PLAN Future FFG design

Status
Not open for further replies.

Solaris

Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

In your viewpoint, what exactly does the 054A need more of to be a dedicated ASW frigate? Which of those items cannot be addressed when the 054A is due for a midlife refit? Sonar? TAS? Anti-sub rockets? Helo?
Depends on what you mean by "midlife refit". Would you include ripping up the entire back side of the ship and adding another hangar, a VDS or newer TAS in the deck below the helipad, installing a more powerful bow sonar, upgrading the combat data system, and reoptimizing the hydrodynamics and balance of the ship, as part of a midlife refit? If so, then yes, this hypothetical 054A could become a more dedicated ASW frigate after a midlife refit.


So if a future frigate is equipped with X band AESAs and VLS, I do not think it is because the PLAN see them as "mini DDGs," but is simply a sign of the advancement of their own technology and advancement of technology of potential threats which their ships may be expected to face.
If you could make an argument for some kind of expected dramatic reduction in the cost of these types of radar systems, then maybe I would agree that the PLAN would place these things on all of their surface combatants, but without this demonstration I would not think they would occur fleet-wide just because the PLAN in general is becoming more advanced.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

If you could make an argument for some kind of expected dramatic reduction in the cost of these types of radar systems, then maybe I would agree that the PLAN would place these things on all of their surface combatants, but without this demonstration I would not think they would occur fleet-wide just because the PLAN in general is becoming more advanced.


I think having a smaller X band radar with less T/R modules, less power requirements, perhaps less sophisticated software, would reduce costs on its own. Of course, that may not be enough to bring costs to an acceptable level, but I think combined with a not-illogical reduction in overall cost due to maturing of the technology in question, some small X band AESAs installed on frigates will not be too unseemly at all, and I think it is not an excessive jump in technology compared to the current 054A's sea eagle PAR.


And there is another topic which I want to address -- the idea of "specialization".

You said that 054A was not "specialized" but was more of a jack of all trades with capabilites in ASW, AAW, ASuW, and also say that a future frigate might be more specialized for ASW.

I disagree with the idea that ships are "specialized" for a particular role because of its subsystems per se. In this day and age, most ships on paper have multirole capability due to the variety of subsystem installed upon them, and more often than not, those subsystems will be of similar "relative capability". For instance, the ASW and AAW weapons and sensors on a top end destroyer will all likely be the most capable and expensive the navy can afford. But whether a multirole ship is "specialized" for a particular domain depends on what missions the ship and the crew regularly undertake.

For instance, two DDGs might both have the same sensors and potential weapons fit, but one crew might excel at ASW more than the other because the majority of its deployments and exercises involve it being utilized in an ASW role.


In regards to the future frigate, I suppose I should redact my previous statements where I said it will be more "specialized" than 054A in ASW, but rather that I mean it will be more capable than 054A, and perhaps emphasize ASW more compared to 054A.
By being more capable in the ASW domain, I mean the future frigate will have both a qualitative and a quantitative increase in capability. For instance, 054A currently lacks a VDS, and only has one hangar. The quantitative increase in capability will be the addition of a VDS, and another hangar for a two helicopter complement. The qualitative increase in capability will be the expected generational increase in capability of bow sonar, TAS, combat system, etc.

In terms of "emphasizing" ASW more, I mean that both as a reflection of 054A's current lack of VDS and an additional helicopter, as well as a possible poorer "relative" quality/capability of present ASW sensors and weapons on 054A compared to present anti air and anti surface weapons.

It might be easier to symbolize this:
A = ASW
B = ASuW
C = AAW

The main combat domains on 054A, might be 0.7A:B:C
So that is to say, compared to other similar frigates, 054A is only 0.7 times effective at ASW compared with ASuW and AAW, when compared with the capability of combat domains of other similar frigates, which have a ratio of A:B:C. (The A:B:C equal ratio in this sense is an average of similar frigates from other similar navies. Putting it in words, 054A has anti air and anti surface capability equal to the average of other similar frigates but has anti submarine capability that is less capable.)

