SinoDefence Forum

snake65 · 10-15-2006

German K-130.

adeptitus · 10-15-2006

The MBDA Aster-15 weights 310 kg and has interception range up to 30km, while the Aster-30 weights 450-510 kg, is longer than the Aster-15, and has interception range up to 120km.

The Exocet AShM is 670 kg. So I think if the Frigate can carry Exocets, it should be able to carry Aster-30's in raised VLS platform or launch tubes.

If I were making the "dream Frigate", I'd prolly put a large 8-cel "common VLS" system near the center of the ship, and give it option to load AShM, LACM, ASW Missile, or large SAMs. That'd make the ship rather flexible in the type of mission required. In the front, I'd install a short-range SAM system, and a gun if there's space. In the back, a helicopter deck and space for ASW gear. Then add 2 x CIWS guns to complete the fitting.

CIWS guns are great as last-line defense. If all else fails, you can still send a stream of hot metal slugs at whatever that's coming at you. But it shouldn't be the sole/main missile-defense system either. 30mm CIWS guns will overheat with use, not to mention the limited amount of ammo carried. So your first line of defense should be SAMs.

A good multi-layered air defense ship would have medium-range SAM, short-range SAM, and CIWS system for triple-layered protection. Missile interception is not perfect and you should always have back-ups. I'd also add that no navy today has true anti-saturation attack capabiltiy, because you require multiple SAMs to ensure higher hit % rate, and you only carry limited # of missiles/ammo. If someone sends a SSG/SSGN and launch 100-200 missiles at you, you're dead. I think true (missile) saturation attack will come only when optical weapons mature, sometime far in the future.

=======

p.s. Has anyone ever seen pictures or articles on VLs version of HQ-7? I have yet to see any pic or promotion material for it, yet so many people suggest there'll be a VLS version?

tphuang · 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

ASW wise, I think it is pretty certain that as far as the helicopter (which is a primary ASW component) is concerned, the SH-60 would be a better platform than what China has at the moment. Perhaps the 054A will have a towed array/VDS, but it seems that the general consensus is that it would not have one.

China already has towed array sonar, if this current 054A does not have TAS, future ones will if China intends this as a ASW platform.

Quote:

For ASuW, I delibreately chose not to talk about external targeting assets, since we would go into a lot of other stuff doing so (the Formidable can rely on the E-2C and the F-50 MPA for targeting info too). Where the Formidable has the advantage is in the SH-60 which will have a capable ISAR radar, as well as its VDS. Both not only provide OTH targeting coordinates but target identification as well. The 054A's Bandstand is incapable of that and will have to rely on its Z-9 or Ka-28 to do so. So targeting wise the 054A is less capable than the Formidable. The 054A might have a 16 missile complement, but if we are to look at the 054, only 8 ASM missiles are carried. Personally I think that's a more likely number, but I could be wrong. So perhaps the 054A might have more bite, but one against one it's the Formidable that will sink its teeth in the 054A first.

hmm, I didn't realize Formidable had 8 missiles.
Crobato already commented on OTH. 054A uses a Chinese radar called the Sea Soal. Now, in terms of operation, 054A is normally expected to operate in part of a group with air assets giving it targetting data. But if it operates by itself, it probably will get a Ka-31 to help it with targetting. And btw, does it make sense to put such a huge radar there if it can only provide guidance for OTH?

Quote:

All we know is that the Herakles can handle at least 10 ASMs at one time, but the 054A's system is still a total unknown. What is known is that if it uses 9M38 missiles, or SARH all the way, then its a hands down victory to the Formidable. As for number of missiles capable the radar is capable of providing mid-course guidance for, I think the Herakles radar would beat the 054A's Top Plate (or equivalent) with its passive array. It would allow for interleaving of modes as well as a long dwell capability on one sector.

Part of the importance of having 054A is that it will likely form this AD network with 052D, so it has the capability to share data on different aerial target, allowing it to engage targets that it can't detect.
I told you, each CIWS can handle at least 3 concurrent AShM. 2 CIWS can easily handle 6 concurrent strikes. As for 054A, it uses HH-16, we don't know what kind of guidance it uses, but more likely something similar to 9M317, which means that it doesn't have to illuminate until close to target. So 4 illuminators can handle more than 4 targets.

As for Sea Eagle's performance, I guess seeing Top Plate stats give a good indication? We do know that Sea Eagle uses electronic scan in both azimuth and elevation like Herakles.

As for the 15 km, it's stated here
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/formidable/

Quote:

Overall, while we do not know of the full capabilities of each, I think it is safe to say that the Formidable is a more capable vessel than the 054A.

Actually, it seems like 054A is much harder to find out.

As for HH-7, no picture, but it was mentionned to be in development. I think if PLAN is going for a common VLS, that's a pretty logical path.

planeman · 10-15-2006

So I know next to nothing about warship design, but I can draw pretty pictures, so this is my contribution:

Obviously I've taken inspiration from the Type-022 FACs, with the fast ferry style wave-piercing catamaran hull. On the bow is a stealthized 100mm gun - mechanically would be almost identical to currently in service PLAN 100mm ones. Note how the barrel his hidden when not in use like the Bofors 57mm on the swedish Visby class boats. This makes it more stealthy and better able to withstand wave impact.

Behind that you have a 24~32 cell SA-N-12 verical launch system. I think we all agree that the SA-N-12 is the optimum air-defence missile currently available to the PLAN, that could be fitted into a frigate.

In order to make it look more Chinese, I've put the SSMs in stealthy angled boxes very similar to those on the Type-022. Like other Chinese warships it has 16 SSM tubes rather than the more common 8. The missile would be the YJ-62, and 16 tubes allows for a mix of anti-ship and land-attack variants.

The ship's two Type-730 CIWS are mounted 'over' the edge of the ship to give excellent arcs of fire - note that the sloping sides mean that these are still inboard of the waterline. I've contrived a stealthy pimp-kit for them also.

The hanger accomodates two Helix or Panther helicopters ~ or one helicopter and three VTOL UAVs. The flight deck is slightly raised above the hanger deck to increase space below it for a spacious "boat shed" for towed decoy, towed sonar and ship's launch position (all at the stern).

Ok,ok, so if it had a VLS for SS-N-27 instead of the box launchers it'd have a better ASW potential, but come on, those box launchers look more intimidating.

crobato · 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

ISAR capability would come from radar mounted on the SH-60 (no confirmation of actual electronics on the SH-60s ordered yet, but likely to be of APS-143 class). As for OTH target identification, that would come from the ALOFTS VDS towed array carried by the Formidable. The Fregat identification functions likely is against aerial targets, the same way the Herakles also has identification functions vs aerial targets but not surface targets.

I forgot to mention that Fregat also tracks targets.

If you are referring to OTH identification by sonar, then there is a possibility the same can be done on the 054A. Most likely both ships will be assisted by aerial assets or have data passed along by other ships.

ISAR target identification would have to come from direct LOS.

Quote:

I did a search of the Aster 15 engagement range vs missiles, but could not find a link which stated effective range vs missiles was limited to 15km. It would be nice if you could point me to a link.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/formidable/

"In anti-missile mode the Aster 15 has a range of 15km. Aster also provides protection against manned and unmanned aircraft to a range of 30km. "

By the way, this same thing works for the Sea Sparrow/ESSM.

Quote:

SARH and ARH do not matter too much in engagements taking place at long ranges. However, as the engagements get progressively closer to the platform, ARH allows for more salvoes to be fired over that allowed by SARH guidance.

Not necessarily. There is time sharing as used by the SN-2s, and the Shtil-1s share this feature. Since the missiles are midphase updated by datalinks, the illuminators only need to assist illuminate missiles that are in the terminal stage of flight. Of course this is still not as good as pure ARH means, but you can still launch more missiles than your illuminators can directly handle.

Transient · 10-16-2006

China already has towed array sonar, if this current 054A does not have TAS, future ones will if China intends this as a ASW platform.

But there is no information that they are to be mounted on the 054A, there is no physical indication (whether a winch or anything) that suggests such an installation, and finally there is no TAS on the 054. So I think it would be safer to assume there is no TAS on the 054A until confirmation otherwise.

If you are referring to OTH identification by sonar, then there is a possibility the same can be done on the 054A. Most likely both ships will be assisted by aerial assets or have data passed along by other ships.

But a hull sonar will not be able to vary its depth. This matters because long range detection depends on the sound 'bouncing' off thermal layers of the water or the seabed. What this results in is that detection only occurs in concentric circles or what is known as 'convergence zones'. (incidently this affects OTH radars relying on troposcatter phenomenon, like the Mineral radar) The VDS gets around this problem by varying the depth of the sonar thus allowing for uninterrupted coverage.

