FFG 054/054A Thread

[DPRKPTboat]

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/maanshan054.asp

Accroding to this, both of these ships are in service. They are currently being evaluated in terms of cpabilities, but its not very clear. Can anyone confirm that both ships are in service? Or are they just acting as test platforms? And does anyone also have any info as to if more hull s are going to be built?

[Sczepan]

both ar in service - we 've seen a lot of pix in sea and naval base

[vincelee]

the first ship, at least, ran into propulsion problems.

[tphuang]

the first ship, at least, ran into propulsion problems.
they are probably both commissioned. But in general, you are going to have problems with the first of the series. 052Cs are still facing problems right now, that's why we haven't seen more of them. 054As are supposedly getting built somewhere, let's see it when it comes out.

[vincelee]

do you know just why kind of problems the 52C is facing? No one on CDF can be sure, some people are tossing around the idea of an inefficient cooling system.

[MIGleader]

I'm going to bet it's with the operation of the new combat system. Maybe theres bugs in it, system over heats, not performing to expectations...

The 54 is simply old weapons on a newer hull design, so aside from the engine, there was not much to test. Im guessing thats the reason for the fast apearance fo the 54As.

[DPRKUnderground]

This ship lacks a SAM like almost every other Chinese frigate. They really need a new SAM system on their ships.

[darth sidious]

This ship lacks a SAM like almost every other Chinese frigate. They really need a new SAM system on their ships.

I would call the Hq-7 a ok point defence sam but yes they reely should be working on a replacement

acording to kawa the HG-16 is already designed and will be fitted on the 054A

[DPRKUnderground]

I would call the Hq-7 a ok point defence sam but yes they reely should be working on a replacement

acording to kawa the HG-16 is already designed and will be fitted on the 054A

Good! Because the Crotale isn't sufficient if you have a a battle group. The SM-2 is fitted on the Oliver Perry's and they have a 120km range! The PLAN needs a long-range SAM on their destroyers or the abililty to fit them on a frigate.

[MIGleader]

As an FFG, the Type 54 doesnt really need any long range air defence missles. Even the VLS Hq-16 is still estimated to only have a range of 30-40km. Remeber, FFGs are for inner layer protection. since there is not carrier for the 54 to protect, a shorter range SAM will do for self defence.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Could the HQ-9 be used or would 054 not be able to use it? Maybe they could make a downgraded version so that it can be most easily adapted to a frigate.

[vincelee]

downgraded version? This isn't an export business. Tor-M1/SA-9/HQ-17 is a SYSTEM, which includes the firecontrol radar and software arguments to the CIC. We are not talking about an S-300 class system, here, where you actually need a large base weight for stability, we're talking about a short range airdefense missile.

[adeptitus]

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/maanshan054.asp
Accroding to this, both of these ships are in service. They are currently being evaluated in terms of cpabilities, but its not very clear. Can anyone confirm that both ships are in service? Or are they just acting as test platforms? And does anyone also have any info as to if more hull s are going to be built?

I think a better answer is "yes" to both. The ships are in service and act as test platforms for new technology.

The PLAN ships were very out-dated by western standards a decade ago, so they're catching up by incorporating new systems. It's a fairly conservative approach of building new class of ships in pairs to evaluate the new technology and capability.

I think the PLAN planners realize these new ships are more "stop gap" measures to catch-up than mature platforms for mass/serial production. Some time in the future, when they have something that they're happy with, you'd prolly see a dozen ships of the same class being built.

[xihaoli]

Seeing the HQ-7 autoloader used on the 51b Luhai, and the bare space behind the launcher on the 54s. is there any chance that they may have an automatic reloader? Does anyone also have the speed of the reload speed on the 51b?

If china were to deploy an autoloader, the 54s could be fine with out vls all together. The close range HQ-7 would combine well with the Middle ranged HQ-9 or the S-300F

[tphuang]

I don't think the SAM of 054 is that big of a problem. I don't think 054 was ever designed for air defense. It was supposedly more of an ASW platform (well compared to other PLAN surface fleet that is). And remember, HQ-7 is all China has right now with close-in SAM, China doesn't have something that's compact and accurate as Barak. Once something like that does get developed, then you will see an upgrade in many Chinese surface vessels I guess.

[xihaoli]

Actually, china have developed a few close range missiles in the past, the only problem is that they've all only been used as export items. Take for example the Ly-60 system used on Pakistani frigates, and the mark-41 sea sparrow system used on the type 25 frigates (The ships were build to specs, then installed after delievery)

I also remember a diagram on Cdf that showed a 520 T with some kind of close range missile. There are actually pictures of it here, i for got the name, but i remeber it as a Qw-2 with a large diameter booster.

The 054 frigates might be ASW frigates, by Plan standards anyways........Another testiment to the trully awful Asw of the Plan....although the k-28 is a huge improvement. How do they plan to equip the ships if sinodefence only listed 5 K-28s ordered? This would include one training helo?

[MIGleader]

Sinodefence says the PLAN has seven ka-28s. Thats enough for one on the each 52c, 52b, and sov. When the second 956em sov arrives, it may come with a helicopter. So with this distribution, I'm forced to believe the 54's use the z-9c.

[DPRKPTboat]

It would make more sense moneywise for the 054 to use indigenous heliecopters, it would cost more money to buy ka-28s. But then China may want a more advanced helicopter than the Z-8.

[KYli]

It would make more sense moneywise for the 054 to use indigenous heliecopters, it would cost more money to buy ka-28s. But then China may want a more advanced helicopter than the Z-8.
It should be Z9C for the Navy. The Z10 could be an option, but Z10 built only the Army version now.

[Sczepan]

Range of KA 28 is only 800km with auxiliary fuel; Z-9 have a Range of 1,000 km - and have more max. speed (>300 km/h instead of 250 km/h);
so to me Z-9 looks better for long distance operations;

Z-8 with an ferry range of 830km; combat range 500km (with 3,000kg payload) compared to max payload: 4,000kg by KA-28 should be used by big ships like LPHs, Carriers ....

[swimmerXC]

...
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9343/054a324068dk.jpg

[DPRKPTboat]

Thanks for the photo. Does it show one of the current two hulls when they were under construction? Or does it show a new hull being built? That looks like quite a recent photo.

[tphuang]

the photo in the picture is claimed to be from the 054A under construction in HuangPu
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5990/054ahp4jw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Now, from the picture, it mentions VLS version of a Chinese Klinok rather than VLS version of Chinese shtil. Interesting. I wonder if the photo is a fake or not.

[Gollevainen]

The VSL pic is from Russian Udaloy class DDG, and the "pic" of the ship is GCI...so it's not real...

[tphuang]

The VSL pic is from Russian Udaloy class DDG, and the "pic" of the ship is GCI...so it's not real...
yeah, I didn't think the photo is real either. And I never said the ship pic was real. But the pic was mentionned on CDF a while back as the picture of one proposed 054A designs by a Chinese shipyard.

[swimmerXC]

.... (my life is kinda busy right now... BUT i still do check this forum everyday)
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3985/054a401064eh.jpg

[sino52C]

Z-9C lacks the advanced avonics of the KA-28, but I still think they would use the Z-9C since it would make more sense to put indigenous helicopters on a relatively cheap platform. The Harbin class also uses Z-9Cs.

I don't think 45 FFGs were designed to be ASW dominant ships, so fitting them with more advanced helicopters doesn't make sense.

Speaking of ASW, does anyone know the capabilites of the sonar or torpedo capabilites to the type 54?

Thanks.

[tphuang]

Z-9C lacks the advanced avonics of the KA-28, but I still think they would use the Z-9C since it would make more sense to put indigenous helicopters on a relatively cheap platform. The Harbin class also uses Z-9Cs.

I don't think 45 FFGs were designed to be ASW dominant ships, so fitting them with more advanced helicopters doesn't make sense.

Speaking of ASW, does anyone know the capabilites of the sonar or torpedo capabilites to the type 54?

Thanks.
054 is actually supposed to be an ASW frigate believe it or not. It's supposedly equipped with China's latest sonar and torpedo (latest Yu-7). We've seen China showing it's indigenously developed Towed Array Sonar to the public. Not sure if it's actually on 054. Maybe someone more qualified can comment on this based on the 054 pictures?

[MIGleader]

How advanced could the "latest" yu-7 possibly be? Its range is less than 15km, and its speed is only 43 knots. Does it perhaps have some new guidance in addition to basic passive and acoustic homing? Otherwise, im rather skeptical of it's abilities

Why doesnt the PLAN abondone it's yu-7 in favor of clearly superior russian torpedoes, such as the ss-n-14 silex(on Kara class), which has a range of 55km and a speed approching mach 1.

[darth sidious]

How advanced could the "latest" yu-7 possibly be? Its range is less than 15km, and its speed is only 43 knots. Does it perhaps have some new guidance in addition to basic passive and acoustic homing? Otherwise, im rather skeptical of it's abilities

Why doesnt the PLAN abondone it's yu-7 in favor of clearly superior russian torpedoes, such as the ss-n-14 silex(on Kara class), which has a range of 55km and a speed approching mach 1.

because the production line shut down in russian after the fall of USSR same for a lot of soviet weapons.

most of chian's enemies have weak sub forces plus china also has a rather large sub for its self so asw can be ignored up to a point

[MIGleader]

I do not put it beyond the abilities of the chinese to purchases a few russian navy surplus ss-n-14s, and reverse engineer them, as they had done with the mk 46. I do understand Taiwan has a very pathetic sub force, but japans is far from negligible. Even the indians have superior tropedoes to the yu-7, even though the pakistani sub fleet is almost as small as taiwans.

[darth sidious]

I do not put it beyond the abilities of the chinese to purchases a few russian navy surplus ss-n-14s, and reverse engineer them, as they had done with the mk 46. I do understand Taiwan has a very pathetic sub force, but japans is far from negligible. Even the indians have superior tropedoes to the yu-7, even though the pakistani sub fleet is almost as small as taiwans.

the mk-46 still has room for improvement but the ss-n-14 is too old the torperdo that goes with it is also out of production its anti-shiping ability is minimal

china already purchase the club with its anti-sub missile why would they wat the the old ss-n-14

[MIGleader]

Because no matter how fast missles like the club are, they are prone to interception, unlike torpedoes.

Besides, I'm talking about torpedo's chiense surface combatants can arm themselves with, not submarines. Apparently, none of China's existing torpedoes can match the 55km range of the ss-n-14 yet, the "old" torpedo. Now if only china can get its hands on some stallions...

If china begins lauching yu-5s from its surface combatants, ill be happy.

[darth sidious]

Because no matter how fast missles like the club are, they are prone to interception, unlike torpedoes.

