054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Is it getting VLS?
I am curious about this too.
I do see a black box where the AAW missiles used to be, was this standard there too?
Well, they've removed all the sensors, coms, and armaments. The question is whether some/all of these have been removed for refurbishment, or for replacement.
VLS issue is tricky: the 054A does not have that elevated structure (on which the HQ-7 is mounted) in front of the bridge. Can they place the HQ-16's VLS in that space on the Type 054s or must they remove it? If the latter, they have not done so yet. For comparison, when Australia modified some of its Perry-class frigates (Adeleide-class) with an 8-cell Mk 41, the VLS protruded out of the deck. So maybe there is a 'middle ground' option, where a smaller number of HQ-16 VLS are inserted. That said, I am not sure 8 or so HQ-16 VLS is worth the effort. With the Mk 41, you can at least quad-pack ESSM (= 32 SAMs). But when the Shenzen, the sole Type 051B destroyer, was modified, the elevated structure deck was removed, leading to 32 HQ-16 VLS. So maybe 16 VLS is a reasonable number to expect.
The VLS is obviously a big deal, but IMO the radar is a more important data-point: how long is the PLAN going to build/field the Type 382? Even if the ship is undergoing an MLU, it will be probably be in service for another 15 or so year (i.e., until ~2035). With all the newfound technological capacity for PESA and AESA designs, it is a strange or very budget conscious choice, no matter the efficiencies coming with a radar which is mounted on 35 or so warships. At the end of the day, the Type 382 is best conceptualized as 1990s technology.
VLS issue is tricky: the 054A does not have that elevated structure (on which the HQ-7 is mounted) in front of the bridge. Can they place the HQ-16's VLS in that space on the Type 054s or must they remove it? If the latter, they have not done so yet. For comparison, when Australia modified some of its Perry-class frigates (Adeleide-class) with an 8-cell Mk 41, the VLS protruded out of the deck. So maybe there is a 'middle ground' option, where a smaller number of HQ-16 VLS are inserted. That said, I am not sure 8 or so HQ-16 VLS is worth the effort. With the Mk 41, you can at least quad-pack ESSM (= 32 SAMs). But when the Shenzen, the sole Type 051B destroyer, was modified, the elevated structure deck was removed, leading to 32 HQ-16 VLS. So maybe 16 VLS is a reasonable number to expect.
The VLS is obviously a big deal, but IMO the radar is a more important data-point: how long is the PLAN going to build/field the Type 382? Even if the ship is undergoing an MLU, it will be probably be in service for another 15 or so year (i.e., until ~2035). With all the newfound technological capacity for PESA and AESA designs, it is a strange or very budget conscious choice, no matter the efficiencies coming with a radar which is mounted on 35 or so warships. At the end of the day, the Type 382 is best conceptualized as 1990s technology.
They can do it two ways, but the most likely is the 051B refit way, that is to cut flatten the deck that used to have the HQ-7 and put the 32 tube VLS on it. The other way is the Sov refit way where you put a 16 tube VLS where the missile magazine is, then put a 24 tube HQ-10 launcher where the HQ-7 launcher should be.
As for the radar, they can use the SR2410C that is being featured in export frigate proposals, and used in the Bangladesh corvettes C13B and Pakistan 054AP. Definitely more advanced than the Type 382. Unless the refit has long been planned and all the parts for it has previously been contracted and acquisitioned, the Type 382 for the ship may have long since bought and still in a warehouse somewhere. The fact that radar with mechanical parabolic (Type 364) are still being installed on new Type 056A corvettes for the PLAN, even if the export versions of the same , are using the more advanced SR2410C which is an AESA, tell you ...well I don't know what tell you. Just because the Chinese defense industry is capable of more advanced technology does not mean the PLAN itself would sign on using these technologies. Maybe its technological conservatism, don't fix what is not broken, or is it because of budget, or both.
Another question mark is the retention of the YJ-83 or will they switch to the YJ-12. Yet another question mark is the retention of the 100mm gun, or if they will switch to the 76mm gun.
The refit has so many potential question marks I like to see how it would finally turn out.
Last edited:
