PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

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

  1. Richard Santos
    Offline

    Richard Santos Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    991
    Anyone notice the hulls of these two DDGs are different? Look at the location of the chine line relative to the deck edge.
     
  2. PeoplesPoster
    Offline

    PeoplesPoster New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ones an A, the other is a B.
     
  3. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,150
    Likes Received:
    3,938

    X-band has other purposes besides for fire control. One is for surface search for navigation. X-band is good at picking out small things at the water's surface, hence its the radar used to scan the water surface or close to it. Ships always have this small linear array radars that rotate at the mast. The 054A has three of them on top, 056 has two in the front and one at the rear. Type 45 has two at the middle of its pyramid. These radars also have secondary purposes in aiding to spot sea skimmers and surface targets.

    The dual faced, dual band radar the netizens refer to as "Type 383" for now, has one face at an angle towards the air. This face has a thicker panel, and I would assume this is meant for air search, and S-band would be logical for it. The other face has a thinner panel, suggesting smaller, more compact elements, and therefore a higher frequency band. Its angled more vertically, which means scanning towards the surface. There is an advantage of using X-band over S-band when scanning the water surface is that the X-band does a better job at picking out smaller objects and reject sea clutter. X-band is much easier absorbed by the water, those that don't reflect from an object gets absorbed by the water and doesn't reflect back to the source as clutter. For this reason, there is an advantage using higher bands against sea skimmers.

    Ships like the 052C/D, and the 054A, supplement their S-band radars with a C-band radar called Type 364 that is set on top of the mast and is covered with a white spherical radome. On the 054A, this appears on the second mast near the funnel. This radar appears in just about every major PLAN warship bigger than a 053 or 056, including carriers, except for the 055 which may have found its replacement with the four faced X-band panel on top of its mast. Because its located at height, the radar can peer down further in the radar horizon better than the main radars; with the exception of ships using the Type 382 Top Plate. For the 075, the new "Type 383" replaces the Type 364. Type 364 is an old school 2D, mechanically scanning radar, while the replacement has 3D scans and electronically scanning. The use of X-band means greater differentiation of targets versus C-band, while S-band offers greater range than C-band. I can see the potential of this new radar replacing the Type 364 also on future batches of 052D, and as a potential midlife refit on the 052C and 052D. It will not replace the main radar, but the globular one on top of the mast. It may also be used a midlife refit on the 054A, providing the ship has ample power.

    In the case of the 054B, the new radar has the potential to be used as both volume air search and surface search at the same time, so you don't need two separate radars for that. This can be situated on top of the mast. Further below the mast, you can fit a four faced fixed AESA for fire control and secondary search, with a strip like IFF array in between. Why two X-band radars? The X-band face on the top radar has a better look down view on the radar horizon than the fixed radars below it, so it can spot and track the incoming target earlier. The IFF array has to be in between the search radar and the FCR, because it also needs to peer down the radar horizon and try to interrogate the target as early as possible as friend or foe. The next step would be the engagement.

    If I can draw this tower, you have a pyramid of an integrated mast, with the dual faced dual band radar on top, followed by small four faced strip of IFF array, then four faces of AESA as FCR at the upper middle below the IFF strips. The other alternative is to have the IFF strips on top of the bridge --- the PLAN appears to be the only navy whose warships do so, if the IFF arrays are too big to be on the mast, but the large strips like on the 055 or on the carriers must be meant for extreme range and designed to interrogate a very high number of targets.

    Anyway, just speculating, or my way of warship-speculation-porn.
     
  4. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,003
    Likes Received:
    2,604
    I guess you forgot that AESAs can easily be modular. SPY-1 already pioneered this with the SPY-1F and SPY-1K iterations intended for small ships.

    spy-1-variants.jpg


    I have no doubt more modern radars are even more modular and resizable. The AMDR/SPY-6 will come in multiple sizes, for example.

