PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Discussion in 'Navy' started by tphuang, Sep 14, 2008.

  1. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2,112
    The overlap meaning SR2410C and Type 346A/B are both S-band? You can put it that way, although I am honestly confused if Type 364 and SR2410C are S-band, C-band or dual S/C, something the Type 382 is claimed to have.

    http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Type_364_Radar

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_364_Radar

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_382_Radar

    I would have thought that their designations SR64C, the C would mean C band, which is also the same reason for SR2410C, with SR standing for search radar.

    Type 364 being C-band would make sense to be used as a support radar for Type 346A. 346A is dual band S and C, but the C-band is used for target illumination, not search and track.

    SR2410C makes sense being a dual S/C band if it replaces Type 382, also dual S/C band, as in 054A/P. It would also make sense as radar replacement for C13B, which previously used Type 360S (S-band) and Type 364 on Type 056.

    The idea of replacing Type 364 on Type 52C/D with SR2410C is because its a one on one replacement. I don't have to change the mast and so on. The ESM antenna can replace the Type 517 on the back of the ship. If I have to do it Type 055 style, it would be more expensive changes involving changing the mast. But as a new ship, Passive ESM stick with rotating X-band array might be what the PLAN might be opting or should be opting, especially for 052E.

    Putting a single face of 055's X-band array into a rotating pedestal looks like this.

    2016-11-27-LY-80N-le-système-VLS-naval-dédié-à-lexport-05.png


    Do note that when first spotted, some people were speculating they were testing the 055's radar.

    Then when you look closely at the top of this, you will see a similar looking array, along with the ESM array similar to the 055 and 003.


    chinese_tricamaran (1).jpg
     
    FactsPlease likes this.
  2. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,798
    Likes Received:
    14,115
    All the more reason to not further have overlap with different radars that operate in bands similar to each other.

    An X band rotating AESA I think would be preferable to an S band and even C band AESA when complementing an S band radar like Type 346/A (baseline 346 has a C band component but the main array is still S band)
     
    FactsPlease likes this.
  3. FactsPlease
    Offline

    FactsPlease Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    101
    In other words:
    1) It's safe to say SR2410C can indeed be an upgrade to both 382 and 364, considering frequency overlapping (S, C) and ESA features. And latest export examples witness this.
    2) it remains to be seen PLAN will replace all their 382 and 364 w/ 2410C, depending on cost/budget.
    3) Still, based on 1) and 2), PLAN could go for it (or another single panel ESA) at next MLU, even after sea trial. Put the other way, if it's seen on 002 AC, 2410C can be proved to be a good complement to 346A.

    Thanks for the discussion, folks @Tam, @Bitizo
     
  4. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2,112
    Its safe to say 2410C is a one on one replacement for 382 and 364, and one that does not need modifications to the mast head. This means its weight, its rotating mass, its power requirements are also a fit. It may represent the cheapest, cost effective, and easiest to implement upgrade.

    It may not be the best performance upgrade however, because there might be other better performing radar alternatives. Up to them if they want to pay more to perform more. The PLAN does not seem to have budget problems, unless they want to keep frigates under a tight cost ceiling, while being more willing to splurge on the destroyers.

    I suspect this is an alternative that can be offered to the PLAN either as an MLU or for new ships, but the PLAN may not have bought the idea. Once 054A/P becomes a real ship, this would give an opportunity for PLAN to reevaluate.

    I have a pet idea that they should look to follow the set up on the Admiral Gorshkov.

    5ff3vk.jpg

    SR2410C should occupy the same place as the Funze S band search radar which is the green part with a four faced X-band AESA, like say, the arrays on the 055 top mast, below it, on the blue part, which in this illustration is the Poliment X-band fire control radar. Type 344 radar takes the place of the orange, this being the gunnery radar and the Type 366 radar takes the place of the violet, this being the antiship radar, and these are their traditional positions in PLAN warships like 054A and 052C/D.
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  5. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2,112
    This is from Type 055 thread but the reply better fits this thread.


    One has to be careful about this. Just because it makes sense to an observer does not mean PLAN follows it. For example, the refits on the Sov destroyers. They seem to costly and the work on destroyer 136 seemed too long and fraught with delays. After some months we don't hear much of it af all. Some presume the project is dead. Then all of a sudden, we see one picture of destroyer 137 all stripped and ready for refit. Obviously this "illogical" upgrade is still continuing.

    We also speculate what China plans to do with Type 054 frigate (without the /A). Will they upgrade it, sell them to someone else, or just retain them per se and used for training? Does it make sense to still upgrade these ships? Check an earlier picture of this thread, one of the ships have been stripped, obviously for an extensive refit. Sometimes you cannot trust your own logic, and just be patient to wait and see the final outcome.

    Which brings me to another point. All these refits are creating more "054A" without needing to build more 054A. Four Sovs, two 052B, two 054, refit all with HQ-16, and you get eight additional "054A". PLAN should be reclassifying ship missions based on the depth of their air defenses, and refitted, these eight ships should stand shoulder to shoulder with the 054A. Not counting the two 054, you lose six destroyers here in exchange for six frigates. You have to build six new 052D/055 to replace these ships in the high end role, and transfer their experienced crews to them.