Now for the next generation frigate (let's say 057), all the systems are expected to gain a generational improvement compared to 054A. I will use "n" to symbolize the "generational multiplier" in capability.
So:
nA:nB:nC

057's ASW, ASuW, and AAW have all experienced a generational improvement compared to 054A, but ASW in particular has experienced a greater increase in relative capability and is now equal compared to ASuW and AAW, because of the addition of another helicopter, the addition of a modern VDS, and a greater relative increase in capability of TAS and bow sonars.
Putting it another way, I see 057's greater emphasis of ASW as entailing that 054A lacks the expected ASW systems compared to other similar ships (2 helicopters, full sonar suite), but also entails that 054A's current ASW systems are poorer in quality compared to similar FFGs of today, and that 057 will make up the qualitative difference compared to frigates of the future.

In terms of specialization, 057 can technically be no more specialized in the ASW role compared to 054A if a ship of both classes are operated in the ASW role in equal proportion of its time in service.
 
Last edited:

Solaris

Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

I think having a smaller X band radar with less T/R modules, less power requirements, perhaps less sophisticated software, would reduce costs on its own. Of course, that may not be enough to bring costs to an acceptable level, but I think combined with a not-illogical reduction in overall cost due to maturing of the technology in question, some small X band AESAs installed on frigates will not be too unseemly at all, and I think it is not an excessive jump in technology compared to the current 054A's sea eagle PAR.
Even with all the factors you listed, I still don't think the PLAN will install such a system into a next generation frigate if it did not intend for that ship to have a significant anti-air capability, and by significant I mean that it is intended to be an active and necessary participant in the air defense of a CVBG.


I disagree with the idea that ships are "specialized" for a particular role because of its subsystems per se. In this day and age, most ships on paper have multirole capability due to the variety of subsystem installed upon them, and more often than not, those subsystems will be of similar "relative capability". For instance, the ASW and AAW weapons and sensors on a top end destroyer will all likely be the most capable and expensive the navy can afford. But whether a multirole ship is "specialized" for a particular domain depends on what missions the ship and the crew regularly undertake.
IMO a relative lack of increase in ASuW and AAW capability compared to ASW capability will mean that the 054B is perceived as a "specialized" ASW frigate. Using your example, 0.7A1B1C would become 3A1.5B1.5C, or something along those lines. While such a ship would technically be multirole due to it being able to operate in all 3 domains, this ship would definitely be an ASW specialist.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

Even with all the factors you listed, I still don't think the PLAN will install such a system into a next generation frigate if it did not intend for that ship to have a significant anti-air capability, and by significant I mean that it is intended to be an active and necessary participant in the air defense of a CVBG.

Right, I suppose we do disagree in that regard, then.

Because I envision a future frigate to noticeably contribute in air defense in a CSG or any other kind of task group, to a similar or greater degree as 054A. Probably mostly contributing MRSAMs, and maybe launching any future VLS based decoys like a PLAN-Nulka, and maybe having a few LRSAMs that can be guided by other ships via CeC.


IMO a relative lack of increase in ASuW and AAW capability compared to ASW capability will mean that the 054B is perceived as a "specialized" ASW frigate. Using your example, 0.7A1B1C would become 3A1.5B1.5C, or something along those lines. While such a ship would technically be multirole due to it being able to operate in all 3 domains, this ship would definitely be an ASW specialist.


Yeah, that difference in ratio of capability is a result of our different frigate visions.
I see it retaining 8 (new gen) AShMs, along with 32 cells of the new universal VLS, and equipped radars and other sensors that have similar range to 054A's sea eagle, but can maybe track, engage more targets simultaneously, has better anti jamming capability, is more multirole/integrated, etc, (these all being qualitative improvements in existing domains, and in line with expected anti surface and anti air improvements of future peer-frigates), but it will also have two ASW helicopters and a full ASW sensor suite that is also qualitatively comparable to future peer-frigates as well.

I suppose the radar technically doesn't have to be X band or AESA, it could be a smaller X or S band of AESA or PESa, and be fixed or rotating. But I do believe it will feature a new radar.


---


Edit, can a mod maybe move the last dozen or so posts to a PLAN orbat thread, or maybe make a new thread called "Future PLAN orbat/fleet prospects"?
 
Last edited:

joshuatree

Captain
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

In this sense, if you want, my definitions of DDG and FFG in my last few posts are as follows:

Yes but as stated that there is no international standard, I can easily make the argument that the 055s are the DDGs and the 052Ds are the FFGs therefore no need for a near term 5000 ton 054A successor and it will meet your personal definitions. The 5000 ton cutoff on tonnage is arbitrary as German and Dutch frigates exceed your 5000 ton cutoff and are lead ships in their respective navies. We can have 40+ 055s and 20+ 052C/Ds combined with the existing 20 054As as the 40+ FFGs to meet your ratio. That's why I rather not analyze the needs of a navy based on some ratio.


You missed my point when I said 052D and 055 can deal with other missions. I meant that it would be inefficient for them to do those missions where their capabilities are not needed.
Peacetime (or even wartime) escort of convoys, lower intensity blue water missions, ASW.

Disagree on 052Ds or 055s being inefficient on lower intensity blue water missions as a given. China does not have oversea bases nor as many alliances. A larger vessel may not need as frequent refueling/resupply so more time spent on duty. That's efficient. A routine run of the mill operation such as escort can become something else such as the Libya evacuation in 2011. Then all the capabilities of the ship can be called into service and the more capability, the better. I don't know why folks consider ASW as a lower intensity mission. One would think if you're hunting a sub, then the enemy may have other units out there hunting you.



if a task group encounters a potential hostile contact, the response will involve not only an air response via helicopters, but also ship borne interdiction as well, either to draw the attention of the submarine, or to orientate itself in a better position to prosecute the target and/or support aerial ASW efforts, all while the rest of the task group moves in a different heading to its mission while avoiding the submarine

Ok, so again, how does the 054A not meet that role and how many task groups are deployed at any given moment for the Chinese navy?


Just because a frigate has some VLS and an AESA doesn't mean it isn't considerably cheaper than a much larger 7500 ton 052D which might have twice the VLS load and a much more powerful longer range AESA and other sensors (as well as all the other subsystems that rise in cost due to scaling for a larger ship), let alone a 13,000 ton 055 that might have four times the VLS load and a much more powerful sensor suite and command capabilities.

That's without looking at specific factors for China. They have economies of scale. Aside from the US, no other country is building classes of naval vessels in the numbers that China has been recently doing. Just look at the number of C/Ds launched in such a short time frame, means cost per unit will go down. Now of course, you can argue that a new 5000 ton frigate can take advantage of these factors too. But you still need to put in R&D costs to bring the design to fruition. So that works against it. Just because a 5000 ton frigate is 67% the tonnage of a 052D doesn't mean it will translate to 67% of the cost. Does China have a lower end AESA already available? If no, you will need to spend money to develop this. And if you're simply arguing for a ship with shorter range weapons, shorter range radars, and other sensors with smaller overall displacement, then why not just keep building more 054As with universal VLS since you feel 20 is not enough? Production line hasn't closed yet.



Deploying all 054As on blue water missions means you have no frigates for the western pacific/home waters, and there will be many situations that will still require the flexibility of a frigate versus that of a destroyer closer to home. For instance, shorter range escort of convoys where an 056s weaponry is not enough and where a DDG is too much. And of course, ASW against a capable opponent.
A notional 056B might be useful in the ASW role but it will have limited endurance and will only be able to operate for short durations in the second island chain before either needing refuelling or returning home, so it will effectively be limited to green water operations within the first island chain.

