054/A FFG Thread II

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
@Tam
Adding a dedicated S/C band would negate the price benefit that a frigate would provide over building a destroyer.

Not really. Have you heard about scaling down an AESA> Let's say, instead of an AESA that uses 6,000 T/R elements, let's use a much smaller one with only 3,000. Instead of let's say, 4 faces of 6,000 elements each, lets use only one face of 3,000 elements and rotate it around.

That, and -16Uvls, is pretty much the only thing that makes it different from being a 052d in terms of a2/ad destroyer.

Also, I'm not sure if that's the best position to put ECM, rather it is for volume search.
In terms of height, its the same position as 052d and 055.
For ECM, putting 2 larger sensors on broadside makes much more sense like on 055.

ECM is better placed broadside where it is closer to where the antiship missile is targeting the ship, which is broadside at the hull. ESM can be placed where you put ECM there, but it is better placed on top to give you the best radar horizon. ESM acts like passive radar --- it detects threat signals. Guess who makes the threat signals? That's right, the incoming sea skimming anti-ship missile. The missile will be using its radar guidance system to search and lock to its target, which is you. When it does, and the moment it does, your ESM will pick it up and alert you of it. ESM has techniques like TDOA, FDOA and triangulation, that will be used to geolocate, triangulate and direction find the threat emitter, as well as potentially identify the emitter.

On top of the mast of the 055, you will see two half cylinders sticking out. You can see it in this Type 057 concept artwork. Those cylinders are ESM. To be more precise, Type 726-1 or SRW-321A. You see this with Type 052C and D destroyers and also with the two carriers and the 075. It is also present with the Type 056. That is just one of the ESM sets used on the ship. Given that the ESM sets on the Chinese warships tend to be at least two, three or four sets, the others have to be located elsewhere, usually at rear of the deck house before the base of the mast, and a set just before the aft VLS (Type 052D). In addition on the Type 054A and 056, there are long tube shaped antenna, these are also ESM or radar receivers for warning, that are set on top of the mast and a pair on each side. On the Type 056 or 056A, there are a pair of tubes that are sticking out like scarecrow arms on a small mast behind the HQ-10. That's also ESM.

The two large panels you see on the 055, below the bridge wing, they are ECM. But they are not just sensors. They are jammers which makes them active. I believe they are the next generation of EW system for the PLAN that replaces the modular Type 726 system first introduced with the Type 052C. What I refer to as ESM and not ECM, ESM don't emit anything. They are dedicated passive sensors that process ambient signals.
 
Last edited:

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
Other than the radar cost, a smaller vessel is also limited by the power it can feed into the radars. More power, means more fuel consumption.
A powerful ESA radar like the Type 346 probably consumes around 2MW at peak power, including cooling. Assuming a generous 90% efficiency in power distribution and transformation, to supply 2MWh from diesel generators would require about 750 liters of fuel.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Other than the radar cost, a smaller vessel is also limited by the power it can feed into the radars. More power, means more fuel consumption.
A powerful ESA radar like the Type 346 probably consumes around 2MW at peak power, including cooling. Assuming a generous 90% efficiency in power distribution and transformation, to supply 2MWh from diesel generators would require about 750 liters of fuel.

And how much does 750l of diesel cost?

Fuel is actually really cheap
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
And how much does 750l of diesel cost?

Fuel is actually really cheap

For navy ships, cost is a distinct secondary consideration to operational endurance. An additional 750L diesel consumption per hour just for the radar will put a significant dint in your operational range and/or refuelling frequency.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
For navy ships, cost is a distinct secondary consideration to operational endurance. An additional 750L diesel consumption per hour just for the radar will put a significant dint in your operational range and/or refuelling frequency.

Chinese navy ships are designed primarily for high-intensity operations in the Western Pacific, near to their homeports.
As such, operational range and refuelling frequency aren't the highest priority either.

Plus it's cheap to add additional hull volume, and then size fuel capacity appropriately.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
And how much does 750l of diesel cost?

Fuel is actually really cheap

As plawolf pointed out, fuel consumption while important in the lifetime cost of the vessel, is secondary to the impact on the on-station time of the ship.

not sure what's the problem here: NATO F-76 density is 0.84, I think, so 750l per hour would mean about 15t (fifteen tons) in 24 hours

It might come to you as a surprise, but I have read some studies for the Arleigh Burke showing that the electrical load accounts for almost 40% of all fuel consumed underway by DDG-51. In the study, the electric load was averaged to 3MW/h on an annual basis. The GTGs consumed about 1500 litres/h at that load.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Other than the radar cost, a smaller vessel is also limited by the power it can feed into the radars. More power, means more fuel consumption.
A powerful ESA radar like the Type 346 probably consumes around 2MW at peak power, including cooling. Assuming a generous 90% efficiency in power distribution and transformation, to supply 2MWh from diesel generators would require about 750 liters of fuel.

You don't need a full size Type 346 for a frigate. Try a downscaled one.

I was thinking of taking the 055 style integrated mast shown in the "057" concept and fan art, and replace the X-band with an S-band that is essentially a downscaled Type 346, which can lower the overall cost and the energy consumption, and still be able to attain a search range of 300km. For fire control, you simply put a Type 344 gunnery radar (X-band) on top of the deckhouse and it can also double as a fire control for antiship missiles within the line of sight.
 
... I have read some studies for the Arleigh Burke showing that the electrical load accounts for almost 40% of all fuel consumed underway by DDG-51. In the study, the electric load was averaged to 3MW/h on an annual basis. The GTGs consumed about 1500 litres/h at that load.
a Burke can take up to a half of million gallons, so your "1500 litres/h" could be burnt for about 52 days, as in (500000/400)/24
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
a Burke can take up to a half of million gallons, so your "1500 litres/h" could be burnt for about 52 days, as in (500000/400)/24

It's not very useful to look at it like that. The ship has to move as well. When we add the other 60%, the fuel tanks (1500t-1600t) would be empty in just under 21 days under way. Now, add the requirement that your ships need to always be at least 75% topped up, and you need to refuel every five days.
 
Last edited:
Top