054 Series Frigate Thread 2

[asif iqbal]

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!

[A.Man]

Photo Of 538-Full Loaded Waste Money?

[plawolf]

This is one point I disagree with -- I don't think we can argue that Varyag can serve as a C&C hub in a PLAN taskforce any better or worse than a nimitz or QE in future, and I am quite certain that nimitz class cvns have quite extensive CICs.
For instance, the ford class will be equipped with SPY-3, that doesn't necessarily mean it will feature a massive jump in C&C capability compared to nimitz class carriers, which only feature AN/SPS-48s as its most powerful radar (at least, no bigger a jump than you would expect from natural growth in electronic capability).
Also, with CeC and extensive datalinking I'm not sure you need a great big radar aboard your flattop for it to serve as a command hub -- although clearly it will help.

I actually asked a similar questions about radars and carriers in a different thread, focusing on whether ford CVNs will feature a massive increase in C&C capability from its much more potent radar compared to nimitz. The answer was that CVs will have strict emissions control in a combat scenario anyway, so their radars will probably be turned off.

Basically, my main point is that the presence of a powerful PAR is not necessarily indicative of a ship's C&C capabilities (especially aboard large ships like carriers or LHA/Ds), and that Varyag imho will probably not feature much superior or extensive C&C provisions compared to other carriers. Also, I expect any future indigenous carriers to also feature PARs. That seems to be the trend these days (ford, QE, hyuga, dokdo),

Well firstly, it is not an issue of whether carriers can act the C&C nexus and overall fleet command ship for a carrier battle group, clearly any carrier could do that. The issue is more of whether you would want your carriers to be doing that.

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.

[i.e.]

I think ticonderogas are cruisers in every sense of the word, along with slava despite being based off a destroyer hull. Zumwalts will be cruisers (weight wise), but will only have 80 VLS cells compared to the 96 of burkes, and ~130 of ticos. The fact that USN is looking to call flight iii burkes cruisers will only going to make the situation more confusing.

For discussions I generally refer to cruisers as 10k ton+ surface combatants, destroyers for 6k ton+, frigates for 4k ton+.

No body load up on a full missile load most of time anyways. around 80 is a sensible number.

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.

[Mysterre]

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.

[Jeff Head]

Photo Of 538-Full Loaded Waste Money?

Great pic...but it does not necessarily represent a waste of money.

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.

[i.e.]

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.

Mk 51 4 cell slot is 14.2x7.25 = 102.95 square feet.
Mk 41 8 cell slot is 124.8x81.75 inches ~ 70.85 square feet. no way you can fit 4x standard.missile into 1 tube

[Bltizo]

No body load up on a full missile load most of time anyways. around 80 is a sensible number.

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.

Even in war against another nation state and your DDGs and CGs are meant to operate with a CVBG? I'm aware of the rumour (?) that burkes don't regularly travel with full missile loads (for good reason) but surely there is some logic behind giving a ship 100+ VLS tubes, and they can load up on full in the rare occasions where it's 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 ----------

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.

I remember when I first read that from wikipedia or global security and I was bewildered. It turns out that each Mk 57 VLS cell (not tube) can hold four Standard missiles, compared to the eight of a Mk 41. On zumwalt there will be twenty Mk 57 VLS cells, which means eighty tubes. So it is actually entirely accurate. Standard missiles are wide -- near tomahawk wide. You'd need a monster of a tube to fit four standards inside.

---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

Photo Of 538-Full Loaded Waste Money?

Clearly she isn't fully loaded in that picture

[Scratch]

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?

[Mysterre]

Mk 51 4 cell slot is 14.2x7.25 = 102.95 square feet.
Mk 41 8 cell slot is 124.8x81.75 inches ~ 70.85 square feet. no way you can fit 4x standard.missile into 1 tube

Read more carefully please.

I remember when I first read that from wikipedia or global security and I was bewildered. It turns out that each Mk 57 VLS cell (not tube) can hold four Standard missiles, compared to the eight of a Mk 41. On zumwalt there will be twenty Mk 57 VLS cells, which means eighty tubes. So it is actually entirely accurate. Standard missiles are wide -- near tomahawk wide. You'd need a monster of a tube to fit four standards inside.

Sorry, but that's just wrong: youtube. com/watch?v=WWjVFzxzG10
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.

[Bltizo]

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.

I respectfully disagree with that -- 80 VLS canisters may not leave much space for the electronics necessary for ASW, but for ASuW it can still be very potent. Simply convert an horizontally launched AShM for vertical launch, or develop existing LACMs for anti shipping. There used to be an anti shipping version of the tomahawk similar in capability to the current YJ-62, universe knows why the US decided to cut it from service.

Sorry, but that's just wrong: youtube. com/watch?v=WWjVFzxzG10
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.

What part of my post is wrong? I'm calling a module a cell and a cell a tube, but the meaning is the same.

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?

[MwRYum]

Photo Of 538-Full Loaded Waste Money?

Not necessary a waste, as unless the situation demands, the weight saved in those not loaded tubes could translate into longer endurance, saving fuel.

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.

[Bltizo]

Not necessary a waste, as unless the situation demands, the weight saved in those not loaded tubes could translate into longer endurance, saving fuel.

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.

Which FFGs would those be? 054A's only slightly over 4000 tons btw.

[A.Man]

There Is No Short Cut-Loading HHQ-16 Missiles To A 054A

[escobar]

nice shot