. Today, 60 large surface ships is NOT a small proportion. For it to be a small proportion in 2040, there would need to be significant expansion of the fleet, unless you like retiring ships well before they are worn out (which doesn't seem to be a PLAN habit). In short, you can't really defend you claim that 60 ships is really 'only a small proportion' .



100*(22/51) = 43% > not a small proportion.
maintaining fleet numbers means a constant proportion of ships, i.e. NOT going down in the proportion of new versus old ships that you have today.

'above 2000 tons' conveniently excludes 20+ type 056, which themselves replace a huge number of smaller patrol ships.

You cannot deny though that when you stream in a large number of new ships (say >= 60) over a short span of time (say <=10 years), they will also all reach retirement age in a relatively narrow timeframe. That is, unless you retire good ships in less time than their planned service life (=capital destruction) and wear out others well beyond their planned service life, giving you an average service life of 30 years (But doing that affects fleet quality/capability. So, you would have to invest in more maintenance and modernizing those older ships a bit in order to keep them in action and relevant = incur extra lifetime and operational costs).

You under-estimate the ship building industrial power of China. Current building rate is only a peace time building rate. What to you is a large proportion will not be relevant if full potential of all major ship yards come into play.

Ship building time can be cut short by new technology and computer aided automation like laser cutting, robot welding, precision measuring and placement devices etc.

I can even visualized large and small robots crawling all over a shipyard 30 years from now.

 

[Penguin]

You under-estimate the ship building industrial power of China. Current building rate is only a peace time building rate. What to you is a large proportion will not be relevant if full potential of all major ship yards come into play.

Ship building time can be cut short by new technology and computer aided automation like laser cutting, robot welding, precision measuring and placement devices etc.

I can even visualized large and small robots crawling all over a shipyard 30 years from now.

I underestimate nothing. I merely point out a potential problem. That problem is not shipbuilding but the cost / funding of ship replacement over time. The proportion issue is a non-issue. You've still not answered the question I initially asked you. Goodday.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

That shouldn't be a problem if China starts spending as it should - between 3 and 4 percent of the GDP on defense. China is spending too little. All those countries you mentioned - except Japan, which has massive economic and demographic problems - spend more than China on defense regarding percentages of their countries GDP.

Second of all, China should cut the number of troops even more so. I don't see the point in having more than 800.000 or 900.000 groups, which should be highly skilled with latest weapons. The resources spent less on ground troops, means more cash for missiles, navy, air force, strategic forces, cyber warfare, etc, etc.

One must remember that the reason Japan can have still, but ageing air force and navy (except subs, which are very modern) it is because Japan barely have any ground troops at all.

The same goes for other "island" countries. China doesn't have any threat on the ground, so if China can restructure the ground troops and spend even more on navy and the air force, that can be done even with the existing budget.

Japan and Australia on the other hand, are very squized and don't have that kind of economic luxury to squeeze out some older ground troops, since they barely have any ground troops at all.

Second of all, I don't consider Australia or South Korea to be enemies and there is nothing that indicates that. Australia is was "down below" geographically, and if Australia gets too big ambitions, that will most probably irritate Indonesia a lot.

Regarding India and Vietnam - these two should also think a bit of countries that are very good friends and allies of China, such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos PR, Thailand and others, while at the same time, issues with India are not that huge and there are good possibilites to solve the issues between these two.

Also, do not forget. While Saudi-Arabia is pre-occupied or obsessed with Iran, I don't think that a Wahhabi-Islamic regime is going to look very favorably on a Hindu-nationalistic regime trying to dominate anything around the Gulf area. Saudi-Arabia har started to get their own naval ambitions and you can bet they definitely crash with India's in the Gulf-area.

But, I do agree with you - just in case, China should build up it's forces even more so, and I think we are seeing just the beginning of it now. So I do agree with you in general.

Anyway, one must not forget that China is going to sell 11 SSK submarines to Pakistan and Thailand (8+3) so that's a huge thing. I don't think there are any other countries that are producing SSK submarines that has total of 11 SSK on order from other countries.

Pakistan:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...na-finalize-8-sub-construction-plan/73634218/

Thailand:
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2016-07/05/content_7134524.htm

A very good reading of the current affairs. Extremely rational and detached view. Only thing you might be optimistic about is your southern friend. But balanced reading overall. Hats off!

 

[lcloo]

I underestimate nothing. I merely point out a potential problem. That problem is not shipbuilding but the cost / funding of ship replacement over time. The proportion issue is a non-issue. You've still not answered the question I initially asked you. Goodday.

Sorry, can't find what you were asking me. Please repeat them in a precise manner. Thank you.

 

[grey boy 2]

 

[greenwood]

500 million USD a ship, bloody cheap.

Build 50 for starters.

Every Chinese donate 200 yuan.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

Every Chinese donate 200 yuan.

No, need. China has too much steal and shipyard capacity. Keeps employment up and SOEs going. PLAN gets the platforms in needs. Win-win-win solutions Chinese style.

Why waste money on big budgets...instead of wasting money China is investing in the future of her people. Education, Science and Technology, poverty reductions.

DDG55 and ACV 002 are the ones to be really worth the wait. For now the shipyards will keep churning out these platforms at peace level of out put.