Besides, I'm talking about torpedo's chiense surface combatants can arm themselves with, not submarines. Apparently, none of China's existing torpedoes can match the 55km range of the ss-n-14 yet, the "old" torpedo. Now if only china can get its hands on some stallions...

If china begins lauching yu-5s from its surface combatants, ill be happy.

the stallion is a missile not a torperdo its old and out of production find spares for it will be a nightmare

also club is a series of missiles that includ ssm, asw, land attack cruise missile etc it can be launched from bnoth surface ship and sub !!!

the primary reason however is the PLAN's lack of intrest in asw weapon RUB rocets 533mm torperdo are readly avilible from russia but china dont need them

the jap sub fleet can be countered by the chinese subs taiwan has a pathetic sub fleet south korea has some license built 209 but thats it so PLAN generaly donthave too worry about subs

china's biggest disadvantageis in the numbers of large sea going destroyers adn air defence not asw

[MIGleader]

Out of production? Do you know that the kursk sank in 2000 while carrying stallions? Its still the top secret weapon of the russian navy.

As for klubs, China only purchased the Anti-ship cruise missle varient, the 3m-54E1. if you can prove the PLan aquired any torpedo versions, ill put it to rest.

I understand east asia is not submarine country, but soon china will be taking her naval aspiration out of the region and into the blue water. The indians have 16 subamrines now, 10 of which are kilos armed with Clubs. Plus we have the six scorpenes. Also, the indians are building their own nuclear submarine. China must take the indian ocean to link up with pakiastan and the oil-mid east, so the region will be hotly constested. Effective ASW is the only way to null out the indian submarine force, as china's diesels cannot go that far.

do i even need to mention america?

[darth sidious]

Out of production? Do you know that the kursk sank in 2000 while carrying stallions? Its still the top secret weapon of the russian navy.
As for klubs, China only purchased the Anti-ship cruise missle varient, the 3m-54E1. if you can prove the PLan aquired any torpedo versions, ill put it to rest.
I understand east asia is not submarine country, but soon china will be taking her naval aspiration out of the region and into the blue water. The indians have 16 subamrines now, 10 of which are kilos armed with Clubs. Plus we have the six scorpenes. Also, the indians are building their own nuclear submarine. China must take the indian ocean to link up with pakiastan and the oil-mid east, so the region will be hotly constested. Effective ASW is the only way to null out the indian submarine force, as china's diesels cannot go that far.
do i even need to mention america?

india first nuclear sub will probely be as efficent as the 091 they start from zero

the PLAN inot going to expand into indian ocean very soon currently the level of sub threat faced by teh PLAN is not deadly. china's own sub fleet and whatever ASW assets they have right now can handle the threat. the prospesct of american seending SSN into shallow water hwere they will be vunerable to numericlay superior subs and primitive ASW technology the PLAN has right now is minimal.

as of now china already has 2 ASW missile cy-1/2 frankly we dont know anything about them. they may decided the improve these with Russian help insted of buying imports.

P.S a 636 kilo arment includs ASW Club/ land attack cruise missile

[swimmerXC]

Get back to topic.. what does J-10 have to do with Type 054 FFG
:off

[chicket9]

Needless to say, I fear that even PLAN itself underestimates submarines.

The PLAN has the largest submarine fleet in East Asia, and the third in the world. It has 10 Songs, 12 Kilos, 2 Yuans, 2 Type 093s, 1 Type 094, and a handful of modernized Mings, which ALL are substantial vessels, and this does not include the Hans, older Mings, and Romeos.
To summarize, PLAN has a bloody powerful submarine fleet, even if half her boats are considered obsolete. 20+ of them can fire cruise missiles (Song with its YJ8X and Kilo with its Club). China also has a lot of modern torpedoes like YU-5 and imported Russian models.

Yet, perhaps China has placed too much confidence in her submarine fleet to deter other submarines. In time of war, eventually not always will submarines meet submarines, not all PLAN subs can be tied down for escorting surface flotillas, and PLAN will need all the subs it can get for offensive missions, not for escorting PLAN surface ships. This leaves the void of how PLAN surface ships may defend themselves from enemy subs.

Of course, all new combatants have torpedoes and VDS, as well as the helicopter. But most of the Jiangweis, Ludas and Jianghus do not carry torpedoes, which leaves them almost defenceless at close range.

China does not have the numbers of helicopters to ensuure that each vessel with a hangar can carry one, and PLAN aircraft capable of ASW patrols are rather limited, with only a few Y8X and a handful of aging Z8s/SH-5s. With so few aircraft, I doubt PLAN could even maintain 24hour coverage to defend its numerous bases let alone combat groups.

The YU-6 is simply aged to 1970s technology, and is highly inferior to the latest MK46 designs carried by US and Western platforms. Yes, SS-N-14 and Stallion are old, and so are ASROC. But PLAN needs something for its surface vessels to hit submarines at a good range.

While weapons are half the problem, sensors would be the other half. Not enough ships have VDS or modern sonars, and I'm skeptical on how well PLAN pilots are in performing ASW patrols or dipping sonars.


If USN can field up to a dozen SSNs against PLAN, (which in theory it can deploy in very short time from Pearl Harbour, Japan, Guam, and othe bases). These SSNs all can fire subharpoons, tomahawks, and the deadly long range MK48 torpedo. These SSNs are multirole platforms, and are difficult to hit and find, because they are quiet, fast, long range, and manned by some of the best submariners in the world. PLAN cannot depend on just her submarines to act as a shield against enemy subs. Eventually, PLAN's surface flotilla must find ways to defend itself from enemy subs without relying on friendly subs to do the job.

With concentrated spending, all Ludas and Jiangweis can carry YU-7 torpedoes, more Z-9s or Helixs can be bought, ensuring there are more than enough helicopters for all surface ships that can carry em, that friend-foe identification be improved to ensure that no friendly ships attack friendly subs or vice versa, and the CY1 ASW rocket programme be reinitiated, so that PLAN may have a ready to use ASW ranged weapon even if its obsolete.

[darth sidious]

Get back to topic.. what does J-10 have to do with Type 054 FFG
:off

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

where didi we mention the J-10???????????

as for the asw ability of 054 I dont see how its offtopic

[Gollevainen]

Nice post chicet9, welcome to the club...

the primary reason however is the PLAN's lack of intrest in asw weapon RUB rocets 533mm torperdo are readly avilible from russia but china dont need them

the jap sub fleet can be countered by the chinese subs taiwan has a pathetic sub fleet south korea has some license built 209 but thats it so PLAN generaly donthave too worry about subs

china's biggest disadvantageis in the numbers of large sea going destroyers adn air defence not asw

Sorry sidius, but thats pretty weird to say. China cannot build its navy to compete only Taiwan any longer in 21st century. And the PLA main heads sees this and luckyly the emphasis of the navy has moved towards blue water navy, and in that contest Chinese forces migth encounter threads of more uncertain nature. Remember that Japan has over 20 subs, all of them superior to the bulk of chinese subs, never the mention of US nuclear fleet that cannot be encountered whit WWII era coastal forces.
The current trend in the international naval legue is sub-surface, as the potential of modern air arm (in hands of US) has become more and more superior in against surface units. In cost effective perspective, its hardly if not at all wise to go on for expensive AAW units and own aircraft carrier capapility, as the subs offers lot more potential in lot cheaper prices.

Thougth this dictates mostly strategies of US aversors, it nevertheless doesent outclude US importance of Submarine arm, nor does it outclass any other potential adversos that china migth face. PLAN has finaly managed to lift of from its single purpose nature that has been more harm than good for china, But it cannot cope against modern forces whitout state of the art ASW systems. Currently almoust all ASW devolpment has been placed in ice after the retirement of vast Soviet submarine fleet and cold war in general, but china cannot let changed political circumstances out of its perspective to dictate its own defence requirments. the most important step in the road that PLAN has now taken is to produce a respectfull fleet of basic oceanic escorts and hunter-killer groups of submarines and surface units, packed up whit airborne units to encounter any possiple submarine thread.
Only afterwards, its reasonable to go on for mass production of AAW units to defend carrier task groups as well the ASW forces

Your mentioned big ocean going destroyers arent in any use...but to be big and go oceanic...956Es were designed in totally different purposes that chinese fleet could ever field them, Luhus and Luhais are little above presidental-yatch status against modern japanese, south korean and US surface units and submarines. Whiout modern ocean going ASW escorts, this fleetupgrade whit possiple carrier, is no use, and will go bottom before anyone gets change say anything...

[RedMercury]

Just a reality check, be sure you're not comparing lightweight ASW torpedos with heavyweight torpedos in terms of performance numbers. They are very different in size and mass.

[darth sidious]

Nice post chicet9, welcome to the club...



Sorry sidius, but thats pretty weird to say. China cannot build its navy to compete only Taiwan any longer in 21st century. And the PLA main heads sees this and luckyly the emphasis of the navy has moved towards blue water navy, and in that contest Chinese forces migth encounter threads of more uncertain nature. Remember that Japan has over 20 subs, all of them superior to the bulk of chinese subs, never the mention of US nuclear fleet that cannot be encountered whit WWII era coastal forces.
The current trend in the international naval legue is sub-surface, as the potential of modern air arm (in hands of US) has become more and more superior in against surface units. In cost effective perspective, its hardly if not at all wise to go on for expensive AAW units and own aircraft carrier capapility, as the subs offers lot more potential in lot cheaper prices.

Thougth this dictates mostly strategies of US aversors, it nevertheless doesent outclude US importance of Submarine arm, nor does it outclass any other potential adversos that china migth face. PLAN has finaly managed to lift of from its single purpose nature that has been more harm than good for china, But it cannot cope against modern forces whitout state of the art ASW systems. Currently almoust all ASW devolpment has been placed in ice after the retirement of vast Soviet submarine fleet and cold war in general, but china cannot let changed political circumstances out of its perspective to dictate its own defence requirments. the most important step in the road that PLAN has now taken is to produce a respectfull fleet of basic oceanic escorts and hunter-killer groups of submarines and surface units, packed up whit airborne units to encounter any possiple submarine thread.
Only afterwards, its reasonable to go on for mass production of AAW units to defend carrier task groups as well the ASW forces

Your mentioned big ocean going destroyers arent in any use...but to be big and go oceanic...956Es were designed in totally different purposes that chinese fleet could ever field them, Luhus and Luhais are little above presidental-yatch status against modern japanese, south korean and US surface units and submarines. Whiout modern ocean going ASW escorts, this fleetupgrade whit possiple carrier, is no use, and will go bottom before anyone gets change say anything...

what are you talking about !!!!!!!!!!!

the PLAN needs to become ocean going first, to complete this goal it needs mordern destroyer sized ship and a good airdefence given time the PLAN will eventualy become a balanced naval force like teh USN. Only then will ASW be required. The jap navy at its core still relies on sea sparrow for airdefence and harpoon for SSM not a great advantage when cpompare with the PLAN. As for the Korean they arent qualtively superior to PLAN and are currently outnumbered. The Yuan and kilos china have is still better then their 209 copy and japan's homemade SSK. they also have littile/ no defense aginst the 093 SSN entering teh PLAN right now. In terms of the numbers and quality of SSM china has an edge over both nations. in airdefence the gap is rapdily closing this combined with china's superior airpower ( compared with these nations offcourse ) is enough to hold off the japs and korean.

