Future PLAN orbat discussion

Bltizo said:

In 2011 they had only recently restarted production of 052C, the first 052D had yet to even be launched, and 055 was 6 years away from launching.

What would the costs of developing a successor to 054A at that time have been, not only in terms of development and overall naval and ship design resources, but also in terms of procurement costs of what other programmes an "054B" of that era would have effected. E.g.: would 052D and 055 have had their schedules moved accordingly to the right, and would as many of those ships have been procured as we have seen today?

Click to expand...

These would be development costs, not production costs. Development of the frigate would have been undertaken by Hudong Zhonghua, so there is no alternative cost to Jiangnan Shipyards which is the developer for the 052C, 052D and 055.

You have to think of the development and production queues as those running in parallel, not serial.

I'm aware of those proposed export designs, yet the fact that the PLAN did not procure them should say something about where their priorities were and what their value of those designs were.

Click to expand...

You don't exactly know what the real reasons for rejection. It may not be because of the destroyer priority but they might want a stronger frigate.

Yes, but as I wrote above in the first part of this reply -- at the expense of what else?

Click to expand...

Most likely this will come at reduced Type 056. And I don't think that is bad, as you have less outmoded ships to upgrade later.

I must also tell you what the real expense for having more outmoded ships in your inventory 5 years from now --- you are going to have a massive bill upgrading all those ships, and then you tell me what the real expense of what else is.

In theory yes, but two big caveats:
1: repeating myself from above -- would mass producing 054B/057 in 2017 have caused the PLAN to cutback on 052D or 055 procurement in this period?

Click to expand...

Budget wise or production ability? The 052/055 lines are produced in an entirely different line from the frigates. The question lies in the budget, not in the production ability.

2: more importantly, would your "2017" 054B/057 be as capable as the current "early 2020s" 054B/057 that we are expecting? I doubt it. Your "054C/057A" might end up as capable as the current "early 2020s 054B/057" that we are expecting.

Click to expand...

2017 ships may not be as capable as early 2020 054B/057, but 2025 054C/057A may be more capable than the 2020 frigate.

Moreover, your 2017 ships is already designed to be upgraded more easily, so around five years from their commissioning, they may have a minor upgrade, which can bring the ships closer to the level of your post 2020 frigate without the bugs you still have to debug out of your new 2020 frigate.

That said, I understand where you are coming from, and it's a reasonable thought experiment to consider if it may have been good for the PLAN to move onto a "2017 054B" successor to 054A in that time period. And I obviously agree that the 054A is not as "future proof" as it otherwise could be without an MLU.
But I don't think that going for an "2017 054B" is anywhere the more sensible or clear cut decision as you're making it out to be, because there may be a heap of other factors that could have explained why they went for 30 054As, in terms of available technology and/or costs of said technology of the time, in terms of the technologies they wanted for a true new frigate that was sufficiently more advanced than 054A, as well as the very real possibility that they had additional other new surface combatant programmes going on at the same time that were more important.

Click to expand...

The 054A doesn't set a high bar to exceed technologically, in fact its rather low.

As for making 30 ships, how about the more traditional thinking of compensating technological inadequacy with numbers. You are talking about ships designed and contracted during the Jiang Zhemin and Hu Jintao era. The political thinking is different then. So is the PLAN leadership and doctrines. Since then, a whole new generation of leaders for China and the PLAN has taken over. They may have a different approach and belief. The idea of counting numbers (like so many in this forum still does) no longer count. Not about making the most ships, or the most VLS. Its all about quality and technology now. The fact they are willing to prolong commissioning rather than rush them points they have set a higher bar for the ships and for themselves to follow.

Tam said:

These would be development costs, not production costs. Development of the frigate would have been undertaken by Hudong Zhonghua, so there is no alternative cost to Jiangnan Shipyards which is the developer for the 052C, 052D and 055.

You have to think of the development and production queues as those running in parallel, not serial.

Click to expand...

The PLAN will still be paying for everything. For the record, that is the biggest limitation of resources I am concerned about and how it would effect other programmes.

You don't exactly know what the real reasons for rejection. It may not be because of the destroyer priority but they might want a stronger frigate.

Click to expand...

Sure, of course. Could be both.

Most likely this will come at reduced Type 056. And I don't think that is bad, as you have less outmoded ships to upgrade later.

I must also tell you what the real expense for having more outmoded ships in your inventory 5 years from now --- you are going to have a massive bill upgrading all those ships, and then you tell me what the real expense of what else is.

Click to expand...

Considering they would've had to upgrade 054As eventually anyway (because even your proposal would still leave the PLAN with a good half or so of their 054A fleet), wouldn't it be better for an upgrade to have greater efficiency of scale across more ships?

Budget wise or production ability? The 052/055 lines are produced in an entirely different line from the frigates. The question lies in the budget, not in the production ability.

Click to expand...

PLAN budget primarily, but also ship design resources. Shipbuilding resources of course is partially dependent on the PLAN's budget.

2017 ships may not be as capable as early 2020 054B/057, but 2025 054C/057A may be more capable than the 2020 frigate.

Moreover, your 2017 ships is already designed to be upgraded more easily, so around five years from their commissioning, they may have a minor upgrade, which can bring the ships closer to the level of your post 2020 frigate without the bugs you still have to debug out of your new 2020 frigate.

Click to expand...

For the record, at present I'm talking about a "early 2020s" frigate -- let's say it enters service in 2023 at the earliest. We are in 2020 now, and there's no chance of 054B/057 entering service this year of course given we we don't even know if steel has been cut yet.

Sure, your 2017 frigate may be more easily upgradeable, but again likely at the cost of the PLAN's budget for other projects like 052D and 055, potentially not only moving their procurement schedules to the right but also reducing the number that would be procured anyway.

The 054A doesn't set a high bar to exceed technologically, in fact its rather low.

As for making 30 ships, how about the more traditional thinking of compensating technological inadequacy with numbers. You are talking about ships designed and contracted during the Jiang Zhemin and Hu Jintao era. The political thinking is different then. So is the PLAN leadership and doctrines. Since then, a whole new generation of leaders for China and the PLAN has taken over. They may have a different approach and belief. The idea of counting numbers (like so many in this forum still does) no longer count. Not about making the most ships, or the most VLS. Its all about quality and technology now. The fact they are willing to prolong commissioning rather than rush them points they have set a higher bar for the ships and for themselves to follow.

Click to expand...

I fully agree that 054A doesn't set a high bar to exceed.

But that's my point for why I think it would make more sense to wait longer for an early 2020s 054B/057 than a 2017 054B/057.
The 054A was mature, it was a known quantity, and it had already proven itself in blue water excursions by the early 2010s. It had demonstrated itself as the PLAN's emerging workhorse, and this was in a period where the PLAN still had a limited number of modern blue water capable ships they were comfortable sending for longer range deployments such as to Aden and so on.

It's all well and good to suggest that a 2017 054B/057 could have various technologies and subsystems that we've seen on 052D and 055 that have emerged in that time, but at that time those technologies and subsystems had yet to be proven and widely fielded. A frigate is meant to be a relatively cheap, capable workhorse.

Your suggestion of a 2017 054B/057 would have given it sophistication that was only part way to be mass produced on 052D and the yet to emerge 055. That would've added cost to your new frigate class, not only likely reducing the number of frigates you could by but also adding risk to your new frigate class as well -- risk that could have been mitigated if you'd waited for those technologies to first be demonstrated on other classes of warship before integrating them on your frigate.


Also, please don't suggest that I am suggesting that "only numbers matter". Obviously you need a balance between numbers and quality of ships.
But I'm saying that based on the numbers and quality of ships across 054A, 052C/D, 055 and 056/A that we've seen the PLAN procure for itself over this decade, I think they've made a very good decision and I see very little to complain about.

