Future PLAN orbat discussion

Tam said:

To help protect the fleet from submarines.



For ASW, the corvettes can work as an advance screen searching for targets and threats. As a screen, they can detect and engage other frigates and corvettes (LCS and so on) ahead.

Click to expand...

Doesn't work.

As an advance screen in a highly-contested environment, a Type-56 doesn't have either the radars or SAMs to survive.
Plus 4 small antiship missiles isn't enough against an opposing ship.

I reckon you would need at least a medium-range SAM system like we see on the Type 54A.

It's a different tactical environment.

Tanks aren't always the best counters to other tanks.
In urban areas, you don't use tanks against tanks. You use infantry and portable anti-tank weapons.

Mainland China is basically one huge urbanised environment where you can hide your anti-ship missiles or safely base your aircraft from.
But these systems can range out to 1500km-2000km offshore.

Manned surveillance aircraft have a persistence of up to 12hours.
Unmanned aircraft potentially even longer.
You simply do not need many aircraft to cover the entire Western Pacific, because ships are slow.

The aircraft basically act as missile/artillery spotters, to use a land-based analogy.

It is ships that have difficulty hiding against what is a flat featureless ocean surface.[/QUOTE]


The problem with aircraft is that they are not persistent. Your maritime patrol aircraft, AEW aircraft and other things are all sitting ducks as well. They are not invulnerable, and you cannot have enough patrols to cover these aircraft while trying to cover the fleet. You can have an argument if you have a substantial fleet of 5th generation longer ranged fighter aircraft supported with drones.

The sea is not flat nor it is featureless. The sea has a curvature, Earth's curvature. The features of the sea and its waves create clutter for radar that further decreases detection as they reflect noise to the receiver. Water vapor rising from the sea also increases radar attenuation. Layers of different temperatures of air act like thermoclines in the atmosphere that can bend radio waves. Clouds yes, they affect radar too, that's why you have weather radar that exploit their own reflective effects.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Your networks are nothing without better sensors. The sensors are the links in the chain. Strong sensors make a strong chain. Weak sensors make a weak chain. A network is nothing without sensors.

Click to expand...

Networks are comprised of nodes (platforms). But each node can be different.

In a world of battle networks, it's arguable that 10 overlapping platforms with lower-performance sensors are better than a 5 platforms with higher-performance sensors.

It goes back to what is *good enough* for the requirement, which will be different for low-risk versus high-risk areas.

AndrewS said:

So now you're saying that the later batches of Type-54A are actually fine, because they can be upgraded?

So where does the fear of premature block obsolescence of the Type-54A come from?

Click to expand...

There is a possibility, yes.

What's obsolete is their air defense systems and search radar. Which is why I bet they might be killing off all the upgrade programs on older ships to be fitted with 054A's VLS and radars like they did with the 051B and the two Sovs. The MLU upgrade program may just end with these three ships (151, 136 and 137). The two 054 and maybe, the two 052B will get sold off.

The fact that they are willing to sell off the two 054 with only fifteen years of life is what's going to happen when you realize you have relatively new but obsolete ships. The result can end up in a premature retirement or selling of earlier Type 054A as time goes by, while the younger ships remain. The same might happen to the older Type 056 that doesn't have the VDS and the TAS.

The PLAN would be in the unique position that it may be easier to build new ships rather than upgrade older ships, creating in a sense, "disposable" warships.

AndrewS said:

Networks are comprised of nodes (platforms). But each node can be different.

In a world of battle networks, it's arguable that 10 overlapping platforms with lower-performance sensors are better than a 5 platforms with higher-performance sensors.

It goes back to what is *good enough* for the requirement, which will be different for low-risk versus high-risk areas.

Click to expand...

You can argue the merits of let's say, a single Type 055 using its sensors and feeding data to a fleet of Type 054A on EMCON. Versus, a fleet of upgraded Type 054A with AESA operating in LPI and networked in CEC.

But I think the single Type 055 using sensors with a ring of AESA upgraded Type 054A is best, as the Type 054A will extend the detection bubble down the extended radar horizon and cover the gaps. Each Upgraded Type 054A or Type 054B will have sensory abilities similar to a Type 45 destroyer or FREMM. The radar is also set in a high position so that has a better radar horizon reach.

If a stealthy threat missile goes into the bubble, it will be detected and tracked at different quarters of the missile. The front part of the missile is always the one with the lowest RCS, but not the side. If one ship cannot detect the target because it is forward of the missile, the ship from a different direction facing the missile at the side will still be able to detect and track the missile, then pass the information to the first ship, and both ships will engage the missile. That's how networking can defeat a stealthier threat.

Another example. Lets say you have the large destroyer in the center, with the rim a formation of smaller ships. All the ships are in EMCON and using passive detection only. If a threat is coming far under the horizon, it may still be below the radar horizon of the large destroyer's ESM, but for the smaller ships in the periphery, the threat emissions would already be LOS and detected by their ESM as the threat goes over their radar horizon but not of the large destroyer. The smaller ships would relay the information to the leader ship and the rest of the fleet to track and target.

