Separate and larger plotting room(or whatever it's called nowdays) for commander and his work.
Cooperative engagement equipment (kind of detachments' cooperative FCS)
Communication - underwater link, LR radio set.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Cooperative engagement equipment (kind of detachments' cooperative FCS)
Communication - underwater link, LR radio set.
Bunk numbers are factored into the designation of "small", "large" or "very large" task force command suite. More bunks = more people to man command consoles = more ships able to be commanded; a matter of scale and quantity, not quality.
'C&C facilities' is a trivial term that imparts no useful information. It's like saying "metal machinery." Specificity would be appreciated. In any case, typical C&C equipment would be communications equipment like antennae, command consoles, and command desks. Comms are standardised for all vessels small and large. Look at the Liaoning's mast and compare it to a 056's, comms antennae are very similar. There is little information that Liaoning can transmit to other ships that a 056 cannot. Command consoles and desks are present in the smallest ships like the 056s to the largest ones like the Liaoning. Again it's simply a matter of how many control consoles.
CEC is a subset of communications and data management, which is done by equipment present on all modern vessels of every size in the PLAN fleet, and even quite a few old vessels that have been retrofitted with them like DDG 134, 112, and 113. The PLAN operates a communications network alongside the PLAAF and PLAGF called JIDS which is fitted to basically every modern system from MBTs to fighter aircraft to allow for common data exchange in joint operations. This functions as the PLA's version of CEC. Emphasis on "every modern system" including 056s, 054As, 052Ds, 055s, carriers, etc. There is no qualitative advantage of one over the other unless you're an adherent of Stalin's famous proclamation.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
cool, in my chair am feeling as an Admiral right now LOL especially with 'underwater link' available
And yet PLAN's future consists of 056X, 054X, 052X, and 055X, not your hypothetical 2,500t supercorvette, 6,000t superfrigate, and 055X. And yes, the USN small ship conundrum is exactly what I'm talking about. They kept thinking larger is better and then realized they were just plain wrong.
Lethe
Captain
No, that isn't what happened. There was no plan to axe small (read: medium) surface combatants from USN, it just happened that way owing to institutional and political dysfunction following the end of the Cold War.
And indeed, right now USN is weighing up whether it makes sense to have both a large Aegis destroyer and a somewhat smaller Aegis destroyer (the F100 candidate for FFG(X)). Odds are the answer is 'no'.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL can't resist here:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/the-main-armament-level-of-warships-entering-service.t8175/
hahaha)
Feb 17, 2018
(though personally I would've chosen that F100-based design, based on what I've been saying in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/the-main-armament-level-of-warships-entering-service.t8175/
hahaha)
Always thought all large Soviet ASW carriers carried this stuff only to find it was ommited from even the very first project 1123. Mistake.
Others stand strong, though.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL I don't know how much 'rusty' your info is in relation to modern warships: we're in
PLAN Type 052C/052D Class Destroyers
for example I would've thought your 'larger plotting room' from Today at 4:54 PM might amount to just a larger display size of an interactive flat screen on the wall now LOL
If the requirement is about using AEGIS, the F100 is a shoo in. Its the only ship you can take out of the shelf that meets nearly all the USN requirements.
But the FFG(X) requirements do have a catch --- its not using AEGIS system but a brand new radar system called EADS, or Enterprise Air Defense System. Basically its a scaled down version of AMDR, I think either using smaller fixed faced panels or having a single face being rotated. Lockheed Martin does AEGIS but AMDR aka AN/SPY-6 is not AEGIS nor made by Lockheed Martin but by its rival Raytheon. Lockheed Martin is doing that enlarged Freedom class anyway, its General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works and Navantia doing the F100.
With 48 cells, the F100 will cost well over a billion, but to make it meet $950 million, they are going to cut corners, like 16 to 32 VLS only. Some of the contestants look like they are holding only 16 cells. When you have an F100 or FREMM with only 16 to 32 cells, that's not going to cut into the budget of building those 96 cell AB destroyers.
Meeting budget requirements explains also of oversized but underarmed Euro frigates with lots of extra capacity.
Nope, that's exactly what happened. The LCS program was never meant to be a wholesale class replacement for the Perrys, as the USN thought it could accomplish its goals with only massive numbers of Burkes and Ticos. So no, it was a deliberate, calculated move. It just happened to be the wrong move.