    This shift alone means the PLAN has even more 054A level ships but is deficient in high end combat ships.
     
  6. DGBJCLAU
    Offline

    DGBJCLAU New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    63
    Absolutely agree except this part. If those older ships did not even have a comparable surface to air capability to 054As with HQ-16s, then upgrading them with such missiles and making some other improvements will not necessarily kick them out of the destroyer class.

    Essentially they are still DDGs. If they cannot be considered and used as such (why exactly? They didn't lose their radars or AshMs did they?), they wouldn't have been either before the upgrade.
     
  7. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2,112
    With HQ-16, their ability to cover the fleet won't be as good as a ship with the much longer reach of the HQ-10. Their radars and overall sensor ranges are equal only to the 054A and not the AESA arrayed Type 052C/D and 055 ships. If the refitted destroyers are equipped with YJ-12s, then the other difference in terms of firepower between these refitted destroyers and the frigates are these destroyers have supersonic antiship missiles and the other doesn't. But what if the 054A is upgraded to YJ-12s, as the Type 054A/P export frigate has shown. Then there is no real operational difference between all these ships and the 054A/P. Maybe the future Type 054B will be carrying YJ-12s or YJ-18s. Being able to pack supersonic antiship missiles alone cannot define one ship as a destroyer over the other. You got missile boats and corvettes with honking supersonic ASMs.

    Those ships with the HQ-16, they can only engage aircraft and missile targets starting at 50 to 70km, while those with HQ-10 can start from double to triple those ranges. Being able to plan and protect your fleet, you need to arrange your ships according to their fleet defensive capability. The eight refitted destroyers (Sovs + 052B + 051B), will have to be lumped with the 054A to provide a second and inner line of defense. Those with longer air defense reach, starting with the 051C, a ship class that I would say have aged well, then 052C, then 052D then 055, they will have to provide a primary and first line of air defense. You may still call the refitted ships as destroyers, but operationally, they are more like de facto 054A frigates and now middle end warships.
     
  8. DGBJCLAU
    Offline

    DGBJCLAU New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    63
    1. Did you confuse HQ-10 with something else, like HQ-9? HQ-10 is a short-range system, no? While HQ-16 is longer-ranged (medium).

    2. Yes I agree these 7 ships (why did you say 8?) are now second-line. That's more like the case as later frigades, both Chinese and western, have grown bigger and more capable. But saying AFTER being refitted they are no longer DDGs is simply counterintuitive and IMHO doesn't make sense. If that is how categorization works the PLA should have re-classified all those older ships as frigates as soon as 054As came in.

    3. I know the 051B at least has better communications and command capabilities than 054As. Weapon-wise it is now not too different from the latter.
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  9. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2,112
    Yup I meant HQ-9.

    I meant six ships --- the four Sovs and the two 052Bs --- once all these ships are done with their refits and re-incorporated into the future. They will move from the first line to the second line, and you will need ships to replace them for the first line. The 051B makes it seven, but that ship has already been "processed" into the second line, and already has a first line replacement. When I meant 8 ships, that was the six older destroyers, plus the two 054 frigates that now appear headed into a major refit, likely a full on conversion to a 054A. The whole point is that the PLAN is going to gain 8 054A like ships, plus the 051B, you got nine, on top of the real 054A.

    Term "DDG" doesn't have context anymore. The old Type 052 and even 051s are DDGs just because they have missiles, even short ranged ones like HQ-7s for air defense. What's even more counterintuitive is to call both the Type 052 and Type 055 both DDGs, which gives you an impression that somehow they are equal in name, but the air defense capabilities are vastly different. There needs to be better categorization by functionality, by level of air defense.

    Growth in size of European frigates means these ships now even overlap the Sovs and 051B, and borders the 052C/D in tonnage. I don't really think the Europeans are following the modern adage of "frigate" any more but has reverted to the original concept of the frigate during the Age of Sail where the frigates are effectively cruisers.

    First line --- 051C, 052C, 052D, 055
    Second line --- 054A, 956E/EM converted, 052B, 054 converted, 051B
    Third line --- 052, 056, 056A, 053H3.

    Term origin. Destroyer comes from shortening of Torpedo Boat Destroyer. During the Pre-Dreadnought era, the Torpedo Boat came to be and threatened the Battleship. The result is the introduction of a new ship aimed to destroy the Torpedo Boats and protect the Battleships, serving escort to them. It should be noted it has nothing to do with size but purpose --- during WW1, German torpedo boats were as big as British destroyers and are practically the same class of ship. When the Airplane and the Submarine came, you got two new platforms that carry torpedoes, and the protective work of the Destroyer is extended to these. Then the Torpedo is replaced by the guided missile, the plane became the jet, and guns can no longer protect ships alone from jets and missiles --- the Carrier has replaced the Battleship as the capital ship to protect --- so the destroyer needed missiles to do the same job of protecting the fleet. Missiles need big space, and this caused a massive explosion of the Destroyer's size as the type entered the guided missile era.