Specifically, I think the 054A was a sufficiently capable blue water capable frigate that offered a good balance between affordability, capability and technological risk, that gave the PLAN a strong foundation of blue water capable frigates, and the size and cumulative capability of the 054A fleet allowed them to procure a larger fleet of 052Ds and 055s in the second half of this decade.

Bltizo said:

What are you even talking about?

You asked him a question and he gave you an answer, and your reply is impossible to understand (what does USN trash mean)??

Click to expand...

Yesterday at 9:34 PM thought it was obvious I asked Andy about
frigate size
and modern vessels

(as the context has been the Type 54A related point in #284 AndrewS, Yesterday at 12:39 PM which I called out),

so I found it ridiculous vessels were brought up by Andy;

but no problem, any body can make a list of his/her favorite current ASW warships displacing more than, say, 4k, and see if they do or don't feature a hull-mounted sonar

Bltizo said:

And yes, for the record it is well established that for a surface combatant doing the ASW mission, having a high performing TAS+VDS set is more essential than a high performing bow sonar.

Obviously having a bow sonar is still useful and important, but with current technology, the presence of TAS+VDS is the differentiating factor between more capable Vs less capable ASW surface combatants when all else is held equal.

Click to expand...

For ASW focused naval combatants, the most important and usually capable means of both detection and elimination of submarines tend to be their organic helicopters, for pretty obvious reasons.

Bow mounted sonars has been a staple in all said combatants for some decades now. They are usually far less capable and sensitive than VDS or TAS sensors though.

We are getting off-topic though..

Bltizo said:

The PLAN will still be paying for everything. For the record, that is the biggest limitation of resources I am concerned about and how it would effect other programmes.




Sure, of course. Could be both.





Considering they would've had to upgrade 054As eventually anyway (because even your proposal would still leave the PLAN with a good half or so of their 054A fleet), wouldn't it be better for an upgrade to have greater efficiency of scale across more ships?





PLAN budget primarily, but also ship design resources. Shipbuilding resources of course is partially dependent on the PLAN's budget.




For the record, at present I'm talking about a "early 2020s" frigate -- let's say it enters service in 2023 at the earliest. We are in 2020 now, and there's no chance of 054B/057 entering service this year of course given we we don't even know if steel has been cut yet.

Sure, your 2017 frigate may be more easily upgradeable, but again likely at the cost of the PLAN's budget for other projects like 052D and 055, potentially not only moving their procurement schedules to the right but also reducing the number that would be procured anyway.





I fully agree that 054A doesn't set a high bar to exceed.

But that's my point for why I think it would make more sense to wait longer for an early 2020s 054B/057 than a 2017 054B/057.
The 054A was mature, it was a known quantity, and it had already proven itself in blue water excursions by the early 2010s. It had demonstrated itself as the PLAN's emerging workhorse, and this was in a period where the PLAN still had a limited number of modern blue water capable ships they were comfortable sending for longer range deployments such as to Aden and so on.

It's all well and good to suggest that a 2017 054B/057 could have various technologies and subsystems that we've seen on 052D and 055 that have emerged in that time, but at that time those technologies and subsystems had yet to be proven and widely fielded. A frigate is meant to be a relatively cheap, capable workhorse.

Click to expand...

What do you mean those technologies have yet to be proven? The 052D is full of legacy technologies other than its main AESA and the U-VLS. The U-VLS is already proven by 2017. That should be incorporated to the frigate. The Type 346A radar is proven enough that a smaller, downscaled version can be made. I am talking of the version used on the 052D, not on the 055. The Type 346B radar on the 055 may have its improvements, but you can design the frigate's own S-band radar in a way that it would currently use the 052D's technology, and upgrade later to the 055's technology.

The neat thing about these AESA is to upgrade them, you don't need to change the radar assembly. You replace the older modules with new modules which has the later tech. The rest of the upgrade will be in the software section.

