SinoDefence Forum

adeptitus

The 9K37 SAM is about 5.5 meters long and 400mm in diameter, comparred to the 91RE2 at 6.5 meters length and 533mm diameter. The 91RE2 is only 1 meter longer, but weights twice as much as the SAM at 1,300 kg.

Using the same ship model as the one you proposed, I'd go with the following arament load:
* UDAV-1 ASW MLRS system
* 8-cel Klub-N VLS (91RE2, 3M-54E1, or 3M-14E)
* 24-cel VLS launcher for SA-N-12 SAM & RPK-9 ASW rocket
* 2 x Kashtan CIWS system
* 1 x 76mm gun
* 1 x ASW Helicopter + hanger
* 1 x Mission module under aft deck

This design would make the ship fairly flexible. Under the aft helicopter deck, you'd have a removable mission module, and a choice of ASW warfare, special operations, mine-laying, or other types of equipments.

planeman

The gun barrel idea I got from the Bofors Mk3 57mm gun fitted to the Swedish Visby class:



On the subject of Visby, this is the manufacturers concept for a frigate based on the technology:


Re My stealthised Type-730 CIWS, it would look something like this:

This consists of a faceted casing with angles of slope matchig those of the faceted hull.

tphuang

weren't you trashing 054A for not having TAS? Now, you are saying it shouldn't get TAS.
Well, That's what I said about PLAN too. If PLAN choose to use bow and hull mounted sonar + Heli, let it be so. My point is that if it chooses to add Towed Array Sonar, it has indigenous TAS to add.
where? you haven't shown anything. Your entire argument about ASuW lies in the SH-60, I've already shown that providing targetting information is not a problem for both ships. So, now it comes down to the missiles themselves.
You rely on Internet documents for a Western system and I rely on pictures and posts of big shrimps from Chinese forum. Take your pic.
- When SM-3 didn't come out yet, did people not assume that it will eventually go on AB? How is assuming HH-7 going on 054A in the future so far fetched? Besides, we got until 2009
- Have you heard about China purchasing any VLS shtil? We heard about China purchasing 2 sets of rif-m, no news about VLS shtil. We have 4 054As getting built right now, if they are using VLS shtil, we should have heard about 4 systems of VLS shtil by now.
your entire argument was about the advantage that formidable had over 054A due to its more stealth shaping, why are you bringing in other systems? If you want to bring in Air defense and soft kill systems, then you are pretty much admitting that the stealth shaping can't do all that much. The fact is that a really old version of C-802 (whose seeker is no where as advanced as that of C-802A, which is not as advanced as YJ-83) launched and given targetting information from a radar sitting on a truck hit a much more stealth target. Now, if 054A is to launch this, YJ-83 would have a more sophisticated seeker, a more advanced search radar, a huge radar dedicated to guide it against a more visible target.
are you questioning the capability of EW planes? Besides, as I said, when facing an aircraft, a missile can get fooled much more easily than a shipborne illuminator.
I guess you haven't worked with predator + prey programming problems? You never want to intercept an incoming missile with just one missile.
nope, directly in front or directly behind, there is an angle where all 4 can illuminate targets and both CIWS can also face off.
if you are in a system using some type of "Aegis type" defense like USN, you are obviously going to offer better air protection than a system not using one like Russian Navy. These types of systems are developed to handle saturated attack.

Hey Planeman, YJ-62 is actually much lighter and takes up much less space than Klub. YJ-63 is a whole different animal though.

Transient

I thrashed the 054A for having less ASW capability than the Formidable, as is evidently so. I didn;t trash it specifically for not having a TAS.

Uh, China isn't exactly known in military procurement circles as a 'reference customer the way Singapore is. Besides, even if the indigenous TAS is fitted, do you think it can match the standards of western equivalents? I don't think so, but you are free to assume whatever you want, as you seem to do.

I have shown that the Formidable is more capable than the 054A by virtue of its ability to target and ID the enemy silently with its VDS, as well as its superior organic heli, the SH-60. I will elaborate later.

You rely on assumptions and rumours. They may be right, they may not be right. At the end of the day, you are just choosing the parts you'd like to be true. And yet you demand concrete proof from others.

You working for the PLAN? Do you know all their purchases?

The more you talk the less you show about how much you understand about the concept of 'stealth'. Stealth is not a stand alone measure. Stealth is part of a repertoire of measures, ALL working towards the end goal of improving survivability. Hard-kill, soft-kill, LO measures, they are all part of the survivability toolbox. Stealth does not negate the use of other measures, and hence there is no reason why stealth cannot be mentioned beside hard-kill and soft-kill measures, especially when stealth can affect the effectiveness of soft-kill measures.

