054/A FFG Thread II

[Mu Shu Tortilla]

Absalon vs LCS? Different tools for different jobs. Maximum draft for an LCS is to be 3.1 meters. This is to allow it to operate inshore, where fast attack craft normally rule. Absalon has twice the draft, and twice the displacement too. It emphatically won't go inshore and mix with fast attack craft. Any troops it embarks will have to deploy from deeper water than troops deployed from an LCS.
The crew size of Absalon is much greater than an LCS, making an Absalon much more expensive to operate over it's lifecycle. I believe the USN plans to rotate crews through deployed LCS, while leaving the ship itself deployed overseas, increasing it's on station time. You need a small crew to do this.
LCS is what happens when a blue water navy like the USN feels a need to operate close to the beach in foreign shores. Fast attack craft are not seaworthy enough for transits from the US to Asia or the Middle East. The size of a FAC greatly limits their military utility. Stationing FAC's abroad is not often practical, and if the action is too far from where the FAC's are stationed, all the usual restrictions on their ability to make open ocean transits apply. The USN found out operating the Tacoma class that such craft slow down all the other ships, require almost daily refueling and resupply and in general cannot take rough seas like a frigate can. Their crews suffer when they cannot return to base in calm waters routinely.
An LCS is big enough to make a trans-Pacific passage comfortably, and have an unrefueled range similar to a frigate. Unlike a traditional frigate, an LCS can mix with much smaller vessels in inshore combat, bring helos and drones to the fight that the local FAC's cannot, or an LCS can conduct covert special forces operations in shallow waters. LCS uses water jets instead of propellers to minimize draft. With a draft in excess of six meters, an Absalon cannot do the LCS inshore mission, and I doubt it has the top speed of something like USS Independence. Different tools for different jobs.

 

[Kongo]

European frigates are generally larger for the same loadout because they have to have better seakeeping for the Atlantic. If one didn't care for seakeeping, you could squeeze loadouts into the hull and get yoursel finto a Saar V situation.

With exception to the CIWS requirement, I think Singapore's Formidable Class come close to fitting your requirement. It's the only La Fayette class variant with 32-cel VLS, and full load displacement is quoted at 3,200 tons. If you really, really wanted to, you could probably bolt on a couple CIWS systems without adding too much weight.

The Formidable frigate can get as much, if not more, capability than the 054A partly because it went for a multi-function radar design with active terminal guidance missiles. Even CIWS is not a necessity with the short demonstrated minimum range of the Aster 15 at 1.7km. But if you really wanted 2 CIWS, 2 can be fitted above the hangar, which has space originally reserved for 2 gun systems.

 

[tphuang]

European frigates are generally larger for the same loadout because they have to have better seakeeping for the Atlantic. If one didn't care for seakeeping, you could squeeze loadouts into the hull and get yoursel finto a Saar V situation.



The Formidable frigate can get as much, if not more, capability than the 054A partly because it went for a multi-function radar design with active terminal guidance missiles. Even CIWS is not a necessity with the short demonstrated minimum range of the Aster 15 at 1.7km. But if you really wanted 2 CIWS, 2 can be fitted above the hangar, which has space originally reserved for 2 gun systems.

that radar actually is heavy and takes up a lot of space. Now, part of the reason why Formidable class is not in the 4000 tonne range is because it's highly automated, so it only needs 70 crew members, which would result in less need for crew spacing, food storage and stuff like this for deployments. I doubt you can say the same about PLAN ship. Also, 054A actually does have more stuff like the OTH radar, bow mounted sonar, ASW rockets and those CIWSs. The space for CIWS is not just the space it occurs, but the extra deck penetration and also the additional sensors that are integrated with it.

 

[Jeff Head]

that radar actually is heavy and takes up a lot of space. Now, part of the reason why Formidable class is not in the 4000 tonne range is because it's highly automated, so it only needs 70 crew members, which would result in less need for crew spacing, food storage and stuff like this for deployments. I doubt you can say the same about PLAN ship. Also, 054A actually does have more stuff like the OTH radar, bow mounted sonar, ASW rockets and those CIWSs. The space for CIWS is not just the space it occurs, but the extra deck penetration and also the additional sensors that are integrated with it.

On the CIWS, it depends on how automated and self-standing they are. For example, the Phalanx and the RAM require, other than wiring them to the ships overall battle management system, very little additional spaces on US vessels.

To get back to the 054As, I believe the 054A CIWS is similar in design, with little additional space required.

I really like this pic of the 570. Very clean lines, this pic (particularly in high res) shows off all of her armament capabilities from the main gun fore, to the VLS, to the cannister launch ASuW amidships, to the CIWS, to the ASW rockets, to the helo deck. A great pic actually..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Kongo]

that radar actually is heavy and takes up a lot of space. Now, part of the reason why Formidable class is not in the 4000 tonne range is because it's highly automated, so it only needs 70 crew members, which would result in less need for crew spacing, food storage and stuff like this for deployments. I doubt you can say the same about PLAN ship. Also, 054A actually does have more stuff like the OTH radar, bow mounted sonar, ASW rockets and those CIWSs. The space for CIWS is not just the space it occurs, but the extra deck penetration and also the additional sensors that are integrated with it.

It is not heavy at 3 tons compared to 2.5 tons of a Fregat M2EM. Anyway, it cannot be heavier or more volume intensive than a Sea Eagle, a Type 346, a Type 347G (for gunfire control) and 4 Orekhs combined. The reduced crew saves space, but that is not a major factor compared to the space, weight and cooling requirements of the additional equipment needed from not using a multifunction radar. It is true that the 054A has some additional equipment, but the Formidable has some equipment that the 054A doesn't have too. And it is likely that the Formidable's design can accomodate them considering that the design had enough weight allowance to warrant changing the construction material to steel. The problem with the 054A is that a lot of its equipment are very heavy, like its 76mm gun. Changing its equipment config would give equal capability on a smaller hull.

 

[escobar]

hope that they will reduce the weight of the various systems on the future fregate

 

[tphuang]

It is not heavy at 3 tons compared to 2.5 tons of a Fregat M2EM. Anyway, it cannot be heavier or more volume intensive than a Sea Eagle, a Type 346, a Type 347G (for gunfire control) and 4 Orekhs combined. The reduced crew saves space, but that is not a major factor compared to the space, weight and cooling requirements of the additional equipment needed from not using a multifunction radar. It is true that the 054A has some additional equipment, but the Formidable has some equipment that the 054A doesn't have too. And it is likely that the Formidable's design can accomodate them considering that the design had enough weight allowance to warrant changing the construction material to steel. The problem with the 054A is that a lot of its equipment are very heavy, like its 76mm gun. Changing its equipment config would give equal capability on a smaller hull.

so we can agree that automation and weapon compactness on Chinese ship isn't there yet, so a Chinese ship would require greater displacement for same weapon load. I don't want to turn this into another 054A vs Formidable discussion, so let's just stop here.

 

[hkbc]

Not sure if all this comparision with the Formidable is appropriate with respect to the displacement of the 54A. The formidables are well equipped and automated vessels but they have comparatively short legs as befits their mission profile. Less range smaller fuel bunkerage requirements etc, The 54A is probably more akin in size to a Royal Navy Type 23 than a formidable. It should also be noted that the Saudi Al Riyadh class also a Lafayette derivative has a 1000 ton greater full displacement than the formidables with a similiar weapon load out. So I would contend that mission profile rather than equipment is a better determinant of vessel size. Now if the 54A is truly a part of the PLAN's blue water agenda then 4500+ tons would not be unreasonable.

 

[Kongo]

Not sure if all this comparision with the Formidable is appropriate with respect to the displacement of the 54A. The formidables are well equipped and automated vessels but they have comparatively short legs as befits their mission profile. Less range smaller fuel bunkerage requirements etc, The 54A is probably more akin in size to a Royal Navy Type 23 than a formidable. It should also be noted that the Saudi Al Riyadh class also a Lafayette derivative has a 1000 ton greater full displacement than the formidables with a similiar weapon load out. So I would contend that mission profile rather than equipment is a better determinant of vessel size. Now if the 54A is truly a part of the PLAN's blue water agenda then 4500+ tons would not be unreasonable.

Which brings me back to my original point - trying to draw relationships between ship size and weapons load is a meaningless exercise when so many other factors affect the equation.

 

[Mu Shu Tortilla]

Which brings me back to my original point - trying to draw relationships between ship size and weapons load is a meaningless exercise when so many other factors affect the equation.

Pretty hard to judge the success of a particular design if you don't know what the performance parameters the naval architects were trying to hit. Do we know the range, endurance, top speed and the details of the missions each navy specified for these two frigates? Not that I am aware of, some of that information is probably going to be classified. Both designs might be successful for the intended mission, and both might be failures if they were swapped between the Chinese and Singapore navies. If your navy does a lot of at sea replenishment you build ships with certain passageways very big, and certain ladders very wide. At a casual glance this looks like an obscene waste of space on a man-o-war, and jokes are made about the Island Princess, but in reality such features are necessary to minimize the time the ship's company is occupied in an unrep, and to allow the logistics ship to service more customers per day.