Such a ship will not be capable of blue water operations and will be limited to green water.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with a destroyer performing duties in the Western Pacific. Your definitions of which class operates where is far too rigid. And I've lost count already but how likely is it you have all 054As deployed far and away at any given moment? You gave the Type 26 as an example and I will point out by the time the first Type 26 gets commissioned, the oldest Type 23 will be about 30 years old. That's about right and that's when I see designing a 5000 ton frigate in the Chinese navy makes sense, when it's time to replace the oldest 054A. Right now, resources would be better allocated on other projects like LHA. Build an enlarged 056B perfect for first island chain ASW ops so the 054As can be deployed further out. Continue building out 052Ds and developing the 055. To circle back to relevancy to this thread, that's where I see the next batch of 056s should evolve into, larger and more ASW capability.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

Yes but as stated that there is no international standard, I can easily make the argument that the 055s are the DDGs and the 052Ds are the FFGs therefore no need for a near term 5000 ton 054A successor and it will meet your personal definitions. The 5000 ton cutoff on tonnage is arbitrary as German and Dutch frigates exceed your 5000 ton cutoff and are lead ships in their respective navies. We can have 40+ 055s and 20+ 052C/Ds combined with the existing 20 054As as the 40+ FFGs to meet your ratio. That's why I rather not analyze the needs of a navy based on some ratio.

I never said there was an international standard, I stated that I believed there is a healthy ratio which navies should adhere to.

You said names of classes of warships were unimportant.

I agreed, and clarified that the names I used were to refer to specific groupings of ships based on what I think makes sense. If you want to call 055s DDGs and call 052Ds FFGs then that is fine, you can try and argue for your position, if you think that makes sense.


Disagree on 052Ds or 055s being inefficient on lower intensity blue water missions as a given. China does not have oversea bases nor as many alliances. A larger vessel may not need as frequent refueling/resupply so more time spent on duty. That's efficient. A routine run of the mill operation such as escort can become something else such as the Libya evacuation in 2011. Then all the capabilities of the ship can be called into service and the more capability, the better.

A larger ship may not need as frequent refuelling and resupply, yes, but it also has far more weapons and sensors than you need for a lower intensity blue water mission: many VLS, extensive command and control capabilities and massive APARs. Most of those capabilities won't be used on a lower intensity mission, just like how using Burkes to chase pirates doesn't make good use of its SPY-1 arrays, its 96 VLS and massive missile loads, etc. So, inefficient.

More importantly, taking away a ship with the aforementioned high intensity capabilities for lower intensity blue water missions means you lose those capabilities where they might be more relevant, whether for escorting CSGs and task forces, or more likely in PLAN's case, to stay in home waters and maintain a credible deterrence.


I don't know why folks consider ASW as a lower intensity mission. One would think if you're hunting a sub, then the enemy may have other units out there hunting you.

You misread what I wrote. I said "lower intensity missions comma ASW" -- that is to say, ASW missions are not considered a lower intensity mission.


Ok, so again, how does the 054A not meet that role and how many task groups are deployed at any given moment for the Chinese navy?

That depends on how extensive the PLAN's future blue water missions are, what the rest of its fleet is like, and what the regional geopolitical climate is like.
And neither of us can predict what the world might be like in ten years.

But sure, let's say, in ten or fifteen years, China has... 3 CSGs, and 3 ARGs. Each of those would require at least 2 FFGs each, possibly 4, for escort. Of course, none of those CSGs will all be at sea at once, and none of those will all be available to go out to sea at once given crews need to be rested on land and the ships will need to have time for refit and maintenance.

Even then, if we use the minimum say only 2 FFGs for each CSG and ARG, then that is 12 FFGs. There are 8 FFGs left, and only 2/3-3/4 of those will be available for blue water lower intensity missions at any one time given transit/rest/maintenance cycles.
And of course, that leaves no FFGs for non CSG, ARG and low intensity missions.

(If we assign 4 FFGs for each CSG and ARG, then you're left with a deficit in FFGs.)


That's without looking at specific factors for China. They have economies of scale. Aside from the US, no other country is building classes of naval vessels in the numbers that China has been recently doing. Just look at the number of C/Ds launched in such a short time frame, means cost per unit will go down. Now of course, you can argue that a new 5000 ton frigate can take advantage of these factors too. But you still need to put in R&D costs to bring the design to fruition. So that works against it. Just because a 5000 ton frigate is 67% the tonnage of a 052D doesn't mean it will translate to 67% of the cost. Does China have a lower end AESA already available? If no, you will need to spend money to develop this. And if you're simply arguing for a ship with shorter range weapons, shorter range radars, and other sensors with smaller overall displacement, then why not just keep building more 054As with universal VLS since you feel 20 is not enough? Production line hasn't closed yet.

054A is a smaller hull with limited room for future growth, which is why fitting new subsystems on the 054 hull probably isn't a very good idea. Not enough rooms to house both new technologies as well as room for growth. (Btw I'm not saying this is definite, the next generation frigate might be based on the 054 hull. I am skeptical, but I'm not ruling it out)

As for subsystems -- of course R&D will cost money.
But running a larger ship with a larger crew with more capable subsystems will also cost money, and more importantly, it will cost you capability that could be used more efficiently elsewhere.
Whether it makes sense to invest in a new, smaller frigate with lower running costs allowing for more hulls, or to purchase larger destroyers with higher running costs meaning less hulls and to only have destroyers and current frigates for low intensity missions is a question that needs answering.

Or, on the flipside, I can ask why the PLAN decided to do expensive R&D and produce it when they had enough 053H3s that could also do blue water missions, why didn't they just produce more 052Cs instead, if developing 054A may have been too expensive or not worth it?

Hell, why does any navy develop frigates, if the R&D for frigate subsystems are too expensive?


There is absolutely nothing wrong with a destroyer performing duties in the Western Pacific. Your definitions of which class operates where is far too rigid.

I never said there was anything wrong about a DDG performing duties in westpac... In fact, if you look at reply 2151 from yesterday, I clearly state that I expect DDGs to operate in westpac.


And I've lost count already but how likely is it you have all 054As deployed far and away at any given moment?

All classes of a ship will never be deployed at any given moment, usually there will be a fraction of them at home port, either under maintenance, or simply giving its crew a rest.

How likely it is for the PLAN to need to deploy all 054As in ten or fifteen years -- who knows. But if they're deploying all their FFGs on blue water lower intensity missions that means no FFGs at home for beyond-green-water ASW roles as part of CSGs, ARGs, or SAGs.


You gave the Type 26 as an example and I will point out by the time the first Type 26 gets commissioned, the oldest Type 23 will be about 30 years old. That's about right and that's when I see designing a 5000 ton frigate in the Chinese navy makes sense, when it's time to replace the oldest 054A. Right now, resources would be better allocated on other projects like LHA. Build an enlarged 056B perfect for first island chain ASW ops so the 054As can be deployed further out. Continue building out 052Ds and developing the 055. To circle back to relevancy to this thread, that's where I see the next batch of 056s should evolve into, larger and more ASW capability.

Regarding Type 26 replacing Type 23 -- I cite it as an example of a generational improvement in technology.

I do not cite it as a model of naval ship procurement which the PLAN will follow. The Royal Navy might only see a need for a dozen frigates in service at any one time, and that might be an acceptable critical mass for them. But for the PLAN, I see the need for more.

----

I do not think our differences in opinion are able to be reconciled. Clearly you trend towards a fleet that is "hour glass" shaped, with many larger ships and many smaller ships that make up the overall fleet. I trend towards a fleet that is cylindrical, with about equal numbers of larger ships, medium ships, and smaller ships.

Views on something as complex as future orbat is dependent upon a vast array of opinions not to mention projections about the future, and trying to resolve those opinions and projections is impossible.

I'm willing to end the discussion here. As interesting as it was, there is simply no end to it.
 

Solaris

Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

Right, I suppose we do disagree in that regard, then.

