Type 054/A FFG Thread II


backwindow

New Member
Nice post!
Just want to point out that the replaced gun was 100mm, and PLAN's larger gun is 130mm not 127mm.
which is either the single 90mm gun, twin 100mm gun or the 127mm

There is some progress on the 054 refit front, gathered some pics from different sources including from the PDF via LKJ86.


This is how one of the 054 looked pre-refit as of 2015. This image is courtesy of the JSMDF.

View attachment 65329

Note where the Type 344 and 345 radars are standing on top of the bridge. There is a platform for the Type 345 radar, which acts as the FCR for the HQ-7, and on top of that, a second platform for the Type 344 radar, which is the FCR for the main 90mm gun. Also note towards the rear, on top of the hanger, there is a platform with a Type 347 radar on it, this acts as the fire control radar for the four AK-630 guns.

Here one of the ships as she is moored, and has been totally stripped. For now the two platforms are preserved.

View attachment 65330


But once the ship is in dry dock, some work has been taking place. Now notice the platform for the Type 345 radar has been removed. We are not going to see this radar used again, as the HQ-7 has been removed and all the places where the HQ-7 launcher and cache would occupy is now sealed off. But note that the platform for the Type 344 radar is still there.


View attachment 65332


In the latest picture, the platform for the Type 344 gunnery radar has been removed. This points to the Type 344 radar is not going to be used with this ship anymore, and by direct correlation, the guns it services, which is either the single 90mm gun, twin 100mm gun or the 127mm gun you see on destroyers. This means the previous main gun is no more, and won't be returned in the refit. Now the space on top of the bridge looks much more like a Type 054A's. At this point, its likely a Type 347 fire control radar will be installed instead, and with that radar, the ship gets your typical 76mm gun.


View attachment 65333


The large clearance of space on top of the bridge opens the door to a lot of things, such as installation of other radars and so on. On the 054A, this space is occupied by the dome of a Type 366 antiship radar and two Front Domes as targeting for the HQ-16.

Next picture we see portable air conditioning and oxygen bottles used for welding. So something is going on underneath the former HQ-7 platform.


View attachment 65335


Next is the picture at the back. The platform on top of the hanger is for a Type 347 radar, which is used for gunnery fire control for the AK-630s. It has not been removed, and it is even primered for a new paint. The retention of the platform suggests they may put a radar or something on it. Its possible the Type 347 radar there will be returned and the ship will keep its four AK-630 CIWS. They might also change the Type 347 radar there to the Type 349, which is similar to the 347 but has a flat face dome instead of a conical rice farmer hat dome. The Type 349 is used on the Type 071 and on the 136/137 DD refits as the gunnery fire control for the AK-630s, so the 349 is the current standard FCR for use with these guns.

There is also a few other possibilities for this platform's retention is that it can be for a SATCOM, or they might put a Type 517 or even a Type 520 (the 052DL's "Fly Swatter"). My opinion is that these possibilities might be lower but anything can go. But for now I lean that a Type 347 or 349 will be installed there with the Type 349 as the stronger possibility, and the four AK-630s will be retained, as in the Chinese version with the stealth turrets.


View attachment 65336
 

W20

New Member
Registered Member
b4874eca9714398a578bfaabf13692ab.jpg

Frigate Type 054A

for me it is simply perfect, a work of art, as an armchair admiral i am going to order 20 for the navy of my little kingdom, seriously: it seems like a successful Concept to me
 

W20

New Member
Registered Member
I am in love with this rational-functional frigate, for example: the ship's funnel/chimney (heat source): Radar 364 at the top, and on both sides, port and starboard, 1130 CIWS

Wow, rational, functional, It seems to me that it is a set of pieces well fitted:

A good balance between (1) Price (2) anti-submarine warfare (3) superior in surface warfare against equivalent and even higher tonnage ships of medium-sized naval forces and (4) good or reasonable good defense against the hegemon

now my curiosity is ... if the "navy red flag" (HHQ) 16 system ... has an IR homing version for short range, in addition to SARH
 

daifo

Junior Member
Registered Member
IMO, for upgrades:
For its role as short-range air defense for the fleet, it should take the quad pack missiles. Alternative is to have some transform purely for short range air defense and replace the anti-ship missiles with quad pack boxes on deck (similar to the ones found on the ford carrier)
For sub hunting, expanded deck and hanger for z-20
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
For its role as short-range air defense for the fleet, it should take the quad pack missiles
You will have to choose one.
By modern standards, full-sized HHQ-16 isn't all that long ranged to begin with. Packing 4 area defense missiles into the same cell will be a challenge.
 