    AMDR.png

    There are already rumors the 054B may use a smaller version of the AESA on the 055. It would no doubt be scaled down in a fashion similar to what I posted above, i.e. less T/R modules or less RMA-type modules.
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  5. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,899
    Likes Received:
    2,806
    Yes there are smaller versions of the SPY-1 panels, but ask yourself why the US hasn't deployed these on the LCS programme?

    The reason is that the LCS faces a similar operating profile to Chinese frigates, so they typically don't need their own AESA side panels.

    For one thing, American or Chinese frigates don't carry long-range SAMs which would require high-performance AESAs.
    Medium range air defence to the horizon is typically the requirement.

    But if AESA modules and the associated hardware do become really cheap, then they might as well use them.
     
  6. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,150
    Likes Received:
    3,938
    Modularism has a lot to do with cost. Warships are like products nowadays. You like high end, you want middle end or do you like low end.

    For example, here is an example.

    There are two versions of this AESA radar, the TRS-4D.

    Here is the four sided fixed panel high end version, which is used on Germany's F125 class frigate.

    https://www.hensoldt.net/products/radar-iff-and-datalink/trs-4d-fixed-panel/

    Here you get the low end, single sided, rotating version, which will be used on the Freedom class LCS, starting from LCS 20. This may also be used on future USCG cutters, as the USCG has been using its predecessor, the TRS-3D.

    https://www.hensoldt.net/products/radar-iff-and-datalink/trs-4d-rotator/

    The question I see where I find hard to estimate the 054B, would be where in the sliding bar of cost would it be. Is it going to be high end? Is it going to be low end?
    where in the middle are you going to place it? How much is the PLAN willing to give it top end features, or keep it cheap and economical because there are other top end ships?

    Before I continue, one of the concept Freedom class LCS did feature the SPY-1K. Its one of the ships in this artwork but the idea was axed. The Freedom class went with the TRS-3D instead, and now will be upgrading to the TRS-4D in the near future.

    maxresdefault.jpg

    FFG(X) is armed with ESSM Block 2 as its main but there is always that option for SM-6. The ship doesn't have SPG-62 FCRs to supply target illumination, so it can only ARH guided missiles, like the ESSM Block 2, SM-6 and the next block of SM-2.

    For its main radar, FFG(X) is equipped with a three panel EASR, which is a downscaled SPY-6, smaller faces and reduced to three. Why three? Cheaper. For X-band GFCR, it uses the SPQ-9B, which is a small dual backed PESA. SPQ-9B is used on the Ticos, and other ships, like the Wasp class, where comparisons of it on this ship, and the new dual backed dual band AESA on the Type 075 is going to be made. It also shows up with USCG cutters, like the Legend class that is one of the FFG(X) candidates, which uses TRS-3D in conjunction with it. SPQ-9B is generally set high on top of a mast, for radar horizon, scanning for surface targets and spotting sea skimmers early. A sea skimmer search radar doesn't need that much range --- it only needs to peer out to 30 to 40km or so, depending on the ship's radar horizon, although these radars can have instrumented ranges in excess of 100km.

    In contrast to this, the Admiral Gorshkov class uses a single faced S-band rotating search radar called Frunze on top, and just below it, it uses a fixed four sided X-band fire control radar called Poliment to help guide the 9M96E Redut missiles, which are active guided. The missiles are ARH, it doesn't need SARH target illumination, but the system still prefers to use X-band, and that's probably due to the tighter and faster tracking the X-band permits, at the expense of range. Despite having the Poliment fixed radar, the ship still has the Monolit X-band radar inside a white dome, also a phase array, not sure if its PESA or AESA, for antiship missiles, and in front of Monolit, the Puma gun fire control radar, also another X-band phase array. The Russians do not appear to like role consolidation in their radars; they still host them in separate sets, but the Chinese for instance, with the new fixed radar set on the 055, managed to consolidate the Type 364 SSR, 366 antiship radar and 344 gun FCR, all into that radar. Do note the Zaslon MFR on the Project 20385 heavy corvette under trials seems even more advanced than what the Gorshkov has.

    You can go through with the world's frigates, one after another, and you will find a variety of configurations that its difficult to make use of one as a common example. It seems everyone seems to have their own ideas in making a frigate. Even if they agreed to use a common Type 26 platform, Australia, Canada and the RN all differ drastically on the radar setup. Are the missions for all these ships so different from each other to have such different radar approaches?

    maxresdefault_10.jpg https___api.thedrive.com_wp-content_uploads_2018_10_gcs-2.jpeg 1l-image-Hunter-Class-Frigates.jpg


    For speculating on the 054B, the lowest possible for the search radar would be a single faced, rotating S-band, something like the SR2410C that is used on export warships similar to the SMART-S Mk II. That is one end of the bar. Or make that larger, like the Funze on the Gorshkov. At the other end of the bar, there is fixed four faced S-band radar set that is yet small and light enough to be hosted on a mast (see CSSC export frigate design). In between, you can have dual backed S-band like SAMPSON, or even this new dual backed dual band radar we first saw on the 075.

    For the fire control, the cheapest end of the bar is to retain the Type 344 and 366 radars used on previous ships, but offers no advancement. My personal favorite is to go with the high end, choose the fixed four faced X-band radars you already have on the top mast of the 055. That radar is expensive, but once they start producing them for more 055s, the 003 and other carriers, future 052 and 05X frigates, the prices will go down. Radar replaces the 364, 344 and 366 mechanical radar, that alone saves a lot of weight and mechanical issues, while vastly improving flexibility, antenna gain, and most of all, EW resistance, which is the one great motivator for migrating radar setups to AESA.

    The SAMs used on the 054B, we don't know much about. Whether its HQ-16B, newer HQ-16 version, DK-10, a new quad packed MRSAM entirely, or HQ-9. But whether its ARH or SARH guided, a four fixed faced X-band can be adjusted for that.

    Based on closely following Chinese naval radar developments, we can get better clues, but its like connecting dots, and hoping a new dot will arrive.
     
    #4436 Tam, Oct 19, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2019
    Neutral Zone and antiterror13 like this.
  7. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,003
    Likes Received:
    2,604
    Uh, I don't need to ask myself anything. Are you actually being serious here?? The LCS in no way, shape or form has a "similar operating profile to Chinese frigates". This is not even a debatable point and it's rather shocking that you are even trying to make this comparison. The LCS will not ever have any need of a higher-end AESA for air defense purposes. The 054B's "operating profile" will have even less similarity to that of the LCS than the 054A. The upcoming FFG(X) on the other hand, is everything the LCS is not, and does have a very similar operating profile to the 054A/B, and lo and behold will have a high-end AESA for air defense.

    Your second point is also wrong. I can give you multiple examples of high-end AESAs paired with MRSAMs and not LRSAMs. Range has nothing to do with "high-performance AESAs". You don't need to pair a LRSAM with a high-end AESA. What you need is a VLS with lots of SAMs. A high-end AESA will be most useful for defending against saturation attacks, which can be defended against using any kind of SAM. This would be the exact point of a 054B with a high-end AESA.
     
    steve_rolfe likes this.
  8. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,899
    Likes Received:
    2,806
    What is the LCS designed to do?

    It does peacetime presence patrols, low-intensity convoy operations and higher-intensity ASW operations.
    That is exactly what Chinese frigates are designed to do.

    ---

    And if I look at the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar, for the FFG(X) it has a rotating version with a single small panel, and a version comprised of 3 small fixed panels.
    That is the definition of a small low-end AESA, not a big high-end AESA.

    And you mistake the size of an AESA as being useful against a saturation attack.
    You need to detect the missiles as early as possible, which means a volume search radar which is mounted as high as possible on a ship, or ideally which is airborne.

    For a Chinese Navy which only faces large numbers of subsonic LRASMs, a small rotating AESA on the top of the mast is sufficient to detect and track as many targets as they need, because they get so many engagement rounds, and don't actually have that many SAMs

    Remember a Chinese Frigate can get in 4 full engagements rounds, and if the SAMs have a PK=0.7, then only 1% of the incoming missiles will be left. Then there is the RAM and CIWS.

    So the limitation is really about running out of SAMs. And if those SAMs need guidance, then enough X-Band AESAs for terminal guidance.

    Not having 4 large high-performance AESA panels isn't an issue.
     
  9. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,003
    Likes Received:
    2,604
    The LCS stands for LITTORAL combat ship. It is a low-end low-intensity littoral special missions ship that is more than twice the size of yet cannot even stand up to a Type 056 in combat let alone a Type 054A. What are you even smoking??? It has as its only air defense weapon a RAM or SeaRAM SRSAM launcher. It has no antiship missiles to speak of, at least currently. Both of these relative deficiencies reflect its designed mission as a low-intensity littoral warfare ship that is not expected to encounter any serious kind of resistance. Which is why it has no high-end AESA. Which is why the USN is now scrambling both to put more weapons on their LCSs and to acquire an actual frigate designed for medium to high-intensity warfare, that has a high-end AESA.

    On the other hand the Type 054A has 32 VLS cells for a mix of MRSAMs and ASW missiles, along with 8 antiship missiles and 2 Type 730/1130 CIWS. Clearly meant for blue water medium intensity combat singly or high-intensity anti-air, anti-surface, and ASW combat in support of larger ships like destroyers and cruisers. The Type 054A+ is even better at ASW than the Type 054A. Meanwhile an LCS couldn't support a larger ship to save its life, and has literally NO weapons that could engage targets beyond point-defense of itself.

    Your attempt to paint the FFG(X) radar suite as somehow NOT a high-end AESA is to have utterly no clue what these radars are. Did you not even look at the graphic that I posted for you in post #4434? That would have saved you some embarrassment here. The EASR is part of Raytheon's SPY-6 family of new AESAs. That should clue you in right away that these are in fact high-end radars. The EASR is essentially a Burke's SPY-6 with less RMA modules, and is to be built in two versions, a rotating radar for carriers, and a triple fixed-panel radar for the FFG(X), so you got that part wrong too. So basically what you're saying is that a smaller SPY-6 somehow is no longer a "high-end AESA". LOL ok then.

    Who said anything about size as being useful against a saturation attack? Back up this straw man attack with a link and quote.

    BTW, a "volume search radar" refers to an air search radar, typically in S-band (Burke), L-band (most of the Eurofrigates), or even UHF band (052D, where it functions more as an "early warning" anti-stealth radar), and not optimized for the clutter of the sea surface, for which an X-band or even Ku-band radar is more suitable. On the 054A the Type 382/Top Plate radar is not the radar used primarily to detect ASCMs, at least not the sea-skimmers. That is why the ship has a separate mast and a separate radar on top of it, the 364, which is the radar that functions as the surface search radar tasked with picking out sea-skimmers from the background clutter.

    You actually have no idea how many engagement rounds a frigate like the Type 054A can get in, especially since you don't know the initial detection distance, and more importantly you don't know how long it takes for the combat data system on the 054A to confirm and respond to an attack, how long it takes for the combat data system to confirm a successful or failed intercept, and how long it takes for it to make another intercept attempt. All these variables need to be known for you to make the claim of "4 full engagement rounds", but you don't know have access to any of this information.
     
  10. asif iqbal
    Offline

    asif iqbal Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    8,894
    Too much endless discussion

    stick to topic and post some updates on Pakistan purchases may be ?

    the reason I come to SDF is because it gives me quick access to updates without the need to scroll through pages of horse shit

    so kindly cut it out
     
Loading...

Share This Page