    During the Age of Sail, frigates represent single line ships, meaning one gun deck, as opposed to Ships of the Line that have multiple gun decks. Unlike the Sloop or Corvette whose range is tied to the port, the Frigate is much more independent and could sail the seven seas, the minimum ship that is considered fully ocean traveling. Frigates became the most important warship during the Age of Sail, and whose purpose in modern times would be the equivalent of cruiser. The use of the term ebbed by the age of steel warships, but the British resurrected the term for use as a destroyer escort, which created this strata of the Frigate being between the Destroyer and the Corvette.

    So why are the Europeans calling such large warships, frigates? I think Europe is in the gradual process of discarding the 'destroyer' in name and looking to collectively phase the term out one by one. Maybe it has something to do with European nationalism, politics, and identity, with the frigate a throwback to the glory days of European navies in the age of sail, when they dominated the seas. 'Frigate' is now a term of purpose --- an independent multi-role warship --- not a destroyer-lite. The Europeans are not going to rename their old destroyers frigates, but they simply stopped calling the newest ship classes 'destroyer' and refer to them as frigates, even if these frigates are as big, or bigger, and equal or heavier in armament than their previous destroyers. I think the Type 45 and the Horizon class maybe the last ship classes in Western Europe to still be called 'destroyers'. The Type 26 frigate is about as heavy as the Type 45 destroyer and is better armed offensively. It has reached to a point that frigates might be divided into subcategories within 'frigate', where you have first line, battle frigates like the FREMM, Type 26, the F100/110, the Iver Huitfeld, De Seven Provincien, and then second line, intermediate or small size frigates, like the FTI, the PPA and the Type 31. In relation, the Type 054A is closer to the intermediate group, even if its more heavily armed.

    But of course, what the Europeans are doing, does not affect what the US, China, Japan, S. Korea, and Russia will continue to do and how they categorize their ships. Each will have their own way to suit their own purposes. The point is, names like destroyers and frigates no longer have meaningful context, or any reference in weight. They have become politicized and branded. You can call a ship a destroyer even if its a cruiser, a helicopter carrier is being called a destroyer, and ships that are functionally cruisers, frigates.
     
    #4209 Tam, Jan 7, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
    Red Moon and antiterror13 like this.
  10. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,589
    Likes Received:
    2,317
    Just had a thought.

    Could the delay in a Type-54 successor be partly due to the advent of guided hypervelocity (HVP) rounds?

    From what I can see, this would make the current BUK medium range SAM system obsolete.

    ---

    A Type-54 only has 32 VLS cells. That has to contain a mix of medium range BUK SAMs and ASROC torpedoes.

    So we've now seen the Mk45 127mm Naval Gun firing guided HVP rounds last year.

    a) These should have a maximum range of 50miles (80km), which is probably farther than the BUK, and which is sufficient for the task of medium range air defence.

    b) Each HVP round costs less than $100K, which should be a lot less than a BUK SAM.

    c) SAMs are slower at reaching their targets than HVP rounds, so there is more SAM missile wastage on targets that have already been destroyed.

    c) The single barrel Mk45 also has a rate of fire of 16 rounds per minute, but the latest Otobreda 127/64 can fire 32rpm and the AK130 can fire 40rpm from a single barrel.
    That is faster than the 2second interval for Mk41 VLS launches.
    So a HVP gun likely has a similar rate of fire to the Type-54 VLS grid.

    d) In any case, an incoming anti-ship missile at Mach 0.9 would have approximately 80seconds of flight time once detected over the radar horizon.
    So the BUK SAM based air defence system would only has 1minute of engagement time anyway, and exhaust its missiles in that 1minute.

    ---
    I can think of a few caveats:

    1. The Type-54 frigate hull currently sports a 76mm gun.
    So could 76mm HVP rounds be developed?
    Or would they have to mount a larger gun like the 130mm on the Type-52D/Type-55 destroyers.

    2. VLS missiles are all-aspect, whereas a gun can only point in one direction at a time.
    That doesn't really matter if a low rate of fire is all that is needed (if the aircraft or missiles are flying high, so they can be seen 50km away. That would allow for another 1minute (30 rounds) to be launched.
    But a single gun can't cover an entire strike if it is coming up simultaneously from 4 threat angles (N/S/E/W) just over the horizon. The JASSM is supposed able to do this.
    Plus a single gun would be blocked by the ship's superstructure for some angles, and there isn't enough time to turn the ship.

    That brings up another point.

    Could additional guns be installed, and be able to launch guided HVP rounds to cover all the angles?
    The guns and the rounds wouldn't have to be as big, as they only need to reach the radar horizon.
    Or would they just put in another gun system the same size?
    How small can you make a guided HVP projectile?

    This is all from the point of view of the medium-range air defence mission for a Frigate protecting convoys and amphibious ships.

    But it also has serious implications for the long-range air defence mission for a Destroyer, as we could see a lot more naval guns being mounted.
     
    #4210 AndrewS, Jan 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
Loading...

Share This Page