Corvette/Light frigate thread (056A, sub-4000t FFLs)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Lethe
Captain
One thing that has been lost in this discussion about 056A/054A being too slow and subsequent comparisons between this vessel and LCS is that there is a world of difference between a desire for greater speed as achieved by most first-rate combatants, i.e. in the range of 30-35 knots, and greater speed in the sense of the >45-knot Freedom LCS design. The latter requires a much larger power plant than is typical*, an optimised hull form and has implications that reverberate throughout the entire design of the ship, all to deliver gains that are all but irrelevant in the context of even helicopters and subsonic anti-ship missiles**, let alone fixed-wing aviation, space-based surveillance, etc. Collectively, this explains why such speeds are vanishingly rare amongst modern combatants. For naval vessels, pursuing very high speeds is even more clearly a losing game than it was for combat aircraft attempting to out-race the evolution of surface-to-air missiles in the 1960s. A 30-35kt design target for an new-generation light frigate strikes me as a plausible, even expected evolution. LCS-type >40kt performance is something else and in my view requires evidence before it can be seriously entertained.
* When one considers that the 3500-tonne Freedom-class LCS, the 16,000-tonne Zumwalt-class destroyers and the 60,000-tonne Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are each powered by two Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbines, one can begin to appreciate the rapidly escalating propulsion requirements to achieve incrementally higher speeds.
** A ship with a top speed of 45 knots does have meaningfully better evasive potential against incoming torpedoes.
That combination of high sprint speed coupled with reasonably long transit range is certainly one of the unique characteristics of LCS that is not replicated amongst the mostly small fast attack craft that boast similarly high sprint speeds.
Last edited:
A large dedicated arsenal ship (with say 112 UVLS cells like the Type-055) is too valuable and vulnerable as a target.
Losing just 1 of such a ship would significantly impact the effectiveness of a SAG or CSG.
And my read is that both the US Navy and Chinese Navy expect significant numbers of missiles and torpedoes to get through, in the event of a high-intensity war.
A smaller corvette-sized ship is also a much less attractive target, given that it will be operating in conjunction with larger destroyers and frigates. You can deliberately put such a ship directly in the way of incoming missiles, torpedoes or submarines, given that such a corvette is low-value and has minimal or no crew. Otherwise a frigate or destroyer would be the first target.
My guestimate is that a Chinese 2500ton DDC would be in the region of $150-$200 Mn, based on what we know of the Type-054 and Type-056.
If this is a Chinese DDC which has 32 VLS cells, then on the metric of "Ship Procurement Cost per VLS cell", it is about 3x cheaper than a Type-52D or Type-055. Even if it only has 16 VLS cells, the "Ship Procurement Cost per VLS cell" is still significantly lower than for a Type-052D or Type-055.
---
And if a larger dedicated arsenal ship was the optimal solution, why did the CSBA only go with a 2000ton DDC with 32 VLS cells in the paper below? Why not 64 VLS cells? And remember that the argument for a larger offboard missile carrier is stronger for the US Navy, given the much longer distances they operate at.
CSBA paper here:
csbaonline.org/research/publications/taking-back-the-seas-transforming-the-u.s-surface-fleet-for-decision-centric-warfare
I think there is another case to be made for this new ship potentially being an arsenal ship. Aside from the cost per VLS consideration by AndrewS. Considering the likely combat conditions if a potential war in the near future breaks out, the likelihood of this conflict being close to the home coast is very high, also a larger number of small arsenal ships with one command and control destroyer (52s and 55s) could provide the swarm / over saturation tactic a new level of deadliness.
imagine that we have one destroyer as a command and control along with a few to a dozen of these arsenal ships as a battle group swarming a carrier battle group from multiple directions and splitting both the offensive and defensive assets of the enemy battle group that can be focused on any one direction. Additionally, the lost of any of the small arsenal ship would be much more acceptable than losing a 52 or 55.
Furthermore, rearming has always been an issue of VLS as it take quite some time to rearm, by splitting the concentration of the VLS onto more ships, it allows more tube to be rearm simultaneously at port, it should provide a better up time during war time conditions, assuming missile production can keep up.
imagine that we have one destroyer as a command and control along with a few to a dozen of these arsenal ships as a battle group swarming a carrier battle group from multiple directions and splitting both the offensive and defensive assets of the enemy battle group that can be focused on any one direction. Additionally, the lost of any of the small arsenal ship would be much more acceptable than losing a 52 or 55.
Furthermore, rearming has always been an issue of VLS as it take quite some time to rearm, by splitting the concentration of the VLS onto more ships, it allows more tube to be rearm simultaneously at port, it should provide a better up time during war time conditions, assuming missile production can keep up.
This is incorrect - in fact, it was the major reason behind LCS speed (those are stand-in ships by design).
40...45+ kn combatant, provided it has either warning or maneuvers expecting such an attack, can meaningfully leave ASCM search pattern - especially if ship signature is reduced or obscured - it can be done even on the edge of thereof.
Furthermore, while it's impossible to outrun aircraft on a displacing ship - managing their reaction speeds&limiting their air attack opportunities is viable, and is(and was) done since WW2.
2 comments
The US Navy have the same plan to swarm/oversaturate and complicate a battlespace with DDC Corvettes. IIRC, the CSBA paper proposed around 96 ships - but I'd be willing to bet money that the Chinese Navy will have more DDCs.
Missile production will in no way keep up at a campaign or strategic level, both for the USA and China. So we'll have a situation where existing ships run out of missiles.
It is a discussion forum after all. And it's not pressure to say something but people have different ways to present their views. Some like to think carefully and have hard facts before saying something, some just like to throw ideas into the chamber. Some may even just be interested in hearing what others have to add. Part of the fun is playing the detective on incomplete information, and not everyone is worried about being wrong.
If this is an arsenal ship, it would make better sense to lose the radar, the helicopter hanger and deck, and dedicate them to VLS. You only need a smaller navigation radar and CEC for fleet coordination. The design as you see it, isn't optimal for an arsenal ship. The helicopter deck and hanger--- massively disproportionate in their consumption of space relative to the VLS --- suggests the vessel is also meant for ASW work, and the fact it's Z-20 sized to that blows the argument that it might be an export product to boot.
You can argue that using small container ships with container disguised VLS can also make the point of an arsenal ship, and be expendable at that.
Just because some people write papers doesn't mean the USN leadership accepts them formally as plans to make a new ship. It's some conceptual idea after all.
I also don't see the need to arsenal ship the HHQ-9 which is defensive. For these purposes it's expected with an arsenal ship, you use missiles that are offensive. Cruise missiles and antiship missiles. These missiles however do not require the use of the large AESA panels off the 055 or 052D. These missiles do not require some hand off to another ship. You simply relay the target coordinates directly to the Corvette or send it via satellite so the Corvette can pick it up by SATCOM.
Last edited: