054/A FFG Thread II

[bd popeye]

All members please consider this!

Do you want to be a Moderator at SinoDefenceForum? This is REAL!!

bd popeye super moderator

 

[A.Man]

1-2-3-4, Oh, 4 054A's In Huangpu

 

[franco-russe]

When something is too good to be true, it usually is. But it is a nice overview of Huangpu.

 

[asif iqbal]

so 3 ships being outfitted and 2 under construction, thats one busy shipyard!

 

[Engineer]

I heard this picture is photoshopped.

 

[Red___Sword]

1-2-3-4, Oh, 4 054A's In Huangpu

This pic is PSed, cause the author declared:"This ARTWORK, is dedicated to the fans."

 

[tphuang]

Re: »Ø¸´: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

let me go through this.

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

not the way I look at it

one (VDS) goes down and can operate at different depths
and the other one trails behind the noisy part of the ship (and that's what 054A uses)

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.

PLAN and the Russians have all expanded submarine despite the fact that USN has the most competent ASW capability. Let's face it, it's easier to sink a ship putting a hole in the bottom rather than trying to hit its midsection.

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.

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.

okay, thanks for pointing out that TAS can also be active.

Now, all of the 054 ships have VDS/TAS (I can't tell just from the picture of a line coming out, I'd guess TAS). It looks like 052B/C had the same holes in the back that would suggest VDS/TAS. We know 052 uses VDS. And there are also sub chasers and even 053 equipped with TAS. These are the ships that are going out to the sea, so it looks like they are certainly trying to provide all the new era ocean going vessels with a good complement of sonar suite. Of course, there are other things I'd like to see on an ASW ship, but that's not what 054A is. You know the older ships don't have anything other than hull mounted sonar or even torpedo tubes, because they were designed to be brown water. And you know, everything in PLAN was backward in those days. We can certainly see the advancement in their AAW capability in the recent times. And it will be harder for PLAN to achieve the same advancements in ASW in the blue waters without having an adequate ASW helo platform. Certainly at this point, Z-9C is too small + short ranged, Z-8 is too large and Ka-28 is limited in numbers + has outdated electronics. The other thing is that given PLAN's preference to use submarines to hunt other submarines, they will also need much more capable SSNs before they can achieve good blue water ASW capability. Of course, it would also help if they have some ASW helo carrier. But that remains to be seen.

My point is that for what 054A is designed for (which is a general purpose FFG) and what China has at disposal, it's hard to expect more from it.

Claiming that the 054A is focussed on air self defence over other operational facets is also flawed, its anti-surface capability being equivilant to what is deployed on most western surface combatants (and on most PLAN frigates), not the 16 you falsely claim it has. Its one area of deficiency is in ASW, yet even here an effort has been made to provide such a capability. The Z-9C has a dipping sonar (Thales HS-12 or Type 605 derivative, depending on source) and one assumes a data link back to the ship providing a similar capability to the MATCH system that provided the backbone of RN surface ship ASW capability for much of the cold war (effectively using the helicopter as a mobile VDS and the ship as a munitions launching platform) as well as its ability to use ET52 torpedos. It is glaringly obvious that these vessels are intended as multirole combat platforms.

I do think that 054A is a general purpose ship that represents the best of what China could mass produce at this point. However, 054A does give an impression of a surface ship more focused on AAW, because it clearly provides that medium range AAW umbrella for a possible future Chinese carrier group. Whereas it's ASuW brings really nothing new except more missiles. And it does bring some ASW capability although I'd think that a future Chinese carrier group would be relying more on SSNs or aerial assets.

No you can not disregard other types of sonar or ASW sensor (hence my point about submarines), but the people on Chinese bbs are actually quite close to the truth. A TAS offers far more than a hull mounted sonar alone. Adding a high quality TAS to a ship will result in a dramatic capability increase, especially in ASW sensor range. Ideally an ASW orientated ship will have a large hull sonar, a large TAS and a pair of dipping sonar equipped helicopters. All both active and passive. The point is that China has a very long way to go in ASW systems, much further than they do in AAW. I have no doubt this will change though.

We will just going to have to disagree on this one. I will even concede that TAS is more important in certain scenarios at detecting targets than other types of sonar suite, but it's just as vital to have those other sonar suite. For example, you have to move at a certain speed and certain pattern to really make good use of a TAS.
I like looking at a picture of Virginia class to point out the importance of having a full complement of sonar that achieves 360 degree coverage.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[sealordlawrence]

¦^ÂÃ: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

thpuang,

Wrong. TAS/VDS are the same device, towed behind the vessel with VDS being set to operate at different depths in order to get round the problems caused by different layers in the water, check the specifications of any western ASW ship and you will not find seperate TAS/VDS. A hull mounted sonar can never provide anywhere close to the range of a TAS/VDS, it is not a matter of opinion but a fact. That is just the way the laws of physics work. If 054A does have a TAS, it almost certainly has VDS as the TAS used by the PLAN (ESS-1) are based on the French DUBV-43 VDS which is a VDS. However, if these ships only have a TAS without VDS capability, then first it is very strange, and secondly it is pathetic and makes PLAN ASW capability look lame. What is the evidence that the 054A has a towed array?

A UK example:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Helicopters, submarines etc, you just repeated what I said. With one exception, you can not use a submarine as an example for a frigate. A submarine is a giant VDS, it can vary its own depth. You can not do this with a frigate so it has to vary the depth of the sonar. Hence why submarines have what you call a TAS which in itself can not be varied, but the submarine towing it can vary its depth.

 

[delft]

Surely a VDS is a winged hydrophone flying at a chosen depth, while a TAS is similarly pulled along at a chosen depth using wings the same way. I have no knowledge of the matter, so I don't see how it can be any different.

 

[Scratch]

Working with some half-knowledge here maybe ...
Isn't it that, technicly, a VDS is a small, sub-surface vehicle (an unmanned mini sub basicly) that is trailed on a cable and can be depth controlled, while a TAS is a really long cable that has an array of hydrophones attached to it's length (and that in modern versions can also be brought to a specified depth)?
But today the terms may have become less resoluble.
So the TAS would be a (passive) low frequency system, while the VDS more likely works in a med-frequency range (smaller array size) and might more easily be used in an active role as well.