054/A FFG Thread II

[asif iqbal]

It's hard to believe, but China actually made quite a bit of money on the F-22P deal. F-22P deal is just an indication of how cheaply Chinese shipbuilding sector can crank out warships.

PN did not have the fiances in place for these frigates and thier order depened on securing the loan

China gave Pakistan $750 million loan for 4 F22P frigates and I think China will eventually make that into aid, it was given as a soft loan a goodwill gesture from China and like other loans that China has given to Pakistan alot of them are written off, like the 40 F7PG that PAF recieved back in 1999

 

[franco-russe]

They do have new designs that will be using gas turbine too, but I'm wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that 054B will be built until 2020?

Well, it's hard to assess the power of the sonar, but the small bow mounted sonar we see on 054A is more than enough for the shallow water that it will operate around within first chain. Although now that it goes further offshore, it probably needs a larger sonar bulb. It also has TAS and is rumoured to be able to launch ASW missiles (I would assume something the size of YJ-83 launched from those YJ-83 launchers if it does exist). And the helicopter situation will not get resolved with a new design. It will be resolved once Z-15 is ready and it will be ready in a few years.

Actually, Z-9C is pretty good for it's size. It can carry a torpedo and also carry a dipping sonar. And considering how much space dipping sonar takes, that's pretty good for something it's size. Sure, it doesn't have as much onboarding processing capability as larger helicopters, but that's why you have datalink and have the ship's combat system figure it out.

Aside from that, what additional sonar are you looking for? I guess having one of those systems that have both a TAS and VDS would be good (can't remember the exact name). Having larger bow mounted sonar would help, but that depends on the purpose of the ship.

There seems to be little doubt that 054 is a good design for an ocean frigate. But the Chinese are not going to build it forever. To me, 054B is just a rumour, I have no idea how it wil be configured or how many they will build. However, by 2015 054A will have been built for 10 years, and an update is appropriate. As the PLAN has an ASW deficit, optimisation for that role seems reasonable, as does a production of about 8 by 2020. My anticipation is that post-2020 about everything will be next generation (starting with the J-20!).

Compared to the average European GP/ASW frigate, 054A has enhanced AAW capabilitis due its bank of 32 HHQ-9 missiles – though it is not, of course, a dedicated AAW ship like the FORBIN or DARING classes. But I persist in thinking that it is below average when it comes to ASW. We seem to agree that the sonar dome is puny, compared to e.g. the huge sonars on the new Russian types, the GORSHKOV and STEREGUSHCHIY classes (which also have towed and dipping sonars). In fact, everything related to ASW is small on 054A: small bow sonar, small towed sonar, small helicopter, small torpedoes.

In fact, I would guess that Type 056 will be on a par with 054A (less hangar, plus rocket launchers), but that it is a coastal ASW combatant, not an ocean-going one.

There is no evidence that the PLAN has any Asroc-type ASW weapons. China could no doubt have acquired the ASW member of the Club family along with the sub-launched SSM one, if they had so desired, but they did not.

 

[tphuang]

There seems to be little doubt that 054 is a good design for an ocean frigate. But the Chinese are not going to build it forever. To me, 054B is just a rumour, I have no idea how it wil be configured or how many they will build. However, by 2015 054A will have been built for 10 years, and an update is appropriate. As the PLAN has an ASW deficit, optimisation for that role seems reasonable, as does a production of about 8 by 2020. My anticipation is that post-2020 about everything will be next generation (starting with the J-20!).

Compared to the average European GP/ASW frigate, 054A has enhanced AAW capabilitis due its bank of 32 HHQ-9 missiles – though it is not, of course, a dedicated AAW ship like the FORBIN or DARING classes. But I persist in thinking that it is below average when it comes to ASW. We seem to agree that the sonar dome is puny, compared to e.g. the huge sonars on the new Russian types, the GORSHKOV and STEREGUSHCHIY classes (which also have towed and dipping sonars). In fact, everything related to ASW is small on 054A: small bow sonar, small towed sonar, small helicopter, small torpedoes.

In fact, I would guess that Type 056 will be on a par with 054A (less hangar, plus rocket launchers), but that it is a coastal ASW combatant, not an ocean-going one.

There is no evidence that the PLAN has any Asroc-type ASW weapons. China could no doubt have acquired the ASW member of the Club family along with the sub-launched SSM one, if they had so desired, but they did not.

I don't disagree that 054A does not have the same level of ASW capability as some of the other latest frigates like Takanami or horizon class. But it makes best with what China has right now. And the size of its bow sonar bulb is a sign of its role rather than anything else. It can certainly carry Ka-28 if China has enough Ka-28. But if China does, then Z-9C's just mainly looses out on shorter range (but still carries a lot of equipment for its size).

btw, you are the first person that has ever said 056 is on par with 054A. Think about that.

don't put word in my mouth. I didn't say something doesn't mean I oppose to it.

Towed array is waaaayyyy more effective than hull mounted sonar as the primary detection solutoin, partly because the reason you stated that the ship is a noise emitter. and its geometry... huge distance compare to hull mounted array. which makes the signal to noise ratio a bit higher when try to triangulate a source.

and hull array is only at a fixed depth. Not good if you target is hiding beneath a layer.

what Hull mounted sonars gives you is the flexibility you need when you close in on a target. especially if you go active.
there is limitation on speed and ship motion when you tow a long array.

btw, the new generation of VDS are not much different from UUVs. there is a misconception there. that UUVs are used primary in countermine.

VDS is great in coastal/littoral environment. and I am telling you If Virginia is designed to wonder near coastal waters in continental shelf. then VDS will be back.

where is your proof that TAS is a way more effective solution than hull mounted sonar? I certainly agree it's very important, but the reason you have TAS is to avoid having sonar next to the noisy part of the ship when you want to achieve coverage behind you. If TAS was that important, why do you think even 093 does not have it? And at the same time, a big deal was made out of those new flank array sonar on 093?

And yes, you equip VDS or TAS depending on the role of the ship. That's what I said.

 

[sealordlawrence]

»Ø¸´: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

i.e and franco-russe are absolutely correct.

TAS is far more effective than a bow sonar as it can its operating depth can be varied. This is incredibly important as sea water is not a constant, instead currents cause it to have different layers with different temperatures at different depths. For instance, in the Atlantic the top 300-600ft is a surface layer, in the Med it is 50ft,* in which the sound waves will effectively get trapped. So it is important to get the sonar below that layer, even being below that layer may not help you if you are in deep water with a deep diving submarine, the different layers in the ocean bend the sound waves greatly reducing their range and thus the range of the sonar. It gets even more complicated when salinity is taken into account. And it does not suffer from the blind spots that bow sonars do.

The surface layer is a result of wind, waves, and current mixing:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By the way, TAS is VDS, they are the same thing.

Ideally a submarine takes multiple types of sonar, the UK Trafalgar class has 5 different sets, as different types offer different things in different conditions and you can theoretically run them at different frequencies. A submarine is also a giant VDS.

The point though is this, TAS (VDS) is vital for a credible surface ship ASW capability and without it PLAN ships will be a laughing stock. They will be left with ships with very small sonar ranges effectively rendering them useless as ASW platforms, and fundamentally undermine any effort they may make at challenging even regional fleets. One suspects that the distinct lack of PLAN ASW capability (not just in surface ships), combined with the decisive use of submarines against surface vessels in the Falklands war is why Australia, Japan and South Korea are all looking at expanding their submarine fleets beyond any expansions being made in their surface fleets.

 

[Galrahn]

Re: »Ø¸´: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

You guys are brilliant when it comes to tech and following shipbuilding, but there are also interesting (or dry to some) books and articles that discuss PLA Navy tactics and strategy that can fit into this discussion. I won't lie, I struggle to read them because I read Chinese at a grade school level, but I'm getting better.

If you attempt to look at the Type 054A in the context of a modern western frigate, you aren't thinking like the PLA Navy. China looks at the Type 054A as a modern cruiser straight out of the Age of Sail, indeed not much different than the Royal Navy would have looked at a 32 gun frigate.

By that the ship must be able to defeat the primary threat - which it does with the 32 VLS AAW suite. Primary threat to a patrol cruiser (modern frigate) in the modern era is aircraft or cruise missile. Primary target is either a land structure or a ship, and Type 054A can attack both at relatively long range. ASW is a secondary consideration on Type 054A, but it is capable.

The key to PLA Navy ASW tactics is they emphasize active sonar, and don't even hide it. It is basically an admission that when faced with a submarine threat they do not believe their passive sonar suites today will be effective in hearing an attacking submarine before the submarine is able to strike, so active is the focus. The PLA Navy discusses VBS, Hull array (active), and offboard dipping/dropping as methods towards detecting hostile underwater targets. While people focus on the helicopter, the PLA Navy discusses maritime fixed wing aircraft quite a bit for ASW tactics.

So while it is useful to discuss ASW in the context of a single ship, the PLA Navy discusses ASW in the context of at least 2 ships each with hull and TAS, at least 1 helicopter and optimally with 1 aircraft. The Type 054A acting as the active sonar ship is heavily emphasized in their professional engineering and tactical journal writings, which I think is an interesting detail. As these are not exactly secret discussions, it is unclear if it represents doctrine or theory, but at this point in the PLA Navy development I would suggest theory is doctrine with much of this new modern equipment.

It also makes sense though, because as an active sonar ship, the Type 054A has the defensive capability to protect itself from attack and the active sonar will reveal its position more easily than a passive ship would.

Thought this might be useful.

 

[Galrahn]

"A Man" posted some time ago in early 2010 a list of Type 054As leading through the first 2 + 12 + 4 = 18. Based on everything I have observed, his original list with hull number has turned out 100% accurate.

I would suggest that if we base blocks within the context of China's 5 year budget plans, the 6th HD Type 054A is already paid for, just not visible yet because they appear to have got behind building Type 071s. At the same time, we may be seeing shipbuilding match up better to funding for China's 5 year budget plans than we expected. An example is the 7th Type 054 which may be the first of the 054B model, as it materialized in pieces at the yard at HP just a few months after the 5 year budget plan for 2011-2015 was passed in mid 2010.

Said another way, China paid for the 2 Type 054 and 12 Type 054A in the 5 year plan from 2006-2010, and purchased at least 4 Type 054Bs in the 5 year plan from 2011-2015. By keeping track of the ships that appear to be purchased within the 5 year plans, and extrapolating the amount of money being spent per year combined with the annual increases in defense, we should be able to more accurately estimate the size of China's fleet in 2015 and 2020 based on time it takes to build certain ships. Building 14 Type 054 and 054As in 5 years + 4 frigate for Pakistan suggests China had the funding and capacity to build ~3.6 four thousand ton frigates a year between 2006-2010. Based on some of the rapid spurts on per ship basis, I think capacity can be increased with more funding - which is coming.

Finally, because it has been discussed. The cost estimate for the Type 054A is around $250 million, weapons and sensors included in that cost. That estimate comes from a legit PLA Navy expert at a major Navy intelligence organization in Europe.

 

[sealordlawrence]

»Ø¸´: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

It is not useful.

A cursory glance at the full spectrum of PLAN ASW platforms reveals a glaring deficiency across all potential facets of ASW warfare. Very limited TAS (which can be active) very small hull sonars (either active or passive), a distinct lack of credible fixed wing ASW assets, no heavy ASW helicopters thus limiting the potential use for large active dipping sonars etc. Whichever way you look at it the PLAN has a severe deficiency in ASW sensors which looks even more odd given the growth of submarine threats within the APAC region and the near capital ship status of modern SSN's.

As for comparing the 054A class to an 18th/19th century frigate, that is as lazy, pointless and incorrect as comparing the Arleigh burke class to a battleship. Your theory, flawed conceptually from the start, is finally ruined by the fact that even PLAN destroyers increasingly appear to lack TAS, to my knowledge no indigenous PLAN destroyer has been fitted with one since the Luhu class.

Now if we look at the likely reasons for PLAN ASW deficiency we start to see some obvious things relatively quickly.

Fixed wing ASW assets: China, up until very recently has lacked a suitable homegrown platform to perform such a role and has been unable to acquire one on the export market

Heavy ASW helicopter: We all know the issues with the Chinese helicopter industry

Modern active sonar: Contrary to popular belief this is probably the hardest element of modern naval warfare to master, ASW sonar having proven extremely difficult to make adequately (Russia got a lot of its early tech from blue prints of the RN Type 2001) and the units provided by France, designed in 80s or earlier for the relatively simple ASW environment of the Med may well have proven wholly inadequate for the pacific environment and may go some way to explaining why it seems to be slowly disappearing. We may simply be seeing the Chinese struggling to develop their own high quality sonars.

And finally, Galrahn, you do not have a monopoly on understanding strategy and tactics, despite what you seem to think.

 

[franco-russe]

"A Man" posted some time ago in early 2010 a list of Type 054As leading through the first 2 + 12 + 4 = 18. Based on everything I have observed, his original list with hull number has turned out 100% accurate.

I would suggest that if we base blocks within the context of China's 5 year budget plans, the 6th HD Type 054A is already paid for, just not visible yet because they appear to have got behind building Type 071s. At the same time, we may be seeing shipbuilding match up better to funding for China's 5 year budget plans than we expected. An example is the 7th Type 054 which may be the first of the 054B model, as it materialized in pieces at the yard at HP just a few months after the 5 year budget plan for 2011-2015 was passed in mid 2010.

Dear Galrahn, it feels quite an honour to be discussing with you, having been for years a faithful and grateful reader of your great blog.

Happily, I generally agree with what you are saying here, in particular your pointing to the importance of 5-year plans for understanding PLAN building programmes. A. Man has actually posted four lists of Type 054(A) frigates, the one you are referring to is probably the one in post # 694, but there was also one in post # 826 and the Sino-French one in post # 848.

In addition there is is an actually more interesting one in the 052C thread post # 460, which implicitly refers to five-year plans, as it looks back on 2000-2010 and forward to 2015, and deals both with commissioning and decommissioning of destroyers and frigates.

The latter is the only that specifically refers to 054A as being the last two frigates to be built for PLAN (SSF) by 2015. The other lists refer to 054A+ or 054A II, the difference between which have been clarified on this thread. The # 694 list has four 054A++, which may be the same as 054B, since it is talking about ships for SSF (572-575).

The difference is not vast: among the 18 054 ships, we have a choice between 0, 2 and 4 being 054B, the latter being your assessment for the ships laid down under the 12th 5-year plan 2011-15.

The two 054, commissioned in 2005, came of course under the 10th 5-year plan 2001-2005, but that still leaves respectable 12 frigates funded under the 11th plan.

 

[sealordlawrence]

¦^ÂÃ: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

Dear Galrahn, it feels quite an honour to be discussing with you, having been for years a faithful and grateful reader of your great blog.

Really?

 

[franco-russe]

Re: ¦^ÂÃ: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

What happened to the addition after Really?