054/A FFG Thread II

ZTZ99

Banned Idiot
J-11B is licensed production, so it's obviously a copy in that sense. We don't have the dimension of HQ-16, but it looks to be more compact than shtil VLU. And as I said before, I think HQ-16 looks more like SM-1 than Shtil. I would say it's inspired by both. Which is a common theme among a lot of Chinese development. That they try to develop something similar to Western based, but end up with a lot of Rusisan influence because they have access to the Russian equivalent.
No, J-11A is the licensed production of the Su-27, hence the B designation after the Su-27 was 'indigenized' with some local components. But regardless of these local components the world sees the J-11B as a copy of the Su-27. Which it is. It call comes down to a matter of how much difference do you need before a 'copy' becomes a 'near-copy' and then an 'inspiration'. There is no hard and fast rule, which is why neither of us will win this particular point. I think the HQ-16 is a copy or near-copy of the Buk/Shtil. I have precedence on my side as well the known possession of the Buk in the hands of Chinese naval missile designers.
European frigates are really AAW destroyers. OHP would be better in ASW than 054A if it gets refitted with MK-41 and ASROC like the Australian ones. As it stands, they are about the same. OHP would be quieter and carry a better helicopter, but 054A has more modern sonar suite and have lower radar signature. I think 054A's current role in PLAN is to provide a medium level of air defense + being ASW assets. Obviously it could get better in ASW, but that would take having a better naval helicopter + switching to gas turbines + generally more experience by PLAN sailors in ASW. 054A already represents a huge jump from their previous ships. If they do even a bigger leap, it's doubtful that they'd be able to use most of the advances.
Again, you are assuming the 054A has some type of VLA. If you can't provide evidence for it, don't take it for granted. And I seriously doubt the 054A has a better sonar suite than the OHP. In fact I would claim the exact opposite. The OHP has a better sonar suite, and it has two LAMPS helos for ASW duties. And I don't agree that making the 054A better at ASW involves getting a better helo. The Ka-28 is already adequate for this purpose. Or switching to GT's. Burst speed is irrelevant if you're using ASROC's and helos, only useful wrt ASW if you're the one being chased by a torpedo rather than vice versa. Noise is mostly irrelevant since the point of stringing out TAS so far away from the ship is to cancel out engine noise. And as for more experienced sailors, well, yeah.
I think that's over stated. Type 23, Krivak 3 and F123 are all good ASW ships and none of them use ASROC type weapon.
Those ships being "good" ASW ships is a matter of opinion. They may or may not be good ASW ships, but a ship with ASROC is better at ASW than a ship without.
if FCR does not have to illuminate the whole way but only terminally (like the ones on AB), then you can theoretically engage more targets with initial targeting location + mid-course update by something like the light bulb data link or the Sea Eagle. Now, I do believe that's the case for 054A but have seen no documentation of how engagement is done exactly. If that's the case, then that would give 054A greater concurrent engagement past CIWS than just 2 per direction (each FCR has two channels and could theoretically illuminate two targets that are close by).
The "channels" refer to the ability of the overall Orekh targeting system to guide two missiles to a single target per illuminator, not some ability of any individual Orekh to illuminate two targets. Per the description of the Orekh, it is nothing more than an illuminator and therefore does nothing more than paint a target. It is probably possible for the Orekh and its Chinese copy to illuminate two targets close together, but the number of channels available to update outbound missiles remains the same at 2, meaning the engagement would involve 2 missiles attacking 2 targets. OTOH I can't imagine this being a frequent occurence especially if the attacker knows what he is doing. If the attacker is the USN using inbound Harpoons (with programmable waypoints), it will definitely be a spread out, multivector saturation attack that gives few opportunities for the 054A to get lucky with 2 nearby missiles to illuminate with a single FCR.
 

Troika

Junior Member
No doubt the 054A is a giant step up for the PLAN. Much more capable than Luda destroyers overall. It's just too bad the HQ-16 or whatever is in those VLS tubes supposedly is almost as large as an SM-2 but has less than a third of the range. That's the 054A's major drawback IMO.