But right now its primary enemies are taiwan and Japan maybe a carrier task force or two from America. aginst this enemy the surface unit of PLAN isent going to be effective any time soon. insted china will rely on massive numbers of missile launched from sub and aircraft. this is the 21the centry the age of missiles!!!!!!!!!!! large surface units are nothing but steel eater waste full of shipyard space. A massive fleet can be construced quickly and cheaply without significantly tech improvement. deployed in numbers these subs are good for detering the americans and cuting of merchant shiping from japan.

[Gollevainen]

I cannot agree with you Dart and i found your statements still quite weird....

the PLAN needs to become ocean going first, to complete this goal it needs mordern destroyer sized ship and a good airdefence given time the PLAN will eventualy become a balanced naval force like teh USN. Only then will ASW be required.

Truly capaple blue water navy is sum of many factors and lacking in one means your entire fleet has very strong weak point. You cannot put a importance-numbers to these factors, you need them all. A good airdefence wont defend you against submarines...

The jap navy at its core still relies on sea sparrow for airdefence and harpoon for SSM not a great advantage when cpompare with the PLAN.

Harpoon is extremely capaple SSM and is more than sufficient enough to deal the enemyes that Japan might come agross. If we are trying to compare Japans performance towards chinses navy, remember that apart from the 052b/C classes, china lacks completely adequate missiledefence systems and airdefence in general. SSMs wont clahs against each others...

As for the rest part of your post, I can only say that you are looking facts behind way too red eyeclasses. How can you state that Korean and japanese navy are quantivily bellow china? Or that China have airsuperioty over these two countryes? I think you should pay bit more time on studying both Korean and Japanese current fleets and armed forces in general.

Don't take this as anyway offencive, but it seems that you live almoust in denyal over some certain important factors of Chinese overall capapilityes. You seem to see only things that you wishes and ignoring tthe well know fact, that untill very recently, chinese navy (particularry) was completely obsolent compared to any other modern fleets. It lacked many elements that are taken granted when descriping modern, capaple fleet. So how can you expect that after 5 years (altough fast) build up can china be par or superior to let's say Japan which have enjoyed beeing in the top league for nearly 50 years?

[darth sidious]

I cannot agree with you Dart and i found your statements still quite weird....
Truly capaple blue water navy is sum of many factors and lacking in one means your entire fleet has very strong weak point. You cannot put a importance-numbers to these factors, you need them all. A good airdefence wont defend you against submarines...
Harpoon is extremely capaple SSM and is more than sufficient enough to deal the enemyes that Japan might come agross. If we are trying to compare Japans performance towards chinses navy, remember that apart from the 052b/C classes, china lacks completely adequate missiledefence systems and airdefence in general. SSMs wont clahs against each others...
As for the rest part of your post, I can only say that you are looking facts behind way too red eyeclasses. How can you state that Korean and japanese navy are quantivily bellow china? Or that China have airsuperioty over these two countryes? I think you should pay bit more time on studying both Korean and Japanese current fleets and armed forces in general.

Don't take this as anyway offencive, but it seems that you live almoust in denyal over some certain important factors of Chinese overall capapilityes. You seem to see only things that you wishes and ignoring tthe well know fact, that untill very recently, chinese navy (particularry) was completely obsolent compared to any other modern fleets. It lacked many elements that are taken granted when descriping modern, capaple fleet. So how can you expect that after 5 years (altough fast) build up can china be par or superior to let's say Japan which have enjoyed beeing in the top league for nearly 50 years?

as a sign of respect you might want to spell my name out correctly !:nono:

maybe you should look more at the current jap airforce and the perfomance of their F-15!!! or the Korean F-16 they are not superior in quality to the Su-27/30 or J-10 in anyway.

the 052b/c do not lack quality compared with alll the jap destroyers except for the kongos. china does not need to mass produce them if you notice they only buit two at a time to test tachnology and beef up the fleet in terms of numbers. All of the weapons and engines on the japanese and korean ships are imported from America where as the chinese shps generaly have indengenious weapon systems. The difference bewten teh chinaese and japanese navy is only going the get smaller

the harpoon also compares poorly with new chinese SSM's

as for the japanese sub fleet please prove they are superior in quality to the Yuan/song /kilo china has

Korea's copy of early 209 is also not any better then the kilo

P.S insted of resorting to personal insult by accusing othes of looking through a red eye glass looking up some info on the jap airforce might be helpful

[Gollevainen]

as a sign of respect you might want to spell my name out correctly !

like you always so nicely spell Gollevainen?;)

Now i said, don't take it as offence. I never made any personal insults, so don't try to start a fuzz over nothing. I'mjust pointing out that your "facts" are bit strange and wondering where they are based on?


maybe you should look more at the current jap airforce and the perfomance of their F-15!!! or the Korean F-16 they are not superior in quality to the Su-27/30 or J-10 in anyway.

F-15 and F-16/F-2 are superior to everything but Flankers and perhaps J-10 (we really don't know enough of it that we could say anything certain to any direction) but they definetly are not inferior to those. What exactly are you implying in here? That F-15 might be inferior to J-8 or J-7? Or that F-15 is somewhat bad and unable to perform it's task? And what exact facts is this F-15 minimilazing based on?

All of the weapons and engines on the japanese and korean ships are imported from America where as the chinese shps generaly have indengenious weapon systems

The level of indegenios equipment isen't anyway a factor of your fleets performance. Indegenious systems may be inferior to systems bought from aboard, so stating that some nay is worser than other simply just becouse it has foreing systems is absurd.

the harpoon also compares poorly with new chinese SSM's

Did'nt I just said that the SSMs wont clash against each others, but agtainst their opponents missile defence systems.

as for the japanese sub fleet please prove they are superior in quality to the Yuan/song /kilo china has

You are the one stating that Kilo/song and Yuan are superior to Japanese subs, so the burden of proof lyes on you...same goes with the Korean subs.

[MIGleader]

I'm going to side with gollevainen on this one. Large surface fleets are good, but ASW warefare is an essential part of it. In WW1 and 2, German submarines put numerous British battleships and cruisers out of action. U.S submarines put numerous japanese carriers and battleships out of action.

Likewise, i cannot see how even the most advanced PLAN combatants can survive in submarien-dense environment. diesles can only protect the navy for so far befor needing to return to port. Since china wishes to become a blue water navy, the luxery of diesels will quickly diminish.

upgrading ASW is not that hard either. China already has developed some relatively sophisticated sonar. its jsut the abscence of a capable torpedo that disturbs me.

[darth sidious]

I'm going to side with gollevainen on this one. Large surface fleets are good, but ASW warefare is an essential part of it. In WW1 and 2, German submarines put numerous British battleships and cruisers out of action. U.S submarines put numerous japanese carriers and battleships out of action.

Likewise, i cannot see how even the most advanced PLAN combatants can survive in submarien-dense environment. diesles can only protect the navy for so far befor needing to return to port. Since china wishes to become a blue water navy, the luxery of diesels will quickly diminish.

upgrading ASW is not that hard either. China already has developed some relatively sophisticated sonar. its jsut the abscence of a capable torpedo that disturbs me.

WRONG !!!!!!!!

the u-boats were most effective aginst merchant shiping aginst battleship[s and carriers they hardly made a dint at all.

as for American submrines their only contribuation to teh war was ending merchant shiping and starving out japan

Offcourse teh PLAN will need improved ASW but not right now none of china's enemies have a powerful sub fleet

P.S we are noe totaly off topic if you wan to talk about PLAN's ASW make a new thread

[MIGleader]

If I remeber correctly, both the kongo and the Heiei were sunk by torpedoes. So was the Shinano, a carrier. In WW1, the british cruiser hawke was sunk by a submarines.

Ever heard of preparing for the future? Are you going to wait until your enemy has a powerful submarine force before you start upgrading?

[tphuang]

actually, i have to make a note regarding the F-15Js, they are really not the best F-15s around, probably one of the earlier variants, they can't even fire AMRAAM and they are attempting to integrate an ARH missile like AAM-4, but only very few F-15s have been converted to using AAM-4. The rest are still using AIM-7. Same with F-2. (my opinion toward F-2 has already been posted in many places, lol) Also, I don't think any of the Japanese planes have Helmet Mounted display. imo, Japanese air force faces quantative and qualitative disadvantage vs 4th generation planes of pla.

Korean is a different issue. F-15K is one of the most advanced F-15s around. And I would say the south korean F-16s are probably more advanced than the Japanese F-2 also.

[darth sidious]

F-15 and F-16/F-2 are superior to everything but Flankers and perhaps J-10 (we really don't know enough of it that we could say anything certain to any direction) but they definetly are not inferior to those. What exactly are you implying in here? That F-15 might be inferior to J-8 or J-7? Or that F-15 is somewhat bad and unable to perform it's task? And what exact facts is this F-15 minimilazing based on?.

the japanese F-15 is a export version of late production As with only sparrow capability and improved engine. they can not perform ground attack mission or anti-shiping strikes ( unless its use free fall iron bombs) it also has NO AIM-120 capability is alone puts it at disadvantage cpmpared with PLAF flankers. The radar is also not very good only at teh level of F-15A just comparble to unupgraded Su-27Sk. the F-2 suffers from cost over run and structeral problem they have instances of wings breaking off !!! again it lack surface strike ability. Both the japanese and Kprean airforce lack quanity compared with the PLAF.



