055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[HighGround]

I didn't include the light frigates and corvettes (i.e. 056), as they aren't usually deployed on the high seas alongside other larger surface warships to fight in high-intensity naval battles. They mostly stick in littorial areas and within the First Island Chain, for that matter.

They can go beyond the FIC for ASW duties though, right?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

They can go beyond the FIC for ASW duties though, right?

Yes. But their endurance won't be holding up great if they go anywhere beyond halfway between the FIC and the SIC.

Besides, on the high seas out in the open Pacific, 054As and 054Bs shine better in ASW than the 056As.

 

[Lethe]

I think the dual hangar thing isn't necessarily too important.

Frigates like Constellation class only are intended to carry one medium weight helicopter, and frigates like the Type 26 family (including Hunter and CSC too) are only meant to ordinarily carry one medium weight helicopter in its primary hangar.

I do agree that two helicopters would be better, but aren't necessarily decisive especially if operating with friendly other ships.

I honestly don't think the European frigates (including Constellation in this) have much instructional value for PLAN as they are built to very different requirements and constraints. I think Cold War-era USN is a better guide to meeting the ASW challenge that PLAN faces than either contemporary USN or anyone else for that matter, with the possible exception of JMSDF which has a long history as an ASW-focused service. The latter mostly operates single-helo combatants, but as part of an operating concept that includes dedicated helicopter destroyers (DDHs).

In any case what matters is to be able to generate helo sorties and coordinate their operations, whether you have one ship with twenty helos or twenty ships with one helo each. The former is much more efficient, the latter more resilient once ships start sinking. However, so long as you have enough decks for redundancy purposes, and I believe PLAN should be able to achieve this, the efficiency gains from moving from one to two-helos aboard helo-carrying ships are considerable. The helicopter detachment on a two-helo ship is probably only 50% larger (if that) than for a one-helo ship. I wanted to get exact numbers on one-helo vs. two helo detachments, but it's difficult given that the last single-helo ships USN operated were the FF-1052 Knox-class frigates. If anyone wants to step in with some useful sources, please do. That said, I did encounter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

recent article in Proceedings bemoaning the challenges of deploying with only one helicopter onboard:

These delays resulted in the aircraft being mission capable only 72 percent of the time and fully mission capable just 33 percent of the time. In other words, the aircraft was not able to fly at all for almost a third of the deployment and was able to operate at its full capability for only a third. In contrast, a two-aircraft detachment historically has at least one mission-capable asset for more than 95 percent of deployment and one fully mission-capable aircraft for more than 75 percent.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

In any case what matters is to be able to generate helo sorties and coordinate their operations, whether you have one ship with twenty helos or twenty ships with one helo each. The former is much more efficient, the latter more resilient once ships start sinking. However, so long as you have enough decks for redundancy purposes, and I believe PLAN should be able to achieve this, the efficiency gains from moving from one to two-helos aboard helo-carrying ships are considerable. The helicopter detachment on a two-helo ship is probably only 50% larger (if that) than it would be for a one-helo ship. I wanted to get exact numbers on this one-helo vs. two helo deployments, but it's difficult given that the last single-helo ships USN actually operated were the FF-1052 Knox-class frigates. If anyone wants to step in with some useful sources, please do. That said, I did encounter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

recent article in Proceedings bemoaning the challenges of deploying with only one helicopter onboard:

How do guys view the deployment of greater numbers of ASW helicopter drones to complement the existing manned ASW helicopter fleet?

Smaller dimensions and weights should help with the numbers, as the 054As, 052Ds and 055s could carry more of these onboard each of them?

 

[Blitzo]

I honestly don't think the European frigates (including Constellation in this) have much instructional value for PLAN as they are built to very different requirements and constraints. I think Cold War-era USN is a better guide to meeting the ASW challenge that PLAN faces than either contemporary USN or anyone else for that matter, with the possible exception of JMSDF which has a long history as an ASW-focused service. The latter mostly operates single-helo combatants, but as part of an operating concept that includes dedicated helicopter destroyers (DDHs).