Rumour time. Have heard that HQ-16A undergoing trials with ranges in the 90km region. Reliability medium. Anything from propellant to flightpath programming could make achievement of range possible. At present nothing more than very weak corroborations [We see picture of HQ-16 missile on streets], and in any case it is land-based version and may or may not be easily adaptable to naval version.


Again, you are assuming the 054A has some type of VLA. If you can't provide evidence for it, don't take it for granted. And I seriously doubt the 054A has a better sonar suite than the OHP. In fact I would claim the exact opposite. The OHP has a better sonar suite, and it has two LAMPS helos for ASW duties. And I don't agree that making the 054A better at ASW involves getting a better helo. The Ka-28 is already adequate for this purpose. Or switching to GT's. Burst speed is irrelevant if you're using ASROC's and helos, only useful wrt ASW if you're the one being chased by a torpedo rather than vice versa. Noise is mostly irrelevant since the point of stringing out TAS so far away from the ship is to cancel out engine noise. And as for more experienced sailors, well, yeah.

VLA presence on 054A not confirmed. So far have peripheral evidence that in CCTV interview, officer mentioned 'rocket assisted torpedoes' along with torpedoes and ASW rockets, so it is a third system. What this system is exactly is unclear. Realistically, if such system exists it is either vertically launched or launched from the YJ-83 tubes. Either way we have no details beyond a few throw-away lines. In any case there is no assumption of VLA, but mere ASROC.

Ka-28 is NOT an adequate ASW helicopter. It is good helicopter. Great improvement over Ka-25, being able to carry weapon load and sensor load at same time. However unclear if it has good endurance of carrying all passive sonar and active sonar and sonar buoys, which is very important. It is not enough to be doing searches well away from a formation to escape task force-induced noise. And of course there is only one. Two introduces dramatic improvements for reasons need not go into.

To have total coverage of helicopters would require some 12-14, depending on maintenance, scheduling, etc (calculated for Leningrad. For Chinese navy may vary due to different maintenance efficiency requirements reliability hangar layout etc). That is beyond scope of all but large task forces or aircraft carriers.

It is also distinctly inferior to SH-60, carrying only 1 torpedo. And cannot have torpedo and sonarbuoys together, buoys has to be externally carried. There is also issue of electronics avionics etc which safe to assume at least originally inferior to Ka-27, though they may have changed by now. Cabin space is too small, which is why later versions of family have bigger cabins... if you can keep track of the eight million versions you can see distinct trend. :)

Now all of this have reason. Ka-27 as stated above was based on lineage which came out of requirements of Leningrad. Which due to size, servicing efficiency etc dictate a certain size and weight in order to fulfil operational goal stated above... Weapons load was not deemed as important (ASW missiles), but on-board processing was (datalink issues). And so we have Ka-28.
 

ZTZ99

Banned Idiot
VLA presence on 054A not confirmed. So far have peripheral evidence that in CCTV interview, officer mentioned 'rocket assisted torpedoes' along with torpedoes and ASW rockets, so it is a third system. What this system is exactly is unclear. Realistically, if such system exists it is either vertically launched or launched from the YJ-83 tubes. Either way we have no details beyond a few throw-away lines. In any case there is no assumption of VLA, but mere ASROC.
I'm sure we all know about the purported CY-series of Chinese antisubmarine rocket-boosted torpedoes. I believe there are a couple other types out there. I don't of any of these being in service with the PLAN.

Ka-28 is NOT an adequate ASW helicopter. It is good helicopter. Great improvement over Ka-25, being able to carry weapon load and sensor load at same time. However unclear if it has good endurance of carrying all passive sonar and active sonar and sonar buoys, which is very important. It is not enough to be doing searches well away from a formation to escape task force-induced noise. And of course there is only one. Two introduces dramatic improvements for reasons need not go into.

To have total coverage of helicopters would require some 12-14, depending on maintenance, scheduling, etc (calculated for Leningrad. For Chinese navy may vary due to different maintenance efficiency requirements reliability hangar layout etc). That is beyond scope of all but large task forces or aircraft carriers.

It is also distinctly inferior to SH-60, carrying only 1 torpedo. And cannot have torpedo and sonarbuoys together, buoys has to be externally carried. There is also issue of electronics avionics etc which safe to assume at least originally inferior to Ka-27, though they may have changed by now. Cabin space is too small, which is why later versions of family have bigger cabins... if you can keep track of the eight million versions you can see distinct trend. :)

Now all of this have reason. Ka-27 as stated above was based on lineage which came out of requirements of Leningrad. Which due to size, servicing efficiency etc dictate a certain size and weight in order to fulfil operational goal stated above... Weapons load was not deemed as important (ASW missiles), but on-board processing was (datalink issues). And so we have Ka-28.
Ka-28 is NOT an evolution of the Ka-27. It is nothing more than the export designation of the Ka-27.

AFAIK neither the Lynx nor the Super Puma can simultaneously carry torpedoes and dipping sonar onboard. Not sure about the NH90. Their typical payloads are all around 4,000kg (same for the Helix). The SH-60's is actually less at 3,000kg. And if we are talking about sonobuoys rather than dipping sonars, the Ka-27 can carry them externally in place of depth charges in addition to the internally carried torpedo.

Regarding the single torpedo carried by the Ka-27, it is a 533mm-sized torpedo, not the dinky 324mm Mk-46 type weapons that the USN carries which are not guaranteed to kill a sub if they hit, especially the larger nuclear subs. In addition to the 533mm torpedo, the Ka-27 also simultaneously carries 10 PLAB depth charges and 2 OMAB depth charges on internal and external mounts.
 
Last edited:

Troika

Junior Member
I'm sure we all know about the purported CY-series of Chinese antisubmarine rocket-boosted torpedoes. I believe there are a couple other types out there. I don't of any of these being in service with the PLAN.

Of CY series we have two pictures and some uncorroborated quotes. Of 'rocket boosted torpedo' there is evidence, the quote named, that something of nature of 'rocket boosted torpedo' may be in service on 054A from interview. It may or may not be CY-series. It may or may not be ASROC-similar.


Ka-28 is NOT an evolution of the Ka-27. It is nothing more than the export designation of the Ka-27.

:nono: And where exactly did I say that? Please do not put words in my mouth.

As a matter of fact however Ka-28s do have a number of well-documented differences with Ka-27 though that is in nature of customer requirements, changing times and baseline of comparison.


AFAIK neither the Lynx nor the Super Puma can simultaneously carry torpedoes and dipping sonar onboard. Not sure about the NH90. Their typical payloads are all around 4,000kg (same for the Helix). The SH-60's is actually less at 3,000kg. And if we are talking about sonobuoys rather than dipping sonars, the Ka-27 can carry them externally in place of depth charges in addition to the internally carried torpedo.

And cannot have torpedo and sonarbuoys together, buoys has to be externally carried.

I am given impression you don't read carefully my post.

Anyway, SH-60 does carry all three type of sonars plus torpedo, even if range suffers.


Regarding the single torpedo carried by the Ka-27, it is a 533mm-sized torpedo, not the dinky 324mm Mk-46 type weapons that the USN carries which are not guaranteed to kill a sub if they hit, especially the larger nuclear subs. In addition to the 533mm torpedo, the Ka-27 also simultaneously carries 10 PLAB depth charges and 2 OMAB depth charges on internal and external mounts.

Uh, most commonly-used torpedo on Ka-27 is APR-2, which is 350mm light torpedo, later moved on to AT-3/UMGT, which is 450mm. AT-1M also used, 450mm.

I am not aware of Ka-27 carrying 533mm torpedoes.