W20

New Member
Registered Member
Maybe against a subsonic target, 0.7-0.9 Mach ... "navy red flag" (HHQ) 16 could launch two volleys of two missiles that would be 4 in total, and then 1130 CIWS (30 mm x 11 (Wooow)) could fire four 1-second volleys

I was playing to imagine a new version, but the last ones (sometimes called 054A+) is already a good Beast, and if for example we add YJ-12 to it ...

Anyway, it seems to me that we fans fly with our imaginations towards the latest futuristic inventions or we think of solutions without having much idea of the problem, for example, I can think of a large VHF radar and four flat antennas of a X-radar located high up, to replace the four target illumination radars and the 364 radar
 

W20

New Member
Registered Member
HHQ-16 C

"Not much else is known about this new system, but there are reports stating that it can intercept very low-flying targets"
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
I am in love with this rational-functional frigate, for example: the ship's funnel/chimney (heat source): Radar 364 at the top, and on both sides, port and starboard, 1130 CIWS

Wow, rational, functional, It seems to me that it is a set of pieces well fitted:

A good balance between (1) Price (2) anti-submarine warfare (3) superior in surface warfare against equivalent and even higher tonnage ships of medium-sized naval forces and (4) good or reasonable good defense against the hegemon

now my curiosity is ... if the "navy red flag" (HHQ) 16 system ... has an IR homing version for short range, in addition to SARH

IR version is not likely to happen. IR systems isn't perfect for SAMs or naval SAMs because they can get fooled by the sun if the sun is low on the horizon. SARH itself is pretty good for short to mid range work, does very well against intense cluttered environment. Buk/HQ-16 users seem to like the way the missile as it is, as in its current form, the missile is very effective. It may not have a long range, but it is reliable, has a very high speed for interception, and appears to have a high chance of killing its target. Much of its evolution is towards refinement, rather than trying to fix something that ain't broken.

The 054A is very well designed, more than most people think the way it is, once you identify each of the parts, the sensors, the weaponry, how it each works and how everything is positioned.

If I were to put an IR missile on the ship, I would go with trying to see if I can put an HQ-10 launcher on top of the hanger. If the hanger is extended to let's say, put a Z-20, you can move the two missile illuminators from the top of the hanger door, and leave that space for an HQ-10 launcher.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
You will have to choose one.
By modern standards, full-sized HHQ-16 isn't all that long ranged to begin with. Packing 4 area defense missiles into the same cell will be a challenge.

HHQ-16 is similar in size with the SM-2, and the missile is kept and launched without folding the fins. The VLS is also used with an ASROC, which is basically a torpedo with a rocket booster. So the VLS itself isn't one of those dedicated to one missile alone like the mushroom ones the Brits use on their older ships, or the Russians use in their Redut and Shtil-1. In fact, my impression of the VLS is that it's a knockoff of the Mk. 41 and may even be similar in dimensions. The HHQ-16 alone is like 700kg, and that's about the weight of a YJ-83.

It could handle a quad pack if the quad packing missile was specifically designed for this VLS, but the PLAN has to choose making the quad pack either for this VLS or the U-VLS used with the destroyers. The larger VLS would mean larger missiles that goes with the quadpack, which means a greater potential ceiling for performance and complexity with the missile. You can potentially make a small SAM to quadpack on both VLS, but it won't be as ideal for the destroyers compared to a missile that could optimally quad pack on the U-VLS. If I have to choose, I would go with designing a missile that is optimal for the U-VLS, given that the destroyers are more valuable assets.
 
Last edited:

Top