In any case what matters is to be able to generate helo sorties and coordinate their operations, whether you have one ship with twenty helos or twenty ships with one helo each. The former is much more efficient, the latter more resilient once ships start sinking. However, so long as you have enough decks for redundancy purposes, and I believe PLAN should be able to achieve this, the efficiency gains from moving from one to two-helos aboard helo-carrying ships are considerable. The helicopter detachment on a two-helo ship is probably only 50% larger (if that) than for a one-helo ship. I wanted to get exact numbers on one-helo vs. two helo detachments, but it's difficult given that the last single-helo ships USN operated were the FF-1052 Knox-class frigates. If anyone wants to step in with some useful sources, please do. That said, I did encounter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

recent article in Proceedings bemoaning the challenges of deploying with only one helicopter onboard:

It's not so much that I don't see the value of having two helicopters on a frigate sized ship, but rather I'm questioning how important it is in the scheme of things (including for the ASW role) when organic ship based ASW systems (especially towed systems) are also a major credible capability.

Given all of the above, in the scheme of the rest of the priorities of capability that the PLAN has to consider for their ships, I wonder if the "having dual hangars on every surface combatant" thing is considered a particularly highly ranked trait.

 

[Lethe]

How do guys view the deployment of greater numbers of ASW helicopter drones to complement the existing manned ASW helicopter fleet?

Smaller dimensions and weights should help with the numbers, as the 054As, 052Ds and 055s could carry more of these onboard each of them?

I'm honestly surprised there hasn't been more movement in this space yet. There definitely seems to be room for a new QH-50 DASH with technology, capability, reliability light-years beyond what was possible in the 1960s. You can use it to give off-board ASW capability to combatants like 056 that are too small to house a manned helicopter, or to increase the number of rotorcraft and therefore availability/coverage on larger combatants.

It's not so much that I don't see the value of having two helicopters on a frigate sized ship, but rather I'm questioning how important it is in the scheme of things (including for the ASW role) when organic ship based ASW systems (especially towed systems) are also a major credible capability.

Given all of the above, in the scheme of the rest of the priorities of capability that the PLAN has to consider for their ships, I wonder if the "having dual hangars on every surface combatant" thing is considered a particularly highly ranked trait.

The shipboard sensors remain hugely important not least of all because they have much better availability than helicopters. For an individual ship, having two helos is simply about increasing the likelihood that one helo will be available when required.

That said I am not suggesting that every surface combatant should have two helos, rather that every helicopter-equipped surface combatant of a size that can reasonably accommodate two helicopters should probably do so, as it is both more efficient on a task force level, and offers better operational prospects at the individual ship level. That is compatible with a number of notional inventories, including a future medium destroyer with no organic helicopter as I described previously (to reduce costs and thereby make such a platform a more cost-effective AAW complement to 055).

I think dual hangars have not been so important for PLAN to date because PLAN has not had (still does not have...) the kinds of helicopters it needs in the kinds of numbers it needs. Nonetheless, we should also note that PLAN fielded dual hangars right from the outset on the 051 destroyer 105 Jinan and of course the 052 destroyers, before moving back to single hangars with later designs, perhaps having keenly observed that they have no helicopters anyway!

 

[Blitzo]

I'm honestly surprised there hasn't been more movement in this space yet. There definitely seems to be room for a new QH-50 DASH with technology, capability, reliability light-years beyond what was possible in the 1960s. You can use it to give off-board ASW capability to combatants like 056 that are too small to house a manned helicopter, or to increase number of aircraft and therefore coverage on larger combatants.

Well, the PLA does have a decent sized VTOL helicopter drone that we've seen mockups on 075 for, and from external pics it looks similar in size to MQ-8C and may have a SSR and EO ball as standard.
Assuming it has a deployable payload capability, it may be able to carry some sonobuoys too.
Personally I think having a small hangar for one such drone would be a fair compromise for additional helicopter capability without needing a whole proper extra helicopter hangar.

The shipboard sensors remain hugely important not least of all because they have much better availability than helicopters. For an individual ship, having two helos is about increasing the likelihood that one helo will be available when required.

That said I am not suggesting that every surface combatant should have two helos, rather that every helicopter-equipped surface combatant of a size that can reasonably accommodate two helicopters should probably do so. That is compatible with a number of notional inventories, including a future medium destroyer with no helos as I previously suggested in order to reduce costs and thereby make such a platform a more cost-effective AAW complement to 055.

I think dual hangars have not been so important for PLAN to date because PLAN has not had (still does not have...) the kinds of helicopters it needs in the kinds of numbers it needs. Nonetheless, we should also note that PLAN fielded dual hangars right from the outset on the 051 destroyer 105 Jinan and of course the 052 destroyers, before moving back to single hangars with later designs, perhaps having keenly observed that they have no helicopters anyway!

I think the importance of having every blue water capable surface combatant able to support at least one helicopter is important simply because having no helicopter is unacceptable in this day and age.

Blue water capable combatants need to be able to operate independently in low to medium intensity environments, and I think the flexibility an onboard helicopter provides cannot be understated in that regard, while having no helicopter onboard for such a scenario would be potentially devastating.


Given the above, I think the slight additional gains in efficiency of having "every surface combatant able to host organic helicopters being able to carry two" is not as important as "every blue and water capable combatants having at least one organic helicopter onboard".

After all, if you're operating in a task group with 10 helicopters across 10 ships (one helicopter each), or 10 helicopters across 5 ships (two helicopters each) with 5 ships without hangars (zero helicopters each), you still have 10 helicopters across the task group in each situation.

But if you're a ship without a hangar at all, then you're screwed if you ever have to deploy independently and need a helicopter capability.


Now, I'm not against the idea of more surface combatants (including new designs in future) having two hangars as designed for it from the ground up, but I also don't think it's that big of an issue if most blue water capable combatants only have one hangar.

 

[Lethe]

Well, the PLA does have a decent sized VTOL helicopter drone that we've seen mockups on 075 for, and from external pics it looks similar in size to MQ-8C and may have a SSR and EO ball as standard.
Assuming it has a deployable payload capability, it may be able to carry some sonobuoys too.
Personally I think having a small hangar for one such drone would be a fair compromise for additional helicopter capability without needing a whole proper extra helicopter hangar.

I think such a drone should have a dipping sonar and sonobuoys, and ideally better endurance than a comparable manned helicopter. With VL-ASROC type weapons, the ability to carry a torpedo is probably not essential but still useful.

I think the importance of having every blue water capable surface combatant able to support at least one helicopter is important simply because having no helicopter is unacceptable in this day and age.

Blue water capable combatants need to be able to operate independently in low to medium intensity environments, and I think the flexibility an onboard helicopter provides cannot be understated in that regard, while having no helicopter onboard for such a scenario would be potentially devastating.

On the one hand, we can see that almost all modern surface combatants support at least one helicopter, so it is easy to think that they are essential. On the other hand, in USN we see that there are 28 Burke I/IIs that lack organic helicopters and remain in service today. I would contend that this single example is more meaningful than all of the rest of the world's examples put together because the context maps so neatly onto the question of a medium destroyer as a complement for 055.

USN was a large and well-resourced Navy that confronted formidable air and submarine threats and was able to respond to those threats with a diverse array of vessels optimised for different purposes. In designing Burke, the impetus was to create a next-generation surface combatant platform with high-level of AAW performance that was nonetheless significantly cheaper than Ticonderoga. In order to achieve this cost reduction, among other sacrifices, organic helicopters were dropped from the design, which was easy enough to do because the fleet was otherwise littered with helicopters. Only when most of those other helicopter-carrying ships were retired were helos added to create Burke IIA.

PLAN was a large and well-resourced Navy that confronted formidable air and submarine threats and was able to respond to those threats with a diverse array of vessels optimised for different purposes. In designing 052E, the impetus was to create a next-generation surface combatant platform with high-level of AAW performance that was nonetheless significantly cheaper than 055. In order to achieve this cost reduction, among other sacrifices...

After all, if you're operating in a task group with 10 helicopters across 10 ships (one helicopter each), or 10 helicopters across 5 ships (two helicopters each) with 5 ships without hangars (zero helicopters each), you still have 10 helicopters across the task group in each situation.

But if you're a ship without a hangar at all, then you're screwed if you ever have to deploy independently and need a helicopter capability.

At the task-force level, the difference is one of efficiency. The ten helicopters across ten ships scenario will have significantly more personnel across the helicopter detachments, each drawing a wage, consuming limited supplies, bunking in limited volumes. And when something breaks and spare parts are required, it is more likely that the problem will not be able to be solved within the ship but will require support from other ships or ashore, which is both time-consuming and can itself be a source of failures (helicopter sorties to deliver helicopter parts needed due to helicopter sorties). Or alternatively, the ten helos across ten ships scenario may simply be operating with higher total levels of spare parts, in turn further driving up costs and further eating into weight/volume margins.

If you do have to deploy independently with only one helo, you will often be screwed when you need to deploy it as well, as noted in the Proceedings article: "If a single-aircraft detachment is deployed as part of a carrier strike group, it has supplies and the support of other aircraft in close vicinity to keep its aircraft operational. Detachment 48.7, however, was on an independently deployed ship, making the lack of a second aircraft detrimental to the overall mission."

Fortunately, like USN, PLAN is large and well-resourced enough to field different types of ships optimised for different missions.

 

[Lethe]

In any case what matters is to be able to generate helo sorties and coordinate their operations, whether you have one ship with twenty helos or twenty ships with one helo each. The former is much more efficient, the latter more resilient once ships start sinking. However, so long as you have enough decks for redundancy purposes, and I believe PLAN should be able to achieve this, the efficiency gains from moving from one to two-helos aboard helo-carrying ships are considerable. The helicopter detachment on a two-helo ship is probably only 50% larger (if that) than for a one-helo ship. I wanted to get exact numbers on one-helo vs. two helo detachments, but it's difficult given that the last single-helo ships USN operated were the FF-1052 Knox-class frigates. If anyone wants to step in with some useful sources, please do.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Ignore all the LCS stuff)

Interpretation:

Standard USN Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) detachment to operate 1x MH60R is 18 people.
Standard USN HSM deployment on Cruisers and Destroyers to operate 2x MH60R is 25 people.

+40%

The gap between standard USN Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) detachment to operate 1xMH60S (20 people) and standard LHD detachment to operate 2xMH60S (32 people) is larger (+60%). I speculate this is because the LHD detachment is designed for higher sustained duty cycle than the Cruiser/Destroyer detachment.

So let us split the difference and say that supporting two helicopters requires 50% more personnel than supporting one. If we assume that 1x Z-20F requires 18 persons like MH-60R, 2xZ-20F would therefore require 27 persons. And so....

After all, if you're operating in a task group with 10 helicopters across 10 ships (one helicopter each), or 10 helicopters across 5 ships (two helicopters each) with 5 ships without hangars (zero helicopters each), you still have 10 helicopters across the task group in each situation.

The dual-hangar structure would therefore require 45 fewer persons to support ten helicopters (135 against 180 persons).

To put it another way, if you took the 180 personnel supporting ten helos across ten single-hangar ships and re-assigned them to dual-hangar ships instead, they could support thirteen helos.

 

[Blitzo]

I think such a drone should have a dipping sonar and sonobuoys, and ideally better endurance than a comparable manned helicopter. With VL-ASROC type weapons, the ability to carry a torpedo is probably not essential but still useful.

I agree that carrying a torpedo on a helicopter drone for ASW probably isn't a good use of it.

I think that giving a helicopter drone a dipping sonar probably is not a good idea because of how much volume a dipping sonar takes, and unless your helicopter drone is of a sufficient minimum size, the amount of fuselage volume that will bite into (and in turn, the amount of volume for fuel lost) would not be worth it.

I think an EO/IR ball, a surface search radar as integral, with side mounted sonobuoy employment pods would already be plenty capable for a MQ-8C sized helicopter UAV.

On the one hand, we can see that almost all modern surface combatants support at least one helicopter, so it is easy to think that they are essential. On the other hand, in USN we see that there are 28 Burke I/IIs that lack organic helicopters and remain in service today. I would contend that this single example is more meaningful than all of the rest of the world's examples put together because the context maps so neatly onto the question of a medium destroyer as a complement for 055.

USN was a large and well-resourced Navy that confronted formidable air and submarine threats and was able to respond to those threats with a diverse array of vessels optimised for different purposes. In designing Burke, the impetus was to create a next-generation surface combatant platform with high-level of AAW performance that was nonetheless significantly cheaper than Ticonderoga. In order to achieve this cost reduction, among other sacrifices, organic helicopters were dropped from the design, which was easy enough to do because the fleet was otherwise littered with helicopters. Only when most of those other helicopter-carrying ships were retired were helos added to create Burke IIA.

PLAN was a large and well-resourced Navy that confronted formidable air and submarine threats and was able to respond to those threats with a diverse array of vessels optimised for different purposes. In designing 052E, the impetus was to create a next-generation surface combatant platform with high-level of AAW performance that was nonetheless significantly cheaper than 055. In order to achieve this cost reduction, among other sacrifices...



At the task-force level, the difference is one of efficiency. The ten helicopters across ten ships scenario will have significantly more personnel across the helicopter detachments, each drawing a wage, consuming limited supplies, bunking in limited volumes. And when something breaks and spare parts are required, it is more likely that the problem will not be able to be solved within the ship but will require support from other ships or ashore, which is both time-consuming and can itself be a source of failures (helicopter sorties to deliver helicopter parts needed due to helicopter sorties). Or alternatively, the ten helos across ten ships scenario may simply be operating with higher total levels of spare parts, in turn further driving up costs and further eating into weight/volume margins.

If you do have to deploy independently with only one helo, you will often be screwed when you need to deploy it as well, as noted in the Proceedings article: "If a single-aircraft detachment is deployed as part of a carrier strike group, it has supplies and the support of other aircraft in close vicinity to keep its aircraft operational. Detachment 48.7, however, was on an independently deployed ship, making the lack of a second aircraft detrimental to the overall mission."

Fortunately, like USN, PLAN is large and well-resourced enough to field different types of ships optimised for different missions.

The dual-hangar structure would therefore require 45 fewer persons to support ten helicopters (135 against 180 persons).

To put it another way, if you took the 180 personnel supporting ten helos across ten single-hangar ships and re-assigned them to dual-hangar ships instead, they could support thirteen helos.

I'll put these two parts and reply to them together.

My view is that the additional man power efficiencies gained in this set up are probably not worth the reduction in flexibility that you would get by having all of your surface combatants have at least one onboard organic helicopter.

I do get where you are coming from, but I think the manpower gains in efficiency here are relatively small when looking at it form the scale of the entire navy, and the compromise in making a large portion of your blue water surface combatant fleet be unable to organically support a helicopter is not worth it.

I see the benefits in having more twin hangar blue water surface combatants -- but that should only be done when all blue water surface combatants have at least one helicopter onboard imo, and should not be at the cost of having some blue water combatants be unable to support a helicopter organically.
The costs from that can just be chalked up to a premium for ensuring fleet wide helicopter flexibility.