And btw, does it make sense to put such a huge radar there if it can only provide guidance for OTH?

I'm sorry, I do not understand. A radar does what it does - it cannot do what it cannot. Your words make as little sense to me as the following sentence: "Does it make sense to buy a destroyer if it can only float on the water but not fly or submerge?"

As for HH-7, no picture, but it was mentionned to be in development. I think if PLAN is going for a common VLS, that's a pretty logical path.

You are making many assumptions here:
1. The PLAN is going for a common VLS
2. The VLS is going on the 054A
3. The common VLS can hold HHQ-7s

Why make so many assumptions?

I told you, each CIWS can handle at least 3 concurrent AShM. 2 CIWS can easily handle 6 concurrent strikes. As for 054A, it uses HH-16, we don't know what kind of guidance it uses, but more likely something similar to 9M317, which means that it doesn't have to illuminate until close to target. So 4 illuminators can handle more than 4 targets.

More illusionary than you think. If the ASMs are arriving on one bearing , then only 2 illuminators and 1 CIWS can be brought to bear. Add in the fact that when missiles have entered the final 5~10km, the SARH is at a severe drawback with the need to provide end-game illumination, whereas for the Asters it is equivalent to all the missiles having end game illumination simultaneously. For taht reason athe CIWS is needed to boost the number of simultaneous engagements in the close in zone. Finally, the Formidable being a stealth design will have a higher chance of effectiveness when using soft kill measures. This also affects its ability in ASuW, because it is harder to find. Couple that with a better helicopter (the SH-60), and I thinkt he Formidable is a clear winner.

adeptitus · 10-16-2006

The PLAN currently only operates 2 modern ships (052) with towed VDS sonar of French origin. There has been no other modern PLAN ships with towed sonar that I'm aware of, except for Jianghu-IV with SJD-7 VDS. From the photos avail, I don't think the 054A has aft deck space allocated for ASW equipment. But that's just my unprofessional opinion.

To improve its ASW capability, the PLAN could reverse-engineer the DUBV-43 (ESS-1), or import towed sonar from Russia. If we look at the latest 1,900 ton Russian ASW Corvette, Project 20380 Stereguschyy, the ship is equipped with 2x4 P-800 Yakhont AshM, hull mounted sonar, towed sonar array, "anti-diver sonar system", ASW helicopter, and a 6-cel Medvedka-VE (RPK-9) system:
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2179&catid=271

If you look at the aft photo of the ship, there's a big hole where towed sonar equipment will go. The Russian navy has ordered 4 of these ships. The PLAN could import the same Russian towed sonar equipment.

The Medvedka-VE is an improved, VLS version of the old RPK-9:
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=1736&catid=312

The older system resemble quad-tube torpedo launchers. I don't have specs for the new system, but the old one is listed as 12,000 kg for 4-tube and 19,400 kg for 8-tube system. Each missile weights 800kg and is 5.5 meters long and 400mm in diameter. The RPK-9 (SS-N-29) ASW missile has range to 20km, which is a bit short, but the system can be easily bolted onto existing ship's deck. The newer VLS system might have improved range and performance.

The primary Russian navy long-range ASW missile is still the RPK-6 Vodopod (SS-N-16), with claimed range up to 100km-120km:
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=312&linkid=2111

This is a much larger and heavier missile, said to be 6.5 meters in length, 650mm diameter, and 2,150 kg weight. Heavier than the Chinese C-803 or YJ-62, but still lighter than the P-800 Oniks/Yakhont (3,000 kg) AShM. The latest 91RE2 (Klub-N) ASW missile is lighter at 1,300 kg, but with shorter range at 40km.

=====================

If I were modernizing PLAN's fleet for better ASW capability, I'd import the following systems from Russia:
* UDAV-1 ASW system
* RPK-9 short-range ASW missile
* 91RE2 (Klub-N) medium-range ASW Missile
* RPK-6 long-range ASW missile
* Bow/hull/towed/VDS sonar & technology

The UDAV-1 ASW system includes dept charge rockets, anti-torpedo proximity mine rockets (torpedo defense), and acoustic decoy rockets. If the PLAN already has something just as good, then imports is not necessary. This system is used as a last-ditch defense against submarines and torpedos.

The RPK-9 short-range ASW missile can be equipped on small sub chasers, or refit to existing ships to add better ASW capability.

The 91RE2 ASW missile will be the standard ASW missile on ASW Frigates. They could also be added as a refit on existing ships, replacing some AShM's.

The RPK-6 is quite large and would prolly only be used on a new class of ASW Destroyers, should the PLAN decide to build them.

Gollevainen · 10-16-2006

Well the Russians have been spared for the almoust 50 years negelent that have plagued chinese ship development. In many cases, china is in the phase where soviets where in 1930's and if soviets grew out to be ok (in naval issues) why not china? We just need to give her time and as the world seems to spin faster and faster, the time for china to reach the rest of the world wont take as long as it did from russian, altough it will take some time however.

Quote:

Although the PLAN does operate towed VDS of French origin, I don't think they allocated space in the back of the 054A for it. This is just my unprofessional opinion based on photos.

The French VDS in chinese use (in Luhu's), the DUBV-23 hull mounted and DUBV-43 VDS is 60's french technology and I doupt it's capabilities against modern quiet SSKs or even the lates US SSNs is somewhat decreased...What china really needs is own new modern sonar system, becouse to improve your ASW capabilities, sonars are like radars to air-defence systems...Can you Hear me?

isthvan · 10-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

The French VDS in chinese use (in Luhu's), the DUBV-23 hull mounted and DUBV-43 VDS is 60's french technology and I doupt it's capabilities against modern quiet SSKs or even the lates US SSNs is somewhat decreased...What china really needs is own new modern sonar system, becouse to improve your ASW capabilities, sonars are like radars to air-defence systems...Can you Hear me?

Quite agreed...

I joust can’t understand PLAN obvious neglect of ASW. All this new ships have only limited ASW capabilities and handful of Ka-28 helicopters can’t really provide decent ASW protection to fleet... This is one area where we joust don’t see any signs of significant progress that PLAN has shown on almost all other areas during last decade...

adeptitus · 10-16-2006

I recall reading that towed array sonar has 3-4 times the effective detection range vs. hull-mounted or bow-mounted sonar (for surface ships), which would explain why navies bother to use them. i.e. Russian navy use "Ox Tail" VDS, and the Akula SSN use "Pelamida" towed array sonar. Plus it covers the "dead zone" behind the ship.

Although the DUBV-43 VDS is old, I think the PLAN can prolly reverse enginner and improve it. Having it installed on an ASW platform is definately better than not having it. Plus you can always upgrade it to something better later on.

Personally, I like the Japanese 8-8 model for an escort fleet, with strong ASW capability. If I were to build such a fleet with 8 destroyers + 8 frigates, I'd prolly choose 6 x air-defense destroyers, 2 x ASW destroyers, & 8 x ASW frigates.

The air-defense destroyers would be equipped with long-range SAM with secondary anti-surface capability, like Rif-M or possibly even navalized S-400 in future. These ships would also be equipped with large SSM's and secondary SAM system.

The ASW destroyers would be equipped with long-range ASW missiles & towed sonar, in lieu of SSM's. Instead of the usual 8-16 SSM's, the ship would have something like 8 x RPK-6's. The secondary arament would be Klub-N VLS system with 91RE2 ASW missile, plus other types as needed, and SAM system.

The ASW frigates would be equipped with Klub-N VLS system with 8 or more ASW Missiles, or other types as needed. It'd also have medium & short-range SAM's and towed sonar.

If the mission requires it, the Klub-N VLS system can be equipped with SSM or LACM's in lieu of ASW Missiles.

eecsmaster · 10-16-2006

just a quick note, the JMSDF 8x8 designation is 8 surface ships and 8 helicopters, not frigates.

tphuang · 10-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

But there is no information that they are to be mounted on the 054A, there is no physical indication (whether a winch or anything) that suggests such an installation, and finally there is no TAS on the 054. So I think it would be safer to assume there is no TAS on the 054A until confirmation otherwise.

you are comparing a ship coming out in 2009 to a ship that you've seen nothing but a few pictures. We've seen pictures of TLAS products from China. Do you think they create them just for show? As I said, if they want to use 054A as an ASW frigate that it should be, it will be on there. I will first wait for the first bunch of 4 054As to all come out before making an assessment.
btw, for all of your clamour toward Formidable, I don't even seen a bow mounted sonar on it. All it has is that towed array sonar.

Quote:

But a hull sonar will not be able to vary its depth. This matters because long range detection depends on the sound 'bouncing' off thermal layers of the water or the seabed. What this results in is that detection only occurs in concentric circles or what is known as 'convergence zones'. (incidently this affects OTH radars relying on troposcatter phenomenon, like the Mineral radar) The VDS gets around this problem by varying the depth of the sonar thus allowing for uninterrupted coverage.

Why don't you show which sonar you are talking about that can track targets from 100 km out?

Quote:

I'm sorry, I do not understand. A radar does what it does - it cannot do what it cannot. Your words make as little sense to me as the following sentence: "Does it make sense to buy a destroyer if it can only float on the water but not fly or submerge?"

I really hope you are not intentionally trying to misunderstand me. We all see that bandstand is a huge radar and takes up a lot of space. To me, it's value does not justify its size if it can only guide missiles for OTH strikes. As explained by Crobato, it can track targets too.

Quote:

You are making many assumptions here:
1. The PLAN is going for a common VLS
2. The VLS is going on the 054A
3. The common VLS can hold HHQ-7s

Why make so many assumptions?

There is too much evidence that VLS is going on 054A. (just look at that model, it's been right about every other part of 054A we can see)
As for 1 and 3, do you really think China isn't going for a common VLS? That they are just stuck in a development or ideological phase?
Now, where I got the HH-7 and common VLS information? Some big shrimp on Chinese board. When is it going to happen? Not on the current 054A, but again, I'm waiting for the remaining 054As to come out. We've seen nothing but incremental growth among PLAN ships and I don't expect that to change.

Quote:

More illusionary than you think. If the ASMs are arriving on one bearing , then only 2 illuminators and 1 CIWS can be brought to bear. Add in the fact that when missiles have entered the final 5~10km, the SARH is at a severe drawback with the need to provide end-game illumination, whereas for the Asters it is equivalent to all the missiles having end game illumination simultaneously. For taht reason athe CIWS is needed to boost the number of simultaneous engagements in the close in zone. Finally, the Formidable being a stealth design will have a higher chance of effectiveness when using soft kill measures. This also affects its ability in ASuW, because it is harder to find. Couple that with a better helicopter (the SH-60), and I thinkt he Formidable is a clear winner.

First of all, there is more to stealth design than just the stealth shaping, there is also decoys, ECM and such. Maybe you would like to enlighten us with the capability of Formidable's ECM with that of 054A?
Second of all, if you are able to engage targets at a longer range, then you can shoot them down earlier. So, if 10 missiles are coming at both, HH-16 might be able to shoot down 2 or 3 missiles before they even reach 10 to 15 km, and then they can launch more illuminate against newer targets. I hope you understand this. You have a chance to shoot down their missile carrier before they get to launch those AShM at you.
Third of all, I think the more powerful illuminators are probably less prone to getting jammed than the seekers of an AAM.
Fourth, you have 32 missiles on board, if you use them up, you don't have any more air defense. How many AShM do you think you can shoot down? 15 if you are lucky? If you have CIWS, you can keep on going.
Fifth, as for your scenario of mass strikes from one side. can you please point out to an angle that would only allow 2 illuminators and 1 CIWS to handle incoming missiles? Are you assuming that the illuminators on 054As can't rotate?
Sixth, you are conveniently forgetting again that it is operating as part of an air defense network. 054A is not DDX, it's not meant to operate on its own. Providing that it's in a network with 052B/C/D, it will be able to shoot down missiles as part of the network.

Transient · 10-16-2006

Quote:

We've seen pictures of TLAS products from China. Do you think they create them just for show?

Your passive towed arrays that you are very proud of are less than optimal for green water/littoral use. It is precisely for that reason that the latest AB Flight IIs have their TAS removed.In fact the very reason why the DUBV-43 was developed was because the French had to operate in a green water (Mediterranean Sea, much lije the South China Sea) zone that severely limited the use of towed arrays.

Quote:

I don't even seen a bow mounted sonar on it. All it has is that towed array sonar.

Why have a bow mounted sonar when a VDS does the job?

Quote:

Why don't you show which sonar you are talking about that can track targets from 100 km out?

The ALOFTS used on the Formidable. Its low operating frequency of 2kHz allows for long range operation, allowing for (explicitly stated) "long detection range to the first and second convergence zones". http://www.edocorp.com/Sonars.htm
As a point of reference, two CZ can be 125+km in the North Atlantic.
Also, the SQR-18(V) upon which the ALOFTS' receiver array is based on has been used to provide targeting info for Harpoons.

Quote:

To me, it's value does not justify its size if it can only guide missiles for OTH strikes.

Then that is purely your opinion is it not? Someone could say that for the size and cost of a destroyer, it should be able to fly and submerge as well. That doesn't make it able to do so, isn't it?

Quote:

As explained by Crobato, it can track targets too.

Ah, so you meant that it could track targets too. Yes, that's true. But it still suffers from two disadvantages - it is active, meaning that it can reveal the ship's location and identity to the enemy when in operation, and it is not able to provide the target identification.

Quote:

There is too much evidence that VLS is going on 054A. (just look at that model, it's been right about every other part of 054A we can see)
As for 1 and 3, do you really think China isn't going for a common VLS? That they are just stuck in a development or ideological phase?
Now, where I got the HH-7 and common VLS information? Some big shrimp on Chinese board. When is it going to happen? Not on the current 054A, but again, I'm waiting for the remaining 054As to come out. We've seen nothing but incremental growth among PLAN ships and I don't expect that to change.

There is still no concensus that the missiles are going to be HQ-16 or Shtil yet, and you are making so big leaps by assuming that the HQ-7 and HQ-16 is on the ship?

Quote:

First of all, there is more to stealth design than just the stealth shaping, there is also decoys, ECM and such. Maybe you would like to enlighten us with the capability of Formidable's ECM with that of 054A?

The Formidable uses NGDS decoy launchers. We do not yet know the ECM suite for the Formidable uses, but the fact that the Formidable is a true stealth design means that its soft kill measures are rendered much more effective as opposed to when they have to work with a less-stealthy vessel.

Quote:

Second of all, if you are able to engage targets at a longer range, then you can shoot them down earlier. So, if 10 missiles are coming at both, HH-16 might be able to shoot down 2 or 3 missiles before they even reach 10 to 15 km, and then they can launch more illuminate against newer targets. I hope you understand this. You have a chance to shoot down their missile carrier before they get to launch those AShM at you.
Third of all, I think the more powerful illuminators are probably less prone to getting jammed than the seekers of an AAM.
Fourth, you have 32 missiles on board, if you use them up, you don't have any more air defense. How many AShM do you think you can shoot down? 15 if you are lucky? If you have CIWS, you can keep on going.

First, with a Pif-Paf control system, I would suspect that the Aster has a higher Pk against highly maneuverable ASMs than Shtil/HQ-16. Of course, as a person arguing for the 054A, you are entitled to your own opinion regarding this. Second, how many ASMs out there have radar jamming devices aboard? How many of those ASMs are in service of how many navies? Third, as the Aster approaches its target, jamming effects are decreased. Finally, with a higher Pk against missiles, the 32 mag may prove to have the same effectiveness as the 054A with its extra two CIWS.

Quote:

Fifth, as for your scenario of mass strikes from one side. can you please point out to an angle that would only allow 2 illuminators and 1 CIWS to handle incoming missiles? Are you assuming that the illuminators on 054As can't rotate?

And the radar illuminators on the opposite side as well as the superstructure are radar translucent? My my, the PLAN has advanced far beyond anyone (other than tphuang) can fathom.

Quote:

Sixth, you are conveniently forgetting again that it is operating as part of an air defense network. 054A is not DDX, it's not meant to operate on its own. Providing that it's in a network with 052B/C/D, it will be able to shoot down missiles as part of the network.

Just as the Formidable operates as part of SRSN's network. Are we comparing the RSN vs the PLAN or the 054A vs the Formidable?

crobato · 10-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by isthvan

Quite agreed...

I joust can’t understand PLAN obvious neglect of ASW. All this new ships have only limited ASW capabilities and handful of Ka-28 helicopters can’t really provide decent ASW protection to fleet... This is one area where we joust don’t see any signs of significant progress that PLAN has shown on almost all other areas during last decade...

Here is a good article on the PLAN's ASW efforts.

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles...=509&zoneid=30

Enjoy.

crobato · 10-16-2006

Quote:

Ah, so you meant that it could track targets too. Yes, that's true. But it still suffers from two disadvantages - it is active, meaning that it can reveal the ship's location and identity to the enemy when in operation, and it is not able to provide the target identification.

But the Fregat is not the only radar system on the ship. Exported Bandstand is composed of two radars, an active component called Mineral ME-1 (25 targets up to 250km) and a passive component called Mineral ME-2 (50 targets up to 450km). That's according to the Jane's/Yizhong Chang's article. At least that takes care of the passive part.

SinoDefence Forum

Ideal PLAN Frigate

Ideal PLAN Frigate

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster