054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I am guessing no changes to VLS. These are meant to be cheap-to-operate Diesel ships. The recent 054 MLU's also suggest a conservative approach.
With 20 additional 054A+'s, there is enough GP frigates for PLAN. With the U.S. focus on Virginia Block V's, I can see the new 054A+'s as the final iteration of the 054 hull and time to focus on dedicated blue-water ASW (057? with both aerial and undersea platforms).
If 054B is meant to have the same mission profile as the 054A's, I really don't see a need for 054B's for another 20 years. Smaller refinements can always be added during existing 054A's MLU which is only a few years away.
Definitely something new, pointing to at least a new seeker design on the HQ-16, so it may merit a new version letter. Previous stock of HQ-16 however, won't work on the new illuminators without changing the radar seeker.
The 054B/057 could probably begin about 2025 or even earlier. I might refer to this as the do over version. Probably the original 054B was cancelled around 2017-18 so all the leaked info leading to it then would no longer be valid after a complete do over of the ship.
I expect the first serious MLU of the 054A to begin with the first ship finished around 2028. The first ship, likely 529, should head to the docks around 2026-2027.
I would expect their radars, ESM, ECM and the target illuminators to have a change over.
It does actually. This has something to do with the basic architecture of AESA and why it can't produce pure continuous but interrupted continuous wave, and why CW seekers have to be upgraded to ICW. The explanation is a bit TLDR.
Continuous Wave Illumination, as opposed to Pulse radar, is often used with missiles and fire control radars for its accurate and precise measurement of closure, e.g. doppler.
It works with one antenna transmitting and a second antenna receiving simultaneously. This works out okay with a SARH missile where you have an emitter on the ground or on the jet fighter, and the missile seeker is the receiver. A FMCW (frequency modulated continuous wave) radar can have two antennas on the ground, scanning the sky.
Later, some FMCW arrays went with one array that does both transmit and receive. This lets your setup to be less bulky and allows for the advantages of having one large array, which has increased transmit and receive gain. However, since receive and transmit are on the same plane and simultaneous, there is no isolation between the two signals, and there is interference between the receive and transmit. Some FMCW emitters use this form, where the array tracks the targets on its own and illuminates them.
Unlike a CW antenna, the pulse radar shares both receive and transmit on one antenna. It works in cycles of transmit, followed by receive, followed by transmit again. During those periods when it is not transmitting, it is receiving the radio echo. As receive and transmit are separated, you get a stronger signal both in receive and transmit, which greatly improves range. Hence why searching and ranging radars are pulse radars.
Most AESA elements are designed for a pulse radar. You have a receive circuit, a transmit circuit sharing the same board. A circulator behind the antenna regulates the access of the receive and transmit circuits to the single element in cycles. In this format, you cannot transmit a wave continuously, but it has to be interrupted in periods to allow you to receive. Internally the wave form generator continues the waveform so that when it is transmit again, the waveform maintains the same phase like as if it is not interrupted. The advantage of this is that, through this disconnection, transmit is stronger and receive is stronger, and you have the main benefits of pulse radar. In a way, ICW isn't true CW, but acts more like a pulse radar with a high pulse repetition rate.
Because the waveform is changed, the missile seeker has to be upgraded for this. A good example is that for the introduction of Thales APAR used with certain European frigates, a new version of SM-2 has to be introduced as APAR uses ICW for target illumination. APAR is primarily a pulse radar for most of its modes, so the AESA architecture is that of a pulse radar with shared antenna for both Tx and Rx circuits. The legacy seekers of the SM-2 rely on the purely CW form from the SPG-62, which are dedicated emitters, and a new modified seeker is needed for compatibility with the ICW radars. The newer ICW compatible SM-2 also proved to be useful, for compatibility with the Zumwalt's SPY-3 X-band AESA, and the X-band AESA on the Japanese Akizuki and Asahi class destroyers. The ICW seekers opens up a whole new world of using allies' AESA MFRs instead of them relying on the bulky SPG-62.
We know that SAST, which stands for Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology, is responsible for the design of the radars and seekers of the HQ-16 system. They now offer an ICW seeker. Its obvious this is for the HQ-16.
The advantage of going with an FMICW or ICW system over a pure CW or FMCW system is range. This allows the illuminator to work much farther than the previous. It was said that the bottleneck in the HQ-16's range stems not from the missile itself but the range of the illumination radar.
If you are willing to forego range, the other advantage of the AESA is that it allows for multibeam illumination. With the previous illuminators, you can engage only up to four, equivalent to the number of illuminators on the ship. But with multiple beams, each illuminator may allow, let's say, four targets to be engaged each, allowing you to engage 16 targets.
Now, if you want a single X-band AESA MFR that can handle search and track in pulse mode, then illuminate targets for missile engagement within the same set, its obvious ICW is going to be used with a pulse radar architecture. If a future frigate will eliminate the mechanical legacy fire control radars to a single X-band MFR, its going to have to use this.
Why is China purchasing 20 more units? At least from CMO, the Type 054 has really limited capacity to do anything in a conflict with the US. They seem very well geared for low intensity conflicts.
Unless they're going to upgrade the missiles?
Unless they're going to upgrade the missiles?