You CAN carry all the bombs and payload... sacrificing endurance and of course sonobuoys. Not good idea. To illustrate point, Ka-27 flights often without crewman for onboard-processing because of save weight (anecdote alert... I can vouch for truth of statement, but whether it actually is for saving weight it is debatable. it is NOT debatable that endurance is a serious issue already, adding weight and drag will not help). Note that usual carry is 6-8 PLAB-250-120s... I am not convinced they actually carry both depth charges AND torpedoes on operationalbasis. The internal rack simply is not that sizeable. Sometimes KAB-250 also carried.
 
Last edited:

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Dear Sirs:

Please look carefully at the last pair of pictures of the purported 054A being built in the shipyard.

Is it just me or is the ships' hangar too large and wide for a 054A as well as being stepped like that of the 052C hangar?

Could this ship be the rumored successor to the 054A - 054B?

Regards,

Dusky Lim
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
:nono: And where exactly did I say that? Please do not put words in my mouth.

Actually, I think my command of English is terrible. But as quote from the previous posting by yourself (see undermentioned), it do give me the impression that you actually meant that Ka28 is implemented as an answer to the shortfall of Ka-27...

Now all of this have reason. Ka-27 as stated above was based on lineage which came out of requirements of Leningrad. Which due to size, servicing efficiency etc dictate a certain size and weight in order to fulfil operational goal stated above... Weapons load was not deemed as important (ASW missiles), but on-board processing was (datalink issues). And so we have Ka-28.

As you can see from the statement in the abovementioned, you do mention issues of Ka-27 first. Then you mentioned, "And so..." which, I think, mean that because of all those shortcomings, thus came the Ka-28... although you didn't actually said anything about Ka-28 being the evolution of Ka-27... but it did give me the impression that Ka-28 actually derived from Ka-27... with improvement to it that was to answer the shortfalls of Ka-27 (which essentially means evolution, rather than innovation).
 
Last edited:

ZTZ99

Banned Idiot
Of CY series we have two pictures and some uncorroborated quotes. Of 'rocket boosted torpedo' there is evidence, the quote named, that something of nature of 'rocket boosted torpedo' may be in service on 054A from interview. It may or may not be CY-series. It may or may not be ASROC-similar.
The point is there is no solid evidence of any kind that the 054A carries a rocket-boosted torpedo as far as I know. And it looks like as far as you know as well.

Anyway, SH-60 does carry all three type of sonars plus torpedo, even if range suffers.
Three? Dipping sonar, sonobuoys, and what? And yes, range would indeed suffer.

Uh, most commonly-used torpedo on Ka-27 is APR-2, which is 350mm light torpedo, later moved on to AT-3/UMGT, which is 450mm. AT-1M also used, 450mm.

I am not aware of Ka-27 carrying 533mm torpedoes.
Yes, you're right. The UMGT is 450mm not 533mm. The point however, remains.

You CAN carry all the bombs and payload... sacrificing endurance and of course sonobuoys. Not good idea.
Weren't you the one pointing out exactly the same point about the SH-60?


Actually, I think my command of English is terrible. But as quote from the previous posting by yourself (see undermentioned), it do give me the impression that you actually meant that Ka28 is implemented as an answer to the shortfall of Ka-27...

As you can see from the statement in the abovementioned, you do mention issues of Ka-27 first. Then you mentioned, "And so..." which, I think, mean that because of all those shortcomings, thus came the Ka-28... although you didn't actually said anything about Ka-28 being the evolution of Ka-27... but it did give me the impression that Ka-28 actually derived from Ka-27... with improvement to it that was to answer the shortfalls of Ka-27 (which essentially means evolution, rather than innovation).
Exactly.
 

Troika

Junior Member
The point is there is no solid evidence of any kind that the 054A carries a rocket-boosted torpedo as far as I know. And it looks like as far as you know as well.

Depends on what you mean by 'solid evidence'. Is interview of naval officer on CCTV solid evidence? I think so. It is consistent with China pattern of information revelation. You want to see a brochure, a missile, perhaps video, yes? That is your perogative.

From perspective of system integration it also makes sense. Look at sensor fit of class, loadout etc. For ship with only one helo it is off. Of course also possible that class designed with expectation of torpedoes but did not materialise, or any number of reasons. But from experience I expect it exists.


Three? Dipping sonar, sonobuoys, and what? And yes, range would indeed suffer.

The holy trinity, active, passive and sonobuoys.

Remember historical perspective, during time of Leningrad, not many ASW helicopters exist, and none carry more than one type of sensor so the problem is not obvious.


Yes, you're right. The UMGT is 450mm not 533mm. The point however, remains.

Technically name should be AT-3. It refers to the same torpedo. But anyway, not really, you'd be surprised at power of AT-3, there is a reason why Ka-27s prefer to use APR-2 - AT-3 simply isn't that much better, in terms of power I should say the APR-2 is actually SUPERIOR. It is half again as fast and carries bigger charge. Range is of course main problem [but AT-3 range is... shall we say unreliable. Again this is anecdote, so take it where you wish]. It may surprise but all of these torpedoes have similar weight! They are almost twice weight of American light torpedoes, so you have a point, on the other hand not a big one, they are nowhere near as capable of heavy American or Soviet torpedoes. Test-71 for example weights almost three times of APR-2!


Weren't you the one pointing out exactly the same point about the SH-60?

I don't remember calling the SH-60 capable either. It is MORE capable than the Ka-27, and that is true. Really to have decent duration you need something like Merlin or SH-3. But that is just me grumbling.



:rofl: Both you and Rhino need to read more carefully.

I spent paragraph explaining why Ka-28 is not really capable. I do so by explaining why and how it was designed and under what conditions.

Or maybe I just do not speak good English yes? :)

Anyway, Ka-25/27 series has a ridiculous version spam, not to say constant improvements and changes (compare Indian Ka-28 or Ka-27PL for example, you see what I mean), and I CAN argue it if I want to, but I think the point is made no? :)
 

ZTZ99

Banned Idiot
Depends on what you mean by 'solid evidence'. Is interview of naval officer on CCTV solid evidence? I think so. It is consistent with China pattern of information revelation. You want to see a brochure, a missile, perhaps video, yes? That is your perogative.

From perspective of system integration it also makes sense. Look at sensor fit of class, loadout etc. For ship with only one helo it is off. Of course also possible that class designed with expectation of torpedoes but did not materialise, or any number of reasons. But from experience I expect it exists.
Too much speculation and anecdote and not nearly enough evidence. CCTV interview? Let's see a link.


The holy trinity, active, passive and sonobuoys.

Remember historical perspective, during time of Leningrad, not many ASW helicopters exist, and none carry more than one type of sensor so the problem is not obvious.
What holy trinity? Did you make that up or something? For helicopter ASW, there is no holy trinity. Dipping sonars can be either active or active/passive. Sonobuoys can be either active or passive. Helicopters don't have TAS. MAD's aren't sonars.

Technically name should be AT-3. It refers to the same torpedo. But anyway, not really, you'd be surprised at power of AT-3, there is a reason why Ka-27s prefer to use APR-2 - AT-3 simply isn't that much better, in terms of power I should say the APR-2 is actually SUPERIOR. It is half again as fast and carries bigger charge. Range is of course main problem [but AT-3 range is... shall we say unreliable. Again this is anecdote, so take it where you wish]. It may surprise but all of these torpedoes have similar weight! They are almost twice weight of American light torpedoes, so you have a point, on the other hand not a big one, they are nowhere near as capable of heavy American or Soviet torpedoes. Test-71 for example weights almost three times of APR-2!

I don't remember calling the SH-60 capable either. It is MORE capable than the Ka-27, and that is true. Really to have decent duration you need something like Merlin or SH-3. But that is just me grumbling.
Duration is not the sole determinant of capability. And again, I'd like to see more than just anecdote. Not sure about the Merlin/EH101, but the SH-3 is yet another ASW helo that cannot simultaneously carry dipping sonars and torpedoes. All the helos we have talked about including the Helix, can carry both sonobuoys and torpedoes simultaneously.

:rofl: Both you and Rhino need to read more carefully.

I spent paragraph explaining why Ka-28 is not really capable. I do so by explaining why and how it was designed and under what conditions.

Or maybe I just do not speak good English yes? :)

Anyway, Ka-25/27 series has a ridiculous version spam, not to say constant improvements and changes (compare Indian Ka-28 or Ka-27PL for example, you see what I mean), and I CAN argue it if I want to, but I think the point is made no? :)
Not really. The Ka-28, besides possibly some minor variations made for purposes of export and maybe some customer-specific requirements, is the export version of the Ka-27. I would not really call this helo an 'upgrade' to the Ka-27.
 

Troika

Junior Member
Too much speculation and anecdote and not nearly enough evidence. CCTV interview? Let's see a link.

I told you it's on page 6. Several times. Since you do not want to look, here is link from post:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/054-series-frigate-thread-2-a-6-4149.html#post89146

Here is link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


And here is transcript:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Actual segment where mentioned rocket-boosted torpedo:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"  肖新年:

  它是给编队护航,比如说它有反舰的能力,特别是它的反潜能力比较强。

  主持人:

  反潜能力比较强。

  肖新年:

  对,反潜的手段比较多,还有直升机可以反潜,反潜武器也是多种,反潜鱼雷、反潜生弹等等,还有火箭助飞的鱼雷也是反潜的,反潜能力比过去提高了。还有一定的防空能力。"

If that means anything to you.

Officer interviewed is "中国海军副参谋长肖新年少将", "navy deputy chief of staff rear-admiral".

Next time do not dismiss as anecdote blithely. Or is that also mere anecdote to you?



What holy trinity? Did you make that up or something? For helicopter ASW, there is no holy trinity. Dipping sonars can be either active or active/passive. Sonobuoys can be either active or passive. Helicopters don't have TAS. MAD's aren't sonars.

I getting impression you misreading my posts on purpose. :nono:

Active, passive, sonobuoys. Three types of sonars. You may or may not know some dipping sonars have only one mode and not other. SH-60 has all three. Ka-27s has not. Holy trinity is turn of phrase, and it is in use. Maybe I was hallucinating in last 10 years when I used and heard it used, but now I know!

I never mentioned TAS, that you conjured from imagination. Nor did I mention MAD. Where did you find that from? Here, I'll put some irrelevant truism here, too. AESA aren't sonars. See? I also can do it. :)

Anyway nobody would dream of including MAD in list of actual useful sensor for helos. Did you know that?

Duration is not the sole determinant of capability. And again, I'd like to see more than just anecdote. Not sure about the Merlin/EH101, but the SH-3 is yet another ASW helo that cannot simultaneously carry dipping sonars and torpedoes. All the helos we have talked about including the Helix, can carry both sonobuoys and torpedoes simultaneously.

It is fairly important one. If you don't want to accept that there is nothing further to discuss. SH-3 has range has capacity. Too bad it is aging. Thus we have huge Merlin ASW helo and proposals for ASW V-22.


Not really. The Ka-28, besides possibly some minor variations made for purposes of export and maybe some customer-specific requirements, is the export version of the Ka-27. I would not really call this helo an 'upgrade' to the Ka-27.

:roll: So, according to Mr. ZTZ99, capability of firing Kh-35 missile, Osminog-E and Izumrud system is not upgrade? Is minor variation? What's your definition of a major variation? Maybe it has deathrays and nuclear reactors?

I already pointed out to you how Ka-27 family evolves and export versions is part of evolution. For example Indian Ka-28 is significantly upgraded based on Ka-27PL, itself would have led to Ka-27M (cancelled), and led to whole plethora of related and (mostly) unrelated developments (the version spam I mentioned). It is wrong to speak of 'Ka-28' and 'Ka-27' as if is only one system to start with.


ZTZ-99, I will say this once. Your twisting of my words is getting very irritating. Please do not continue to putting words in my mouth. Strawmen are not appreciated.
 
Top