Dual hangers would have been awesome for sure.
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
kwaigonegin
Colonel
While it's okay for a designated frigate to only have 1 hangar, it's borderline criminal for the 052Ds to NOT have 2!lol dual hangars is a little bit TOO much. it's only a frigate after all
Considering the immense threat PLAN will likely face from sub surface threats in the future I find it incredulous that the PLAN designers did not think to put dual hangars especially for long overseas deployment.
Even the Constellation class has dual hangars for LAMPS and a MQ9C. The new Type 26 frigates and Global Combat Ship have hangars that can accommodate 2 Merlins together with a huge flt deck.
Last edited:
(1)052Ds are already stretched designs. Hangars aren't exactly weightless, and they're big facility weights up high (just a reminder - they're also nasty fire hazards, since DC is recently a hot topic on this forum; kind reminder of the WW2 experience). Especially when they aren't empty, which leads us to /2/.
(2)Do you have enough shipborne helicopters? Helicopters don't pop up magically just by adding a hangar. Ironically, the scale of Chinese shipbuilding makes it an acute problem. Helicopters need numbers, they need to keep up with possible operational and combat losses. If you don't easily overfill ships even in peacetime - maybe scale down the requirement?
(3)It isn't absolutely necessary to have a hangar per helicopter. Helicopters can live and be resupplied on helideck - in fact, for combat use it's normal, because their reaction time this way is massively better. Yes, the weather will kill some occasionally - but if you want more helicopters and operations - that's the nature of things.
(4) Helicopter requirement doesn't scale up linearly when ships operate in squadrons, especially around carriers. Only vessels going independent cruising are consistently dependent on their full onboard airwing.
It is impossible for the MQ-9 to operate from the Constellations, since the MQ-9 is a CTOL drone. I believe you mean the MQ-8C instead?
Speaking of the Type 26:
The class is actually (largely) equivalent to the Akizukis and Asahis of the JMSDF in terms of roles and responsibilities in naval formations and in battle, rather than being an equivalent to the 054A/Bs of the PLAN. Hence, the Type 26s and 054A/Bs are not directly comparable.
In the meantime, regarding the 052Ds' helicopter-carrying capacity:
Having ~7500 tons of full displacement isn't actually a lot - Especially when the 052Ds are already carrying loads of other things onboard (radars, sensors, computer systems, weaponry, fuel, consummables etc). While the Arleigh Burkes (from Flight 2A onwards) of the USN and the KDX-3s of the ROKN have helicopter hangars that can fit two helicopters at once, sure - But they also displace much more than the 052Ds (9500-9700 tons for the Flight 2A & 3 Burkes and 10000+ tons for the KDX-3).
OTOH, even the Kongos, Ashigaras and Mayas of the JMSDF carry only one helicopter each, despite displacing around 9500-10000 tons at full load. So it really depends on several other factors as well (such as helicopter sizes, fleet requirements, operational doctrines and more), which I believe @Gloire_bb has explained the subjects pretty well.
1) If top weight is a concern, make the hangar a roll down as in Russian 1155s, although top weight of one or two hangars is not that much different. Same applies to fire hazard - not much difference whether you have one or two helicopters on board.
2) If numbers are a problem, rotation between ships off and on duty may be a solution. Although building a helicopter is way cheaper and easier than building a destroyer. Matter of priorities. And it looks that PLAN has finally realised significance of anti-sub warfare
3) Sure. But in peace time you wouldn't want continued exposure to sea water. Viet Nam realised this after and added a hangar instead of shelter on their Gepard corvettes. Folding hangar over the helipad may be a solution like on Russian 11711 LSTs, although operations will be somewhat more cumbersome
4) Any flat-top is a more convenient platform for helicopters than a destroyer. But, carrying ASW helicopters is not their main task. Every ASW helicopter on board means one assault, transport, SAR or AEW less.
956* 1155 has a normal hangar. 956 hangar(and a similar one on Vietnamese corvettes) is known to be
Since the 1930s, every so often someone comes up with this idea, and collapsible hangars are always sure to come as a consistent disappointment.
Blindly adding hangars doesn't make you more efficient at ASW. It's but a facility, which may or may not have enough usability, depending on the ship and how it is being used. For normal situations for a fleet unit, 1(+1) is usually enough.
Second hangar will come at a price; let's say it's ~80t added weight up (sum of structure, helicopter, equipment&extended helicopter pad, additional stores/fuel/armament), plus necessary rearrangement of real estate on the upper deck. What are you willing to sacrifice for it? We can, say, throw rear VLS and CIWS off the ship.
Unless you really need it, a second helicopter hangar is a hard choice for a 6-7'000 ship - unless, of course, you are willing to make a unified volume for all offboard vehicles, large and handy enough for multiple helicopters. But that almost 100% means a new ship, 052D probably won't be able to accept it.
Carrying a wing of ASW helicopters is in fact task of all 2(3 soon?) Chinese flattops.
Their helicopters are also significantly better and more capable than medium helicopters storable on destroyers.
The roll-down type helicopter hangars on the Udaloys (i.e. Project 1155) only serve to add additional yet unnecessary complexities to the overall aviation facilities onboard, which is why we don't see anyone else doing the same. Even the Russians have abandoned such ideas for their newer and planned surface combatants.
In the meantime, I don't think that contemporary helicopter hangars found on modern surface combatants around the world is actually that "high-up", as the helicopter hangars are generally situated at the same level with much of the superstructures of the ship itself. So the center of gravity isn't really too much of a too major concern for them, IMHO.
The PLAN has always understood the importance and significance of having a robust anti-sub warfare.
The problem being that: For a cash-strapped navy which had been suffering the same treatment as their Russian counterparts up north until the 1990s at-the-earliest - There are other domains which were deemed more important and/or much more reliably-achievable to focus on by the PLAN, based on the financial and technological capabilities of the time.
TBH, if the number of helicopters in a PLAN naval formation/region of operation is a big enough concern for the PLAN to warrant significantly large remedies, and that proper aircraft carriers cannot be introduced in sufficient numbers - The Hyugas and Izumos are the way to go.
Since China has already proven to be perfectly capable of commissioning three 075 LHDs that displaces ~40000 tons each within 5 years - As long as proper amount of resources and efforts can be allocated, a light carrier design which:
1. Displaces around 20000-25000 tons;
2. Only has aviation facilities and not amphibious assault capabilities;
3. Capable of operating helicopters and drones; and
4. With sufficient cruising speed and endurance for extended high-sea operations -
... can definitely be pursued by the PLAN.
It's more complex.
054A (and now likely B) are normal frigates. A lot of independent secondary job (below fleet), (regional, we shall see if 054B will be more global) trade protection duties. They of course can work with squadrons (for that matter, so can 056As, there is no legal prohibition), but from the propulsion choice, we can immediately say it was not the main consideration. The same consideration leads to their consistent 'medium' choice of everything. It's Fleet units that often go to extremes.
054s your stereotypical rank-and-file, do-the-job ships. Arguably, one of the purest of this type in the modern world.
Akizuki/Asahi are fleet escorts first and foremost - i.e. their Chinese equivalent, with a significant caveat, is 052D.
A significant caveat being, 052D is general purpose/multirole(a smaller non-flag 055), when Akizuki are specific AA escorts (ESSM carriers) and Asahi are ASW ones for their "true" guided missile destroyers (mostly tasked with exactly that - carrying task-specific large missiles).
JMSDF has a much firmer work distribution than it's normal for others. That makes them into a bad analogy quite often.
Type 26, are, instead, a RNs main GP combatants - their AA is not even on a proper group protection level (100kg missiles, lol);
they aim for powerful ASW(which everyone readily notices), but also at powerful heavy missile strike (which, for some reason, people miss). Their gun is specifically a specifically DP weapon, too.
If anything, they're almost Russian-styled in their purpose and design: analogies with Russian/Indian vessels are striking.
Could this be the official confirmation from the Chinese Ministry of Defense that the newly-launched FFG at Hudong-Zhonghua is indeed called "Type 054B"? (instead of "Type 057")
Posted by @单手搓核弹 on Weibo.
Posted by @单手搓核弹 on Weibo.
Last edited: