054/A FFG Thread II

[joshuatree]

What would be the role differentiation between 052D and 054B then? Would 054B simply be a slightly discounted version of the 052D? I think that isn't likely. I think much more likely any follow up 054A would use the same anti-air system as the 054A, but feature improve ASW capability, which I continue to regard as the weakest link in Chinese capability.

plawolf pretty much summed it up for my rationale of seeing a 054B sport a front and back universal VLS system. What's the point of developing a national standard universal VLS if it's not being used across the new platforms on the horizon? The standard did spec out three different heights so it doesn't mean the 054B with universal VLS may be able to carry all the different types of missiles as the type 052D. Furthermore, being able to eliminate the box AShMs would be nice. Figure it helps reduce RCS and it's gotta help with top heavy weight distribution. The type 052D would still sport better sensors, carry more firepower, and have longer endurance. That would be the differentiation. Budget wise, it would be cheaper but it makes sense for a frigate.

 

[franco-russe]

H.K's comments were posted on the 'Pakistan Defence Forum'.

Thanks.

 

[ladioussupp]

Four SAM launched by 054A. The first photo was published in the magazine, "Modern Ship" 2013 October A version.

 

[andyhugfan]

Four SAM launched by 054A. The first photo was published in the magazine, "Modern Ship" 2013 October A version.

View attachment 8442

View attachment 8443

These are precious photos that excite me a lot!!! What I can conclude from these photos is the following:

1. The type 054A SAM has multi-target engagement of at least 4 targets at the same time in reality. I know it can at max. engage 8 targets at the same time in theory, because the illumination radars can each process two missiles.

2. It can engage 4 targets at different altitudes looking at the pictures. The two left missiles are intended for high-altitude targets, the 3rd missile right for medium-altitude and the 4th missile right for a low-altitude target, presumably an AShm.

3. The SAM's create a lot of smoke and make it easier for enemy's to spot the ship.

If anyone has more to add, or wants to correct something, please feel free to do so.

 

[chuck731]

These are precious photos that excite me a lot!!! What I can conclude from these photos is the following:

1. The type 054A SAM has multi-target engagement of at least 4 targets at the same time in reality. I know it can at max. engage 8 targets at the same time in theory, because the illumination radars can each process two missiles.

2. It can engage 4 targets at different altitudes looking at the pictures. The two left missiles are intended for high-altitude targets, the 3rd missile right for medium-altitude and the 4th missile right for a low-altitude target, presumably an AShm.

3. The SAM's create a lot of smoke and make it easier for enemy's to spot the ship.

If anyone has more to add, or wants to correct something, please feel free to do so.

There is dispute whether front dome can engage 2 targets at once. Some think it can control two missiles at once, but only against a single target. So 054A could engage at least 4 different air targets at once, maybe with more than 1 missile per target.

But the flip side is unlike western warships, these engagement radars are split on beam positions, so only two of them can bear on each side of the ship. This means it could bring to bear only half of the ship's engagement potential against any serious threat from one single direction. This arrangement was inherited from Sovremenny, and appear to be a serious draw back.

As to smoke, I think even before 054A can launch any missiles, its target probably would have already picked up 054A's radar emissions. So smoke won't reveal the 054A any more than its own radar.

 

[adeptitus]

What would be the role differentiation between 052D and 054B then? Would 054B simply be a slightly discounted version of the 052D? I think that isn't likely. I think much more likely any follow up 054A would use the same anti-air system as the 054A, but feature improve ASW capability, which I continue to regard as the weakest link in Chinese capability.

The 054B is not likely to have the same wide-area AAW capability as the 052D. In the Japanese navy for example, the Akizuki-class destroyers are built with local area defense in mind (FCS3A+ESSM) and serve as escorts for the bigger and more expensive Aegis ships.

VLS systems are expensive and takes a lot of valuable space (deep deck penetration). The more VLS cells you install, the more space it'd occupy below-deck. If the Chinese Navy can successfully deploy quad-packed MRSAM like the ESSM with better local area AD capability, it'd mean "more bang for the buck" in VLS installation.

 

[plawolf]

There is dispute whether front dome can engage 2 targets at once. Some think it can control two missiles at once, but only against a single target. So 054A could engage at least 4 different air targets at once, maybe with more than 1 missile per target.

But the flip side is unlike western warships, these engagement radars are split on beam positions, so only two of them can bear on each side of the ship. This means it could bring to bear only half of the ship's engagement potential against any serious threat from one single direction. This arrangement was inherited from Sovremenny, and appear to be a serious draw back.

As to smoke, I think even before 054A can launch any missiles, its target probably would have already picked up 054A's radar emissions. So smoke won't reveal the 054A any more than its own radar.

What do you mean 'unlike western warships'?

Every single warship that relies on radar illuminators suffers from the same problem because you cannot physically position illuminators so that every single one has perfect 360 degree coverage around the entire ship. Its a universal physical constraint and is not limited to ships from any one nation.

With regards to saturation attacks, well you have to remember that the flip side to a saturation attack is that if you focus all your missiles to attack from a single vector, your missiles are going to invariable be pretty close together, and that can greatly increase the number of targets each illuminator can illuminate using time sharing.

Yes, all warships and vulnerable to saturation attacks, but don't expect to be able to overwhelm the defense of on 054A with just 4 missiles coming from one direction. The real number needed is going to be many times that.

 

[Blitzo]

There is dispute whether front dome can engage 2 targets at once. Some think it can control two missiles at once, but only against a single target. So 054A could engage at least 4 different air targets at once, maybe with more than 1 missile per target.

But the flip side is unlike western warships, these engagement radars are split on beam positions, so only two of them can bear on each side of the ship.

To be fair, ticonderoga arranges its two bow illuminators in a similar fashion to 054A. However burkes do position its three SPG-62s along the centreline, allowing them to engage multiple targets on one axis as well as providing a multi axis capability.

This means it could bring to bear only half of the ship's engagement potential against any serious threat from one single direction. This arrangement was inherited from Sovremenny, and appear to be a serious draw back.

Actually, this is an interesting scenario. I remember reading that during the falklands, RN ships made it standard practice to turn the bow into any detected incoming AshMs so as to present a smaller profile, and I wonder if PLAN may have picked up on it.

I mention this, because if 054A can orient itself to face towards a mass of incoming AShMs, it may also provide both the bow pair and aft pair of front domes an ability to light up targets on a single axis. The aft front domes seem sufficiently elevated so the rest of the ship's deck shouldn't intefere.
Obviously this is assuming the incoming missiles are spaced somewhat generously, and is dependent on what range 054A actually engages the targets, not to mention altitude, but I think there are circumstances where all four illuminators could be brought to bear.

(Looking at pictures of 054A, I think its aft illuminators can position themselves a minima of thirty degrees off the ship's centreline. If incoming missiles are clustered very tightly together, then it would be more difficult to train all four, perhaps only allowing for three. It should also be noted that turning into the incoming missiles may compromise 054A's ciws firing arcs)

 

[chuck731]

What do you mean 'unlike western warships'?

Every single warship that relies on radar illuminators suffers from the same problem because you cannot physically position illuminators so that every single one has perfect 360 degree coverage around the entire ship. Its a universal physical constraint and is not limited to ships from any one nation.

With regards to saturation attacks, well you have to remember that the flip side to a saturation attack is that if you focus all your missiles to attack from a single vector, your missiles are going to invariable be pretty close together, and that can greatly increase the number of targets each illuminator can illuminate using time sharing.

Yes, all warships and vulnerable to saturation attacks, but don't expect to be able to overwhelm the defense of on 054A with just 4 missiles coming from one direction. The real number needed is going to be many times that.

No one is asking any illuminator to provide 360 degree coverage. Most western warships locate missile illuminators along the center line, as a result, each illuminator has 270-300 degrees of coverage, and all directors can bear and provide wide coverage to either beam, providing an arc of at least 120 degrees to either side in which all of the vessel's engagement potential can be brought to bear.

Even with ticonderoga's two abreast illuminate arrangement over the bridge, each illuminator can still bear over 70-80 degrees to the opposite beam.

With sovremenny or 054A, it appears each illuminator has coverage of at most 180 degrees to its own side, and virtually no coverage to the opposite side except at high elevation. There may only be a extremely narrow slice to bow and stern in which all directors might be bought to bear. To saturate half of their defence the missile doesn't need to bunch as you think. The missile can approach over large part of either beam arc without risking being engaged by more than half of sovremenny and 054A's engagement radars.

 

[plawolf]

No one is asking any illuminator to provide 360 degree coverage. Most western warships locate missile illuminators along the center line, as a result, each illuminator has 270-300 degrees of coverage, and all directors can bear and provide wide coverage to either beam, providing an arc of at least 120 degrees to either side in which all of the vessel's engagement potential can be brought to bear.

Even with ticonderoga's two abreast illuminate arrangement over the bridge, each illuminator can still bear over 70-80 degrees to the opposite beam.

With sovremenny or 054A, it appears each illuminator has coverage of at most 180 degrees to its own side, and virtually no coverage to the opposite side except at high elevation. There may only be a extremely narrow slice to bow and stern in which all directors might be bought to bear. To saturate half of their defence the missile doesn't need to bunch as you think. The missile can approach over large part of either beam arc without risking being engaged by more than half of sovremenny and 054A's engagement radars.

Please take a look at a birds eye view picture of a Burke and map out just how many angles of approach can be covered by more than two (ie 50%) of its illuminators. The answer may be a great deal less than you seem to think.

PS

Maybe you would like to take another look at the 054A's illuminators positioning before you start taking about their coverage being limited to 180 degrees. The front pair are more limited by the mast and other superstructure, but the rear pair have near 360 degree fields of view, with only small blind spots directly ahead of the ship because of the main superstructure and each other if the missile is coming strait at the illuminator.

If you did a comparison, it appears the 054A can being 3 illuminators to bare on more angles than a Burke.