054/A FFG Thread II

[Blitzo]

Not sure I like the idea of LCS. Being modular sounds all good and dandy, but it's difficult to get it right in practice. Better off buliding a common hull with different variants and subsystems built in.

And PLAN doesn't need an LCS type vessel. USN needs LCS because they need to deploy a lower end capability with long range. PLAN can deploy that kind of capability with shorter range, whcih is what they have in the 056. In fact, 056 already comes in a few variants, such as the newer hulls all being more capable in ASW.

And a true successor to 054A should be a more dedicated frigate, similar in size to early proposals of the UK's type 26, but a little more conventional emphasizing AAW, ASW, and ASuW rather than things like deploying RHIBs from aft ramps and placing less importance on SOF deployment. Preferably IEPS would be present as well.

 

[SpicySichuan]

A force of smaller ships simply do not have the firepower, the command and control capabilities, and general persistence to match a force of larger ships.

More importantly, a force that includes a variety of warships will allow them to complement each other. A carrier can provide CAP and air borne early warning for a task force. Large destroyers can provide more capable air defence radars and command capabilities over smaller destroyers and frigates, while also having more firepower as well. LHAs can provide a dedicated platform to operate from.
A combined arms unit is almost always superior to sending a force of only one type into the fray and it applies for naval warfare as well. You want your different ships to complement and assist each other.

If you really think it is a good idea to exchange 3-4 054As for a single aegis destroyer or cruiser then I must say you are being ridiculous. That kind of kill/loss rate would be unacceptable.

You ask why the PLAN would need larger ships to fight a local/westpac naval war. My question to you, is why do you think the PLAN wouldn't need such ships? Asymmetrical warfare will only take you so far, and the PLAN have reached a point where their main offensive and defensive capabilities do not lie only in asymmetrical capabilities like mines and FACs. Asymmetrical naval warfare will allow you to harass the enemy, and defend close to shore. but it won't allow you to take the battle beyond green water, which is what the PLAN is now aiming to do. Sending a massive force of only 054As against a combined opposing force made up of aegis destroyers and carriers will be suicide.

And you are very mistaken to think that the PLAN's large vessels are only for prestige. The capabilities that 055, 052C/D, and carriers all bring are vital and survivable if used in the right way. The capabilities they bring are also more important when engaging a higher tier navy like USN and JMSDF than if you're engaging a second tier navy like Vietnam's.

You seem to believe that any PLAN force that goes against JMSDF or USN will be bound to suffer massive casualties, therefore it is wise to build a large number of less capable ships. But if your massive fleet of 054As are inherently limited by their SAMs, and can't get anywhere near within firing range of enemy ships because they only have YJ-83s, then the enemy can simply keep out of range from your ship's air defences and AShMs and send fighters loaded with AShMs from carriers. And you have no long range air defence SAMs and more powerful radar to defend yourself with, you have no AEW or CAP because you have no idea. In other words, if you only have one type of vessel with limited capabilities, it won't matter how many you have, because your enemy has other vessels that directly counter your frigates.


There are some instances where massing only a single type of asset is useful, but if the PLAN want to take on USN and JMSDF, they need a combined arms approach.

Comparing Yamato/Musashi to the PLAN's 052C/Ds, 055s, and future carriers is also a mistake, because Yamato/Musashi were made irrelevant and vulnerable due IJN lacking have enough supporting capital ships to leverage the strengths of their large battleships near the end of the war. More fundamentally, aircraft carriers made large battleships obsolete as the primary offensive arm of naval taskforces, however in the modern day and into the near future, large destroyers and carriers are still the essential offensive and defensive assets of navies.

---

You also seem under the impression that 052C/Ds and 055s are only going to be buitl in limited numbers. Remember, 6 052Cs have been produced and we are expecting 12 052Ds as well. That is 18 052C/Ds in total. Not a small number. We don't know how many 055s will be produced, but expectations run into the double digits. I do not expect it to be only a 3 ship affair like Zumwalt. And remember, current PLAN destroyer flotilla arrangement has about the same number of destroyers and frigates, so once the PLAN is full modernized we will likely have an equal number of modern blue water destroyers as well as frigates. That should demonstrate to you that ships like 052C/D and 055s are not going to be lacking in number.

Alright! You win the debate! However, one issue I am still wondering is the time it takes to build a high sea fleet. It took China some 10-15 years to construct the current fleet of some 10 modern destroyers. Yes, there are many type 052Ds under construction in Jiangnan, but sea trials and fitting out usually take two years or more. Therefore, by the time China possess a fully modern fleet you mentioned, it could be well after 2020s. Who know what the U.S. and Japan will have after that, possibly generations ahead. Maybe the PLAN in 2025 will look like the USN in 2010. That's my guess. The 15-20 years gap will always be there.

