From China Defense Blog, a second Type 055 was launched in
April 2018 and a third and fourth were launched in July 2018. (1) Two others are known to be under
construction. That’s five
Aegis-equivalent ships in a very short period while China continues to build
other destroyers, frigates, and corvettes, as well.
What is the US building?
More outdated Burkes. There are
seven Burkes scheduled for commissioning over the next five years. That’s an average of just more than one per
year. China is building surface warships
at two or three times the rate we are.
Let’s take a look at the profile view of the Type 055.
 |
Type 055 Class (Credit Ref 2)
|
The profile emphasizes not only the stealth shaping of the
ship but also a low and greatly reduced superstructure – something ComNavOps
heartily approves of in ship design. In
addition to the lower radar signature, the smaller superstructure provides less
of a target and makes for a smaller visual signature. Recall how our Gato fleet submarines in WWII
underwent drastic sail reductions to reduce their visual signatures?
Now, compare the 055 profile to a Ticonderoga class Aegis
cruiser profile.
 |
| Ticonderoga Class |
Note the gigantic, blocky superstructure. There’s nothing stealthy about that! To be fair, the Type 055 is a brand new
design and the Ticonderoga design dates back to the late 1970’s, long before
stealth was a design consideration. The
Ticonderoga superstructure also makes for a very unstable, top heavy ship.
How about we do a quick visual comparison of the 055 to our
newest surface warship, the Burke class?
 |
| Burke Class |
There’s nothing terribly profound about this post – just a
quick update and scan of the Type 055.
(1)China Defense Blog, “China debuts most powerful destroyer
in celebrations”, 25-Apr-2019,
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2019/04/china-debuts-most-powerful-destroyer-in.html
(2)China Defense Blog, “DDG 101”, 25-Apr-2019,
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2019/04/ddg-101.html
Our Aegis radar is higher than theirs! We can engage their missiles
ReplyDeleteappearing over the horizon sooner than they can! Other than that their shiny new toy looks effeminate...
Haha....they're off the Dunn Curve a bit, but still not BAD looking ships...
DeleteOur SPS67 SPQ 9 at the top of mast is higher also!
ReplyDeleteAnyone know what the two side mounted radars are for ?
ReplyDeleteThe two rectangular ones, the hangar mounted and the one below the bridge ?
The two (there are four total with two not visible on the other side) square panels on the angled faces of the deckhouse are S-band AESA radars. There are four (not really visible in the photo) X-band planar arrays higher up on the mast structure (the greater height allows for better horizon scanning for sea-skimming missiles or low targets). The single rectangular object below the bridge wing is unknown but is speculated to be an ECM/jammer. The rectangular shape on the hangar … I have no idea.
DeleteThereare 3 different radars on the ship. The rectangles are the 'c' band radars which are the guidance radars for the surface to air missiles. It has an s band for 3d search. An x band for horizon search.
DeleteThe radars on this ship are much more advanced than the spy-1 which frankly is out of date.
Do you actually have any specifics to offer in terms of capability comparison to claim that the SPY-1 is out of date?
DeleteBetter range of radar vs lower detectibilty... my money is on reduced radar signature.
ReplyDeleteThese AESA radars are also passive capable, which, do to the size of the array is a profound ability.
DeleteAlso, if a sea skimming missile is inbound the stealth has failed. The higher radar will be more useful, perhaps this is one of the reasons why the UK went higher still with the Samson radar on the Type 45.
Due
DeleteAs CNO said, real problem is the pace of construction. Even if one were to assume USN Burkes are superior and USN crews are better (trying to keep a straight face here) we are being out built 2 to 3 times, difficult to think the Type 055 is so inferior that numbers wont matter...if Type 055 is 70, 80, 90% of a Burke but with 2 to 3 times the numbers, USN will be close to out classed and seriously out numbered! Very sobering....
ReplyDeleteThere's the threat, and the phrase "near-peer" becomes that much more hubris than factual.
ReplyDeleteOur failure to have new-design large surface combatants hitting the water in numbers is indicative of a lack of national will power and naval focus. The lack of SPY-4 and point defense systems on DDG-1000 is an embarrassement.
We can only win if we want to win, and act accordingly.
And it's got 112 VLS tubes plus another 24 SR SAM
ReplyDeleteNot only is it high build rates for surface warships, Chinese building new facility at Huludao, home to BSHIC, China’s only shipyard that constructs nuclear submarines, to enable similar future high build rates of SSNs and SSBNs.
ReplyDeleteImpressive numbers for the new facility, main assembly hall 288m/950' long and 135m/440' wide, the railway tracks 7.34m/24' (SSNs?) and 13.55m/44' (SSBNs?) wide, satellite pics 2017/2018 from Google Earth show plant in build.
Full write up at thediplomat.com "Pondering China's Future Nuclear Submarine Production" January 23, 2019.
A massive difference between the USN and the PRC navy - the cost of crewing. Even if the US did build ships at this rate they would be ruinously expensive to crew.
ReplyDeletePerhaps technology in some ways overcomes crew expertise (whilst the kit is working) but it should now be accepted that in some ways the West's lead (as far as we know) is not profound.
" Even if the US did build ships at this rate they would be ruinously expensive to crew."
DeleteThis is a bit of a fallacy. We fully crewed - and had the budget to pay the crews - a 600 ship fleet in the Reagan era. There is no reason to believe we couldn't do so again especially given the greater prevalence of automation today. What we have to do is stop building $15B-$20B aircraft carriers when a $9B Nimitz would do. There's a $6B-$11B savings and source of crew payments, right there. Stop building LCS and billions more. Stop building utterly useless $4B LHAs. Fire 250 Admirals and their staffs and there's two or three ships worth of "free" crews. And so on. We have more than enough money to fully crew any number of ships. We just have to use our budget more intelligently.
"the cost of crewing"
DeleteWhy would their crew cost be significantly less than ours? They have to provide the same amount of food, medical care, dental care, etc. I have no idea but I would guess they have some type of pension and insurance system.
Perhaps they don't pay as well (or maybe they pay better!) but the issue isn't dollars paid, it's what those dollars can buy (value) and, presumably, Chinese sailors need to buy all the same things our sailors do. So, I'm not really seeing a basis for assuming a significant cost difference in crewing.
Do you have some data that suggests otherwise?
(1 of 2)
Delete"We fully crewed - and had the budget to pay the crews - a 600 ship fleet in the Reagan era. There is no reason to believe we couldn't do so again"
I fundamentally agree that we *should* be able to do this, but let's take a second to understand why it at least seems like we can't.
"Why would [PLA Navy] crew cost be significantly less than ours? They have to provide the same amount [of services to their troops]"
We provide far more than a bunk, a stateside residence, *basic* medical care, and some take-home change to our troops, from enlistee to Admiral. The zeitgeist of our military is that of a professional, elite, well compensated force - whether that translates into the ability to sail a warship or not. This is in some views (link 1 below) the result of the voluntary nature of modern US military service, which stems from a lack of *political will* to ensure a large force is maintained at affordable costs, and causes the military to have to compete with generally safer and less strenuous employment opportunities for sufficiently skilled and able-bodied labor. While many young people serve just enough for (expensive) education benefits that are often only partly relevant to their service before moving to the private sector, career military personnel expect:
- similar education benefits
- significantly greater compensation than in the private sector
- basic health care, [full?] coverage for injury/sickness incurred during service, and nonessential health services (long-term care, end of life care, and other niceties that civilians also demand at great cost).
- Civilian comforts in military bases [think Chipotle], which employ support personnel in service positions at significant cost. This cripples military mentality more than the military budget, but it's also part of our overall emphasis on the service economy which has crippled strategic industry.
The current generation of soldiers grew up with the peace dividend, and Uncle Sam lets them bring it to *war* at his expense. Soldiers pay for a lot of this out of pocket, but we pay them more than enough to afford such luxuries. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's a question of our values, our needs, and/or the return it gives in terms of the quality of our soldiers.
A Chinese lieutenant is payed around 3,000 yuan monthly (5,400 USD/year - link 1), a lieutenant-colonel around 6000 yuan, and a colonel around 9000 yuan (16,000 USD/year). China manipulates their currency, and they have more purchasing power than the USD equivalents indicate (something we could emulate to the state's benefit, but that's more politics than economics), but far less than US service members across the board. China pays pensions too, and they appear to be going up (link 2), but historically they've been low enough to have recently caused significant civil unrest among veterans (link 3).
(2 of 2)
DeleteUnfortunately, I don't think eliminating the Admiralty is the answer. Based on the coverage here and elsewhere, certain staffing shake-ups are necessary, for sure. Beyond that, the path to affordable military production and labor requires a change in the zeitgeist of our military, but also changes to *modern* western values. In particular, our emphasis on comfort and luxury in the civilian sector has got to go; it is the rot that saps our political will to have (read: pay for) a strong military (or economy), destroys the bodies of our military-age population, and displaces the traditional western values that we used to make sacrifices to defend. Whether or not something or someone will come along and change that is anyone's guess. Given the tempo of modern warfare, I hope it doesn't take another Pearl Harbor.
Link 1: http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-01/19/content_6314553.htm
Link 2: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2137008/china-raises-pay-pensions-trimmed-down-military
Link 3: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2141894/chinas-military-veterans-ministry-opens-after-pension
"From China Defense Blog, a second Type 055 was launched in April 2018 and a third and fourth were launched in July 2018. (1) Two others are known to be under construction. That’s five Aegis-equivalent ships in a very short period while China continues to build other destroyers, frigates, and corvettes, as well."
ReplyDeleteThat makes a total of 6 ships commissioned, launched, or under construction. Last March, The Diplomat mentioned that China would build 8 ships, but I have to think they're going to build twice that number, if not more.
Or commission the 6, let them work out the snags for a year or 2 and then build another 6 to 8 evolved ships. When u can build them that fast,why not?
DeleteIt's not only the rate the CCP is building ships, but the number. They have no signs of stopping. Their economy is so large that they can allocated hundreds of billions for many years.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I fear.
They end up with a navy of 1000-1500 vessels.
They can have 20-30 armadas of 50 ships each.
They can send each armada off the coast of most nations and force them into submission. As the USNI site said last week about their 2 carriers in the Mediterraean- they'll have "200,000 tons of diplomacy".(you know what I mean). If the navy is France, UK or Italy, they can send 2-3 armadas per nation.
Only the US has the military to counter this. If they don't sort themselves out now, the world is going to dominated by Xi.
Andrew