The level of indegenios equipment isen't anyway a factor of your fleets performance. Indegenious systems may be inferior to systems bought from aboard, so stating that some nay is worser than other simply just becouse it has foreing systems is absurd. .

having indegenious equipment means you can control the capability of your ships. imported equipment means the ability of you ships are limited by what others are willing to selll you !!!! china can simply enlarge the 052C to produce a new destroyer where as japan will neded U.S assiatance to built a new knogo. the AGEIS system will have to be imported along with all the weapons that go with the ship



Did'nt I just said that the SSMs wont clash against each others, but agtainst their opponents missile defence systems. .

short ranged SSM can put your fleet at a big disadvantage with the new YJ-62 missile's 300KM range the chinese can simply attack a japanese fleet with out fear of anything fored bac at them



You are the one stating that Kilo/song and Yuan are superior to Japanese subs, so the burden of proof lyes on you...same goes with the Korean subs.
I said they were comparable not suoperior we know the yuan has AIP somthing the japanese not have ( not until their copy of teh gotland engine is finished ) we know the kilo is more quiet then the 209( comfirmed by excerise in indian navy ) it als has the CLUB superior in pay load and range to the harpon the korean have yet to field. all the sung and many ming have the the sub launched C-803 again better at anti-surface work then the japanese sub fleet.

[darth sidious]

If I remeber correctly, both the kongo and the Heiei were sunk by torpedoes. So was the Shinano, a carrier. In WW1, the british cruiser hawke was sunk by a submarines.

Ever heard of preparing for the future? Are you going to wait until your enemy has a powerful submarine force before you start upgrading?

the JAPS have no ASW what so ever if destroyer of two could have chased offthe sub. at that point the japanese nevy is already falling apart from shortage of fuel and lack of training

as for the hawk its in WWI also its already a 20year old ship at the time of the sinking it had no significe what so ever !

[darth sidious]

actually, i have to make a note regarding the F-15Js, they are really not the best F-15s around, probably one of the earlier variants, they can't even fire AMRAAM and they are attempting to integrate an ARH missile like AAM-4, but only very few F-15s have been converted to using AAM-4. The rest are still using AIM-7. Same with F-2. (my opinion toward F-2 has already been posted in many places, lol) Also, I don't think any of the Japanese planes have Helmet Mounted display. imo, Japanese air force faces quantative and qualitative disadvantage vs 4th generation planes of pla.

Korean is a different issue. F-15K is one of the most advanced F-15s around. And I would say the south korean F-16s are probably more advanced than the Japanese F-2 also.

the F-15K are too few in number only 40 again it lack helemt mounted sight. as for their F-16 again too little too late not enough to combat teh masses of flankers and the 150J-10 of the PLAF

[PanAsian]

Despite being somewhat off-topic I think we have a good discussion going on here.

Darth, I would like to remind you that China doesn't necessarily have a quantitative advantage over its Asian neighbors because China actually has a much larger area to defend. And the minority of its forces are first rate units.

Qualitatively it is widely recognized that China's defence technology is not as advanced in most areas as its neighbors' supplier, the US, if not its neighbors outright. Additionally, very few systems in the Chinese inventory are battle-tested, and not even in Chinese hands.

I have to say it is obvious that China is experimenting with developing its navy because it is keenly aware of the realities of the situation. Otherwise it would be producing more units en masse. It has made leaps and bounds compared to its capabilities in the 80s but it is nowhere close to being developed, nor is it by any means comparable to the US, Japan, Russia, Britain, or France in terms of force projection.

The PLAN right now has a competent defensive force and that's about it. It definitely needs to develope more robust naval air defense and sub defense systems, and produce a greater number of platforms equipped with these systems in order to go blue water. And as I have said before and will say again, I think it would be wise for the PLAN to prioritize on improving the capabilities of their efficient platforms such as frigates and subs before investing in costly experiments such as a carrier. So the 054 as well as the other new frigates and destroyers are all examples of going in the right direction.

[Gollevainen]

As it is mentioned, we are far too off-topic and i apologizes that I was the one leading us to there.

If you want to continue discussing about PLAN ability to against Japanese or Korean fleet, open a new thread on the issue.
Perhaps i will do it...but if someone continues this ramble in this thread, it will be deleted as any other offtopic content.

[Sea Dog]

It would make more sense moneywise for the 054 to use indigenous heliecopters, it would cost more money to buy ka-28s. But then China may want a more advanced helicopter than the Z-8.

I'm curious to this aspect of the 054 FFG. It would make sense to use a more indigenous design, but will one be ready in time to accomodate 054 inception? I actually thought PLAN would be interested in using the Ka-28. It's not a bad helo at all and is quite useful in the ASW role.

[vincelee]

the first production Z-9C rolled off in the late 90s. I never understood just why doesn't Harbin crank them out like the J-7s. I think most 9C's are still of the original French construction.

[tphuang]

the first production Z-9C rolled off in the late 90s. I never understood just why doesn't Harbin crank them out like the J-7s. I think most 9C's are still of the original French construction.
The problem is that we got like 6 Z-9C? That's just sad. Anyhow, the production rate for Z-9 actually reached an alltime high of 7 per month in January, but that's far from enough if you think about it. The majority of the Z-9s rolling off the line are the Z-9G that's equipping the army. Seems like pla is trying to get as many Z-9G as possible while Z-10 is still not ready for mass production. So, Z-9C/naval aviation is put on the backburner as usual. Either way, I'd imagine the 054s to be equipped a ka-28 or Z-9C though, because they are the designated ASW frigates in plan (sad, I know). Why isn't there more ka-28? China is being cheap? I think the main reason is that they don't think ka-28 is the most modern design. They are probably just waiting for Z-15 naval version or Z-10 naval version to come out.

[duskylim]

Hi Guys!

I always was under the impression that the distinguishing characteristics of the 054A's would be the vertical launched SAMs, planar phased array radar, type 730 CIWS as well as various other (much less visible) upgrades. By which I mean sensors, command and control, electronic warfare, automation, and even better ASW. I presumed that with the developement of the C80X series of AShM, ASHW was pretty much adequate.

I drew these conclusions from the Chinese Military Aviation and Sinodefence sites. In particular CMA which has for a long time posted what purports to be a actual model of the future 054A.

The only other news I've heard is the pictures posted from the Kanwa website that are supposed to be the new frigates being built.

So, is the ship being built actually the new 054A? And if so which of the original specifications are to met?

Thanks and Best Regards

[MIGleader]

were pretty sure of the VLS SAM part. I dont know about the 730 though. The original only had one Rice lamp radar to guide its 4 ak-630s, which i guess means the guns can fire only in one direction at a time. 730s ought to solve that, if it is installed. Planar phased array radar? Probably not. The 2004 model ive seen doesnt have any. It might be the guidance for the SAM, but its risky to try to incorperate it as part of an AEGIS-like combat system. on a smaller FFG, an Aegis-combat system may perform sub-par.

[tphuang]

It appears lately that we have seen two 054A under construction in the same shipyards that their predecessors were under construction (Huangpu and Hudong). I think they will be launched sometimes late this year or early next year from the progress so far. Now, this is what we are guessing so far:
1) The hull is definitely larger than 054 hull, some people are speculating 5000 tonne in maximum displacement. Since 054's hull is only 3400 tonne, I have my doubts. I think 4000+ is what we are looking at
2) It seems that 054A will be using 2 type 730 CIWS like 052B/052C/051C
3) although nobody knows for sure, I would think that you are likely to see 4 AESA radar installed on 054A like it is on 052C.
4) The SAM is likely to be 32 cell and hot launched (copying the mk-41 system?)
5) the missile is HQ-16 (not sure about its relation to shtil) and you will probably see the same combat & control system from 052C on 054A
6) then you have the question of its ASW capability. We know 054 is China's premier ASW frigate. I wonder what kind of sonar is on 054A.

Finally, what is its role?
ASW or AAW? I would say a combination probably.

Until 052D comes out, this should be the most important and most followed PLAN surface combatant outside of the much speculated Varyag.

[supertran]

Cowlan posted this in another site so thank him for the picture

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4/COWlan/054A.jpg

[tphuang]

hmm, if you checked in the PLAN picture thread, it's actually in there already.

For the sake of the argument, the above picture is from Huangpu. The ones below are from Hudong.
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4020/054ajun221qt.jpg
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/6963/054ajun2227sz.jpg
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/317/054ajun2238fx.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1718/054ajun2247fo.jpg

[supertran]

Yeah after I posted the picture I saw that you had already posted it. No harm done. I see that Huangpu is going quicker then the other one. Keep us updated because I love the way the 054 looks.

[tphuang]

a little more, the following is what some people believe as the 054A model. I guess we will see if 054A turns into this in a few months.
http://war-sky.com/forum/attachment/Day_060711/3_61547_70f65728b1bf115.jpg
http://war-sky.com/forum/attachment/Day_060711/3_61547_8c8bc2e889b79bd.jpg
http://war-sky.com/forum/attachment/Day_060711/3_61547_e5cd54dc52c5856.jpg

[chicket9]

Helicopters is always a pressing issue for the PLAN.

I'd think that each PLAN ship with a hangar should have its own helicopter and aviation crew...which would be attached to that ship for long term (if not permanent) deployment. Therefore, ship and helo would get to work more often together, and thus familiarity between ship and its own helo would make ASW ops more efficient. At the moment, if PLAN ships have to share round helos etc, it makes efficient operations quite difficult.

You know its not just bout technology and aircraft, to me, it is quite important for the ship's captain and helo pilots on that ship to have an understanding of each other...so in tactical situations, that pilot would know what he is expected of, and that captain can know that pilot will do the job and follow his commands.

This is important for destroyers and frigates anyway...of which the PLAN possesses 14 destroyers and 17 frigates that all possess a hangar...

Auxilaries aren't so important...the Z-8 does a good job in that area.

[MIGleader]

I'm not saying i dont believe you tphuang, but where did you get all this information? Some of it we already knew, but ive knew they were going to put 52c systems on the 54

[tphuang]

I'm not saying i dont believe you tphuang, but where did you get all this information? Some of it we already knew, but ive knew they were going to put 52c systems on the 54
Those are just my personal speculation and some other people's speculation. Much of those speculation is based on the 054A model (those 3 images above). Of course, if we go by the model, then that signals two tombstone like radar rather than than the 4 AESA panels we see on 052C. That's why I'm asking for some other opinions on this.

[bd popeye]

Helicopters is always a pressing issue for the PLAN.

I'd think that each PLAN ship with a hangar should have its own helicopter and aviation crew...which would be attached to that ship for long term (if not permanent) deployment. Therefore, ship and helo would get to work more often together, and thus familiarity between ship and its own helo would make ASW ops more efficient. At the moment, if PLAN ships have to share round helos etc, it makes efficient operations quite difficult.

You know its not just bout technology and aircraft, to me, it is quite important for the ship's captain and helo pilots on that ship to have an understanding of each other...so in tactical situations, that pilot would know what he is expected of, and that captain can know that pilot will do the job and follow his commands.

This is important for destroyers and frigates anyway...of which the PLAN possesses 14 destroyers and 17 frigates that all possess a hangar...

Auxilaries aren't so important...the Z-8 does a good job in that area.

Excellent post chicket. This is almost 100% what the PLAN needs to do to be profiencent in Helo ops. You can't just keep swapping the helos from ship to ship. Unless thay are fully trained like some navies in the world...

I would disagree with you about the auxilaries having helos. While the ASW mission is of vital importantance to the PLAN so should the SAR mission. Also if the PLAN is going to expand into the "blue" water of the Pacific it will eventually have to perfect VERTREP missions.(Vertical Replenishment)

VERTREP is important when re-arming and re-supplying..Here is a pic taken in the 80's of a USN CH-46 lifting an jet-engine container to the USS Midway CV-41.

http://www.midwaysailor.com/ships/vertrep04b.jpg

[guitarjeff]

All this talk about the 054 having ASW as its primary mission gets me curious about its sonar. I don't see a hull-mounted sonar on the picture taken from the Huangpu yard, and I don't recall reading the 054 frigate (or the 052B/C ships, for that matter) having a towed sonar based on the information available. Could someone please comment?

[eecsmaster]

Orekhe directors on the model? Can you say Shtle?

as for the sonar suit, probably towed. I remember seeing a picture of a yellow towed unit back in the days.

[MIGleader]

Now, i still dont think the 54 would have a PAR or C4I system taken from the 52c. As we all know, the 52c had an aegis-like system, which performs great for larger destroyers. Such a system has not been proven for smaller frigates, and could result in sub-par performance.

[eecsmaster]

cough Spanish F-100 cough

[adeptitus]

cough Spanish F-100 cough

The F-100 Alvaro de Bazan Class is 5,800 tons, versus the Type 054 is ~3,000 tons.

The smallest Spanish ship equipped with AN/SPY-1 radar system will prolly be the new AFCON Corvette:

AFCON Corvette
Displacement: 2,600 tons
Length: 102 meters
Beam: 13.9 meters
Draft: 3.75 meters
Crew: 60 + 20
Propulsion: CODAD w/4 diesels, 2 shafts
Speed: 27+ kts
Radar: SPY-1K phased array radar (AN/SPY-6?)
Sonar: hull-mounted sonar system
Weapons: 76mm gun, Mk 41 VLS system, Surface missile launcher (for SSMs), Aegis combat system
Aviation: 1 helicopter

http://www.afconships.com/corvette.html

Kinda funny to think they'd classify a 2,600 ton ship as a Corvette, in same category as the 650 ton Visby-class. LoL.

[tphuang]

The F-100 Alvaro de Bazan Class is 5,800 tons, versus the Type 054 is ~3,000 tons.

The smallest Spanish ship equipped with AN/SPY-1 radar system will prolly be the new AFCON Corvette:

AFCON Corvette
Displacement: 2,600 tons
Length: 102 meters
Beam: 13.9 meters
Draft: 3.75 meters
Crew: 60 + 20
Propulsion: CODAD w/4 diesels, 2 shafts
Speed: 27+ kts
Radar: SPY-1K phased array radar (AN/SPY-6?)
Sonar: hull-mounted sonar system
Weapons: 76mm gun, Mk 41 VLS system, Surface missile launcher (for SSMs), Aegis combat system
Aviation: 1 helicopter

http://www.afconships.com/corvette.html

Kinda funny to think they'd classify a 2,600 ton ship as a Corvette, in same category as the 650 ton Visby-class. LoL.
054 is believe to be around 3400 tonne and 054A is larger than that. As mentionned, it's probably in the 4000 to 5000 tonne range. So, it's still smaller than F-100 and F-124 (not surprisingly, some posters on Chinese forums want to compare 054A to these two), but not significantly smaller.

[tphuang]

well, huitong has now put up a new section for 054A.
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/Jiangkai_Jiangwei.htm

There have been indications that the first batch of two improved Jiankai class FFGs (Type 054A?) are currently under construction in both Shanghai and Guangzhou since late 2005. The major improvement of this design is an American MK48 style 32-cell VLS at B position (HHQ-16/SA-N-12? with Front Dome type guidance radar) which may utilize hot launch. Its air defence is further strengthed by two Type 730 CIWS installed on both sides of the aft mast. A Top Plate air-search radar is installed on top of the foremast.
- Last Updated 7/11/06

maybe we should also put up a section on this on sinodefence?

[wmdco]

It seems that 054 is similar to Jiangwei III except stealthy features and CIWS. why did PLAN develop a new 054 with similar weapons and systems to Jiangwei III? If 054A is true, does that mean 054 is only the trial ship for 054A? If it is the case, why did PLAN build more than one of this class. Remember 167? It was the trial ship for 115 and only one of this class was built.

[tphuang]

It seems that 054 is similar to Jiangwei III except stealthy features and CIWS. why did PLAN develop a new 054 with similar weapons and systems to Jiangwei III? If 054A is true, does that mean 054 is only the trial ship for 054A? If it is the case, why did PLAN build more than one of this class. Remember 167? It was the trial ship for 115 and only one of this class was built.
054 is a much larger hull than Jiangwei III and 054A is an even larger hull. You can't expect to increase the hull size from 2250 tonnes to 4500 tonnes overnight. You need an intermediate class. Besides, 054 still has the task of doing ASW in PLA.

[chicket9]

Funny thing is that the model for Type 054A has 2x Type 730 CIWS.

If so, that is quite a lot of CIWS power for a frigate sized ship (considering most Western Frigates only have one CIWS mount). This would increase the 054A's survivability.

[sumdud]

Well, I can certainly say that I don't see why a ship would have only 1 CIWS. That would mean being able to save face without covering your butt...........

2 CIWS is reasonable.
Try the old type 54, 4 AK-630s!!!!
(Now why did China stop using it again?)

[MIGleader]

i think it was something with the single rice lamp radar only able to direct the Ak-630s in one direction at a time, as opposed to both directions with two autonomous 730s.

[adeptitus]

Funny thing is that the model for Type 054A has 2x Type 730 CIWS.
If so, that is quite a lot of CIWS power for a frigate sized ship (considering most Western Frigates only have one CIWS mount). This would increase the 054A's survivability.

If you look at the amount of weapons being crammed on small ships these days, the size of the craft isn't always indicative of its offensive armaments. O_O

For example the Israeli Sa'ar 5 Corvette is 1,200 tons, and is armed with 8 x Harpoons, 8 x Gabriel anti-ship missiles, 2 x 32-cel VLS Barak missile launchers, 1 x CIWS gun, 6 x torpedos, helicopter deck, plus hanger for up to 2 helicopters. That's more weapons than what the 3,600 ton La Fayette class Frigates carry, or even some destroyers twice that weight.

Another example is the 1,050 ton Russian Bora-class Corvette, armed with 8 x 3M-80E Moskit SSMs, 1 x Osa-MA SAM system w/40 missiles, 1 x 76mm or 100mm gun, 2 x AK-630 CIWS guns, plus various countermeasures and 4x decoy rocket launchers. That's the same number of Moskit SSM's carried by the 8,000 ton Sovremenniy!

IMO the PLA tends to lean toward domestic production (either licensed copies or reverse enginnering), using foreign purchases only for stop-gap measures. Replacing the AK-630 with domestically-made Type 730 CIWS follows this trend.

In the future, I wouldn't be surprised if the PLA copy Kashtan concept and incorporate 1-2 x 30mm gatling guns with SAMs:
http://www.shipunov.com/eng/kvnk/kashtan_m.htm

[MIGleader]

Adeptitus, weve already seen some experimental ld-2000 units fitted with 6 ty-90 missles. Perhaps in the future well see this CIWS package go to sea.

[swimmerXC]

Cleaner shot of 054A
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/934/054a72006ck1.jpg

[kooe]

anyone no how many VLS missiles will be carried on type 054A FFG?

[MIGleader]

i believe it is 32, carried 4x8 on a forward VLS launcher. At least thats what the model shows.

[Jeff Head]

054 is a much larger hull than Jiangwei III and 054A is an even larger hull. You can't expect to increase the hull size from 2250 tonnes to 4500 tonnes overnight. You need an intermediate class. Besides, 054 still has the task of doing ASW in PLA.So, the 054A will displace 4500 tons? It will be interesting to see what her loadout is.

Don't the existing two 054s displace 3400 tons or so each?

[tphuang]

So, the 054A will displace 4500 tons? It will be interesting to see what her loadout is.

Don't the existing two 054s displace 3400 tons or so each?
nobody knows what it really is, I was simply using some of the estimates from certain posters on Chinese forums who were guessing the width and height of 054A compared to 054. but you'd think it would have to be a lot larger to support the 32 cell VLS + the sensors needed for it.

[kooe]

so china will adopt the hot launch system over the cold launch system?

[MIGleader]

I guess so...the only reason cold-launch was adopted on the 52c was probably beccause China did not have enough experience with the complex piping involved with hot luanch, or simply wanted to save time.

[kooe]

what if the system on aboard of 054A FFG is cold launching system? coz i seen russia has a cold VLS similar in shape of MK41 VLS....
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/sa-n-6_DDST8506591.jpg

[guitarjeff]

I guess so...the only reason cold-launch was adopted on the 52c was probably beccause China did not have enough experience with the complex piping involved with hot luanch, or simply wanted to save time.

One advantage that the cold-launch system has over the U.S. Mark 41-style has rarely been mentioned: the hot launch system increases the infrared profile of the ship immediately after the missile has been launched. Perhaps the Chinese deliberately chose the cold-launch system for this particular reason.

[kooe]

One advantage that the cold-launch system has over the U.S. Mark 41-style has rarely been mentioned: the hot launch system increases the infrared profile of the ship immediately after the missile has been launched. Perhaps the Chinese deliberately chose the cold-launch system for this particular reason.
good point.... also much more cheaper and easier to maintance

[eecsmaster]

that's a Kirov class cruiser, and these covers are actually for angled P700 cannisters. Not exactly cold launch.

[tphuang]

this is the latest photo from Huangpu of 054A
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1299/054ahpaug17nb2.jpg

[maozedong]

:p 054 JIANGKAI CHINA

-high pronounced bow with distinctiv tumblehome
-3.9in gun in 'A' position
-HQ-7 sam on raised platform abaft 3.9 in gun
-maindeck highterinmidships section
-forward superstucture with large enclosed mainmast at aft end
SSM lanchersbetween forward superstructure and funnel,faceing out to port and starboard
-enclosed aftermast built into forward part of funnel and supporting large spherical radome
-fire control radar mounted on top of hangar aft
-fligt deck on quaterdeck aft

active: 2
building: 1
displacement:4,000 ton fullload
speed:28 kts
range:4'000 miles at 18 kts

missiles: 8 of c-801(sccade) 1 HQ-7(crotale)
guns: 1 of (100mm) 4 of (300mm)
torpedoes: 6 of (324mm) b515, Yu-2/6/7

radars:air/surface search-type 3635 Sea Tiger, surface search type 364 Seagull, fire control type 344, typ 345 , typ347g rice lamp.

[tphuang]

Just some rumours from Chinese forums. 568 is the number painted on 054A at Huangpu, looks like 054As are going to the south fleet. My mistake on the other thread, 525/6 are in the East sea fleet.

Also, a bit of news on 054 from a Chinese military magazine called ship knowledge

054级护卫舰，标准排水量3600吨，满载排水量3900吨，舰长*宽*吃水132*15*5，编制19 0，动力装置4台柴油机，双轴推进，最高航速27节，续航力（海里/节）3800/18。首舰2004年服役，第三艘将于2006年服役。（摘自《舰船知识》2006年第9期）
总体评价：续航力小了点。

standard displacement 3600 tonne, full displacement 3900 tonne, length by width 132 by 15 m and draft is 5m. maximum speed 27 knots, range is 3800 nautical miles at 18 knots. Propulsion uses 4 diesel engine

[Red-Star]

I just saw the news that taiwan just got 2 new ships from USA. I'm not sure what kind of class is it. I was just wondering can Chinese FFG defeat Taiwan's navy??:)

[Gollevainen]

I was just wondering can Chinese FFG defeat Taiwan's navy??

Yeah, It just sails there and fires 1,000 Hyj-897654X SSms to it and beats the crab out of it.....:nutkick:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

people, please....Is even bit sense of rationality too much to ask???????

[big toothbrush]

HP shipyard is producing two 054A.

http://www.sh-huihe.com/sales14.htm
check the bottom of this link.

http://img2.ziling.com/UploadFile/2006-8/20068270391434199.jpg

[snake65]

If the date of laying down for the first 054A is 30 July, 2005 then we might expect that ship to be launched till the end of the year or beginning of 2007. What was the period between laying down and launching for 054s?

[tphuang]

yeah, maybe there is one being built somewhere in HP that hasn't been photographed. Anyhow, more photos from HP
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1672/054ahpaug27lx7.jpg
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/699/054ahpaug272vh8.jpg

[guitarjeff]

Those on the Chinese language BBS are claiming that the green objects are the fire control radars for the SA-N-12 missiles. The same individuals claim that a Top Plate search radar will be installed on the foremast, as depicted in the model here.

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/ship/05X.jpg

It remains to be seen where there the 054A has the VLS or the conventional launcher used on the 052B.

[tphuang]

Those on the Chinese language BBS are claiming that the green objects are the fire control radars for the SA-N-12 missiles. The same individuals claim that a Top Plate search radar will be installed on the foremast, as depicted in the model here.

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/ship/05X.jpg

It remains to be seen where there the 054A has the VLS or the conventional launcher used on the 052B.
take a look at all the 052B, 956 and 054A and compare that with the model picture of 054A and the currently built picture. You would notice a difference where the SAM is located.

[tphuang]

New pictures of 054A in HP can be found in PLAN picture thread. and I'm posting the enlarged versions.
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6440/054ahpsept10nf3.jpg
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/599/054ahpsept102os3.jpg

[crobato]

That's definitely a Top Plate along with a Front Dome, suggesting SA-N-12, probably VLS, is likely the SAM armament and YJ-83 as the ASM armament.

[zyun8288]

From chinese forums, the radar is said to be a domestic one, although looks like top plate but it's quite different.

VLS is said to be HQ16, which has Russian assistance, but it's not SA-N-12.

We'll need to have a closer look at the radar to see the details. As of the VLS missile, that's hard to tell.

[isthvan]

Heck radar looks joust like Top Plate and I will buy that is produced in China (copy/licensed production), even that it is modernized but I doubt that is completely different…
Now what interests me is HQ16. Is it based on SA-N-12, license production of SA-N-12 or are those who are saying that is basically navalized TOR right?

[zyun8288]

There has been discussions about the radar for a while. Basically it's said: Top plate is only vertically electronic scan (horiz mech scan) radar, whereas the new radar is a true phase array radar. That's why I want to see a much closer photo to check that.

As of HQ16, it definitely has russian assistance, but it's also a brand new project from ground up, not based on any russian missiles. In fact russians are not the only foreign help received. This HQ16 in fact has been rumored for a long time and it's the main reason why the first 2 054 ships dissapointed many people. In other words, if after at least 2 -3 years of delay, the new 054A still can't use it, that would be a major dissappointment again.

Funny thing is, some people are even very sensitive about the name. It's HQ16, not HHQ16 (like HHQ9), because it's a brand new project aimed for PLAN from the beginning. Whereas HHQ9 is derived from HQ9 which is designed for PLAAF first.

[snake65]

The two smaller radomes under green canvas may as well be Mineral ME2 passive radar arrays which usually go with active Mineral ME1 (that's the large radome) on the newer ships:confused: .

[isthvan]

There has been discussions about the radar for a while. Basically it's said: Top plate is only vertically electronic scan (horiz mech scan) radar, whereas the new radar is a true phase array radar. That's why I want to see a much closer photo to check that.

As of HQ16, it definitely has russian assistance, but it's also a brand new project from ground up, not based on any russian missiles. In fact russians are not the only foreign help received. This HQ16 in fact has been rumored for a long time and it's the main reason why the first 2 054 ships dissapointed many people. In other words, if after at least 2 -3 years of delay, the new 054A still can't use it, that would be a major dissappointment again.

Funny thing is, some people are even very sensitive about the name. It's HQ16, not HHQ16 (like HHQ9), because it's a brand new project aimed for PLAN from the beginning. Whereas HHQ9 is derived from HQ9 which is designed for PLAAF first.

Don’t get me wrong but after hearing so many speculations on bouth Top Plate and Hq-16 I joust have some doubts…
If I see something that looks like Top Plate I will tend to believe that it is Top Plate rather then trusting some rumors. If at some later point I will be proven wrong I won’t mind to admit that I was wrong…

[duskylim]

Dear Guys:

At CMF (Chinese Military Forum) zheng3pao has posted pictures of the 054A about to be launched. From what I can see, it confirms that the layout of the model presented by Huitong in CMA (Chinese Military Aviation).

There's definitely a Top Plate radar on top of the main mast, and a pair of Base Tilt (?) fire control radars on top of the superstructure for the SA N 12's/ HQ 16's SAMS.

There's no confirmation of the phased-array radars though, probably none. If construction continues to follow the model, we should see the 100 mm gun forwards, and a pair of Type 730 CIWS midships to port and starboard (you can just make out the antenna of the starboard mount, under a green colored canvas rig).

What's keeping me in suspense the VLS system. It would be quite gratifying to finally see it installed in one of the PLANs frigates. As to the nature of the vessel's ASW, we can only speculate. I have a feeling though those of you who bet on a Z-9 will collect.

Whadda ya think?

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

[Kilo636]

The Type054A will be a heavy weight frigate! Armed with 2 Type 730 CIWS and YJ-83 SSM,it will be even more better defense than 167 Shenzhen. I believe Type054A will be the first series of PLAN modern warship to be mass produced just like the Song Subs... In the past ,we see PLAN always exepriment with new type of warship by building only 2 same type before moving into another experimental type like the DDG 170,171---DDG 168,169---DDG114,115.. Type054A is reported to fit PLAN as a effective and cost solution warship for modernisation! Or cos it cannot match Aegis or Alreigh Burke DDG but is consider a massive lift compare to many region countries warship. Imagine 24 of these is build ,a massive fleet can be build up with cost effective solution with presentable air defense!

[Gollevainen]

....except acorinding to the latest pics it seems to lack bow mounted sonar (there isen't that big "hump" in the bow bellow waternline) which makes me think that the ship will be fitted just a normal hull mounted sonar like in the earlier Jiangwei class which means that these "heavy frigates" like someone descriped them lacks the very defining aspect of all modern frigates, PROPER ASW...:( :(

[bd popeye]

....except acorinding to the latest pics it seems to lack bow mounted sonar (there isen't that big "hump" in the bow bellow waternline) which makes me think that the ship will be fitted just a normal hull mounted sonar like in the earlier Jiangwei class which means that these "heavy frigates" like someone descriped them lacks the very defining aspect of all modern frigates, PROPER ASW...:( :(

Golly is correct. What's the use of having a "modern state of the art" FFG when in fact it is missing a major componet? Bow Sonar! And to add it later during a refit would be very expensive, time consuming & impractical.

[oringo]

....except acorinding to the latest pics it seems to lack bow mounted sonar (there isen't that big "hump" in the bow bellow waternline) which makes me think that the ship will be fitted just a normal hull mounted sonar like in the earlier Jiangwei class which means that these "heavy frigates" like someone descriped them lacks the very defining aspect of all modern frigates, PROPER ASW...:( :(
Interesting point, Golly. I haven't seen a lot of report on PLAN's ASW technology, and these information are usually the most lacking on sinodefence.com too. Would you elaborate on that? Or is there a seperate thread for that sort of dicussion?

[Gollevainen]

The reason why main site doesen't tell you much about ASW is that it's the main weakness of PLAN...there really isen't much to tell you about...

It's often sad to see that people just boast around the fancy SSMs and SAMs but neglets the not-so-apparent but crucial elements of modern navalwarfare and one part is ASW. From my obinion the weakness in ASW is much more alarming than the often advertized weak anti-air capability of PLAN. At the moment most PLAN major combatants are only capaple of selfdefence ASW work and lacks dedicated ASW hulls with good bow ( and perhaps a VDS) mounted sonars and effective ASW weaponary.

[swimmerXC]

....except acorinding to the latest pics it seems to lack bow mounted sonar (there isen't that big "hump" in the bow bellow waternline) which makes me think that the ship will be fitted just a normal hull mounted sonar like in the earlier Jiangwei class which means that these "heavy frigates" like someone descriped them lacks the very defining aspect of all modern frigates, PROPER ASW...:( :(

Anybody else see that little hum in the bow? :confused:
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/9823/hulldo0.png
Look at the bottom at the red circle...

[adeptitus]

According to western sources such as Global Security and Missilethreat.com, which tends to always attribute Chinese systems to Russian or Western imports, this is how they describe the HQ-x series:

HQ-7 = CSF R-440 Sea Crotale
HQ-9A = S-300-PMU
HQ-10 = S-300-PMU-1
HQ-15 = S-300-PMU-2
HQ-16 = 9K38 Buk-M1-2 (SA-N-12)
HQ-17 = 9K331M Tor-M1 (SA-N-9)
HQ-18 = S-300V

IMO the PRC techs prolly copied, reverse-engineered, and improved these systems. The HQ-7A and HQ-9A are good examples. The HQ-16 is prolly a co-production and upgrade with Russia, or at least contain technologies licensed from the Bulk-M1-2.

The HQ-9A is mostly based on the the S-300 system, which was adopted for Russian naval use as the SA-N-6. If we look at the SA-N-9 installed on the Soviet Slava class cruiser, you'd notice they use revolver-style VLS cels:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/SA-N-6.jpg

The Naval HQ-9 use very similiar configuration:
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/hq9naval.asp

It's not hard to draw a line and say, hmmm, they prolly imported the technology.

[Jeff Head]

Anybody else see that little hum in the bow? :confused:
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/9823/hulldo0.png
Look at the bottom at the red circle...Sure looks like a bow mounted sonar dome on the vessel in that pic to me.

This other pic, maybe older, also shows where that sonar would be.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/699/054ahpaug272vh8.jpg

[crobato]

Yeah looks like bow sonar.

I don't think HQ-16 is real. PLAN appears well satisfied with the Shtil series. PLAAF uses the KS-1A for the ground based medium ranged SAM type with H200 phase array, which fills the same role as the Shtil's ground based version, the SA-7 aka Buk. However it would require substantial redesign of the ships to use the KS-1A and additional costs to navalize the system.

There are different versions of Top Plate, and its impossible to tell which is one by looking at them.

[tphuang]

I'm a little iffy on every front. It looks in many ways that 054A is using top plate, orekh radars and possibly shtil VLS. However, looks can be very deceiving. We see that 054A as well as other modern PLAN DDGs use something that look like Bandstand, but none of them are used to guide SS-N-22.

[planeman]

The foredeck looks too short for a main gun AND a VLS'. ????

[crobato]

Looks can be decieving. The Chinese have their own copy of the "Top Plate" Fregats called the Sea Eagles, and one cannot judge radar if all you can see is the cover for it like those bulb shapes. However, because there appears to be something that looks like Orekhs, it's likely to think it would be the original Top Plate in one of its various versions mated to Bandstand/Mineral ME. Top Plate and Bandstand does integrate together and because of this, likely to come as a pair [The Bandstand that appears on the 052B is likely to be real Mineral ME while that of the 052C which does not use Top Plate might be a near copy instead]. Again, Shtil VLS has been directly marketed to China and the model of the 054 frigate does make it appear it has both Orekhs and VLS. So it currently stands for now that this is the most likely configuration for the ship in the yard.

[eecsmaster]

Sea Eagle or Sea Soul? I'm not sure about Sea Eagle, but Sea Soul is electronically scanned in both axises. (Top Plate is mechanically steered in the x-plane).

[Gollevainen]

Sure looks like a bow mounted sonar dome on the vessel in that pic to me.

This other pic, maybe older, also shows where that sonar would be.

...propaply should have checked that older pic before saying anything:o ...

But one thing bothers me in this pic, the hump seems to my eyes being bit ofset of the ships central line...now this can be an optical delusion fueled by my subconsciense to try and safe my face, so take a look and tell me what do you think...

[zyun8288]

Here's a 053,
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/11030/cat/3629

Here's the previous 054 from the same factory:
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/1390/cat/3628

For this new 054A's bow mounted sonar, let's wait and see.

[zyun8288]

In fact, although I heard China has been working on small size ship borne PAR radar, I never expect 054 will get it. That's why I am not convinced untill I see a closer picture on the actual radar plate.

HQ16, if it does not exist, as I said, that would be a major frustration, because it also means the domestic VLS system is not ready:

[Jeff Head]

...propaply should have checked that older pic before saying anything:o ...

But one thing bothers me in this pic, the hump seems to my eyes being bit ofset of the ships central line...now this can be an optical delusion fueled by my subconsciense to try and safe my face, so take a look and tell me what do you think...I think it is just the angle we are looking atr it from. Here's a very good pic of the bow mounted sonar from the 054, built by the same shipyards. If the 054 had it, you can bet the 054A does, and it appears that they will.

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3628/Type-054-DefenceTalk.com00.jpg

[bd popeye]

My apoligizes to all! Nice pic Jeff. It looks like the PLAN has some sort of bow sonar afterall. Unless they buillt the dome for a future addition of bow sonar. I know the USN did this a few times on certian ships but never to my knowledge installed the sonar.

Great pic. Thanks Jeff...

[Gollevainen]

I think it is just the angle we are looking atr it from. Here's a very good pic of the bow mounted sonar from the 054, built by the same shipyards. If the 054 had it, you can bet the 054A does, and it appears that they will.

Actually someone posted a pics earlier which marked me being quite an ass...So I was wrong, there seems to be a bow mounted sonar in 054/54A after all. Good for china:china:

[oringo]

Any info on the capabilities/features of those bow-mounted sonar? There are too little information about China's sonar technology compared to the radars.

[Gollevainen]

None what so ever, at least I haven't found anything (And as attempting it may be to think in the light of this thread about my abilityes to found something, just drop it:nono: :p ;) )
But now we at least know that there is a bowmounted sonar being fitted, which makes me a bit more confidence about the PLANs capabilityes. In fact if my earlier assumption would have prooven out to be true, it would have been really alarming...

[bd popeye]

Ahemmmm..I don't want to start any trouble but I sent that pic to my son who is a USN sonar tech. I just asked him what he thinks of that dome. I will paraphrase his response as soon as I hear from him..OK???

[Jeff Head]

Ahemmmm..I don't want to start any trouble but I sent that pic to my son hwo is a USN sonar tech. I just asked him what he thinks of that dome. I will paraphrase his response as soon as I hear from him..OK???Just my opinion Popeye...but even thought they have it, it looks somewhat small to me for the size of vessel. Perhaps they have some mintuarization going on, and if they do, bully for them...but just based on that pic, I would say that it may not be as powerful as the sonar on a Burke or, for that matter, on a Halsey, but that's just my opnion.

[bd popeye]

Ahemmm..I emailed my son. a Sonar tech on active duty with the USN for 8.5 years. He is a master instructor of advanced USN sonar technology. No bull.

This is what he told me in an email I just recieved. I edited out the email addresses. Take his answer for what you will.

STG2 Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center)" <xxxxxxxx> wrote: Subject: RE: Professional opinion please
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:46:21 -0700
From: "xxxx.xxxxx STG2 Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center\)" <XXXXXXX.XXXX@navy.mil>
To: "<XXXXX.XXXXX>@yahoo.com>

I don’t think so it looks too small. Maybe limited in ablity if it really is sonar. Looks like a toy..sorry...

Yesterday was a good day to be a chargers fan

Luv you

From:XXXXX.XXXXXX [mailto:XXXXXXXxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 12:54
To: XXXXX.XXXXXXXX STG2 Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center );
Subject: Professional opinion please

Hey XXXX...I need your professional opinion. This is suposed to be a picture of a bow sonar dome on a new Chinese FFG. What do you think? Doesn't look kind of small to you? Let me know what you think of it! OK???

Chargers kicked azz last night. 9 sacks? Dang that wuz awesome!..Luv Dad!

That is his opinion. If you ever saw the bow sonar dome on a Arliegh Burke, Tico or Spruance you would understand what he is refering to.

This is an artist rendering of a bow sonar dome on an A/B

http://www50.dt.navy.mil/gallery/displacement/ddg51/51strmln.jpg

Here's a pic of the USS Cole DDG-67. Note the sonar dome on the bow.

http://cargolaw.com/images/Disaster2000.Cole.12.GIF

[duskylim]

Dear Guys:

I must agree the bow-mounted sonar on the 054 Frigate seems a little small...
however this may be due to different designs.

I have a feeling that the PLAN sonar tech still emphasizes medium-frequency sonars rather than low-frequency sonars that the US Navy uses. That would account for the smaller size - just in the same way higher frequency radar antennas are smaller than theri low frequency counterparts.

This is probably because the US Navy emphasizes long-range detection in deep seas and oceans while the PLAN focuses on detection in the coastal and littoral areas. It also means that for the time being the PLAN surface fleets have an inshore/brown water outlook.

Just my 2 cents.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

[Jeff Head]

Ahemmm..Ahemmm...hehehe...did I nail that one or not on the size? My guess is that it is real and that the 054s have a capability, but it is not as powerful as what the Burkes, Ticos, Halseys, Spruances (God rest their souls), etc. have. Unless of course they have done some unbelievable things in miniaturization.

Now I am wondering how big the ones on the new 52Bs, 52Cs, and 51Cs are.

[Jeff Head]

I must agree the bow-mounted sonar on the 054 Frigate seems a little small...
however this may be due to different designs.

I have a feeling that the PLAN sonar tech still emphasizes medium-frequency sonars rather than low-frequency sonars that the US Navy uses. That would account for the smaller size - just in the same way higher frequency radar antennas are smaller than theri low frequency counterparts.

This is probably because the US Navy emphasizes long-range detection in deep seas and oceans while the PLAN focuses on detection in the coastal and littoral areas. It also means that for the time being the PLAN surface fleets have an inshore/brown water outlook.
Great comments. Probably very true as regards the PLAN dome on the 054, short of some significant miniaturization that would shock analysts everywhere. I'd be interested in seeing the new PLAN DDGs (52B, 52C, 51C).. BTW, The US Navy does both.

[Gollevainen]

Well if PLAN is going to go for the bluewater naval presence, it should focus on longrange detection sonars. A workable ASW is cruisal if china ever wish to field a true carrier taskforce, as the deadliest thread for all big ships nowadays comes form under the sea. And aircraft carriers aren't exactly the usefull in coastal waters...

[zyun8288]

Nice analysis on the bow sonar. In fact, several years ago when 526's frontal picture was leaked out, there were several discussion which came to the same conclusion: it's pretty small, and the guess was it aimed at shallow waters. But unfortunetely, the public materials on china's underwater R&D is even less, impossible to make any convicing conclusion. Also we all hoped to see the underwater section of 052B/C, but it's too late.

[tphuang]

looks like 730 is on 054A after all
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4728/054ahpwith730ta3.jpg

[Gollevainen]

ohh...thats a hump covered with green canvas, It could be anything. What makes you think it's a Type 730?? I would bet more money that it's a Orekh Illuminator for the Shtill system apparently being fitted for these ships...

[bd popeye]

Golly sez;
ohh...thats a hump covered with green canvas,

LOL..:roll:

It could be anything. What makes you think it's a Type 730??

That's right. Hells' bell's. It could be a trash can. Unless you are Superman and have x-ray vision no one knows what lurks under that canvas.