 

[Zool]

Alright! You win the debate! However, one issue I am still wondering is the time it takes to build a high sea fleet. It took China some 10-15 years to construct the current fleet of some 10 modern destroyers. Yes, there are many type 052Ds under construction in Jiangnan, but sea trials and fitting out usually take two years or more. Therefore, by the time China possess a fully modern fleet you mentioned, it could be well after 2020s. Who know what the U.S. and Japan will have after that, possibly generations ahead. Maybe the PLAN in 2025 will look like the USN in 2010. That's my guess. The 15-20 years gap will always be there.

You have to remember that these things do not occur in a vacuum. China's military modernization is a by-product of growth in it's economic and technology base. If you look back those 10-15 years at China's economy and the domestic technologies available, it is night and day compared to the present. The systems and funding are now available to field ships like 054A because of the work that has gone on over the last decade +.

Long range planning also plays a role, between immediate needs and future capabilities. 054A offered a capable and affordable multi-role replacement to many of the aging ships in the PLAN, allowing more time to develop the destroyers. The 054A's are constructed within a handful of months now that the shipyards have become familiar with the design. The same will similarly hold true in the pace of destroyer construction, providing the numbers are there - my thinking is the PLAN will build 052D's until such time as the prototype 55's have been run through trials and the final design is validated for full on 055A construction as the new mainstay vessel.

 

[tphuang]

Alright! You win the debate! However, one issue I am still wondering is the time it takes to build a high sea fleet. It took China some 10-15 years to construct the current fleet of some 10 modern destroyers. Yes, there are many type 052Ds under construction in Jiangnan, but sea trials and fitting out usually take two years or more. Therefore, by the time China possess a fully modern fleet you mentioned, it could be well after 2020s. Who know what the U.S. and Japan will have after that, possibly generations ahead. Maybe the PLAN in 2025 will look like the USN in 2010. That's my guess. The 15-20 years gap will always be there.

I think everything you have written so far indicates that you have much to learn on this forum. I would advise you to read up more and post less until you get a better hold on the reality of situation.

 

[vesicles]

Alright! You win the debate! However, one issue I am still wondering is the time it takes to build a high sea fleet. It took China some 10-15 years to construct the current fleet of some 10 modern destroyers. Yes, there are many type 052Ds under construction in Jiangnan, but sea trials and fitting out usually take two years or more. Therefore, by the time China possess a fully modern fleet you mentioned, it could be well after 2020s. Who know what the U.S. and Japan will have after that, possibly generations ahead. Maybe the PLAN in 2025 will look like the USN in 2010. That's my guess. The 15-20 years gap will always be there.

I think we have discussed this issue about how to overcome technological gaps before. You seem to assume a linear correlation in terms of technology. However, in reality, it is never linear because of economical, political and scientific reasons. Just look at where China was at the 1980's and 90's when they just started this military upgrade. The gap between the PLA and the US back then was so much larger than the current gap between the two nations. So it is possible to catch up. And people have been doing this kind of catching up for millennia.

 

[PanAsian]

Not sure I like the idea of LCS. Being modular sounds all good and dandy, but it's difficult to get it right in practice. Better off buliding a common hull with different variants and subsystems built in.

And PLAN doesn't need an LCS type vessel. USN needs LCS because they need to deploy a lower end capability with long range. PLAN can deploy that kind of capability with shorter range, whcih is what they have in the 056. In fact, 056 already comes in a few variants, such as the newer hulls all being more capable in ASW.

And a true successor to 054A should be a more dedicated frigate, similar in size to early proposals of the UK's type 26, but a little more conventional emphasizing AAW, ASW, and ASuW rather than things like deploying RHIBs from aft ramps and placing less importance on SOF deployment. Preferably IEPS would be present as well.

While I can see the benefits of purpose-built variants rather than modular kits and a universal platform, let me elaborate on why something like the LCS is needed.

In a full scale conflict scenario securing the seas within the first island chain is to make naval attacks on the mainland and the hinterland more difficult, thereby increasing strategic depth. Short range platforms requiring frequent port calls will be more easily hit while in port, find friendly ports damaged or destroyed, and require more units to provide the same availability. So a unit with longer range, higher endurance to provide a more persistent capability without port calls is highly beneficial.

When I say LCS I am also assuming improved stealth and speed relative to existing equipment.

 

[joshuatree]

While I can see the benefits of purpose-built variants rather than modular kits and a universal platform, let me elaborate on why something like the LCS is needed.

In a full scale conflict scenario securing the seas within the first island chain is to make naval attacks on the mainland and the hinterland more difficult, thereby increasing strategic depth. Short range platforms requiring frequent port calls will be more easily hit while in port, find friendly ports damaged or destroyed, and require more units to provide the same availability. So a unit with longer range, higher endurance to provide a more persistent capability without port calls is highly beneficial.

When I say LCS I am also assuming improved stealth and speed relative to existing equipment.

To play devil's advocate, why can't an enlarged 056 (aka P18N or even a variant on that) play the role of LCS? Infact, the whole modular thing requires the vessel to check into port to do the swapouts. So....doesn't that become more of a liability if all said ports may be damaged or destroyed?

 

[Blitzo]

Alright! You win the debate! However, one issue I am still wondering is the time it takes to build a high sea fleet. It took China some 10-15 years to construct the current fleet of some 10 modern destroyers. Yes, there are many type 052Ds under construction in Jiangnan, but sea trials and fitting out usually take two years or more. Therefore, by the time China possess a fully modern fleet you mentioned, it could be well after 2020s. Who know what the U.S. and Japan will have after that, possibly generations ahead. Maybe the PLAN in 2025 will look like the USN in 2010. That's my guess. The 15-20 years gap will always be there.

If PLAN build rate and the speed at which they are pursuing R and D is a little faster than the USN, or at least if they are catching up is faster than the USN is pursuing and implementing new technology, then the gap will shrink.
The build rate of ships doesn't mean that much alone, because USN and JMSDF have to build quite a lot of ships just to sustain their ship numbers with vessels of a new generation, which have a qualitative increase in capability and tonnage which is smaller than say an 052D replacing an 051 for the PLAN.

We are expecting the last 052D to be launched by 2017, and likely commissioned within a year of that, so I expect all 052C/Ds to be well integrated into the PLANs order of battle before 2020.

PLAN is likely also going to undergo further expansion of their destroyer flotillas even after all the current 24 DDGs and 24 FFGs are fully modernised, whereas USN and JMSDF are having difficulty sustaining fleet size as it is.

So you should view the PLANs growth through numbers such as net increase in tonnage and the relative increase in capability. I think that annually, you will see that the PLAN is growing faster than USN or JMSDF in that regard.
For instance, an 052D provides a net increase in tonnage to the PLAN of about 4000 tons relative to the 051 that it replaces, and it has a much increased war fighting capability. OTOH, the difference in tonnage between say a Ticonderoga and a Flight III burke is negligible, and the increase in fighting capability is also far less than that between an 051 and 052D

 

[Blitzo]

While I can see the benefits of purpose-built variants rather than modular kits and a universal platform, let me elaborate on why something like the LCS is needed.

In a full scale conflict scenario securing the seas within the first island chain is to make naval attacks on the mainland and the hinterland more difficult, thereby increasing strategic depth. Short range platforms requiring frequent port calls will be more easily hit while in port, find friendly ports damaged or destroyed, and require more units to provide the same availability. So a unit with longer range, higher endurance to provide a more persistent capability without port calls is highly beneficial.

When I say LCS I am also assuming improved stealth and speed relative to existing equipment.

I think it is worth considering what exactly LCS offers in terms of capability:
-speed
-stealth
-an attempt at modular capability
-next to no air defense capability apart from CIWS
-minimal anti surface capability
-no shipborne ASW weapons apart from helicopters
-no VLS
-no medium range radar

Out of all those, you only want speed and stealth, from what I understand. In other words, the PLAN doesn't need an LCS, it needs a large, modern OPV.
But in my opinion, out of speed and stealth, only stealth is sort of relevant. Speed is not worth the drawbacks, as we've seen in the LCS development. Trying to develop a large hull that can persist at over 40 knots is difficult, and it can render onboard hull mounted sonar useless, and it also reduces your ship's range and endurance. So speed isn't that important.

Now, I also don't understand why you'd want the PLAN to have an LCS of their own, when the LCS is so ridiculously underarmed for its size. I'd prefer all PLAN ships be armed sensibly according to their weight class. A 3000 ton ship should have some VLS with SAMs, AShMs, and preferably a medium range phased array radar as well as a full onboard sonar suite.
As for not requiring port calls, if you want something with longer endurance, just send in 054A instead.

 

[Jeff Head]

Well, IMHO, the deficiencies of the current US LCS should not negate other navies from taking the good ideas and capitalizing on them with a platform without the deficiencies.

For example, I believe the US could have created an LCS that had the mission capabilities as well as the intrinsic armaments and combat ratings necessary.

An LCS with a decent, albeit not AEGIS, 3-D radar and guidance capability with just eight Mk-41 cells would have solved most of the armament problems. Use four cells for ESSM and you have 16 ESSMs to augment the 21 RAMs. Use the other four cells for a decent ASM and you have solved the ASuW capability issue.

Keep the large hanger, add decent hull sonar and two 3 tube torpedo launchers and you have a very decent intrinsic ASW capability.

Now add modules to the module space to get your other missions. For example:

- An enhanced ASW module would include a TAS and a UUV for ASW.

- A CMM module would allow for the landing and servicing of a MH-53E Sea Dragon helo with a towed counter mine package. Add a specialized UUV for mine hunting and disposal.

- An enhanced ASuW could add the specialized missiles to the vessel and the helos to counter swarming speed boats.

- A special forces module could add the launches and provisions to support and control SPECOPS groups from the vessel.

That is how I would do it. Such a vessel could be "enhanced" with the modules to those specific needs when necessary and yet still have the intrinsic capability for AAW, ASW, and ASuW to cover most deployments.

The Chinese could easily develop a vessel in the 3,500 ton range to do the same and the added flexibility of the modules could be used whenever necessary without sacrificing the basic, intrinsic utility of the vessels.