lcloo
Captain
Type 26 is able to accomodate 2 Merlins because it is a large frigate with displacement of 6,900 tons which is close to type 052D destroyer (7,500 tons).
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Type 26 can accommodate two Wildcats or one merlin, not two Merlins.
Also, his post was in relation to me saying how specific variants of Type 26 only carry one helicopter, meaning if 054B carries one Z-20F it would not be a major issue (the fact that 054B is smaller than Type 26 family is very much the case of course).
He is right in that Type 26 UK variant can carry one Merlin (or two Wildcats) which is thus different and more than one Z-20F, but I was referring to the Hunter class variant which accommodates one MH-60R.
Spatially distributed ship: deployable distributed persistent ASW sensors, distributed EW emitters, distributed effectors(aaw/asw/torpedo protection).
And they are by no means that small, we're talking about class which thanks to sacrificing(outsourcing really) permanent human presence can carry quite a lot.
That's something else entirely, though
There are no "ASW variants" of T26. From the keel up the T26 is ASW through and through, everything from the CODLOG, to anechoic tiles on a surface ship. There was talk about a T26GP before the T31 programme but that's dead in the water. It does not matter what they intend to carry, I was referring to what they can take. Strictly speaking, the Hunter class is a variant of the Global Combat Ship (T26 is the RN designation).
Let me be clear. T26/GCS/Hunter/CSC can carry 1 Merlin/MH-60R or 2 Wildcats in the main hangar. In addition to that, they can also house an additional 1 Merlin/MH-60-R or 2 Wildcat in the Rolls-Royce mission bay connected with a large door to the hanger. So in total, they can theoretically accommodate 2 Merlin/MH-60R.
Yes, I'm aware.
But for the purposes of comparison of the standard complement, the additional space offered by the mission space can't reasonably be considered as being one for another medium weight/Merlin/MH-60 sized helicopter. It's intended as a flexible mission space, so unless in the future it is operated routinely and normally in the role of a secondary hangar, we can't view it as its standard role for comparisons sake.
In any case, this isn't a Type 26 thread.
Everything you described in those roles, for small USVs, are not something that I believe that the PLA would prioritize for the 054B, and I do not think those small USVs would offer significant utility for a blue water surface combatant operating at realistic speed in a PLA mission profile. For that kind of mission, you want USVs that are fast enough to be able to keep up with your surface combatants ideally, or if you can't achieve that, then you need to saturate the water with your USVs which will be more than your frigates can carry anyway.
Like what, a frigate may be able to carry 2-3 small USVs? Maybe even 4? Is it worth adding so much complexity and topweight to a frigate for such a minor capability, when what you really need is more like 40 small USVs per ship to be a proper big boy war USV mothership?
Please make note that my position here is very specific -- I'm saying that I don't think it makes sense for the PLA at this stage to pursue a frigate with those kind of small USV/UUV mothership capabilities, and that those small USVs/UUVs aren't that capable for the PLA's likely missions in blue water/open ocean.
Now, I can fully see the use of small USVs and UUVs at closer distances such as in the first island chain, where speed, endurance and payload are somewhat less important, but you don't need a dedicated frigate to launch and recover or control them.
It's to put it in perspective how trivial those small USVs/UUVs are, and why it's not worth getting too excited over them and compromising your frigate too much when the capability they offer is so niche.
No. Three is something that sounds like you're cutting corners. Far more likely they will go with four fixed panels.
I wouldn't put it like that.
Three fixed arrays is perfectly reasonable; on the Constellation class it has three reduced size SPY-6 arrays for its radar set up mounted above the deck house (but not on a mast).
In the case of 054B, the reason it will have a two array radar isn't because it's cheaper than a three array setup, rather it's because of the balance between array size, radar height, and array number.
On any given hullform, assuming money and technology isn't a limiting factor, you can only really choose two of those three things to prioritize:
- Greater array size means each array has greater power
- Higher radar height means longer radar horizon, meaning you can pick up low altitude and surface targets at longer distances
- Greater array number means you have higher refresh rates (or if you have fixed arrays, you don't need mechanical rotation for refresh)
In the case of 054B, we expect them to use the dual array mast mounted, fast rotating AESA setup:
That suggests to me, of the three characteristics from above, they chose to prioritize: greater array size (greater power), and higher radar height (longer radar horizon).
In theory, the radar is "only" two faced, but it should be on a fast rotating mount, meaning that it should have very rapid refresh rates. The overall configuration of the radar is not dissimilar to the UK SAMPSON radar on Type 45.
If on 054B they wanted to have three fixed arrays instead of two, then they have to give up one of the two other characteristics.
- They can either reduce each array's size while keeping it at the same radar height on the mast, producing a three array fixed mast mounted configuration but each array is smaller than the two array configuration
- Or, they can reduce the radar height from the mast lower to the deckhouse, producing a three array fixed deckhouse mounted configuration where each array is the same size as it was in the two array configuration, but mounted much lower on the ship thus reducing radar horizon
(and it goes without saying if they went for a four fixed array configuration, then those aforementioned factors would need to be even more diminished)
Personally, I think their current configuration of a mast mounted, large two array rotating option, is perfectly fine.