SinoDefence Forum

crobato

If you look at the way the four illuminators are positioned, the back illuminators on the other side still have big view to the other side, with the only blind spot is the other illuminator can end up directly in front of that view.

Transient

So essentially they are ESMs. And the C-Pearl-M ESM does the same on the Formidable.

And what happens when the illuminator is blocked by the other illuminator? So what happens when the missile moves into superstructure's FOV? The rear 2 FCRs have good FOV, but the front 2 do not enjoy as good positions.

crobato

Illuminators are coordinated by the FCS. Since they time share, they're not following and lighting a target across the sky but only light the targets when the missile is close enough. Thus you can put up a lot of missiles into the air more than you would expect the illuminators would normally handle, and the illuminators would juggle across the missiles. If the other illuminator is being blocked by the second illuminator, the second illuminator should be handling the target instead and the other illuminator should switch back and illuminate targets within its FOV. Hence why I think Bandstand may be used because the SAMs are being controlled via datalink until they reach terminal stage then the illuminator takes over. Unless more than six targets have been *terminally acquired all at the same time* by the missiles, I don't think two illuminators with time sharing would be swamped by the workload.

Just remember, multisaturation attack tends to be conducted against all angles.

tphuang

why do you just assume that it's DUBV-43? What do you think this is?

right, that's why all the major surface warships have Bow mounted sonar, huh?
see, keep this up, post more real evidences.
if you read my posts more carefully, maybe you would've read that part.

- yes, there are still people out there who refute the service status of J-10, doesn't mean it's not in service.
let's see the evidences for VLS
- we don't see the deck that AAM launchers are normally placed on for PLAN ships
- every major ship systems have been placed on the launched 054A, yet we haven't seen a AAM launcher
- and the picture, I think it's pretty obvious that's the model for at least the first set of 054As.
- as for HH-7 and HH-16, I didn't say they are both on this particular 054A, but it will be on future CFX and CDX.
If an old version of C-802 with a truck monted radar have no problem hitting the much smaller SAAR 5, what makes you think Formidable will fool the more advanced YJ-83?
you are facing aircrafts too, you know. You are facing EW planes that are jamming shipborne radar and missile seekers. The much smaller missile seekers would be more affected.

Right, you have 32 missiles, let's say Aster 15 is that amazing, it will hit 15 targets and HH-16 will hit 10 targets. How many targets do you think 10,000 30mm munition can take out? Think about it.

hmm, I really hope you are not talking about the 2 illuminators beside the hangar, since I see nothing blocking in between them. The only blocking is by the superstructure on the illuminators in the front (but only one of them can be blocked at one particular time) The worst I can see is 3 illuminators and 1 CIWS having clear path at the target. And since the angle between the missile and ship is constantly changing, this worst case scenario might not stay in formation for very long.

If there is an "Aegis-like" network being set up between the future ships in PLAN fleet as I expect, that will be more complex than non-Aegis like networks.

Transient

I believe I have told you about the limitations of TAS in the operating environment of the 054A?

Singapore is well known for their meticulous requirements planning in the military procurement circle. If the RSN determined that the Formidable needed a bow sonar, it would have had one. It seems that the RSN determined that the VDS and the Heli could do the job.


Finally, when we take into account the ship as a whole, with ASW capability and ASuW capability, it is pretty obvious that the Formidable has an advantage over the 054A.

Ironical, when all you have provided so far are assumptions.

But you don't know yet if they have achieved the integration of the HQ-7 with a 'common VLS' don't you? You don't know that the VLS is for the SHtil or the HQ-16 don't you. You don't know a lot of things yet, yet you said that the 054A will have HQ-7s as part of its layered anti-air system?

The Saar V was not aware of the missile attack and took no measures to stop the missile. So its Barak and soft kill systems are not ineffective. They were just not operating at the time. Finally, there was a report of one of the ASM missiles locking onto the wrong target and hitting a cargo vessel. That could be the result of the significance of a small RCS despite no soft-kill measures like decoys or ECM being deployed.

Is the jamming aircraft going to be so near the missiles? Otherwise they are at a disadvantage since the Asters are MUCH closer to the ASMs than the jammers are. Also, can the jammers jam both the Aster's radar and the Herakles at the same time, which are operating on two different bands?

You are pulling figures from your posterior.

Which is why your early assumption that all 4 FCRs can be brought to bear is wrong. At most 3 can be brought to bear against a single vector stream attack.

I thought we were comparing ships and not navies? Or do you sense that your position is untenable and hence this effort to bring in the rest of the PLAN into debate?

planeman

Ideal Frigate 4,000t
*Based on high speed catamaran ferry technology (Incat Devil Cat etc)
*Low RCS
*1 x medium ASW helicopter
*8 x YJ-62 mounted amidships
*2 x 24 cell VLS on either flank carrying a mix of SA-N-12 'Grizzly' SAMs and SS-N-29 Medvedka-VE ASW missiles (typically 42 SAMs and 6 ASW missiles)
* Heat sinks between hulls minimise IR signiture
* Decoys, chaff etc including towed decoy
* Imported variable depth towed sonar
* Bow mounted 100mm compact, with stealth casing and concealed stowage of barrel when not in use for added stealth
* 2 x Stealthised Type-730 CIWS
~160 crew

Gollevainen

That article that crobato pretty much summed up the current state of PLAn ASW cababillity, but forgot to mention about few things conserning the two major sonar systems fitted in PLAN surface ships. Firstly, like I mentioned earlier, the DUBV-23/43 arragemnt dates back to the early 60's and the MG-335 Platina-S in Sovremennyys is not as powerfull as the contepory soviet bow mounted sonars fitted to dedicated ASW platforms.

But what really interest me is, what kind of sonar systems the new 052B/C and 054/A have? Is the hull mounted sonars onboard the destroyers based on the DUBV-23 or the Platina-S? Or could it be possiple that alongside the other sensor aqustions form russia, a new sonar suite could have been bought also?

__________________

isthvan

Thanks for the article, but unfortunately there is nothing new in this article that would change my opinion... Actually your article proves that ASW is still considered as secondary task in PLAN what is kind of strange if we look at rapid modernization of submarine forces in area...

What PLAN needs and what I was under impression that type54A will provide is multi purpose frigate whit good ASW capabilities comparable to Duke/Karel Dorman/Brandenburg class.
Currently that is not the case and PLAN is highly focussed on AsuW and AAW whit limited ASW capabilities.

__________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. " Marcus Aurelius

crobato

Its not meant to change your opinion, just to show you where the doctrines lay. PLAN appears to be intent on using subs for its ASW work, then expect surface ships to cover the subs against other surface ships and aircraft. If the PLAN really wanted ASW work, they would have ordered Udaloys instead of Sovremannies.

The PLAN is likely to be using an indigenously modernized copy of the DUBV-23, as opposed to a straight copy or the original items. Indigenously improving and refining what the Chinese license or reverse engineer is a recurrent pattern among all technology transfers to China.

Now for the hull mounted sonars on the 052B, 054, and 052C, its hard to say if they obtained another Russian sonar, or made yet another copy of a Western sonar (French or US in particular), or learned from all sources to produce an indigenous sonar. Ditto with the bow mounted sonar on the 054A.

Another link from the same author about Chinese sonar development.

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles...=279&print=yes

isthvan

Using currant submarine fleet for ASW will work only if we talk about ASW in Chinese territorial waters and maybe second island chain.
SSK joust don’t have enough speed and endurance to protect surface fleet beyond that area while currant Chinese SSN subs aren’t reached tech level to challenge modern SSK like South Korean type214... Type093 will improve that but realistically there will probably be built in only small batch...

Like Falkland war showed finding modern SSK isn’t easy task even for dedicated ASW force like RN and this is why PLAN needs to reexamine currant ASW doctrine. Type54A is step in right direction but unfortunately to small step.

Ps. thanks for article

__________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. " Marcus Aurelius

adeptitus

You're right. Guess that'd make my model "16-16" In WW2 era the Kaigun 8-8 model was 8 BB + 8 CC. But those days are long-gone.

Though, if we are to assume 50% operational rate, 8 DDG + 8 FFG would provide 8 operational ships at any time.


Great picture!

It's interesting to note that both the Russian SAM (9K37 family) and RPK-9 ASW Missile are approx. 5.5 meters in length and 400 mm in diameter. The RPK-9 weights about 100kg more, but the similiar size would make it possible for installation in common-VLS system.

If they cannot be integrated into an unified VLS, you could still carry them separately with 4x12-cel SAM VLS and 6-cel Medvedka-VE. But the RPK-9's range is short (~20km), so I'd prolly opt for the 91RE2 Klub-N instead. Or, install both of them and sacrifice some SAM or SSM space.

If you're building an ASW ship, it's assumed that you'd be going up against enemy subs, which can be armed with torepdos and anti-ship missiles. My proposed "3 layer protection" would work like this:

Against AShM:
* Medium-range SAM (SA-N-12)
* Short-range SAM (HQ7 or SA-N-11 on Kashtan)
* CIWS

Against Torpedos:
* ASW Missile that can out-distance enemy torepdos, or ASW helicopter
* Hard-kill (proximity mine rocket that can detonate enemy torpedos)
* Soft-kill (acoustic decoy rockets)

The latest Mk48 ADCAP torpedos is reported to have effective depth of >600 meters, top speed of 60 to 75 knots (110 to 140 km/h), and range of >37km (at high speed) to >56 km (at lower speed). The British Spearfish torpedo is reported to have effective range of 23 km (high speed) to 54 km (low speed).

The RPK-9 ASW rocket is reported to have effective range up to 20km. This means if you're going up against subs armed with modern torpedos, the sub can prolly fire its torpedo at high-speed mode at you outside the range of your ASW rocket. For that reason, the 91RE2 Klub-N looks much more attractive.

=======

p.s. If the SAMs have secondary anti-surface capability, we can prolly consider replacing the main gun with a CIWS system. Having 3 CIWS guns would give the ship better coverage, and you can use the SAMs against minor enemy surface targets.

Also, catamarans are known for its high speed, which is a good defense against subs and torpedos, but the higher speed makes it difficult to operate towed sonar. On the US LCS design they use torpedo-shaped underwater unmanned vehicle to replace the towed sonar's role. I've seen photos of (claimed) PLAN unmanned underwear vehicles, and would speculate that they're working on it.

Gollevainen

Yeap thanks for the article...I just wish there would be even more deeper info about chinese ship development in general as well..

I'm afraid the issue isen't that simple. We need to remember that China is and most notbly was when they ordered the Sovremennyys, a wolrds largest "small navy". The expansion program which started to speed up in the 90's have followed quite logical path of turning huge but completely outdated coastal force into at least adequate oceangoing navy. In this bath the way of doing things needs to follow some sort of guidelines. For example you cannot just buy several enourmous ships with few generation ahead of your current inventory. Exspecially when those ships are costomized for very dedicated ocean going ASW work which china has no experience what so ever. It's like you have decided to become a truckdriver and you have only driven old lada's, then suddenly you have to go behind the stearingwheel of specialized Kraz bridgelaying truck...

I think the Reason why China choosed Sovremennyy's was becouse from all soviet inventory, those where the most multipurpose of them all. They suited well for the chinese expansion. Specialization comes in it's own time, not in the first steps of expansion. First china needs to esthabilize working bluewater naval doctrines and operational base.

__________________

oringo

Beautiful, and may I add "sexy"? I think the conceal storage of the gun barrel is a good idea. Care to give some detailed view of the CIWS? Btw in your last post you said 16 YJ-62. Why change to 8?

planeman

Thanks for the complements on the picture.
yep, similar size. With the common VLS concept I have in mind, the various missiles don't have to fit into the same tubes (as on the US system), instead the VLS is just seen as an empty box into which modules of various missiles are 'plugged in'. The main limitation is the depth of the VLS box - I envisaged it above the ship's boat hanger I've drawn (the hole in the side of the boat). Therefore I can't imagine it being deep enough to carry Klub.

That's a hell of a lot of different systems to fit into a Frigate.


Re the YJ-62, I'd say 16 if I could find a way of fitting them onboard. One problem with the YJ-62 is that we have only seen inclined launch versions - a vertical launch version would need a bigger booster(?) - and at any rate I'd say that Klub is a better choice:

Klub: Vertical launch, ASW version, Anti-ship sub-sonic and supersonic versions, Land attack version (exported?)
YJ-62: inclined launch (needs more deck space), anti-ship sub-sonic version, land attack version (assumed) but no ASW version.

Because Klub and YJ-62 inveriably need seperate mission control equipment, it would not be optimum to carry both Klub for ASW and YJ-62 for anti-ship.

Although I rate the YJ-63, I strongly suspect that the Klub is a whole lot better and the optimum frigate fit is a large VLS (20+ cells) for Klub - allowing a mix of ASW, Anti-ship and Land Attack missiles, and all sharing much of the mission control equipment (up to a point). But that isn't the sort of solution Chinese politians would like to see.

crobato

SSN subs are not meant to challenge SSK in littoral waters. Thats what other SSK subs are for. Mindset of the PLAN is truly with the subs right now, surface fleet in a way, is just a support fleet for the subs meant to destroy the surface ASW assets that can be used against PLAN subs.

I think if you look at the map, blue water navy for China is useless if you cannot control territorial and littoral waters all the way to the island chains. So first thing is first, control the littoral waters first, then move to blue water. SSN subs for China is something in the experiment basis; its useless for China right now in both a tactical and strategic basis. The current subs, including 093 and 094 are just technology steps towards a future when China can indeed have a blue water navy, but that is only after they have control of all littorral wates bordering China.

Personally I like to see the PLAN upgrade many of the older ships into dedicated ASW vessels, and maybe purchase some Udaloys and Neutrashimmys just to have a bit more foreign "injection" into their domestic ASW efforts.