Because I envision a future frigate to noticeably contribute in air defense in a CSG or any other kind of task group, to a similar or greater degree as 054A. Probably mostly contributing MRSAMs, and maybe launching any future VLS based decoys like a PLAN-Nulka, and maybe having a few LRSAMs that can be guided by other ships via CeC.
Nulka-type decoys should not be taking up a valuable VLS cell, whether or not they can be quad-packed or even more. They are most appropriate placed in the ubiquitous MRL systems common to all later PLAN warships.

BTW, there really do not necesarilly need to exist specific ships built to house and launch MRSAM's, especially once you achieve the ability to quad-pack them into a single VLS cell. A ship like the 054A loads and launches MRSAM's because it cannot do any better. A single quad-packing 055 could realize the totality of the air defense armament of a 054A frigate in just 8 VLS cells out of 128.

The other thing to remember is that the USN views MRSAM's as little more than a self-defense weapon, not really intended to defend anything other than the launching ship or another ship that is close by. And that is because stated slant ranges of air defense missiles are nominally those that can be achieved against minimally maneuvering subsonic targets directly inbound. A supersonic target, a maneuvering target, a crossing shot, or a combination of any or all of these factors can severely reduce the effective range of an air defense missile against that target due to the adverse effects of these factors on a missile's kinematics. While an AAW destroyer could be riding shotgun next to (within a few km of) an ASW frigate and be able to provide air defense for that asset with its own MRSAMs, it probably will not be able to do so for another AAW ship that is sailing 15 km away, and certainly not for a ship that is not operating in the same air defense zone, unless it were lucky enough to be almost directly in the path of an enemy missile heading towards the inner screen. Fleetwide air defense is really the domain of the long range air defense missile.

If a new generation of frigates is big enough to house the full length CCL VL system and can load some LRSAM's, maybe it can meaningfully contribute to fleet air defense by serving as launch nodes in the defense network. This BTW would not require the frigate to have its own advanced radar system. A 5,000 ton frigate with 32 of the new VLS cells could maybe use 16 for ASW missiles, 8 for LRSAM's, and 8(x4=32) for MRSAM's. You could also mix it up a bit by throwing some land attack missiles into the cells. That's pretty damn good for a ship that size.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

Nulka-type decoys should not be taking up a valuable VLS cell, whether or not they can be quad-packed or even more. They are most appropriate placed in the ubiquitous MRL systems common to all later PLAN warships.

BTW, there really do not necesarilly need to exist specific ships built to house and launch MRSAM's, especially once you achieve the ability to quad-pack them into a single VLS cell. A ship like the 054A loads and launches MRSAM's because it cannot do any better. A single quad-packing 055 could realize the totality of the air defense armament of a 054A frigate in just 8 VLS cells out of 128.

Yep, that is completely true, however I suspect 055's VLS cells would be better used to accommodate LRSAMs rather than large numbers of MRSAMs, if only because only 055's sensors will most likely be able to guide LRSAMs and make full use of them.

If 055 does use 8 cells to carry 32 quad packed MRSAMs, that is 8 cells it cannot use for LRSAMs. Whereas a frigate probably cannot self guide LRSAMs in the first place, so it can act as a VLS reserve to house different kinds of munitions that a DDG might not want to carry lest it sacrifice a spot for LRSAM.
That said, I expect an 055 to carry a number of MRSAMs for its own self defence and any closeby ships for beyond ciws range. But the positioning of 055s means it probably won't use the MRSAMs in a meaningful mutual support role.


The other thing to remember is that the USN views MRSAM's as little more than a self-defense weapon, not really intended to defend anything other than the launching ship or another ship that is close by. And that is because stated slant ranges of air defense missiles are nominally those that can be achieved against minimally maneuvering subsonic targets directly inbound. A supersonic target, a maneuvering target, a crossing shot, or a combination of any or all of these factors can severely reduce the effective range of an air defense missile against that target due to the adverse effects of these factors on a missile's kinematics. While an AAW destroyer could be riding shotgun next to (within a few km of) an ASW frigate and be able to provide air defense for that asset with its own MRSAMs, it probably will not be able to do so for another AAW ship that is sailing 15 km away, and certainly not for a ship that is not operating in the same air defense zone, unless it were lucky enough to be almost directly in the path of an enemy missile heading towards the inner screen. Fleetwide air defense is really the domain of the long range air defense missile.