All of this speculation could be stopped if one simple thing would occur. Just one thing. If the PLAN would lay on the table just the basics of what their ships capablities are. Just the basics. That is ,afterall, how most other nations conduct these affairs.

[tphuang]

ohh...thats a hump covered with green canvas, It could be anything. What makes you think it's a Type 730?? I would bet more money that it's a Orekh Illuminator for the Shtill system apparently being fitted for these ships...
It's not just that picture alone. If you looked at this supposed model of 054A
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/ship/05X.jpg
It looks like that cover is at around the same position where Type 730 CIWS is located on that photo. That's why I'm saying it's most likely type 730.

[crobato]

What's wrapped under the green is the ball of the Type 730, the IRST in particular. We have seen these already when the 052B and 052C first came out and they also have the green wrappings around the CIWS.

[duskylim]

Dear Guys:

I remember someone (KANWA?) maintained that the 054 frigates experienced problems with their propulsion - i.e., their diesel engines. IIRC they were supposed to be a Chinese copy of a French design.

The only French marine diesels that come to mind are those from S.E.M.T. - Pielstick (Societe des Etudes de Machines Thermique - actually a division of Alstholm Atlantique). I have had the unusual experience of actually seing some of those engines (or a similar type) here in the Philippines.

During our power crises (which occurred during the Presidency of Mrs. Aquino) many small diesel - driven power plants were constructed around the country. A classmate of mine became the engineer at one of them.

I visited him at the plant (in the province of La Union, which is in the north) where I learned that the French marine diesel engines were not as reliable as the equivalent ones we operated from Germany (MAN-Baumeister und Wain/Sulzer) or Japan (Mitsubishi).

He had to keep calling the technicians (mainly from Singapore) over to help with the operation and maintenance, (of course, part of the reason was the local power company's desire to operate the thing on the cheapest, heaviest, dirtiest and most corrisive bunker fuel you've ever seen > 3% sulfur content by weight!), but for us we noted that subjected to similar abuse, diesels from other countries (especially German) would take it, while these babies were rather delicate.

I suppose that they (the PLAN) must have ironed out most of the problems as they are now advetising both the ship, shipyard and diesel engines in bright brochures for export!

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

[Gollevainen]

It looks like that cover is at around the same position where Type 730 CIWS is located on that photo. That's why I'm saying it's most likely type 730

Well I'm not saying it could not be the type 730, just that we cannot see underneath the canvas, and the shape of the hump doesen't really reveal anything. However, like Thuppy said, it's in the same position as the CIWS in the model, so it could turn out to be the type 730...

About those diesels, just wondering, what is the method of power transmition in those pielsticks diesels? Is it a mechanigal transmition or electricial one?

[duskylim]

Dear Goll:

In the case of the SEMT - Pielstick engines (which specialize in medium-speed diesel engines), there would be a reduction gearbox connected to the engines to drive the propellers. In some ships, the gearbox has power take-offs to drive various auxiliaries - pumps, generators, airconditioning, etc.

The vast majority of motorships (ships powered by diesel engines) have their propellers driven through a gearbox. Very few resort to electric drive, mainly because 1) gearboxes are very efficient - some 96% to 98% mechanically! and 2) electric drive is very expensive (and a little less efficient - 94% to 96%), and requires extra personnel to maintain it. Generally only specialized ships that have to maintain stability or position use it.

I remember there was a series of ocean liners that had turbo-electric drive (steam turbine - electric) and used them to power the various auxiliaries on board, as well as limit the ships roll and pitch (to a certain extent) to keep the passengers from getting seasick. Aside from these, usually only scientific vessels, and oil-drilling rigs use electric drive.

There are motorships without gearboxes of course, these use low-speed diesel engines that drive the propeller directly. Only 2 companies in the world now make these specialized low-speed diesel engines (which incidentally are the most efficient internal combustion engines ever made!):

1) MAN-B&W/Sulzer
2) Mitsubishi

MAN is the famous German maker of trucks, the giant Maschinenfabrik-Augsburg-Nurnberg which bought out the Scandanavian engine builder B&W (Baumeister und Wain of Copenhagen) and then went on to buy out Sulzer Bros. of Switzerland. They now control about 75% to 80% of the low-speed marine diesel market, talk about your unfair monopoly! The rest belongs to Mitsubishi.

However, the trend nowadays is to use medium and high speed diesel engines for ships as they are cheaper to buy and easier (if a little more expensive) to maintain. They also consume more fuel than the low-speed diesels, but are more flexible with regards to installation and configuration. In this category there are a multitude of engine builders of various nationalities (such as SEMT) and no monopolies.

As for reliability, the low-speed diesels are famously rugged, but when they do break are difficult to repair (due to the size and availability of the parts, as an example, a MAN/B&W L90-MC would have a piston a meter in diameter and a stroke of about 3.0 to 3.5 meters, with anywhere between 4 and 9 cylinders in a block the size of a dining hall, the maximum output being about 4000kW per cylinder at about 120 rpm).

When using medium and high-speed diesels, you have multiple engines in your installation, if one breaks down, disengage it from the gearbox and turn it off, then you can repair it at sea, or in port! The price you pay is the loss of a little speed. When you have only 1 engine (low-speed), it had better not break down.

For these reasons , I think this is why the Chinese went with the medium-speed diesels on their frigates, like the 054, the only problem I have is that they chose French diesels, (heh, heh, heh!). In fact, you guys in Finland make a very nice line of industrial and marine engines - by Wartsila.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

[bd popeye]

Mabuhay Duskylim!:) My ex-wife is from the Philippines. One of her brothers is a merchant marine. An engineer in fact.

It appears to me that the PLAN, based on your explanation, chose the desiel engines because of their durablity and ease of maintainance. Correct?

Why is it that so many nations do not use the same or similar engines the USN uses to power it's DDG's, CG's and FFG's? The General Electric LM 2500-30 gas turbines? This engine is probally the most reliable marine combat engine ever made. I realize that the 113 & 112 have gas turbines. Doesn't the 112 have GE engines?

Golly knows we may have had this discussion before. I'm am just curious for Duskylim's response. Thank you!

[duskylim]

Dear Popeye:

Thanks for the Greeting!

The reasons why many nations use diesels in their warships are mainly for the following reasons:

1) Cost
2) Reliability
3) Economy (i.e. long range)
4) Ease of maintenance.

Diesels (particularly high-speed diesels) are the cheapest prime mover around. Gas turbines (like General Electric's LM-xx00) series are much, much more expensive!

Remember we are not talking about large fleet ASW DDG's like the Spraunce class - we are talking about cheap escorts and green-water patrol vessels of limited displacement and endurance - the 054 and 054A class FFG of the PLAN (which is poorer than the USN).

Yes gas turbines are lighter in weight, simpler in design and construction (not in manufacture!) and easier to maintain. But they are much less efficient than diesel engines. A typical diesel has an efficiency of 40%-42% (as high as 50%-52% in low-speed diesels), while a gas turbine is typically 34%-36% efficient.

This means the ship can go much farther with the same amount of fuel. Also diesels are less picky about the kinds of fuel they can burn. Modern medium speed diesels can even burn the cheapest fuel around - bunker C - try that on a gas turbine!

Diesels are lower tech engines and are less highly stressed, so they are easier to make locally (important for the PLAN) and maintain (also important for the PLAN with limited amounts of trained personnel).

They also do not use rare and exotic single-crystal high-temperature alloys (like Nimonic 80A), that are difficult to make and whose constituents are hard to procure, thus saving valuable resources.

While they are not as light and compact as gas turbines, turbo-supercharged, inter and after-cooled diesel engines (like on some German sports cars) are capable of very high output.

All in all they are a good compromise for the ships designer, particularly if he is on a budget. Remember the best is the enemy of the good.

I would like to point out that in European practice, cruise diesels are often combined with gas turbines in the engine room resulting in the CODAG installaton - combined diesel and gas turbine.

You run most of the time at low speed anyway and for that you use the diesels - then switch on the gas turbines when manuevering at high speed.

Yes you are right - DDG 112 Luhu uses GE LM-2500 gas turbines, but her sister had to use Ukranian ones because of a US embargo since 1989 that has yet to be lifted.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

[oringo]

Thanks Dusky for that brief intro. I met an old BP engineer once who worked on gas turbines that powers the oil pipelines. Pretty much the same stuff he told me: diesel is cheaper and most ships run on diesel when cruising.

On the other hand, China is actively seeking the gas turbine technologies. I know GE has a partnership with Liming (located in Shenyang, my hometown), to build large gas turbines primarily for railroads/power plants, at least that's what's claimed to be. But I suspect that such gas turbine technology can be easily converted for ship and aircraft (turbofan engines) use. I have a friend who used to work for a forging company that supplied turbofan engine parts (very expensive titanium alloys) for GE and they are also supplying parts to that partenship between GE and Liming. It doesn't take an engine expert to guess that these technology transfers can easily be used for military ships and airplains (turbofan engines are really miniature gas turbines).

See these two press releases:

http://www.gepower.com/about/press/en/2003_press/030703.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200005/12/eng20000512_40697.html

[bd popeye]

Salamit Po! That means thank you in Tagalog(Filipino) for you Tagaloically challanged among you:)

Bottom line on the engines..Desiels are cheaper to operate. And much simpler to maintain.

The USN uses turbines because of those 6 month plus deploymenst over vast distances of ocean. And most ships have to be able to keep up with a CVN.

I know that the USN uses JP-5(jet fuel) to fuel it's turbine powered ships.

oringo sez;
It doesn't take an engine expert to guess that these technology transfers can easily be used for military ships and airplains (turbofan engines are really miniature gas turbines).

When the first GE turbines where on board the Spruance class DD's. The engines were very similar(almost the same!) to the J-79 installed in F-4 Phantoms and other US aircraft.

[oringo]

I know that the USN uses JP-5(jet fuel) to fuel it's turbine powered ships.

I had no idea... I don't think PLAN could afford these fuel for all her ships. GE does have some very efficient turbines. In one of their press release, they claimed to have made a turbine with 46% efficiency (simple cycle) and 55% efficiency (combined cycle). Although I have no idea what simple and combined cycle means.


When the first GE turbines where on board the Spruance class DD's. The engines were very similar(almost the same!) to the J-79 installed in F-4 Phantoms and other US aircraft.
I knew they were very similar, but I had no idea they were that similar :) . China is gaining design/assembly experience in turbine/turbofan engines, but one thing they currently don't have is the advanced forging technologies in produce the parts. In that respect, even the Europeans are behind USA. Most of Rolls-Royce engine parts are forged in the US.