Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)

[AndrewS]

Capable of conducting long patrols in blue water conditions without having to constantly rely on a nearby fleet.

For peacetime patrols, such a Frigate wouldn't even need 32 SAMs

---

In a low-intensity conflict, 32 SAMs is fine.

---

In a high-intensity conflict, unless that Frigate has air cover, it will likely get sunk. The side with air power will be able to overwhelm the Frigate (or indeed, any surface ship) with repeated attacks.

For at least the next 10 years, China will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of naval aviation from aircraft carriers.

So if Chinese naval ships go past the 2IC, they will likely get sunk quickly because it is beyond support from the Chinese Air Force and Chinese Rocket Force.

That means Chinese Frigates will predominantly operate within the 2IC, and it's only a 3 day journey to cover the 3000km distance from China to Guam for example. And remember most operating locations will be closer.

Within the 2IC, there will be a lot of destroyers which are designed with long-range air defence, which are better suited to independent operations.

So where does that leave a future frigate design? Focusing as a low-cost ASW platform, whilst also having sufficient AAW to protect itself and nearby ships

 

[Engineer]

Capable of conducting long patrols in blue water conditions without having to constantly rely on a nearby fleet.

I don't understand the obsession over small size of frigates?? 054A is clearly not built and designed for prolonged blue water deployments, why are people so against from building larger frigates that can house crews more comfortably and carry more supplies for longer range? People on weibo clearly agrees with me on needing larger cleansheet designs with blue water operations designed in mind from the get go.

I don't understand people's obsession with pimping up a frigate?

There's nothing wrong with a bigger frigate. Increasing the armament to destroyer level is a problem, because that's just building a destroyer. People Weibo are not engineers. Stop taking them seriously.

 

[Tomboy]

I don't understand people's obsession with pimping up a frigate?

There's nothing wrong with a bigger frigate. Increasing the armament to destroyer level is a problem, because that's just building a destroyer. People Weibo are not engineers. Stop taking them seriously.

Where's the pimping up a frigate coming from? I'm simply saying the new frigate should be larger for blue water operation, this is also what others on weibo has been saying.

So where does that leave a future frigate design? Focusing as a low-cost ASW platform, whilst also having sufficient AAW to protect itself and nearby ships

Once these new frigates go into serial it'll be another 5 years or so, you are designing ships for the next 30+ years not the next 5-10. Also is HHQ-16A really sufficient for even self protection in the near future?

 

[Dante80]

My understanding is that 054B was built larger with more range and extended missions in mind.
They Look fine, go build 30 of them.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

In a high-intensity conflict, unless that Frigate has air cover, it will likely get sunk. The side with air power will be able to overwhelm the Frigate (or indeed, any surface ship) with repeated attacks.

For at least the next 10 years, China will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of naval aviation from aircraft carriers.

So if Chinese naval ships go past the 2IC, they will likely get sunk quickly because it is beyond support from the Chinese Air Force and Chinese Rocket Force.

That means Chinese Frigates will predominantly operate within the 2IC, and it's only a 3 day journey to cover the 3000km distance from China to Guam for example. And remember most operating locations will be closer.

I don't think its that simple to say that PLA ships will be sunk if they venture out of 2IC because of lack of "air cover". What does air cover even mean in modern warfare. Modern ship based SAM systems are extremely accurate and highly capable. Can a US carrier based fighter jet come even close to type 055 or or type 052 without getting shot down?

How about a layered air defense with Type 055, 052 and 054 all supporting each other.

The only limitation of ship based SAM is curvature of the earth which limits detection range if planes or missiles hug the ground. So, if 1 carrier is added to a fleet composed of destroyers and frigates with strong SAM capability, that carrier can launch planes that can act as over the horizon watchmen. They can cue ship-based sam for any ground hugging planes or missiles coming.

I believe modern naval warfare is dominated by missiles and not by planes. The main job of the planes will be to provide the over the horizon radar. But the main firing will be done by the ship based missiles.

China lacks 11 carriers like US, but it has 50 destroyers and 40+ frigates. So, it has essentially closed the gap when it comes to destroyers and frigates. So, China can go toe to toe with US navy in the deep pacific by relying on its ship based missiles with its smaller number of carriers.

If there is a Chinese "Rengō Kantai" style combined fleet with 2-3 carriers and 30-40 destroyers and frigates in one single fleet supporting each other, I think it will be extremely difficult, close to impossible to sink such a fleet.

 

[AndrewS]

Once these new frigates go into serial it'll be another 5 years or so, you are designing ships for the next 30+ years not the next 5-10.

I think the key priority is to achieve air-sea supremacy in a high-intensity conflict around the 2nd Island Chain, and that a realistic timeframe to do this is 10 years.

That would mean the US Navy has already been defeated in a blue water naval battle, and China is secure. Optimising a Frigate design for the next 30 years is premature, given the immediate task ahead.

But I'm not against a larger Frigate design, say 6000-7000 tonnes. The Type-054 design is 25 years old now, so it is about time for a newer design. And it makes sense to future proof it with a larger hull, given that steel is cheap.

But the weapons and sensor layout (which is the expensive part) should be optimised for its ASW role in a high intensity conflict around the 2IC, where there will be supporting air cover and air-defence destroyers.

Also is HHQ-16A really sufficient for even self protection in the near future?

I think the answer is almost certainly yes, a HHQ-16 is sufficient. Remember, the key limitation is the radar horizon of 50km or so. You don't need a larger SAM with more range.

 

[AndrewS]

I don't think its that simple to say that PLA ships will be sunk if they venture out of 2IC because of lack of "air cover". What does air cover even mean in modern warfare. Modern ship based SAM systems are extremely accurate and highly capable. Can a US carrier based fighter jet come even close to type 055 or or type 052 without getting shot down?

How about a layered air defense with Type 055, 052 and 054 all supporting each other.

The only limitation of ship based SAM is curvature of the earth which limits detection range if planes or missiles hug the ground. So, if 1 carrier is added to a fleet composed of destroyers and frigates with strong SAM capability, that carrier can launch planes that can act as over the horizon watchmen. They can cue ship-based sam for any ground hugging planes or missiles coming.

I believe modern naval warfare is dominated by missiles and not by planes. The main job of the planes will be to provide the over the horizon radar. But the main firing will be done by the ship based missiles.

China lacks 11 carriers like US, but it has 50 destroyers and 40+ frigates. So, it has essentially closed the gap when it comes to destroyers and frigates. So, China can go toe to toe with US navy in the deep pacific by relying on its ship based missiles with its smaller number of carriers.

If there is a Chinese "Rengō Kantai" style combined fleet with 2-3 carriers and 30-40 destroyers and frigates in one single fleet supporting each other, I think it will be extremely difficult, close to impossible to sink such a fleet.

Think about it.

An E-2 AWACs has a radar horizon of 400km, and should be able to detect ships at this distance. They'll just keep sending in missiles until those ships are sunk.

---

So you need air cover to shoot down opposing ISR aircraft. This also allows your own ISR aircraft to find your opponent's ships, so you can keep sending in missiles until they are sunk.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Think about it.

An E-2 AWACs has a radar horizon of 400km, and should be able to detect ships at this distance. They'll just keep sending in missiles until those ships are sunk.

---

So you need air cover to shoot down opposing ISR aircraft. This also allows your own ISR aircraft to find your opponent's ships, so you can keep sending in missiles until they are sunk.

First of all, China has carriers with its own AWACS now. So, those AWACS can cue ground based missiles to shoot down enemy planes. Ground based SAMS will always outrange plane based missiles. So, one Chinese carrier can do the job of 3 US carriers if they are supported by large number of destroyers with SAMs.

Moreover, China can also launch drones that can act as ultra long range observers. those drones can detect any enemy attack planes coming and again, cue the ship-based SAMs to launch missiles.

This takes care of long range defense.

Secondly, you are only talking about China defending. China will not just defend, they will also attack. Those US planes need to take-off from somewhere, and those airfields/carriers can be attacked by Hypersonic Missiles from Destroyers. You don't need planes to attack ships anymore.

My point is, 1 carrier supported by 10-20 destroyers and frigates can do the job of 3-4 US carriers. The main job of a modern carrier should not be even fighting other carriers, but acting as the ISR node while destroyers launch all the missiles.

So, with this kind of approach, China can most certainly survive outside the "Air cover" PLA Air force and operate in the deep pacific.

 

[AndrewS]

First of all, China has carriers with its own AWACS now. So, those AWACS can cue ground based missiles to shoot down enemy planes. Ground based SAMS will always outrange plane based missiles. So, one Chinese carrier can do the job of 3 US carriers if they are supported by large number of destroyers with SAMs.

Moreover, China can also launch drones that can act as ultra long range observers. those drones can detect any enemy attack planes coming and again, cue the ship-based SAMs to launch missiles.

This takes care of long range defense.

Secondly, you are only talking about China defending. China will not just defend, they will also attack. Those US planes need to take-off from somewhere, and those airfields/carriers can be attacked by Hypersonic Missiles from Destroyers. You don't need planes to attack ships anymore.

My point is, 1 carrier supported by 10-20 destroyers and frigates can do the job of 3-4 US carriers. The main job of a modern carrier should not be even fighting other carriers, but acting as the ISR node while destroyers launch all the missiles.

So, with this kind of approach, China can most certainly survive outside the "Air cover" PLA Air force and operate in the deep pacific.

That doesn't work.

In a blue-water naval battle, with no land-based air support, what will happen if a single carrier is up against three carriers?

The side with 3 carriers will likely clear the skies of all opposing aircraft.
That allow ISR aircraft to operate freely, and track opposing ships until they are destroyed.

 

[AndrewS]

I don't see any way around this, which is why I think there will be a large-scale carrier construction programme starting around 2030, once there is a mature design(s) ready for serial production.

Theoretically, we could see:
1. Jiangnan assembling a carrier every 2 years
2. Plus Dalian assembling a carrier every 2 years

If relations are bad enough, I could see that cadence (1 carrier per year) continuing for 5+ years, before dropping back to a sustainable 1-2 every 5 years.