Stealth improves survivability through two ways. One is by making the ship harder to find, and thus target. Another is by improving the effectiveness of its soft kill suite because they do not have to mimic a ship with a large RCS. As you should be able to see, these two advantages the Formidable has over the 054A give it an edge in Survivability with respect to ASuW. Another thing is that the Formidable is better able to target the enemy with its VDS and more capable heli, the SH-60. These advantages all taken together makes the Formidable a clear winner in ASuW.

EW planes are much further away than the ASTER is to the ASM missiles. That decreases the EW effectiveness. In fact, when facing an aircraft, the aircraft is likely to have an easier time jamming the SARH seeker of the missile since the illuminator's radar waves have travelled a further distance than the Aster's.

All I said was that you were pulling figures from your posterior. Since they were from your S, any debate around them is like flies around whatever comes out from your bum.

In two specific angles only, yet you gave the impression that 4 FCRs could be used under all circumstances?

And what has that got to do with the Formidable?

planeman

The stats suggest that:
YJ-62
Length: 6.1m (withou booster); 7m (with booster)
Diameter: N/A
Wingspan: N/A
Launch weight: 1,140kg (without booster); 1,350kg (with booster)

Klub (3M-54E)
Length (m) 8.220
Diameter (m) 0.533 (21' for torpedo tubes)
Weight (kg) 2,300

BUT, from the phot evidence of the 052Cs shows that the YJ-62 tubes are MUCH fatter than 21' (about that of the YJ-63 tubes) making them take up more space. http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/yj622.asp Also, because they are mounted in incline launchers they take up more deck space, which has a greater effect on the number of weapons carried.

In my previous concept I envisaged a folding fin YJ-62 type of weapon making it take up the same amount of deck space as the YJ-63/Harpoon etc. A diagram of the weapons layout of my previous design:

As you can see the two quad YJ-62 launchers are mounted behind the bridge firing out over the side of the ship. Behind that the vertical launch modules are mounted, limited in depth by the boat stowage below.

A revised layout has a large missile deck within the ship, of similar dimensions to the vehicle deck on the fast ferries on which the hull is based. The missile deck is shown as having four quad YJ-62 launchers, two firing port and two starboard (you can only see two because the others are directly behind them, firing out the other side). This arrangement takes up a large amount of internal space but allows for the non-compact missile launchers seen on the 052C.

The missile deck could be cleared for alturnative weapons fits, or "commando" configuration.

In this version I have used the deck space saved by the elimination of the SSM launchers behind the bridge to relocate the vertical launch modules into a single bigger module in the centre of the ship.

The ship's launch would have to be relocated, so the boat shed under the hanger deck could be enlarged.

crobato

You can detect, track and target the enemy with VDS but ID is something else unless you can verify the ship's echo and noise signature by matching with a database. Silently is another thing; definitely you won't be silent because any form of sonar will be picked up.

Also to Planeman, great work, you must have spent a lot of time making this design and coming up with your specifications.

Transient

Not too sure what you're talking about here. Of course to ID an enemy vessel/sub its acoustic profile must have already been gathered and entered into an existing database. But to collect the target and ID of an enemy ship/vessel the VDS does NOT have to go active. Hence the Formidable remains undetected by the enemy.

planeman

What about using wire guided unmanned underwater vehicles (wire link also allows it to be powered by the ship's generators and be winched in even if you hotfoot it in the opposite direction at more knots than it can propel itself), with an active sonar of some sort, so that you can be 'loud' yet not give away your position? You could even use a UAV or rocket stage to about 10km before entering the water?

How thin are underwater power/control cables relative to the cables used by ATGWs?

crobato

You're talking about passive sonar then. If that is the case, you don't even need VDS to do that. Unlike radar, sonar being sound does not need to travel in a straight line by the way. Just so long the target has active sonar but what if it doesn't? Anyone can sit still and listen to each other for their propeller noises and the occasional pings.

For that matter the 054A if that's really a Bandstand up there, has Mineral ME2, which is also a passive radar complex that will also do the same above water, and you simply identify target through its radar emissions, obtain bearing and direction, then let the AshM do the rest.

Transient

WHAT?! It took you this long to realise that I was talking about the VDS being used passively?!

Err, I believe I have told explained convergence zones and stuff. You might want to find out more about that and how it limits bow sonars.

That depends on an opponent who has no idea of EMCON, right? Whereas with VDS, the Formidable doesn't have to rely on the opponent being stupid, neither does it have to give itself away with active emissions. Of course, with its own C Pearl-M ESM, it can like the 054A intercept the radar signals of an enemy emitting itself to oblivion.

crobato

Of course not, all sonars types should have both modes. I just don't see the advantage of passive sonar either from a VDS or bow mounted, other than the VDS can let you listen deeper below a thermocline for better submarine detection. But for OTH ship detection? So go ahead and explain then.

Please explain then. I can understand that going deeper can increase range but what if this goes below a thermocline?

Transient

Sigh. When I mentioned target Identification at range using sonar, one with a basic understanding of sonar would naturally have understood that I was mentioning sonar operating in the passive mode. I guess for you I have to be more explicit then.

I believe I have explained it earlier, but apparently you either didn't couldn't understand or couldn't read. The advantage that VDS gives is not merely range, but that it can cover the dead zones between convergence zones that a depth restricted bow mounted sonar, can't. If a thermocline exists and the VDS goes beneath it, it would be hard-pressed to receive any acoustic signals above the thermocline. Incidentally, that's another reason why the VDS equipped Formidable is superior in ASW to the 054A - any sub hiding below a thermocline is not impervious to detection from the Formidable the way it would be against the 054A. (It would be better for you if you were willing to spend some effort to search for your answers yourself on google. Laziness is no excuse for ignorance)

crobato

I'm tryin to find out where how your explanations can go ahead and make VDS sound better for OTH targeting and identification and your responses failed to answer. And please don't refer to Google. I tried that and I failed to see how VDS makes a difference for OTH targeting over bow mounted sonars.

I'm not talking of sub detection below the thermoclines and I already mentioned that.

Please keep to the topic and explain.

Come to think of it, going deeper actually does not improve OTH range at all, because sonar is not electromagnetic radiation or radar; it does not need line of sight, it only needs the continous presence of the water medium. We know that surface waves and sounds are quite completely capable of traveling across the surface of the oceans for vast distances.

adeptitus

According to Jane's Missiles and Rockets, quoted by the Indian Defense Forum at Bharat-rakshak.com, there are 2 Klub-N AShM variants:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html

The 3M-54E is 8.22 meters long, 533mm diameter, and weights 2,300 kg.
The 3M-54E1 is 6.2 meters long, 533 diameter, and weights 1,780 kg.

One major difference between these 2 missiles is that the 3M-54 is super-sonic, while the 3M-54E1 is subsonic. Both missiles have folding wings.

The YJ-62, without the booster, is reported as being 6.1 meters in length and 1,140 kg in weight.

With the booster, the YJ-62 is 7 meters in length and weights 1,350 kg.

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

IMO if you need to install a longer missile, you can design your ship with a taller deck. If the variation is only +/- 1 meter, it's not that big of a difference. But the weight of the missile is another matter.

Since we're talking about frigates, and PLAN frigates doesn't use YJ-62, let's look at the YJ-83 instead. Unfortunately I don't have good specs for the YJ-83, so we'll have to borrow from YJ-82 and speculate.

The YJ-82 is reported as 6.4 meters in length, 360mm in diameter, and weights 715 - 815 kg. We'll assume the YJ-83 is slightly longer, but heavier at ~1,000 kg.

Usually, on PLAN Frigates, they install 6 or 8 SSM's. 8 x YJ-83 is approx. 8,000 kg by my estimate.

~8,000 kg (8 metric tons) is sufficient weight for:
* 6 x YJ-62 w/booster
* 4.5 x 3M-54E1
* 3.4 x 3M-54
* 6 x 91RE2 (ASW)

So, if you designed a frigate to carry 8 x YJ-83 SSM's, then change your mind and want to install 8 x Klub-N SSM's, you'd need to double your weight estimate by another 8 tons.

For the ASW Frigate, I'd prolly go for 8 x Klub-N VLS and have standard loadout of 6 x 91RE2 and 2 x 3M-54E1. That would require about 11.5 tons.

planeman

Basic anti-ship missiles, such as the Exocet, YJ-83, Harpoon etc are all about the same size, partly because they are designed to fit inside a conventional 21' torpedo tube.

A new trend being led by the French is that future frigates will increasingly be used as land-attack cruise missile platforms; see FREMM with Scalp missiles. Since a LACM variant of the YJ-62 is a more credible notion than an adaption of the YJ-83, I'd favour the newer '62 for a future frigate; not that I expect the PLAN will actually follow my advice.

If the PLAN wanted to maximise ASW capability in a frigate, then neglecting SSM fit altogether would be understandable given the abundance of YJ-83s already deployed aboard other assets, but that wouldn't be the ideal frigate IMO. A halfway house would be to fit 4 YJ-83s with only basic fire control systems, envisaging using the ship's datalink to recieve off-ship targetting etc.


Personallly I prefer the concept of an arsenal ship designed primarily as a cruise missile platform for power projection, but with ASW and AD capability.