In any case, there is far better value in bringing our upgraded Type 054A and adding its abilities to the network with the frontline ships instead of hiding and hugging the Chinese coast.

Tam said:

The problem with aircraft is that they are not persistent. Your maritime patrol aircraft, AEW aircraft and other things are all sitting ducks as well. They are not invulnerable, and you cannot have enough patrols to cover these aircraft while trying to cover the fleet. You can have an argument if you have a substantial fleet of 5th generation longer ranged fighter aircraft supported with drones.

Aircraft don't cover the fleet by spending their time flying directly overhead.
They cover the fleet by flying out in advance and detecting enemy ships first.

And in the Western Pacific, the Chinese Air Force will be able to put out more stealth fighters in the air than its opponents in the future.
Remember it is only 800km from Shanghai to the Japanese Home Islands.
And 3000km from mainland China to Guam. But Guam is only 1 base, so the Chinese Air Force should be able to achieve something like air superiority at the 1500km midpoint.

Click to expand...

The sea is not flat nor it is featureless. The sea has a curvature, Earth's curvature. The features of the sea and its waves create clutter for radar that further decreases detection as they reflect noise to the receiver. Water vapor rising from the sea also increases radar attenuation. Layers of different temperatures of air act like thermoclines in the atmosphere that can bend radio waves. Clouds yes, they affect radar too, that's why you have weather radar that exploit their own reflective effects.

Click to expand...

No, the sea is essentially flat and featureless.

On land, you can easily hide military vehicles inside buildings. Even observers standing next to the building cannot tell.
And there are so many civilian vehicles on the roads with similar EM profiles.

At sea, a ship has no such ability to hide from visual or radar detection.
An airborne sensor will have a radar horizon of over 400km, and can fly out in advance.
Even with sea clutter, water vapour, radio wave bending - it doesn't stop a ship being detected pretty easily.

Airborne platforms are just better for finding enemy ships.

AndrewS said:

Doesn't work.

As an advance screen in a highly-contested environment, a Type-56 doesn't have either the radars or SAMs to survive.
Plus 4 small antiship missiles isn't enough against an opposing ship.

I reckon you would need at least a medium-range SAM system like we see on the Type 54A.

Click to expand...

You do realize that Type 056s operate in packs.

Tam said:

There is a possibility, yes.

What's obsolete is their air defense systems and search radar. Which is why I bet they might be killing off all the upgrade programs on older ships to be fitted with 054A's VLS and radars like they did with the 051B and the two Sovs. The MLU upgrade program may just end with these three ships (151, 136 and 137). The two 054 and maybe, the two 052B will get sold off.

The fact that they are willing to sell off the two 054 with only fifteen years of life is what's going to happen when you realize you have relatively new but obsolete ships. The result can end up in a premature retirement or selling of earlier Type 054A as time goes by, while the younger ships remain. The same might happen to the older Type 056 that doesn't have the VDS and the TAS.

The PLAN would be in the unique position that it may be easier to build new ships rather than upgrade older ships, creating in a sense, "disposable" warships.

Click to expand...

The Type-054 and Type-052B are essentially batches of test/experimental ships. It's not an issue if they get sold off.

As a Frigate, the Type-54 isn't obsolete per se, but many of the onboard systems look like one-offs and are therefore expensive/difficult to maintain.
The worse case is that the Type-54 is transferred to the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is taking delivery of new Type-54 hulls anyway, so it shouldn't be an issue.

---
I reckon the older Type-56 will probably be refitted with the TAS and VDS, at the next convenient opportunity.
But there's no rush since there are already 50 ships which do have the TAS and VDS.

Tam said:

You do realize that Type 056s operate in packs.

Click to expand...

Yes, but so what?

It doesn't change the analysis nor conclusion.

The sea is simply not flat nor featureless. It is CURVED. Because the Earth is round, don't you get it? You cannot see what would be under the ground because of it.

The sea reflects clutter to the radar. Sea waves reflect radar, and back to the receiver. This creates noise and interference. Its like the sea is an ECM blanket of its own. Naval radars have to be extensively modified from their land based counterparts because of this. Even then, on certain areas, like littoral areas things underneath the water can reflect radar back and create readings.

Why do you think stealth was developed for ships, or at least partial stealth? If you are in AEW aircraft, from a far distance and with the Earth curvature considered, the ship is actually tilted back, and isn't standing straight up. If you increase the sloped angles of the ship on the side, that further steepens the angle of deflection, given you account for the earth curvature geometry. At the same time, the radar waves of the aircraft cannot reach the hull of the ship as it is too low and obscured by the curvature. That's why you see ships like the Shandong and the Type 075 have radar deflection features on their island but didn't have to bother on the hull.

Why do you think many ships have all these long flat sides that has a creased line and angled from above the crease line? Do you think that's for aesthetics? This design feature you can see from ships in France to Russia to China and across the world. Do you think that somehow they are all wrong? Every modern warship nowadays is a practice of partial stealth, with the Type 022, both LCS and the Zumwalt edging towards a more extreme practice.

The Type 056 itself is an exercise in partial stealth, something the Chinese Navy started with the 052B, and is refining with every new design. It also has a low silhouette, so its not going to show up so quickly.