054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Your smartphone probably has more than enough memory and processing power to store and analysis the individual sound signatures of every warship in the world. The real limiting factor for helicopters are range and payload (which I include sensors).
Helicopters can only carry comparatively small hydrophones and sonar, and limited numbers of small sonar-buoys . They also need to hover to use their dipping sonar, which negates their greatest strength of speed.
As a general rule, helicopters are not good for generic volume search, but are instead verification and targeting assets, with limited niche direct attack capabilities.
You are right that the ship is more important in ASW, where the helos often act as dogs to drive the prey out of cover for the Hunter to kill.
The ship can use their TAS to find the general location of hostile subs, and then scramble helicopters to cut off or at least limit their retreat with smart deployment of sonar-buoys; and use dipping sonar and datalink to give their mothership precise co-ordinates for ASROC engagement.
Helicopters can also carry lightweight torpedoes and depth charges for direct attack, but rarely do so in real life since those weapons will significantly limit their range and endurance.
This is also one of the main benefits of having dual hangers on warships. Where when you have two shipborne helicopters, you can load the second one up with torpedoes and the like if the first has already zeroed in on the target. If the first helicopter could not lock down the target, the second would likely not be loaded with torpedoes and will instead tag the first one out once it gets low on fuel to maintain pressure on the enemy sub while the first returns to refuel and refit with more sonar-buoys or torpedoes if the second helo gets lucky. Rinse and repeat how ever many times needed to find and kill the sub or drive it off for good.
China does not compete for the same market as the Type 26 (Australian, Canadian frigate contracts). Other European companies like Navantia F series, or Fincantieri FREMM are the ones that compete on the same market. In any case, the Type 26 is a ship that is armed closer to a Type 054A but has a cost closer to a Type 055.
Type 31 is more intended as an export frigate to the general market looking for a cheaper intermediate frigate, but looks to cost more, while armed less, than a Type 054A/E frigate. 054A/E version is the one with the rectangular phase array on top like the Pakistani version, but not the PLAN's Type 382, and it doesn't have the VHS array over the hanger like the Pakistani version.
It isn't just individual warships but also variants of warships of the same class, not to mention noises made by biologics to commercial ships. Then you also have these signatures distorted thermal layers, differences of salinity, and underlying currents, so these factors multiply. This is why you have oceanographic survey ships doing this work ahead, collecting data on currents, salinity and thermal layers across different seas and oceans.
The usual purpose of having a dual helicopter is one helicopter at rest and refuel while the other is dipping, and they take turns. Otherwise, if you have only one helicopter, there is going to be periods of time the helicopter has to return to refuel.
You can choose to arm the helicopter with torpedoes, which as you said, will reduce range, or use the helicopter only with the dipping sonar, and use your ship's ASROC instead.
If you have a warship with only a single helicopter, bring a second warship and you got your second helicopter. Two warships are even better combing an area when both ships can exchange information.
Best yet, bring a pack of small warships --- a frigate with some corvettes --- with the capability of all these ships and their helicopters to coordinate and exchange information across a wide area. Oh that's right, that's why the Type 056s exercise in packs of four ships at least, and sometimes with a Type 054A.
Last edited:
One thing to note, might be slightly off topic but people need to understand.
What the RN considers as frigates and destroyers are not like what other nations have in mind.
Countries tend to mark destroyers and frigates by size. The bigger ship is the destroyer and the smaller ship is the frigate. In such countries, both destroyers and frigates are multirole and general purpose, capable of AAW, ASuW and ASW.
The RN on the other hand defines ships by purpose. Frigate is ASW vessel, Destroyer is AAW vessel, regardless of size. Type 42 destroyers are in fact smaller than the Type 22 and 23 frigates. Type 26 is a big honking ASW vessel. If they build an AAW vessel out of the same hull, it will likely be called a Type 46 or 47 instead, the "2" is for frigate and the "4" is for destroyer. In other words, the RN designation is similar to the PLAN's where the first number points to the general classification and purpose, such as the PLAN's "1" and "5".
Recently some in the Russian press referred to as Udaloys as frigates. Previously, the Udaloys are referred to as destroyers, being as big as Sovremennys but is ASW specialized. That seems to inline with the British thinking. However, the Udaloy II and the refit are more like general purpose ships.
What the RN considers as frigates and destroyers are not like what other nations have in mind.
Countries tend to mark destroyers and frigates by size. The bigger ship is the destroyer and the smaller ship is the frigate. In such countries, both destroyers and frigates are multirole and general purpose, capable of AAW, ASuW and ASW.
The RN on the other hand defines ships by purpose. Frigate is ASW vessel, Destroyer is AAW vessel, regardless of size. Type 42 destroyers are in fact smaller than the Type 22 and 23 frigates. Type 26 is a big honking ASW vessel. If they build an AAW vessel out of the same hull, it will likely be called a Type 46 or 47 instead, the "2" is for frigate and the "4" is for destroyer. In other words, the RN designation is similar to the PLAN's where the first number points to the general classification and purpose, such as the PLAN's "1" and "5".
Recently some in the Russian press referred to as Udaloys as frigates. Previously, the Udaloys are referred to as destroyers, being as big as Sovremennys but is ASW specialized. That seems to inline with the British thinking. However, the Udaloy II and the refit are more like general purpose ships.
The Udaloys are not "frigates". Fregat is their official Russian name much like "Grisha"is called Albatros and "Krivak" is Burevestnik.
Right now there are two main systems of ship classification - NATO and Warsaw Pact. China's current surface fleet follows NATO. Russia is slowly transitioning to a NATO-like classification but many ships are of Soviet design which is why they use old classifications. The fundamental difference is the result of different doctrinal requirements. NATO had to counter Soviet threat while retaining sea control. Warsaw Pact protected its coastal zone and countered NATO power projection. NATO was an alliance of established maritime powers (US, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands) while Warsaw Pact was a alliance of land powers. These two are different strategies and require different types of ships.
NATO
Contemporary NATO classification aligns most with West European navy classifications developed in the 1960s-80s and is closest to Royal Navy nomenclature but it includes elements of post-1975 USN classification due to the role and size of US Navy.
- cruiser - large surface combatant, blue-water operation, anti-air warfare, capable of task force command (carrier and landing escort, convoy escort)
- destroyer - large surface combatant, blue-water operation, anti-air or anti-submarine warfare capable of small task force command (convoy escort, small flotilla)
- frigate- small surface combatant, blue-water operation, anti-submarine warfare and general patrol duties, incapable of command
- corvette - small surface combatant, green-water operation, general patrol duties, incapable of command
- cruiser - Ticonderoga,
- destroyer (AAW) - Type 42, Tromp, Cassard
- destroyer (ASW) - Spruance, Georges Leygues,
- frigate (ASW+GP) - Oliver Hazard Perry, Knox, Kortenaer, Bremen, Type 23, Type 22
- corvette (GP) - Joao Belo, Descubierta, D'Estienne D'Orves
What happens in the 1990s is that the fleet structure and ship design stagnates much like both stagnated in the post-WW2 era but the ships "grow" to accomodate for new capabilities and technologies. Because the growth occurs like inflation of the universe - across all classes - the shift in nomenclature occurs naturally. This leads to a lot of confusion because with the growth of ship size and reduction of fleet size the capabilities are merged. Right now you have "specialized" and "not specialized" ships. Specialized AAW ships have dedicated radars (AEGIS, APAR+SMART-L) while not specialized ships have just anti-air missiles with range exceeding the old Sea Sparrow. Specialized ASW ships are designed to reduce noise generation and are equipped with the full complement of sonars (towed array + hull sonar) and have facilities for sustaining ASW helicopters while not specialized ships have just basic hull sonars and torpedos and a basic helicopter.
Germany, Netherlands and Denmark have anti-air frigates even though technically they should be called destroyers. They are called a frigate because they are derived from frigate design and they operate in the same manner as frigates do- they are commanded by the same officer rank, have the same crew size etc. France and Italy operate the Horizon/Orizzonte class which is currently classified as a frigate but initially was a destroyer.
Warsaw Pact
When the Cold War started Soviets quickly abandoned unrealistic plans devised under Stalin which involved building large battleships and heavy cruisers. They focused on securing coastal security to protect themselves from NATO power projection from the sea. To that purpose they followed the doctrine known as "jeune ecole" or German strategy from WW2 which emphasized submarines and small attack vessels as well as large number of patrol and ASW ships. Their ships were not defined by their seaworthiness and role at sea like NATO, but by their primary combat mission. Hence "large anti-submarine ship" or "small anti-submarine ship" or "guard ship"
- Большие противолодочные корабли - large anti-submarine ships (Udaloy, Kashin, Kara)
- Малые противолодочные корабли - small anti-submarine ships (Grisha, Pauk)
- Сторожевые корабли - guarding ships (Krivak, Neutrashimy, Stereghuschy, Gorshkov)
- Эскадренные миноносцы - squadron torpedo ships (Sovremenny)
The Soviet navy also had proper cruisers and those were limited to three classes of ships armed in guided missiles - Kresta I (Berkut), Slava (Atlant) and Kirov (Orlan).
Right now Russia is changing the classification of the ships to be able to better market it for export. This is why most "guarding ships" become frigates, even though Steregushchy is called a corvette (and should be - according to NATO classification due to its low autonomy) while "small missile ships" are called corvettes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone is interested in Soviet and Russian naval vessels I recommend this great website:
It's in Russian but you can choose English version (bottom of the menu to the left) - the two versions are identical in terms of information.
The reason why most navies - including China - are moving to NATO classification is because this classification describes a fleet structure that is appropriate to a maritime power. It is much more oriented to power projection rather than just narrow combat mission like the Warsaw Pact navies. The names are just convenience. It's the ships, their roles and design that matter.
China returns to its place as a maritime power. It is only logical that it will use a system that is developed by and for maritime powers.
The current batch of Type 054A under construction for the PLAN apparently uses a different guidance radar.
UK certainly does not follow the NATO classification, despite what you say. Type 26 frigate has a displacement that rivals the Type 052D and the Type 45. Also during their Cold War periods, both the Type 22 and 23 frigates exceeds or matches the displacement of the Type 42 destroyer.
Great find. Not to be unexpected as the land based HQ-16B has changed to a new dual array radar.