If a new generation of frigates is big enough to house the full length CCL VL system and can load some LRSAM's, maybe it can meaningfully contribute to fleet air defense by serving as launch nodes in the defense network. This BTW would not require the frigate to have its own advanced radar system. A 5,000 ton frigate with 32 of the new VLS cells could maybe use 16 for ASW missiles, 8 for LRSAM's, and 8(x4=32) for MRSAM's. You could also mix it up a bit by throwing some land attack missiles into the cells. That's pretty damn good for a ship that size.


Well, I think MRSAMs (i.e. SAMs with range of ~50km) sit between that of a true self defence SAM like Barak, and a LRSAM. They are emplaced alongside ciws platforms on USN CVNs and LHAs, yes, but in terms of capability I think they have some use as the final shell of a CSG's air defence net before ciws, and depending on the distance between various ships, they definitely have some range to be able to provide mutual support.

I do agree that MRSAM definitely isn't meant for fleetwide defence. FFGs loaded with MRSAMs would most likely be positioned closer to the carrier itself to intercept any leakers that get through, while larger DDGs carrying mostly LRSAMs will be dispersed more widely to try and intercept missiles before the terminal phase.
 
Last edited:

Solaris

Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

Well, I think MRSAMs (e.g. SAMs with range of ~50km) sit between that of a true self defence SAM like Barak, and a LRSAM. They are emplaced alongside ciws platforms on USN CVNs and LHAs, yes, but in terms of capability I think they have some use as the final shell of a CSG's air defence net before ciws, and depending on the distance between various ships, they definitely have some range to be able to provide mutual support.

I do agree that MRSAM definitely isn't meant for fleetwide defence. FFGs loaded with MRSAMs would most likely be positioned closer to the carrier itself to intercept any leakers that get through, while larger DDGs carrying mostly LRSAMs will be dispersed more widely to try and intercept missiles before the terminal phase.
Here is a notional CVBG formation that I just quickly drew up. I think I've got at least the general details right. The abbreviations are pretty self-explanatory:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the inner screen, the escorts are spaced about maybe 5-10 km away from the carrier. The 2 DDG's could provide MR air defense for each other and for the carrier, but possibly not for the FFG. The FFG could possibly provide MR air defense for the carrier but probably not for the DDG's. Any LR missiles on any of the ships could probably provide air defense for any of the other ships in the inner and outer screen.

And when I say "provide MR air defense" I really mean "provide air defense for another ship using MRSAM's when the opportunity presents itself and the need arises". Any SRSAM's really have no hope of being used to defend another ship unless the launching ship lies almost directly in the path of an incoming enemy missile.

In the outer screen, the escorts are about 30-40km from the carrier. The DDG that is closer to the FFG could provide MR air defense for it but probably not for the other DDG. The FFG could probably use its MRSAM's to engage leakers that get past the DDGs' missiles.

I didn't put in other details like the fighter CAP that will be hundreds of km past the outer screen, AWACS, airborne ASW helos, and sometimes there will also be ships farther out past the outer screen to serve as non-emitting 'ambush' launchers against targets detected by the outer screen, the AWACS, or the fighter CAP.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Type 056 Class OPV/Corvette

I imagine there would be equal numbers of FFG and DDG, and I'd lay out the additional two FFGs closer to the carrier, as dedicated MR defense for the flattop.

Also, I wonder if there is a danger in having escorts too tailored to an expected threat axis, because if an attack comes in from a direction one is not expecting then you are in trouble. Especially if your escorts are far away from each other and if you do not get early warning soon enough (for whatever reason, stealth, sea skimming, SNAFUs...), meaning not enough time to adjust positioning. Of course this depends on the nature of the threat and the maritime geography.

But it is definitely a realistic and credible suggestion.

we are now well and truly OT.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top