As for the U-VLS, you may have to use the HQ-9 or HQ-16, but it will give you an opportunity for the frigate to use quad packed SAMs into the U-VLS. Using the U-VLS which is larger in diameter than the Mk.41, potentially allows you to have quad packed missiles that are larger than the ESSM that can enable greater kinetic and range advantage. The rough equivalent would be the Russian 9M96E2 missiles, which can be quad packed into the S-300 canister. These missiles are about the size of the Aster 30. So roughly around 400kg missiles with a reach of 100+ km, based on these two examples.

There were two versions of the CSSC "Type 057" frigate, one with the AJK-16 VLS, and the other with U-VLS.



The one thing I would change with this frigate is to move the VLS forward, put a Type 1130 between the VLS and the bridge, then delete the two CIWS amidships.

Your suggestion of a 2017 054B/057 would have given it sophistication that was only part way to be mass produced on 052D and the yet to emerge 055. That would've added cost to your new frigate class, not only likely reducing the number of frigates you could by but also adding risk to your new frigate class as well -- risk that could have been mitigated if you'd waited for those technologies to first be demonstrated on other classes of warship before integrating them on your frigate.


Also, please don't suggest that I am suggesting that "only numbers matter". Obviously you need a balance between numbers and quality of ships.
But I'm saying that based on the numbers and quality of ships across 054A, 052C/D, 055 and 056/A that we've seen the PLAN procure for itself over this decade, I think they've made a very good decision and I see very little to complain about.

Specifically, I think the 054A was a sufficiently capable blue water capable frigate that offered a good balance between affordability, capability and technological risk, that gave the PLAN a strong foundation of blue water capable frigates, and the size and cumulative capability of the 054A fleet allowed them to procure a larger fleet of 052Ds and 055s in the second half of this decade.

Click to expand...

Even if you have built this frigate on 2017, built and put a few of them to use, by 2020-22, you're still open to produce a definitive model of the ship. Much like the Type 052C leads to the Type 052D and the 056 to the 056A, and even the 054 to the 054A.

What is your alternative cost? You may probably see the Type 054A reduced from 30 to let's say 20 or even 15. Perhaps you won't be making 70 Type 056A. Maybe just half instead. In exchange you, let's assume, you get 8 to 10 of the advanced frigate instead.

If you have these frigates already fitted with AESA and U-VLS, your upgrade path will be smooth and affordable. You got ships that make better integration with your destroyers.

The Type 054A is a good ship for now, but circa 2025+, this and all the Type 056 corvettes means you got about 100 ships that are rendered technologically challenged for the next coming decade. That's going to be a big bill to upgrade them, money that could be better spent on new generation ships. You have a choice of upgrading them, or selling them. (I do have something in mind when it comes to upgrading them.)

I have seen navies that fall into an obsolescence trap because they rush building a lot of ships, only to see them decay later facing an upgrade or not crisis.

Tam said:

What do you mean those technologies have yet to be proven? The 052D is full of legacy technologies other than its main AESA and the U-VLS. The U-VLS is already proven by 2017. That should be incorporated to the frigate. The Type 346A radar is proven enough that a smaller, downscaled version can be made. I am talking of the version used on the 052D, not on the 055. The Type 346B radar on the 055 may have its improvements, but you can design the frigate's own S-band radar in a way that it would currently use the 052D's technology, and upgrade later to the 055's technology.

Click to expand...

You're talking about a frigate to enter service in 2017; to include those subsystems for a design meant to enter service in 2017 would require you to cut steel on the lead ship likely 2 years before hand, with at least another 2 years before hand to design it -- i.e.: 2017 minus 4 years, let's call it 2013. 052D has yet to enter service in 2013, and of that time only 052C had a shipborne AESA for the Chinese Navy, not exactly the degree of maturity you'd want for a frigate.

The neat thing about these AESA is to upgrade them, you don't need to change the radar assembly. You replace the older modules with new modules which has the later tech. The rest of the upgrade will be in the software section.

As for the U-VLS, you may have to use the HQ-9 or HQ-16, but it will give you an opportunity for the frigate to use quad packed SAMs into the U-VLS. Using the U-VLS which is larger in diameter than the Mk.41, potentially allows you to have quad packed missiles that are larger than the ESSM that can enable greater kinetic and range advantage. The rough equivalent would be the Russian 9M96E2 missiles, which can be quad packed into the S-300 canister. These missiles are about the size of the Aster 30. So roughly around 400kg missiles with a reach of 100+ km, based on these two examples.

There were two versions of the CSSC "Type 057" frigate, one with the AJK-16 VLS, and the other with U-VLS.

View attachment 56694

The one thing I would change with this frigate is to move the VLS forward, put a Type 1130 between the VLS and the bridge, then delete the two CIWS amidships.

Click to expand...

I have no opinion regarding this.

Even if you have built this frigate on 2017, built and put a few of them to use, by 2020-22, you're still open to produce a definitive model of the ship. Much like the Type 052C leads to the Type 052D and the 056 to the 056A, and even the 054 to the 054A.

What is your alternative cost? You may probably see the Type 054A reduced from 30 to let's say 20 or even 15. Perhaps you won't be making 70 Type 056A. Maybe just half instead. In exchange you, let's assume, you get 8 to 10 of the advanced frigate instead.

If you have these frigates already fitted with AESA and U-VLS, your upgrade path will be smooth and affordable. You got ships that make better integration with your destroyers.

The Type 054A is a good ship for now, but circa 2025+, this and all the Type 056 corvettes means you got about 100 ships that are rendered technologically challenged for the next coming decade. That's going to be a big bill to upgrade them, money that could be better spent on new generation ships. You have a choice of upgrading them, or selling them. (I do have something in mind when it comes to upgrading them.)

Click to expand...

Opportunity cost is just the problem here, isn't it?

Even going with your proposal, going from 30 054A + 70 056/A, in exchange for 15 054A + 8-10 "2017 054B" + 35 056/A, imo is a debatable trade at best, and this is assuming no impact on the schedules of 052D or 055 in terms of naval budget being consumed for developing a new ship.

The importance of 056/As in being able to free up more modern ships like frigates and destroyers in venturing further from China's shores both in the region and also into blue water is important for the fleet's overall ability to operate, and not to mention the sheer volume of modern corvettes with twin tail towed sonars offered by such a large number of 056As in particular is important for the PLAN's ASW at greenwater/close to home as well.

I have seen navies that fall into an obsolescence trap because they rush building a lot of ships, only to see them decay later facing an upgrade or not crisis.

Click to expand...

There is a balance needed between having a sufficiently sized fleet of sufficient capability to meet your national requirements and your required operational tempo, vs also having a fleet that is sufficiently modern and able to be upgraded over time.

I do not think that 30 054As anywhere approach a level of concern for obsolescence, because:
1. I expect them to build an equally large if not larger run of 054B/057 frigates starting the early 2020s. It is not like the PLAN will be stuck with 30 054As as their only major surface combatant class going forwards for decades and decades.
2. I expect them to receive MLUs in the mid 2020s onwards that will make them more survivable anyhow. (Obviously not as capable as 054B/057, but they dont' need to be either)
3. Most importantly -- going into the early to mid 2020s, the 054As will act as the lowest capability rung in terms of the PLAN's modern blue water capable surface combatants with 055s and 052C/Ds above them.
For the early to mid 2020s, the ratio of large destroyers (055s), to medium destroyers (052C/D), to blue water capable frigates (054As) by the early 2020s will be something like 8-12 : 30 : 30 !!
That's an immensely healthy ratio and in that kind of fleet structure the 054As will likely be doing the role of ASW, low to medium intensity regional or blue water patrol with destroyers in the vicinity, or operating as a much larger task force where there would be a larger number of destroyers and other ships in direct support.


Again, I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of a "2017 054B" being produced in lieu of the 30 ship production run of 054A, but I'm just saying it's nowhere near the "obvious" or "clear cut" argument that you're putting forwards.
It's an interesting thought experiment.
But the fact that the PLAN went for the procurement decision that they did means we should probably speculate as to what fleet requirements, what resources they had available, and what technologies were sufficiently mature at the time such that they decided to go for 30 054As rather than building an 054B class in the mid to late 2010s.

Tam said:

The Type 054A is a good ship for now, but circa 2025+, this and all the Type 056 corvettes means you got about 100 ships that are rendered technologically challenged for the next coming decade. That's going to be a big bill to upgrade them, money that could be better spent on new generation ships. You have a choice of upgrading them, or selling them. (I do have something in mind when it comes to upgrading them.)

I have seen navies that fall into an obsolescence trap because they rush building a lot of ships, only to see them decay later facing an upgrade or not crisis.

Click to expand...

What sort of MLU do you expect a Type-54 or Type-56 to have?

---
Remember the Type-56 only costs $107M.

I see their primary roles as:
1. peacetime presence in the 1st Island Chain
2. wartime ASW/convoy in low-risk areas

So they don't need any significant upgrades in terms of air-defence sensors during an MLU.
They will still be as effective with their current ASW fitout and short -range air defence suite.

---
The Type-54A only costs $200M.

I see their primary roles as:
1. peacetime presence globally
2. wartime ASW/convoy in low-risk or medium-risk areas
3. wartime ASW in high-risk areas, operating in a task group with air defence destroyers.
But the Type-54A will eventually be assigned to low risk areas as newer ASW ships are built.

So again, the Type-54A doesn't need any significant upgrades in terms of air-defence sensors during an MLU.

Tam said:

It might be high risk for aircraft to operate but what if they are launching LRASM or Tomahawk type antiship missiles?

Click to expand...

Let's look at the scenario.

A Type-54A is escorting a convoy some 30km off the Chinese coast. That is fully under cover from AWACs, fighter CAP and land-based SAMs.

1. How does the opponent know where to launch their LRASMs or Tomahawks?
2. And if they are launched, these are slow missiles, which gives Chinese fighter jets and land-based SAMs 15+ minutes to shoot them down.
Then the Type-54A has its own SAMs.

Bltizo said:

You're talking about a frigate to enter service in 2017; to include those subsystems for a design meant to enter service in 2017 would require you to cut steel on the lead ship likely 2 years before hand, with at least another 2 years before hand to design it -- i.e.: 2017 minus 4 years, let's call it 2013. 052D has yet to enter service in 2013, and of that time only 052C had a shipborne AESA for the Chinese Navy, not exactly the degree of maturity you'd want for a frigate.

Click to expand...

Other AESAs are already being tested as far back in the 200X. It was like China having a Cambrian explosion in AESA. Certainly by 2017, they were mature enough for CSSC to consider them for the export market.

Opportunity cost is just the problem here, isn't it?

Even going with your proposal, going from 30 054A + 70 056/A, in exchange for 15 054A + 8-10 "2017 054B" + 35 056/A, imo is a debatable trade at best, and this is assuming no impact on the schedules of 052D or 055 in terms of naval budget being consumed for developing a new ship.

Click to expand...

The CCP can always stretch the budget of the PLAN to whatever they want or to do what is needed. This ain't a democracy as it is a meritocracy and a technocracy combined.

The importance of 056/As in being able to free up more modern ships like frigates and destroyers in venturing further from China's shores both in the region and also into blue water is important for the fleet's overall ability to operate, and not to mention the sheer volume of modern corvettes with twin tail towed sonars offered by such a large number of 056As in particular is important for the PLAN's ASW at greenwater/close to home as well.

Click to expand...

If you are able to extend power into blue water, no one will touch you in the littoral. This is not to mention the enormous land based air power China has and the world's largest Coast Guard.

Some of these corvette and frigate jobs appear like Coast Guard duties to me. Why not just expand and let the Coast Guard handle these?

The problem I see with the 056 family is that you can't bring its ASW capabilities to serve as escort for carrier groups or surface task forces, like those centered around an LPD or LHD. We have seen a number of LPD centered task groups over the years with the PLAN.

There is a balance needed between having a sufficiently sized fleet of sufficient capability to meet your national requirements and your required operational tempo, vs also having a fleet that is sufficiently modern and able to be upgraded over time.

I do not think that 30 054As anywhere approach a level of concern for obsolescence, because:
1. I expect them to build an equally large if not larger run of 054B/057 frigates starting the early 2020s. It is not like the PLAN will be stuck with 30 054As as their only major surface combatant class going forwards for decades and decades.
2. I expect them to receive MLUs in the mid 2020s onwards that will make them more survivable anyhow. (Obviously not as capable as 054B/057, but they dont' need to be either)
3. Most importantly -- going into the early to mid 2020s, the 054As will act as the lowest capability rung in terms of the PLAN's modern blue water capable surface combatants with 055s and 052C/Ds above them.
For the early to mid 2020s, the ratio of large destroyers (055s), to medium destroyers (052C/D), to blue water capable frigates (054As) by the early 2020s will be something like 8-12 : 30 : 30 !!
That's an immensely healthy ratio and in that kind of fleet structure the 054As will likely be doing the role of ASW, low to medium intensity regional or blue water patrol with destroyers in the vicinity, or operating as a much larger task force where there would be a larger number of destroyers and other ships in direct support.


Again, I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of a "2017 054B" being produced in lieu of the 30 ship production run of 054A, but I'm just saying it's nowhere near the "obvious" or "clear cut" argument that you're putting forwards.
It's an interesting thought experiment.
But the fact that the PLAN went for the procurement decision that they did means we should probably speculate as to what fleet requirements, what resources they had available, and what technologies were sufficiently mature at the time such that they decided to go for 30 054As rather than building an 054B class in the mid to late 2010s.

Click to expand...

The PLAN should be commended for developing a balanced fleet in terms of architecture and structure. But on the other hand, the technological goalpost for the lower vessels was quite low, while the top vessels are very high. So there is an immense technology gap or I should say inequality, between the ships that its hard to believe at times they belong to the same navy. This potentially hurts the ability of the small ships to assist the larger ships and creates the weak link in the chain. Although i would have to say, its likely the PLAN might upgrade many of these, sell some of these, retire some of them prematurely to get replaced by new generation warships.

Tam said:

This one is a dead wrong. While the helicopter can pick up sonar data, it may not have sufficient means to identify it due to limited size of the computer it can carry. The sonar signal has to be sent to the ship for further processing where you can have a larger computer do signal analysis.



Wrong again. Submarines can move fast enough underwater even with an SSK. That's like 20 knots or so with an SSK, 30 knots with a nuclear submarine. Or the submarine may choose to be on its tactical speed (4 to 5 knots) trying to be on its quietest. CEC among the ASW ships and helicopters has its advantage of creating an extended sensor net.

Click to expand...

What you've said is incorrect.

A helicopter can only carry a small dipping sonar or sonobuoys.
These simply do not generate enough data to require much analysis.
So signal processing and analysis can be done on small computers anyway.

And if you needed offboard signal processing (from helicopter to ship), you're presumably looking at a hefty datalink and staying within line-of-sight of the mothership.
Presumably it would be cheaper just to move the dipping sonar or drop a few more sonobuoys.

---

So what if a submarine can move at 30knots?

It only moves 1km per minute. You can afford a 30 second delay due to radio comms between helicopter and ship, because the submarine only moves 500m in that time.

That why I say ASW-related CEC is a nice to have, rather than critical.