054/A FFG Thread II

[Iron Man]

Regarding the 6k ton issue, I just went with the nomenclature that this particular discussion started off with, but I was thinking of an 052D/E type ship.

That is to say, I do believe that existing 052D/E have a normal displacement closer to 6k tons and perhaps a full displacement closer to 7k tons, and when jobjed referred to "4k ton, 6k ton and 10k ton" (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-054-ffg-thread-ii.t4149/page-411#post-527029) he was referring to 054A, 052C/D, 055 respectively (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-358#post-460960).

This is a confusing schema, and I just realized I fell prey to it as well. Just because some big shrimp used it off hand doesn't mean we should use it like scripture. We really should be talking about (presumed) max displacement since that's how we refer to foreign navy ships and how other netizens on other forums refer to ship displacements in general. With that in mind a less confusing tier classification would be 12k/7k/4k.

However, I think there are number of requirements or scenarios where I think a two tier fleet could make some sense, such as if they want their "workhorse" ship to be capable of higher end AAW and ASW while also having better endurance than what could be placed on a 4k ton or even 5k ton full displacement ship.

Possible, but like I said IMO a 6,000t ship is too big for ASW and too small for fleet AAW (and by 6,000t I mean max displacement). And I've never heard of endurance being an issue for OHPs operating in CSGs, or has it actually been mentioned as an issue for 054As, so I'm not sure why endurance is now going to be some kind of issue for a 054B. And if we are actually talking about a ~7,000t max displacement ship forming the lower end of a two-tier PLAN, then what you are basically describing is the complete elimination of the frigate class rather than a intermediate ship between the 054A and 052D classes, which strikes me as merely a slightly milder version of the USN's destroyer-only folly.

 

[Blitzo]

This is a confusing schema, and I just realized I fell prey to it as well. Just because some big shrimp used it off hand doesn't mean we should use it like scripture. We really should be talking about (presumed) max displacement since that's how we refer to foreign navy ships and how other netizens on other forums refer to ship displacements in general. With that in mind a less confusing tier classification would be 12k/7k/4k.

No arguments there!

Possible, but like I said IMO a 6,000t ship is too big for ASW and too small for fleet AAW (and by 6,000t I mean max displacement). And I've never heard of endurance being an issue for OHPs operating in CSGs, or has it actually been mentioned as an issue for 054As, so I'm not sure why endurance is now going to be some kind of issue for a 054B.

There was this article a few years back which had some good parts and some less good parts, but one of the good parts is Andrew Erickson's translation of some Chinese texts, one of which was from a Chinese language magazine that claimed "For instance, an article in Modern Navy notes that during escort missions, electromechanical machinery, toilets, and air compressors have failed on a fairly frequent basis and that domestically-produced items have suffered the highest failure rates.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article’s authors also point out that the designs of Chinese warships deployed to the Gulf of Aden fail to provide adequate physical space for making efficient repairs under deployment conditions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"

I imagine smaller size of a 4k ton ship vs a 7k ton ship in an absolute way will also place differing demands for frequency and need to refuel and resupply per distance travelled.

I suppose it would be incorrect to suggest that a 4k ton ship has "inadequate" endurance for blue water missions, but rather that a larger ship may have superior endurance and slightly reduced requirements for frequency of refuelling and resupply.

And if we are actually talking about a ~7,000t max displacement ship forming the lower end of a two-tier PLAN, then what you are basically describing is the complete elimination of the frigate class rather than a intermediate ship between the 054A and 052D classes, which strikes me as merely a slightly milder version of the USN's destroyer-only folly.

Yes, and it is one reason why I am wary towards a two tier fleet as well, though I'd argue that by displacement, a two tier fleet of 12k ton and 7k ton ships would probably still be much healthier than the USN's structure where 9000-10,000 ton ships make up the overwhelming majority of surface combatants in service, not only in terms of numbers but in terms of total displacement by category as well.
In a PLAN two tier fleet would almost certainly have the the 7k ton category outnumber the 12k ton category, while both categories will likely have similar total displacement as well (or have the 7k ton category be a bit larger).



At this stage I'm definitely skeptical towards the idea of a two tier fleet overall, but I think there are some circumstances (different future threat environments, volume of future funding etc) where such a structure could make sense to somewhat mitigate the consequence of not having a three tier fleet. But it's early days yet.

 

[Iron Man]

There was this article a few years back which had some good parts and some less good parts, but one of the good parts is Andrew Erickson's translation of some Chinese texts, one of which was from a Chinese language magazine that claimed "For instance, an article in Modern Navy notes that during escort missions, electromechanical machinery, toilets, and air compressors have failed on a fairly frequent basis and that domestically-produced items have suffered the highest failure rates.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article’s authors also point out that the designs of Chinese warships deployed to the Gulf of Aden fail to provide adequate physical space for making efficient repairs under deployment conditions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"

And yet this class is still routinely sent to the Middle East on long term deployments. I remember this article and that exact point. That said, I don't think you can use that particular criticism of the 054A to get from 4,000t to 6,000t. Maybe you could squeeze a couple hundred tons out of that point. But a couple thousand? I think not. Not only that, this particular issue may actually be more reflective of the state of the PLAN's design experience in the early 2000's and less reflective of any theoretical limitations of a 4,000t ship size.

I imagine smaller size of a 4k ton ship vs a 7k ton ship in an absolute way will also place differing demands for frequency and need to refuel and resupply per distance travelled.

I suppose it would be incorrect to suggest that a 4k ton ship has "inadequate" endurance for blue water missions, but rather that a larger ship may have superior endurance and slightly reduced requirements for frequency of refuelling and resupply.

You could say this of any ship being compared to a larger ship. The point isn't more endurance, more fuel, or more supplies, though. The point is whether what you have is sufficient for the task you want to achieve. The answer I think must be yes, using the example of both the OHP and the 054A, the previous point notwithstanding. As long as we are talking about a primarily ASW-oriented surface combatant, with secondary roles of medium range air defense and ASuW.

Yes, and it is one reason why I am wary towards a two tier fleet as well, though I'd argue that by displacement, a two tier fleet of 12k ton and 7k ton ships would probably still be much healthier than the USN's structure where 9000-10,000 ton ships make up the overwhelming majority of surface combatants in service, not only in terms of numbers but in terms of total displacement by category as well.
In a PLAN two tier fleet would almost certainly have the the 7k ton category outnumber the 12k ton category, while both categories will likely have similar total displacement as well (or have the 7k ton category be a bit larger).

At this stage I'm definitely skeptical towards the idea of a two tier fleet overall, but I think there are some circumstances (different future threat environments, volume of future funding etc) where such a structure could make sense to somewhat mitigate the consequence of not having a three tier fleet. But it's early days yet.

We may be arguing semantics here, but instead of "much healthier" I would rather say "less foolhardy".

 

[Blitzo]

And yet this class is still routinely sent to the Middle East on long term deployments. I remember this article and that exact point. That said, I don't think you can use that particular criticism of the 054A to get from 4,000t to 6,000t. Maybe you could squeeze a couple hundred tons out of that point. But a couple thousand? I think not. Not only that, this particular issue may actually be more reflective of the state of the PLAN's design experience in the early 2000's and less reflective of any theoretical limitations of a 4,000t ship size.

You could say this of any ship being compared to a larger ship. The point isn't more endurance, more fuel, or more supplies, though. The point is whether what you have is sufficient for the task you want to achieve. The answer I think must be yes, using the example of both the OHP and the 054A, the previous point notwithstanding. As long as we are talking about a primarily ASW-oriented surface combatant, with secondary roles of medium range air defense and ASuW.

I'm not suggesting frigates like OHP or 054A had inadequate endurance for blue water missions. And they were/still are obviously well sized for ASW work.

But the rationale for a larger ship to act as the low end would likely be dependent on a combination of factors, not only including desire for greater endurance, but also the threat environment and whether a ship of a given size would have the organic AAW systems to enable it to conduct ASW in such an environment, and the potential of future ASW related technologies like UUVs that may demand a larger hull, and adding all of it together I think a case for a larger hull is not insensible. Certainly it's not an overwhelmingly compelling argument for why a 7k ton hull should replace a 4k ton hull, but I think there's enough that we don't know about PLAN threat projections and their future funding capacity to rule it out given the current state of the rumours.


