054/A FFG Thread II

[williamhou]

chinas naval technology is developing pretty quickly now, i think they should just assign a project to the junior engineers to make bigger versions of the ship while senior ones keep doing research.
even though those technologies they have are not the best, mediocore at most, but they are already decent at this stage. They wont have too many major breakthroughs in recent periods. So to maximise the effectiveness of the whole navy without having to wait or wasting money building more ships of the same size, why not just build bigger ships of the concepts.
maybe just build ships twice as big, it will be able to carry 3-4 times more missles, drastically increasing the capability of the ships.
Even those ships would be just same things of the smaller 054's, but they will still can learn from challenges while magnifying it, which they will eventually face when they build bigger Ticonderoga style ships with true Ticonderoga-like capabilities.
so this step would be like one stone multiple birds. it would train junior designers, imporving ability of the navy, solve future problems, cost effectiveness, etc
it is also like the pre-project research the americans did before the f-22 program went full throttle.
this would be a good suggestion of the chinese naval generals.

PLAN should be thinking to build a large multi mission destoryer capable of defending its future fleet and deter new threats like F-35 and DDG - 1000.

There is no point to build a 7000ton 054, why not spend the money and time to build a 052C with greater ability.

 

[crobato]

Billyboy, let me remind you again you still need to fix what you write on your Location. I don't consider what you write on it funny or cute.

Won't be hard to build a big 054A. It would be like the 052B only with VLS plus two more dozen missiles. Put 32 missiles on one end and another 32 missiles on the other for 64. Keep the 16 AshM layout or go with 8 AshMs and one more helicopter. Won't be hard to make a 051B with 64 HH-16s either.

William, its a bit of an argument to say which is better, the HQ-9 on the 052C or the HQ-16 on the 054A. Of course the HQ-9 on the 052C seems more conceptually advanced, but the basic characteristics set by the Russians on the Fregat-Orekh-Shtil system is quite sound. With little details on the operational aspects but their basic concepts to work on, its hard to say what is truly better. I get the impression the HQ-9 on the 052C is better for long range engagement, and so is the RIF-M on the 051C. They more like snipers. The arrangement on the 054A or for the Sovremannies is better for the closer to medium range against a denser saturation attack.

The one problem I see on the 054A is that you have one system in the bow. For every missile that is fired, a specific short time has to pass before you launch another, or you will overwhelm the system. If you got two VLS on a ship, one on each end, you can shoot one in one side, then another in the back side, then front again, and you will double the firing rate.

Against higher performance air threats I would probably opine the 052C is better due to its radar setup, but the VLS arrangement on the 054A has more potential and density, while in itself is more modular in the sense, it can probably be made to host other forms of missiles as well rather than just SAMs.

 

[kw64]

The one problem I see on the 054A is that you have one system in the bow. For every missile that is fired, a specific short time has to pass before you launch another, or you will overwhelm the system. If you got two VLS on a ship, one on each end, you can shoot one in one side, then another in the back side, then front again, and you will double the firing rate.

It's a good idea but personally I think 054A has already fitted with a large amount of weapon systems for a frigate of its size, I'm not sure if the ship has enough power to operate one more 32 cell VLS.

Does anyone know any frigate class that carries 64 AAMs?

 

[williamhou]

It's a good idea but personally I think 054A has already fitted with a large amount of weapon systems for a frigate of its size, I'm not sure if the ship has enough power to operate one more 32 cell VLS.

Does anyone know any frigate class that carries 64 AAMs?

The assumption was to "double the size of 054A" so its not a frigate anymore :rofl:

 

[williamhou]

William, its a bit of an argument to say which is better, the HQ-9 on the 052C or the HQ-16 on the 054A. Of course the HQ-9 on the 052C seems more conceptually advanced, but the basic characteristics set by the Russians on the Fregat-Orekh-Shtil system is quite sound. With little details on the operational aspects but their basic concepts to work on, its hard to say what is truly better. I get the impression the HQ-9 on the 052C is better for long range engagement, and so is the RIF-M on the 051C. They more like snipers. The arrangement on the 054A or for the Sovremannies is better for the closer to medium range against a denser saturation attack.

The one problem I see on the 054A is that you have one system in the bow. For every missile that is fired, a specific short time has to pass before you launch another, or you will overwhelm the system. If you got two VLS on a ship, one on each end, you can shoot one in one side, then another in the back side, then front again, and you will double the firing rate.

Against higher performance air threats I would probably opine the 052C is better due to its radar setup, but the VLS arrangement on the 054A has more potential and density, while in itself is more modular in the sense, it can probably be made to host other forms of missiles as well rather than just SAMs.

Yeah, the two missiles are of different ranges and both types of missiles are needed for good fleet defence.

As for against saturation attack, I am not sure how effective HQ-16 is on this task, I trust CIWS better However if they are effective then the HQ-16 VLS should be installed on more surface combatants as a standard missile defence system.

 

[crobato]

Kw64, the hypothetical idea is a hybrid between 052B+054A.

Take the 052B, remove the SAM launchers and replace them with VLS cells on both sides. That would raise the complement of missiles from 48 in the 052B to 64. I would imagine to balance out the sheer increase in weight, the 16 AshMs should be reduced to 8.

William, CIWS I kind of have doubts in response to supersonic missiles. In any case they're a bit short ranged, and the lower the caliber, not only is the range shorter, but the trajectory is less flat which makes them less accurate. Generally, we're talking about weapons that is only effective up to 5 to 8km in range. A missile will double or triple those figures.

Key issue between HQ-16 vs. HQ-9 is the SARH principle vs. ARH principle. In the first, you have radar illuminators on the ship shining on the target where the reflections guide the missile. On the second, the emitter is on the missile itself, allowing the missile to be autonomous. You can see the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. When it comes to long range, the ARH system is better, because the emitter can be brought close to the target and you get better signal gain. Since the emitter is brought onboard, there is no radar horizon issues, and the missile is autonomous. But on close range, under an intense radar interference environment, SARH has a virtue on its own, because a ship board illuminator is far more powerful than a missile emitter, and is capable of steering a narrow beam that can cut through the clutter. The stronger the signal gain you get, the faster the missile can lock into the target, the greater is the confidence or authority the missile homes in to the target. However this system also limits the number of missiles you can engage simultaneously to the number of illuminators on board, while the ARH system can theoritically allow for engaging a larger number of missiles, where the limitations being the back end fire control systems on the ship.

 

[tphuang]

some new photos from HP shipyard, it's a little bit disappointing because 054A that just got launched is blocked by 530. And also, it's interesting 530 is getting more work done from the look of the scaffolding on the foremast.

We have a nice look at the VLS of the two ships.

 

[jackbh]

They probably did that on purpose to cover the new ship from preying eyes.

 

[King_Comm]

The red banners with yellow writing in those pictures actually says "Do not take pictures".

 

[Kongo]

It's a good idea but personally I think 054A has already fitted with a large amount of weapon systems for a frigate of its size, I'm not sure if the ship has enough power to operate one more 32 cell VLS.

Does anyone know any frigate class that carries 64 AAMs?

Australia's Adelaide Class, an upgraded Perry class frigate. It can carry 32 SM-2s and 32 ESSMs, or even 40 SM-2s and 32 ESSMs if it swaps its load of 8 Harpoons for SM-2s.

The F100 Bazaan is also termed a frigate and carries 32 SM-2s and 64 ESSMs. But with its displacement, calling it a frigate is arguable.