054/A FFG Thread II

[kurutoga]

Ya, but the experiment obviously failed

Vincent, that is too harsh. We human experiment with things, and experiments mostly (were expected to) fail, that is how we learn. Both LCS versions had different priorities (speed vs armament) than 054A/056 because USN must fight speedboats from Iran etc. It's debatable if USN's investment should be less in large ships, but we can encourage them for at least keep trying. I am sure PLAN will run into the same hard decision in the future if they are successful. That is the cost you pay as a leader.

World navies are in different situations. The key thing is to maximize your advantages. For China the main focus is to play catch-up, and there is still a huge gap, especially in submarines.

 

[Jura The idiot]

seeing LCSs still a topic here ... first of all, they're a product of what I've been criticizing for a long time, which is so called concurrency, as in Apr 10, 2016

...
the US Military has become involved in "concurrency" BALONEY when hulls/frames are being built for untested/unproven/unfinished components and oops, because of changes in components, hulls/frames which are being built need to be changed (I've been saying this in more than one Thread for some time, and if you asked me what I suggested:

... it's clear to me the US Military should've instead gradually develop, gradually test, gradually manufacture, gradually field new options, not like scrambling many of them together and wait more than a decade for some Wunderwaffe, which only "ultimately" works ...

... for NOW, the results of "concurrency" (just to make sure what Projects I'm talking about: LCSs; Zumwalt Destroyers; Ford Supercarriers; F-35) are cost overruns threatened by Nunn-McCurdy, and unending delays ...

the relevance here is China can see how NOT to proceed

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AndrewS]

Vincent, that is too harsh. We human experiment with things, and experiments mostly (were expected to) fail, that is how we learn. Both LCS versions had different priorities (speed vs armament) than 054A/056 because USN must fight speedboats from Iran etc. It's debatable if USN's investment should be less in large ships, but we can encourage them for at least keep trying. I am sure PLAN will run into the same hard decision in the future if they are successful. That is the cost you pay as a leader.

World navies are in different situations. The key thing is to maximize your advantages. For China the main focus is to play catch-up, and there is still a huge gap, especially in submarines.

An experiment would be 1-2 ships of each LCS class, before deciding a design. That was the original plan.

Instead, they ended up with 2 sets of duplicate warship programmes that are essentially perform the same function.

And furthermore, these duplicate warship programmes now comprise 28 vessels in total.

But more crucially, these ships don't actually meet the needs of the US Navy in terms of range/armament/capabilities/etc for a medium-threat environment.

So calling the LCS programme a failure is not harsh.

 

[Tam]

An experiment would be 1-2 ships of each LCS class, before deciding a design. That was the original plan.

Instead, they ended up with 2 sets of duplicate warship programmes that are essentially perform the same function.

And furthermore, these duplicate warship programmes now comprise 28 vessels in total.

But more crucially, these ships don't actually meet the needs of the US Navy in terms of range/armament/capabilities/etc for a medium-threat environment.

So calling the LCS programme a failure is not harsh.

The USN is now scrambling towards its own frigate program as FFG(X). Whole bunch of companies have submitted their proposals, three based on European hulls --- Fincantieri FREMM, Navantia F110, Thyssenkrupp F147, these partnered with American companies and shipyards. Then you have Austal with enlarged and rearmed Independence lass, Hunger Ingalls with something based on the Legend class cutter, and Lockheed Martin with a heavily enlarged and modified version of the Freedom class. One key element of this program is that the USN wants it fast, and wants it with existing, off the shelf and proven technologies.

There are quite a wave of 'future frigate' programs happening simultaneously, including the UK (Type 26/31), Canada (CSC), Australia (SEA500), New Zealand (ANZAC replacement), and France (FTI). So its about time for China to move from Type 054A to 054B.

 

[longmarch]

US has learned their lessons. If you look at their new strategy, they'll be more pragmatic and less adventurous.

While all the years they stumble, China has been playing catch-up. They can no longer afford these kind of experimental white elephants.

The desire is there, but I wonder how it'll end up. America's military industrial complex will invent new ways to suck money.

 

[Tam]

US has learned their lessons. If you look at their new strategy, they'll be more pragmatic and less adventurous.

While all the years they stumble, China has been playing catch-up. They can no longer afford these kind of experimental white elephants.

The desire is there, but I wonder how it'll end up. America's military industrial complex will invent new ways to suck money.

If you are a leader, you are much more likely to experiment, and some of those experiments are not going to succeed. Being a follower has an easier, and henceforth, cheaper path of development. Type 054/054A costs are low due to being based on existing if not copied technology.

FFG(X) says that the decade of USN experiment is now over, and they are tired of head aches, delayed deployments, and high costs. FFG(X) is still expensive though, ceiling cost is $950 million in 2019 dollars, but that's cheaper now than a modern European frigate if you buy one in 2019. They need to reach that 355 ship fleet on a questionable budget, while top end ships are wearing out from doing duties that corvettes and frigates --- now the LCS --- should be doing. It feels like the USN had its rug removed under its fleet the moment they retired the Perrys without a suitable replacement.

I believe PLAN has a solid foundation with its frigate programs. The Type 054A gave them an indispensable and unmatched workhorse.

 

[vincent]

I think the LCS' and Zumwalts were targeting the PLAN in the 90's. Back then nothing in the PLAN inventory can truly threaten USN ships so they think they can drive up to China's coast and bombard away. They have to be super stealthy because the main threats are from the air and the shore-based missile batteries. Nobody forsee yhe rapid advancement of the PLAN in the last 20 years

 

[longmarch]

It's more than that. If you look at J-20, 055, look at how China adopts APAR, EMALS, ASBM, China has been experimenting too, but it's better managed, more practical yet faster paced. This can not be explained by copy or stealing. At the end of the day, it's about planning and execution.

Look at the US side, it's either too adventurous, or stagnation. Because of that, their match for 055 is still in the making. It happens not because them being the leader, it's because they are simple lost at what they are doing, both frigates and destroyers.

People used to blame China's system for its problems, because it's not democratic, yadi yada. Now the table has turned. Can we blame US's system for it's problems? Answer seems to be yes. At least they admitted that something was wrong with their strategy, though I think it's more than that.

If you are a leader, you are much more likely to experiment, and some of those experiments are not going to succeed. Being a follower has an easier, and henceforth, cheaper path of development. Type 054/054A costs are low due to being based on existing if not copied technology.

FFG(X) says that the decade of USN experiment is now over, and they are tired of head aches, delayed deployments, and high costs. FFG(X) is still expensive though, ceiling cost is $950 million in 2019 dollars, but that's cheaper now than a modern European frigate if you buy one in 2019. They need to reach that 355 ship fleet on a questionable budget, while top end ships are wearing out from doing duties that corvettes and frigates --- now the LCS --- should be doing. It feels like the USN had its rug removed under its fleet the moment they retired the Perrys without a suitable replacement.

I believe PLAN has a solid foundation with its frigate programs. The Type 054A gave them an indispensable and unmatched workhorse.

 

[Lethe]

There is no doubt that China has 'won' the last decade of competition between LCS and 054A.

And there is a good chance it will win the next decade as well with 054B vs. FFG(X). Because the FFG(X) candidates fall into two categories:

(1) Large European designs that are not really affordable.
(2) LCS-based designs that inherit most of their problems, even pointlessly so: a semi-planning hull on a ship that no longer has the power-to-weight ratio to make use of it (Lockheed's proposal).

Indeed, when you step back and take a look at the last generation of military development, what is most impressive about China is not the leaps in technology, nor even the scale of production, but rather the project management. Yes, good project management is easier when "playing catch-up", but nonetheless China's success in this regard is very impressive, particularly when contrasted with the flailings of the US and many other western nations.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

There is no doubt that China has 'won' the last decade of competition between LCS and 054A.

And there is a good chance it will win the next decade as well with 054B vs. FFG(X). Because the FFG(X) candidates fall into two categories:

(1) Large European designs that are not really affordable.
(2) LCS-based designs that inherit most of their problems, even pointlessly so: a semi-planning hull on a ship that no longer has the power-to-weight ratio to make use of it (Lockheed's proposal).

Indeed, when you step back and take a look at the last generation of military development, what is most impressive about China is not the leaps in technology, nor even the scale of production, but rather the project management. Yes, good project management is easier when "playing catch-up", but nonetheless China's success in this regard is very impressive, particularly when contrasted with the flailings of the US and many other western nations.

There is a simple solution for what the USN is facing, if they are smart enough to take it :
Take the Perry, strip everything off it but the hull, stretch it by another 10-20 per cent, and rebuilt it using the tech from the Burke. Problem solved.