Photo Of 538-Full Loaded Waste Money?
This is a discussion on 054 Series Frigate Thread 2 within the Navy forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; but remember guys USN is planning on retiring 7 of its 22 Ticonderoga cruisers in years 2013-2014 which will mean ...
but remember guys USN is planning on retiring 7 of its 22 Ticonderoga cruisers in years 2013-2014 which will mean they have only 15 left , which really means 1 Tico per battle group
but i do love the Ticonderoga cruisers they look awesome!
Last edited by asif iqbal; 04-16-2012 at 02:52 AM.
Photo Of 538-Full Loaded Waste Money?
As you have already pointed out, ideally, carriers would want to strictly control their emissions during combat missions. That is a carrier's primary means of defence more so than it's escorts or self defence weapons. Even the USN's CSG defences would be overwhelmed by a determined attack from a capable opponent if they know where to strike. The same will be more true for a PLAN carrier.
Ideally, you would want a cruiser co-ordinating the fleet defences a fair distance away from the carrier itself. That way, the cruiser and the rest of the fleet can go active if needed, while the carrier and one or two close protection ships could benefit from their sensor feeds while remaining silent themselves.
Theoretically, you could still command the fleet while relying on off-board sensor input, but that is a massive amount of data. Even if the data links could handle the traffic, that level of datalink bandwidth could easily be enough to allow top-end EW suits to pin-point the carrier even if it's own sensors are offline. Throw in enemy active jamming and it becomes a very unreliable means to co-ordinating your fleet. That is why it is important that the fleet co-ordinator has very capable sensors themselves, so that even if enemy jamming degrades or even disrupts data links, the ship will still know what is going on and could direct the rest of the fleet using old fashioned light signals if it really came down to if.
Also, for a carrier, even though they are giant ships, space onboard is still at a premium. The decision to put PARs onboard does not just affect the PARs themselves, you also need to put in additional generator and capacitors to power those PARs and the back-end processing and control systems etc. That all adds up to a lot of space that could otherwise be used for more hanger space, fuel/munitions stores or a hundred other things.
Suffice to say, deciding to add PARs is not a small decision, and doing so tells us a great deal about how the ship is intended to be used, as with the exception of the USN, no-one spends that kind of money for 'just in case we feel like using it' features.
The varyag is ultimately a compromised design. The PLAN got an effectively finished ship that was built to Soviet doctrine and specifications, and it was designed and built with a lot of throw back to the now defunct carrier-cruiser doctrine, with massive PARs and long range anti-ship missiles that have no place on a pure-bred medium carrier.
The PLAN has made as much modifications as was practical, by chopping off a great part of the island, and who knows how much internal work. But they decided to keep the PARs and associated back-end equipment. Considering how few 052Cs the PLAN has bought, you can be sure that they did not decide to put those expensive PARs onboard on a whim. Those PARs represent a significant part, if not the majority of the cost for another 052C, and if they did not want to use them on the Varyag, they would not have put them in and would have bought another 052C instead.
It just so happens that the PLAN lacks a cruiser class ship that could act as a fleet command ship. Sure, an 052C could do the job, just as a Burke could, but there is a reason the USN insist on having a Tico in their carrier fleets - space. The 052Cs are big ships, but they are not that big, and I doubt that they have the kind of fleet level CICs you would find on cruisers or carriers. It probably won't make an enormous difference, but in combat, every little bit of additional edge is welcome.
It's funny that that burkes which were originally being dedicated, single role, simple function ship, which is to provide anti-air defence and land attack fire power, is now being streched and tasked to do the whole spectrum of missions.
I still think a shrink in size is called for. one can comfortablly fit 80 VLS slots into a 6500 ton hull.
Those Mark 57 VLS tubes on the Zumwalts are larger than the Mark 41 VLS tubes and are designed to hold 2 or maybe even 4 Standard missiles, so just saying the Zumwalt has only 80 VLS tubes is not entirely accurate.
Perhaps they are on training exercises, perhpas they are testing something else, perhaps they are slated for refit.
We really do not know what the status of, or mission this particular Type 054A FFG was involved with.
Clearly, in war time or any high threat area...or even when going to be a part of the Pirate Fighting, they may go out with a full weapons load...but a lot of the time during peace time operations it is not at all necessary.
And I'm not sure; 052C itself is some 7000 tons, you'd be hard pressed to squeeze 80 VLS tubes inside something that size.
Even with a good multi mission hull around 6500 tons, there will still be a place for cruisers imo. But it looks like PLAN will be going for three tiers instead, 5k-6k ton frigates, 7k ton+ ddgs, 10k ton cruisers, which could be as good a composition as your multi mission hull suggestion if not better.
---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------
---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------
CARRIER HAS ARRIVED! ^^
I found a Mk 57 canister to be 28" wide, while a SM-2 blkIV seems to have a 14" diameter, so two of them might just fit. But I actually haven't heared anything about that topic, really.
The Ticos also came from a desgin that was a rather pure ASW destroyer, and are now capable in the full spectrum with an emphasis on AAW. Just like the Burkes now.
And while one can put 80 tubes onto a 6.500t ship, I guess you than loose other capabilities, probably mainly ASW and some ASuW. Perhaps no more TAS and only one helo. The question then is another one of philosophy. Do you want destroyer sized ships dedicated to one (& 1/2) tasks. Or should destroyers already be allrounders with an emphazise on one aspect.
That being said, the 052C(+)s seems to be geared towards AAW as well, and the 054A looks like it may do well in ASW with anti-air point defense capabilities. And both can do some kind of ASuW, I guess?
So these potential cruisers would then be where it all comes together for C2?
Last edited by Scratch; 04-16-2012 at 05:02 PM.
Note the part starting at 1:06. Farthest right is ESSM, 2nd from the right is SM-2. The 2 on the left are 2 new unidentified missiles. In fact the USN has already toyed with the idea of modifying the Standard for a dual-pack Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM) inside the Mark 41 VLS! I don't think it ever went anywhere but if a dual-pack SM-2 can fit inside the Mark 41 it can certainly fit inside the Mark 57, as the video demonstrates.
A few points, how do you know the missile second from the right is SM-2 (sure it looks like it...)? And if you actually read my post, I didn't mention dual packing SM-2s as an impossibility, only quad packing. And as of now I've heard nothing credible about either dual packing or quad packing any missiles onto mk 57 apart from ESSM, so for the purposes of this discussion zumwalt still does have 80 VLS tube/cells.
A quick search reveals that an individual canister/tube cross section of the Mk-57 is 711mmx711mm... Take from that what you will, but I think you'll be hard pressed to dual pack SM-2s
Also, if I'm not mistaken, RIM-66 has a wingspan of slightly over one meter (diameter 0.34 m), compared to tomahawk's 0.52 m diameter (the relevant dimensions for when they are packed in a cell), SM-6 will have a diameter of 0.53m and a wingspan of 1.57m.
Are the fins of standard missiles folded inside a cell?
CARRIER HAS ARRIVED! ^^
From this angle, though, not only it further reinforce the VLS system is clearly inspired by the Mark 41 VLS, but perhaps they could actually squeeze in 2 more modules as well? Even similiar sized FFGs with Mark 41 in other navies have 6 modules too.
There Is No Short Cut-Loading HHQ-16 Missiles To A 054A
Last edited by A.Man; 04-17-2012 at 05:00 AM.