As an aside, I always found it interesting how the Type 26 class will be a 7k ton (up to even 8k ton!) ship which will succeed the smaller 5k ton Type 23 in the ASW role for the RN. The Royal Navy certainly has its fair share of procurement issues, but I'm somewhat fascinated that they're going with a ship that is so much larger than its predecessor to act as their mainstay ASW ship, and considering the Type 23's ASW reputation and the Royal Navy's likely own assessments of the Type 23's ASW performance, I have to imagine they came to some kind of logical process leading them to such a big next generation mainstay frigate.

We may be arguing semantics here, but instead of "much healthier" I would rather say "less foolhardy".

Fair enough.

 

[AndrewS]

This is a confusing schema, and I just realized I fell prey to it as well. Just because some big shrimp used it off hand doesn't mean we should use it like scripture. We really should be talking about (presumed) max displacement since that's how we refer to foreign navy ships and how other netizens on other forums refer to ship displacements in general. With that in mind a less confusing tier classification would be 12k/7k/4k.


Possible, but like I said IMO a 6,000t ship is too big for ASW and too small for fleet AAW (and by 6,000t I mean max displacement). And I've never heard of endurance being an issue for OHPs operating in CSGs, or has it actually been mentioned as an issue for 054As, so I'm not sure why endurance is now going to be some kind of issue for a 054B. And if we are actually talking about a ~7,000t max displacement ship forming the lower end of a two-tier PLAN, then what you are basically describing is the complete elimination of the frigate class rather than a intermediate ship between the 054A and 052D classes, which strikes me as merely a slightly milder version of the USN's destroyer-only folly.

The Type-23 ASW frigate was 5000T, and we saw the Spruance ASW destroyer come in at 8000T. Although bear in mind some of the Spruances had 64 Mk41 cells installed.

So 6000T for an ASW Frigate is within the realms of feasibility, particularly if it had a different hull form optimised for helipads or UUVs.

 

[AndrewS]

Regarding the 6k ton issue, I just went with the nomenclature that this particular discussion started off with, but I was thinking of an 052D/E type ship.

That is to say, I do believe that existing 052D/E have a normal displacement closer to 6k tons and perhaps a full displacement closer to 7k tons, and when jobjed referred to "4k ton, 6k ton and 10k ton" (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-054-ffg-thread-ii.t4149/page-411#post-527029) he was referring to 054A, 052C/D, 055 respectively (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-358#post-460960).







I don't inherently disagree with you at all, I would make similar arguments regarding the force structure as well.

However, I think there are number of requirements or scenarios where I think a two tier fleet could make some sense, such as if they want their "workhorse" ship to be capable of higher end AAW and ASW while also having better endurance than what could be placed on a 4k ton or even 5k ton full displacement ship.

The absolute number of ships that they are planning to buy for a two tier fleet is also a big unknown. Obviously if the total number of ships that they can buy and operate in a two tier fleet is significantly lower than that of what they could get for a three tier fleet then that would significantly compromise operational availability, presence and the attrition they can sustain during wartime.
The only way this would make sense to me is if they were able to secure the funding the procure the no. of ships they want in a two tier fleet and consider that to be somehow more cost effective than spending that equivalent amount of money on a three tier fleet for whatever reason (where the total number of ships would of course be greater than in a two tier fleet). One possible explanation may be a slightly greater crew demand for a three tier fleet vs a two tier fleet but even that I'm not certain about.


Another condition, IMO, is if the PLAN for some reason decides that the future threat environment is one where the lowest blue water capable combatant should attain an 052D (or future 052E) level of capability. That is to say,


Personally I'm far from convinced that the PLAN will be moving to a two tier combatant orbat in the near future, I think we need some much more consistent indications before believing in it. However I do think that we're at a stage where the lack of 054B emerging and the rationale behind a possible of a two tier fleet should start being considered.

My analysis is that a 3 tier blue-water fleet (with space for a dedicated ASW frigate) is still in place.

But we're in a period of uncertainty as to what effective ASW warfare will look like in the future, due to the imminent arrival of AI, UUVs, UAVs, and new detection methods.

So it would make sense to delay the next Frigate until this becomes clearer. Suppose they have to put in a large UUV docking bay or a trimaran helipad?

China already has 30 Type-54 frigates anyway, so there isn't a huge rush for more frigates.

 

[Iron Man]

But the rationale for a larger ship to act as the low end would likely be dependent on a combination of factors, not only including desire for greater endurance, but also the threat environment and whether a ship of a given size would have the organic AAW systems to enable it to conduct ASW in such an environment, and the potential of future ASW related technologies like UUVs that may demand a larger hull, and adding all of it together I think a case for a larger hull is not insensible. Certainly it's not an overwhelmingly compelling argument for why a 7k ton hull should replace a 4k ton hull, but I think there's enough that we don't know about PLAN threat projections and their future funding capacity to rule it out given the current state of the rumours.

I think a larger design is certainly theoretically possible, but economically feasible and militarily necessary are different questions entirely. None of the arguments you have listed are compelling either individually or in totality, for the introduction of a 7,000t replacement of the 054A/B to be likely or realistic. I have said before that a 054B might displace in the range of 4,500t to 5,000t, though even at 5,000t I would not consider such a ship to be a capable enough design to conduct fleet air defense.

As an aside, I always found it interesting how the Type 26 class will be a 7k ton (up to even 8k ton!) ship which will succeed the smaller 5k ton Type 23 in the ASW role for the RN. The Royal Navy certainly has its fair share of procurement issues, but I'm somewhat fascinated that they're going with a ship that is so much larger than its predecessor to act as their mainstay ASW ship, and considering the Type 23's ASW reputation and the Royal Navy's likely own assessments of the Type 23's ASW performance, I have to imagine they came to some kind of logical process leading them to such a big next generation mainstay frigate.

European navies are quite dissimilar to the PLAN in both scope and mission, and as such cannot really be compared to each other on an apples to apples basis. European navies consists of very small numbers of large super-frigates that essentially do everything that a PLAN frigate and destroyer and cruiser are meant to do, all in one hull. The RN is somewhat larger than most European navies but even its navy fleet structure is not comparable to the PLAN. Every surface combatant of the RN is going to be far more consequential to the fleet than any single 054A to the PLAN fleets, so it's not at all surprising that the Type 26/GCS is going to be significantly larger than the 054A. These ships are basically Type 45-lights.

 

[Blitzo]

I think a larger design is certainly theoretically possible, but economically feasible and militarily necessary are different questions entirely. None of the arguments you have listed are compelling either individually or in totality, for the introduction of a 7,000t replacement of the 054A/B to be likely or realistic. I have said before that a 054B might displace in the range of 4,500t to 5,000t, though even at 5,000t I would not consider such a ship to be a capable enough design to conduct fleet air defense.

At this stage I'm definitely not suggesting that the introduction of a two tier fleet is likely, however I am thinking that the state of PLAN frigate production recently (or rather lack thereof), and some rumours entertaining the possibility of a two tier fleet makes it worthwhile for us to consider the rationale behind the possibility.

European navies are quite dissimilar to the PLAN in both scope and mission, and as such cannot really be compared to each other on an apples to apples basis. European navies consists of very small numbers of large super-frigates that essentially do everything that a PLAN frigate and destroyer and cruiser are meant to do, all in one hull. The RN is somewhat larger than most European navies but even its navy fleet structure is not comparable to the PLAN. Every surface combatant of the RN is going to be far more consequential to the fleet than any single 054A to the PLAN fleets, so it's not at all surprising that the Type 26/GCS is going to be significantly larger than the 054A. These ships are basically Type 45-lights.

Yes, that is very true, though on the other hand I'd wonder whether the PLAN may judge some of those higher end capabilities to be desirable on their frigate of the future as well depending on what their future threat assessment is like...

WRT the T26's ASW role I was more thinking along the lines of it still managing to be a capable ASW ship while being rather large. This isn't to say that a smaller ship may not be more optimal for the ASW role, but more to suggest that a larger sized frigate design does seem to be able to fulfill the RN's qualitative requirements for surface combatant based ASW.

 

[Tam]

What would your guess be on the relative cost differences for Chinese industry specifically for a modest frigate sized radar, between AESA, PESA, and mechanical? What are your thoughts on cost effectiveness?

My thoughts.

Volume in manufacturing the elements. The more elements you make the lower the unit costs go down. And they can keep going down and down.

S-band elements. You're making plenty of these for the Type 346 family radars on the 052C/D, 055 and even the carriers. Like previously mentioned, you can save on the element faces by rotating them, either in a single or dual faced layout similar to SAMPSON. You probably have seen the "Chinese Lantern" radome used in some of the Type 054B fan CG, and this is based on an actual prototype or mockup in Wuhan. The "Lantern" has been depicted also on rough drawings by "big fish" leaks.



There is the second option of using a fixed four faced design that is smaller, lets say, for one face, half of the elements of the Type 346A or B.

C-band elements. You need a C-band AESA to replace the Type 364 mechanical radar that serves as a surface search radar for sea skimming missiles, aircraft and ships. The Type 364 has been a must radar feature of every PLAN ship since the Type 052B and the Type 054. You should be making a lot of these for the allegedly AESA radars on HQ-9 ground units, and as elements for the missile target illuminators on the Type 346 family of radars. You also need these elements if you plan on using a target illuminator for HQ-9 missiles, speculatively assuming the new frigate would use these missiles.

X-band elements. You will need one or two X-band AESA to replace the Type 344 gun FCR, the Type 366 FCR for antiship missiles, the navigation radars, and the Front Dome illuminators for the HQ-16. This one gets easier since you are already making these for fighter radars.

The collateral cost advantage of making them for the new frigates would be to lower the costs of these for the primary users as well. The more you make, the better for all.

It also helps when you have this strategic background advantage. Gallium being the most important element for AESAs.



Yttrium is an important element for use in phase shifters for both AESAs and PESAs. China corners its production with over 90%.

Mechanical radars are subject to mechanical stress, wear and tear. There is going to be some lifetime cost for their repair and maintenance. When something happens on sea, they are much harder to repair if that is even possible. With fixed faced AESAs on an integrated mast, all you have to do is run diagnostics to check for every element, locate the burned out ones, and replace the elements internally from the back, pull the bad ones out, and slip the spare ones in. The ship just needs to carry a stock of spare elements. That's a huge qualitative advantage of AESA you can't put a price on.

But of course, there is the issue if you are using a two faced AESA that is set on a mechanical rotation like SAMPSON. This design is still subject to mechanical wear and tear and it isn't as accessible for repair as a fixed four faced one inside an integrated mast. That's going to be the problem if China adopts the "Lantern" radar for the 054B. There is also an alternative mast design that was shown in 2016 for a proposed frigate export to Pakistan that I like better. It has four fixed faces.



Close up of the mast.



If China is willing to offer this back in 2016 as an export item for a poor country like Pakistan, I would assume the costs are not so high.

IMO, China should not rush the Type 054A successor, and it needs to think and rethink the radar configurations and options for this ship carefully, or you are going to be saddled with the next three to four decades and 20 to 30 ships with those decisions. It might be my wishful thinking that the delays for this ship comes from internal debate about the radar sets and configurations, not to mention the choices and development of new MRSAMs for the ship, and which there is also going to be a tie in between the new radars and the SAMs, the latter will then affect your choice of VLS, and this in turn leads to a chain reaction of choices that reverberate through out the ship.

 

[Blitzo]

My analysis is that a 3 tier blue-water fleet (with space for a dedicated ASW frigate) is still in place.

As of today, absolutely it very much is an emerging 3 tier fleet.
Technically it's even a 2 tier fleet today of only 7k ton and 4k ton ships as the 12k ton 055 has yet to enter service.

But we're talking about what things will be like in terms of production beginning around 2020 and what kind of fleet structure that will dictate.

But we're in a period of uncertainty as to what effective ASW warfare will look like in the future, due to the imminent arrival of AI, UUVs, UAVs, and new detection methods.

So it would make sense to delay the next Frigate until this becomes clearer. Suppose they have to put in a large UUV docking bay or a trimaran helipad?

In the case of the PLAN the question is a bit more direct because everyone's been expecting 054B to emerge for a little while now yet it seems like things haven't moved too much, so everyone's wondering what's actually going on.

China already has 30 Type-54 frigates anyway, so there isn't a huge rush for more frigates.

China certainly has enough 054As for the immediate future, and yes, technically speaking even if they don't build anymore frigates for the next five years they would have a respectable sized core force to build 052Ds and 055s around.

... but we don't really know how many surface combatants overall they're looking to build over the next five years, ten years, and considering the way their destroyer production is going there's probably going to be some kind of direct successor to 054A, or some kind of structural realignment within the fleet over that same period