RedMercury
Junior Member
Could pack a one or two ASBMs. A lot of hulls means a lot of hulls to destroy to ensure safety. Or it could be a specialized UAV platform.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
With so much emphasis placed on the Type 54A's ASW role, it is quite easy to forget that it also serves an additional role as the secondary and close AA defense for any flotilla group. That is where the necessity of it's successor comes in. Even with the prospects of piggyback riding off the the radars of larger destroyers, the new frigate must at least have the capacity to independently search and track multiple high speed and potentially stealthy targets in a jamming intense environment, particularly if the destroyers are preoccupied with other duties. The current Sea Eagle radar still very much traces it's lineage back to the Fregate line of radars which is of a increasingly bygone area.
The second would be armaments, with the profileration of ever faster maneuvering missiles. It is a question whether the HQ-16 is still up to the task, not to mention the rather baffling specs for a missile of such a size and weight. It is still preplexing as to how a 6 ton missile can have a mere range of 70km when a ESSM which weights less by half can have almost similar range of 50km plus.
A new updated SAM would have to be procured, either it be a new version of the HQ-16 that would finally have the range befitting a missile of this displacement or a Sino variant of the ESSM.
The second would be armaments, with the profileration of ever faster maneuvering missiles. It is a question whether the HQ-16 is still up to the task, not to mention the rather baffling specs for a missile of such a size and weight. It is still preplexing as to how a 6 ton missile can have a mere range of 70km when a ESSM which weights less by half can have almost similar range of 50km plus.
A new updated SAM would have to be procured, either it be a new version of the HQ-16 that would finally have the range befitting a missile of this displacement or a Sino variant of the ESSM.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Isn't AESA one of the most expensive components of the destroyers? Having advanced AESA on frigate would defeat the purpose of having a smaller, cheaper, cost effective ship for filling out numbers and escort and picket duty. Why not instead use either PESA or mechanical, based on which ever is more cost effective, but have advanced network capabilities to integrate sensor data from the more expensive destroyers? Ideally, a new mid range ARH SAM with good capability to intercept supersonic ACM could be developed, allowing the frigate to fill a key niche in fleet air defense without being disadvantaged by its less capable radar.
Radars in general I think are considered to be qmong the more expensive subsystems on a ship in general.
How much an AESA itself costs will depend on the industry's competency in building AESAs at scale to reduce costs, the size and performance of the AESA that one wants to equip a ship with, and what the mission requirements are to see if the costs are worth it.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
What would your guess be on the relative cost differences for Chinese industry specifically for a modest frigate sized radar, between AESA, PESA, and mechanical? What are your thoughts on cost effectiveness?
I think most people would accept there's a direct relationship between the cost of an AESA and the total size of an AESA. Ships like 052C, 052D have a four face AESA system, but a frigate may have few faces, for example a two faced rotating AESA like SAMPSON or even a single face rotating AESA like EMPAR. Of course, rotating single or two face AESAs won't be as good against complex multi axis saturation attacks like 360 degree fixed face AESAs that you see on most destroyers, but a frigate won't be expected to have to contend with such high complexity attacks either.
furthermore, on a frigate the size of the AESA face will likely be smaller than that of a destroyer as it likely would not need to have the same absolute power/range of a destroyer AESA.
So, hypothetically speaking if a frigate were to be equipped with a derivative of the Type 346A on 052D, the frigate's AESA may be only one face or two faced (i.e.: 1/4 or 1/2 cost compared to Type 346A in terms of array area and associated costs), but when considering that the face of the frigate's AESA may only have to be half the size (or even less) of that of the Type 346A, then the final individual array cost for a frigate may be as low as 1/8 that of a Type 346A on an 052D (assuming a fast rotating single face AESA with the array being half the size of the Type 346A).
That's all some back of the napkin math right but I think the principles are somewhat sound.
As for cost effectiveness, it would go without saying that a PESA or even simple mechanically scanned radar on a frigate would be cheaper than an equivalent sized AESA on a frigate, but considering the looming air threats that may emerge in the near future even in a medium intensity scenario, I think a PESA arrangement on a frigate will not be sufficient for what I imagine the PLAN's demands will be. Add to that how the Chinese industry seems to be able to produce quite a large number of AESAs for their destroyers and other ships in the last decade, not to mention the production of AESAs aboard other air platforms (AEWC, fighters), and land (various support radars for SAM systems, artillery etc), I would not be surprised if the cost to performance ratio of AESAs today has been substantially reduced compared to when the first Type 346 array rolled off the production line for the first 052C over a decade ago.
Mechanical radars are too "noisy". Even if advertised as low sidelobes, they still have sidelobes that can be picked up by an EW suite. PESA with digital beam forming has lower sidelobes, and can achieve some measure of LPI, but PESA, using one big large analog emitter, cannot match the LPI (Low Probability Intercept) of AESA elements, using a multitude of small independent digital emitters. By LPI I mean, the elements can generate all these pseudorandom waveforms through very agile modulation, and these signals can fool any radar warning receiver, into assuming they are just noise.
By this I mean AESA can be stealthy. That in addition, AESA through its frequency agility, complex and unpredictable scanning patterns, and high power, are also very difficult to jam and spoof. That's a double win when it comes to EW. You can't find the radar to even try to jam it, and even when you did find the radar, it would still be difficult to jam per se. Agile radars can also make the radar difficult for HARMs to lock into it for the same reason. And by the way, ships can find another ships passively, through the other's signals, even beyond the horizon, enough to send an antiship missile to it. An AESA radar can be a EW weapon by itself, and if the opposing ships are in radar line of sight, can be used to directly jam or spoof the other ship, even against aircraft or missiles.
Next modern war is going to depend who jams who. One has to consider that the biggest threat to a warship that isn't a submarine, is going to be a Growler type aircraft.
Mechanical radars and PESA are not going so solve their EW issues through networking or better software. Networking itself can be interrupted by EW.
Type 054A, which relies on a whole host of mechanical radars, would be "noisy". It does use an electronically steering (FRESCAN type) of array with Type 382, but this isn't a digital beamforming one. The radar gates waves through an array of slots and by altering frequency creates an up and down fanning scan for elevation and needs to be rotated for the horizontal. Because mechanical radars are easy to predict via their rotation, they are easy targets for EW.
Now what about other ships? Today, there are many ships with AESAs, but they are also fitted with all sorts of secondary minor radars that are mechanical, such as for surface search, navigation and weather. The signals from these radars can still be detected, even if the main radar is AESA. Ships that still combine AESAs with PESAs and mechanical radars are still radio noisy. Radars are a chain and the weakest link in the chain gives it away. That's the problem of the 052C/D, even if Type 346 has LPI.
No matter how sloped or angled the ship's shape is for radar deflection, aka stealth, its radars are still going to give it away.
And this explains why the Type 055. Even every minor radar on the ship now looks to be an AESA. Even the SSRs and navigation ones. The only mechanical radar still in the ship is the Type 347G that is part of the Type 1130 CIWS. This ship shows how the PLAN should go forward with future surface warships, including the 052E and the 054B.
Because AESAs are expensive, you try to host as many functions into a single set as much as possible. But also increases the radar discipline, as you have less potential radars to give the ship away.
Last edited:
Not sure where you and others are getting "6k" from, but there aren't many people who think the 052C/D is 6,000t. And given the large inventory of new 054As and 052C/Ds, there won't be a 10k/6k type of fleet anytime in the first half of this century. The trend seems pretty obvious that they are continuing with a 10?k/7k/4k spread of ships; while we have heard of "052E" and "054B", we have never heard of some kind of intermediate surface combatant whose displacement lies in between the destroyer and frigate classes. And this is in the face of continued (one could even say accelerated) production of 052Ds. As I said, a shift to a hypothetical 6k super-frigate would have to take place alongside the presence of brand-new 052Ds and 054As, resulting in a 10k/7k/6k/4k fleet distribution for several decades, which is poor planning at best and total nonsense at worst. The OHP class served the USN without issue for decades and was present alongside many a CSG sailing the high seas during the height of the Cold War, but now all of a sudden a 4,000t hull is insufficient to keep up with the task force and perform ASW proficiently? No doubt we will be looking for some upgrades in a "054B" class compared to a 054A+ class, such as an X-band AESA and perhaps 2 helo hangars, but beyond that there really aren't any dramatically weight-increasing changes that could swell the displacement of this class to 6,000t. On the other hand a 6,000t ship is woefully inadequate in the task of fleet air defense. The 052D is already stuffed to the gills with its 64-cell UVLS cell sat 7,000-7,500t. A smaller 6,000t ship might conceivably mount at most 48 cells, and you still have to stuff HHQ-9, HHQ-16, YJ-18, and Yu-8s into this ship. Or are you going to totally forgo medium range air defense? Or perhaps forgo ASuW? Whatever mix you choose it will be significantly inferior in capability to 052D (and too unnecessarily large for the purpose of ASW), meaning the burden of fleet air defense is shifted even more to the 055/A, making it a juicier target than ever as its numbers will be smaller than in a fleet with a mix of 055/As and 052C/D/Es. The other fact to consider is that the 055/A is (presumably) a fleet C&C and communications node exemplar with hardware and staffing facilities that don't have to be replicated on every large-displacement surface combatant and would be a waste of money and space if it were.
TLDR: a 2-tier fleet would be deficient in the following ways:
1) Too many capital ships with unnecessary C^3 hardware/facilities/staff
2) Too few eggs in one basket, especially in the larger 10k ships
3) Ships too inefficiently large to perform ASW and simultaneously too small to adequately perform fleet AAW
Whereas a 3-tier fleet would be superior in exactly the opposite ways:
1) more efficient use of resources by putting enhanced C^3 hardware/facilities/staff on only the largest ships
2) more ships for the enemy to sink while simultaneously providing greater area coverage for both AAW and ASW
3) efficient use of smaller 4k ships that are perfectly suited to perform ASW in the setting of blue water CSG operations
One possible scenario is that the 055's MFR has been split into separate X-band and S-band MFRs (this would of course require a new generation of X-band guided HHQ-9s, or perhaps dual X/C-band capable), with the smaller X-band radar being the one sitting on the main mast (we of course still don't have confirmation of this). If that is the case then economies of scale can come into play and significantly mitigate the cost of the X-band AESAs being re-used on a 054B. The other thing to remember is that there doesn't necessarily have to be any role for a 346A type of radar on a 054B as it would probably not be expected to perform fleet air defense (or more specifically S&T), mitigating the cost compared to a 052D or 055's radar suite even further.
Last edited:
Regarding the 6k ton issue, I just went with the nomenclature that this particular discussion started off with, but I was thinking of an 052D/E type ship.
That is to say, I do believe that existing 052D/E have a normal displacement closer to 6k tons and perhaps a full displacement closer to 7k tons, and when jobjed referred to "4k ton, 6k ton and 10k ton" (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-054-ffg-thread-ii.t4149/page-411#post-527029) he was referring to 054A, 052C/D, 055 respectively (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-358#post-460960).
I don't inherently disagree with you at all, I would make similar arguments regarding the force structure as well.
However, I think there are number of requirements or scenarios where I think a two tier fleet could make some sense, such as if they want their "workhorse" ship to be capable of higher end AAW and ASW while also having better endurance than what could be placed on a 4k ton or even 5k ton full displacement ship.
The absolute number of ships that they are planning to buy for a two tier fleet is also a big unknown. Obviously if the total number of ships that they can buy and operate in a two tier fleet is significantly lower than that of what they could get for a three tier fleet then that would significantly compromise operational availability, presence and the attrition they can sustain during wartime.
The only way this would make sense to me is if they were able to secure the funding the procure the no. of ships they want in a two tier fleet and consider that to be somehow more cost effective than spending that equivalent amount of money on a three tier fleet for whatever reason (where the total number of ships would of course be greater than in a two tier fleet). One possible explanation may be a slightly greater crew demand for a three tier fleet vs a two tier fleet but even that I'm not certain about.
Another condition, IMO, is if the PLAN for some reason decides that the future threat environment is one where the lowest blue water capable combatant should attain an 052D (or future 052E) level of capability. That is to say,
Personally I'm far from convinced that the PLAN will be moving to a two tier combatant orbat in the near future, I think we need some much more consistent indications before believing in it. However I do think that we're at a stage where the lack of 054B emerging and the rationale behind a possible of a two tier fleet should start being considered.