corvettes instead of frigates?

joshuatree · Sep 21, 2006

Hi All,

I'm new to this board but would like participate in these forums. Do you think given the budget limitations of the PLAN, it is better to build corvettes instead of frigates? I've been comparing the new Ma'anshan class frigate to the Israeli Eilat class corvette. Here are my thoughts.

Eliat vs Ma'anshan
length - 85.64m vs. 125m
draft - 3.17m vs 5.85m (the Ma'anshan's draft I couldn't find but given it's similar to the La Fayette I used that draft spec)
displacement - 1227 tons vs. 3400 tons
range - 4000nm vs. 7000nm (est)
stores on board - 24 days vs. 50 days
speed - 33 knots vs. 30 knots (est)
crew - about 70 vs. about 160

Given that the Eliat was built in the early 90s vs the recent Ma'anshan, I presume it is possible to fit roughly the same type of weapon/sensor systems of the Ma'anshan into an Eilat hull, maybe just not carry as many missiles and a smaller main gun? If so, I would think it be cheaper and more beneficial to field corvettes instead of frigates in the PLAN. A frigate's primary role is to conduct basic naval missions such as drug interdiction, search and rescue, coastal reconnaissance, special anti-terrorist operations, and naval blockades. All of this could be accomplished by a smaller yet effective corvette. The advantages I see are cost, manpower, and number. Being a smaller vessel and a smaller target, I'm sure it would be cheaper and faster to build a corvette. Thus for the price of a frigate, you could perhaps get two corvettes? And the crew for a corvette is less than half the frigate so without having to increase your naval manpower, you can make better use of them. Not to mention this will mean more positions of leadership assuming you have more vessels, thus translating into more opportunities for PLAN naval crews to rack up field experience. Of course the range and endurance of the corvette is less than the frigate but given that you really don't see PLAN operate far out from it's home waters presently, I don't think this is an issue. Besides, as I understand, the Eilat is blue water capable so if the future requires the PLAN to go further out, friendly ports or oilers can always extend the corvette's operating range. They can also operate in attack groups if needed to increase the firepower in a given situation. They also have a shallower draft so they can operate with more agility in shallow waters such as the Spratlys. Modern destroyers are expensive ships and would be too valuable to risk for most missions close to shore. I think this would be better use of the limited resources of the PLAN on the low end side of naval doctrine. Infact, you see this development occuring with the US Navy as they are working on the Littoral Combat Ship. Of course, the PLAN should continue to refine and build better destroyers to fulfill the high end side such as a carrier battle group. Thoughts? Comments? =)

Thanks!

tphuang · Sep 21, 2006

joshuatree said:
Hi All,

I'm new to this board but would like participate in these forums. Do you think given the budget limitations of the PLAN, it is better to build corvettes instead of frigates? I've been comparing the new Ma'anshan class frigate to the Israeli Eilat class corvette. Here are my thoughts.

Eliat vs Ma'anshan
length - 85.64m vs. 125m
draft - 3.17m vs 5.85m (the Ma'anshan's draft I couldn't find but given it's similar to the La Fayette I used that draft spec)
displacement - 1227 tons vs. 3400 tons
range - 4000nm vs. 7000nm (est)
stores on board - 24 days vs. 50 days
speed - 33 knots vs. 30 knots (est)
crew - about 70 vs. about 160

Given that the Eliat was built in the early 90s vs the recent Ma'anshan, I presume it is possible to fit roughly the same type of weapon/sensor systems of the Ma'anshan into an Eilat hull, maybe just not carry as many missiles and a smaller main gun? If so, I would think it be cheaper and more beneficial to field corvettes instead of frigates in the PLAN. A frigate's primary role is to conduct basic naval missions such as drug interdiction, search and rescue, coastal reconnaissance, special anti-terrorist operations, and naval blockades. All of this could be accomplished by a smaller yet effective corvette. The advantages I see are cost, manpower, and number. Being a smaller vessel and a smaller target, I'm sure it would be cheaper and faster to build a corvette. Thus for the price of a frigate, you could perhaps get two corvettes? And the crew for a corvette is less than half the frigate so without having to increase your naval manpower, you can make better use of them. Not to mention this will mean more positions of leadership assuming you have more vessels, thus translating into more opportunities for PLAN naval crews to rack up field experience. Of course the range and endurance of the corvette is less than the frigate but given that you really don't see PLAN operate far out from it's home waters presently, I don't think this is an issue. Besides, as I understand, the Eilat is blue water capable so if the future requires the PLAN to go further out, friendly ports or oilers can always extend the corvette's operating range. They can also operate in attack groups if needed to increase the firepower in a given situation. They also have a shallower draft so they can operate with more agility in shallow waters such as the Spratlys. Modern destroyers are expensive ships and would be too valuable to risk for most missions close to shore. I think this would be better use of the limited resources of the PLAN on the low end side of naval doctrine. Infact, you see this development occuring with the US Navy as they are working on the Littoral Combat Ship. Of course, the PLAN should continue to refine and build better destroyers to fulfill the high end side such as a carrier battle group. Thoughts? Comments? =)

Thanks!

first, type 054 is 3900 tonne in displacement. Maybe with 054A, China will finally get something that approaches the size of modern Western FFGs.

secondly, PLAN has plenty of Jiangweis, which are called FFG in China, but are really not that much larger than Corvette.

joshuatree · Sep 21, 2006

tphuang said:
first, type 054 is 3900 tonne in displacement. Maybe with 054A, China will finally get something that approaches the size of modern Western FFGs.

secondly, PLAN has plenty of Jiangweis, which are called FFG in China, but are really not that much larger than Corvette.

sorry, was merely quoting what sino defence described for the displacement of the 054.

understood but I'm assuming that the Jiangweis are getting old and thus the need to develop newer frigates like the 054. my thought is, if you can build a smaller vessel with essentially the same capabilities as the 054, wouldn't that be better? smaller vessel = smaller target, smaller vessel = smaller crew = operation cost savings

now if the type of sensors and armament on the 054 simply require that amount of space, then I understand, but that's what I wondering about in the first place =)

tphuang · Sep 21, 2006

joshuatree said:
sorry, was merely quoting what sino defence described for the displacement of the 054.

understood but I'm assuming that the Jiangweis are getting old and thus the need to develop newer frigates like the 054. my thought is, if you can build a smaller vessel with essentially the same capabilities as the 054, wouldn't that be better? smaller vessel = smaller target, smaller vessel = smaller crew = operation cost savings

now if the type of sensors and armament on the 054 simply require that amount of space, then I understand, but that's what I wondering about in the first place =)

well, 053H3 is using the same armament as 054, do you think it is as capable as 054?

Gollevainen · Sep 22, 2006

Ok seems like few things seems still be quite strnage to the majority.... let me remaind few facts about maritime mattters in order to crasb some idea to this question...

1) China has 2 ships that could be described as frigates without lying too much. Ships of the 053 class are all based on the old Soviet Project 50 class SRK or patrol ship, and still share its tactical charresteristics whit little more modern armament, sensors and porpulsion. Thougth a ships whit size of frigates, they are more like general patrol units to strenchen the coastal forces and possiply to escort for bigger fleet ASW and AAW units BUT not acutally mented to serve as such as their own. This is the most common misintereption of naval terminology and different doctrines and cultures, expecially between western and russian/soviet union. The Jiangweis usually fools the commonerns whit their frigate style layout and armament that is roughly par whit western fleet ASW units, but they lack the essential ASW outfit, range and endurance of their coussins.

2) Eilat is universally considered as a one of the biggest flops among modern warships. And the latest Lebanon adventure did nill to improve its reputation. Its overloaded ship whit too high superstructures, too much armament 'wisely' placed too high from the main deck....a text book example of how to ruin a warship. This brings us to the main difficoulty of typical western corvettes. Hull of 80-105m and around 1,000-1,800 tons you cannot have SSM, SAM and helicopter in same package so sacrifices needs to be made and that effects on their overal mission capapilityes. Corvette desings comes most handy if they are dedicated single purpose platforms, like flotilla leaders to FACs (SSMs and either SAM or Helicopter capapility) or as larger coastal submarine hunters.

To have the three essential weapon obtions in single hull, a Jiangwei comes to handy solution for patroll and many coastal operations, but it doesent substitude for bigger fleet operations. China have maritime committions in the 'blue waters' and what it most importantly needs is real fleet ASW frigates. The old loads of Jianghus and Jiangweis shouldn't been seen as the older portion of this, but as good SRK or corvette force that also needs replacement.
Then china has two options. Either use its new frigates to take 2nd rate task as well or build a second rate frigate or large corvette (as some other navyes) have done to subside the 054s. But these shouldn't replace the 1st raters, more importantly those should be build to replace the old forces of coastal patrol boats and FACs, in place of the new fancy but obsolete-by-birth type 022 catamarans. It would give china as strong coastal force as it needs, but whit more flexible platforms.

Kilo636 · Sep 22, 2006

joshuatree said:
Hi All,

I'm new to this board but would like participate in these forums. Do you think given the budget limitations of the PLAN, it is better to build corvettes instead of frigates? I've been comparing the new Ma'anshan class frigate to the Israeli Eilat class corvette. Here are my thoughts.

Eliat vs Ma'anshan
length - 85.64m vs. 125m
draft - 3.17m vs 5.85m (the Ma'anshan's draft I couldn't find but given it's similar to the La Fayette I used that draft spec)
displacement - 1227 tons vs. 3400 tons
range - 4000nm vs. 7000nm (est)
stores on board - 24 days vs. 50 days
speed - 33 knots vs. 30 knots (est)
crew - about 70 vs. about 160

Given that the Eliat was built in the early 90s vs the recent Ma'anshan, I presume it is possible to fit roughly the same type of weapon/sensor systems of the Ma'anshan into an Eilat hull, maybe just not carry as many missiles and a smaller main gun? If so, I would think it be cheaper and more beneficial to field corvettes instead of frigates in the PLAN. A frigate's primary role is to conduct basic naval missions such as drug interdiction, search and rescue, coastal reconnaissance, special anti-terrorist operations, and naval blockades. All of this could be accomplished by a smaller yet effective corvette. The advantages I see are cost, manpower, and number. Being a smaller vessel and a smaller target, I'm sure it would be cheaper and faster to build a corvette. Thus for the price of a frigate, you could perhaps get two corvettes? And the crew for a corvette is less than half the frigate so without having to increase your naval manpower, you can make better use of them. Not to mention this will mean more positions of leadership assuming you have more vessels, thus translating into more opportunities for PLAN naval crews to rack up field experience. Of course the range and endurance of the corvette is less than the frigate but given that you really don't see PLAN operate far out from it's home waters presently, I don't think this is an issue. Besides, as I understand, the Eilat is blue water capable so if the future requires the PLAN to go further out, friendly ports or oilers can always extend the corvette's operating range. They can also operate in attack groups if needed to increase the firepower in a given situation. They also have a shallower draft so they can operate with more agility in shallow waters such as the Spratlys. Modern destroyers are expensive ships and would be too valuable to risk for most missions close to shore. I think this would be better use of the limited resources of the PLAN on the low end side of naval doctrine. Infact, you see this development occuring with the US Navy as they are working on the Littoral Combat Ship. Of course, the PLAN should continue to refine and build better destroyers to fulfill the high end side such as a carrier battle group. Thoughts? Comments? =)

Thanks!

PLAN needs to build a true blue navy! Having a corvettes instead of frigates is a backstep towards True blue Navy. First,it lacks the duration and project power,plus in harsh Pacific Ocean,a corvettes will have bad endurance against sea state!

Btw,I don think PLAN have a limited budget. It just of how the military going to allocate the fund. The Eillat can only handle the Barak 2 wich still comes short of fleet air defense while the VLS shitl is also short of a true fleet air defense but far far better range and projection than the Barak 2 with a range of 30km and estimate 42km if with better sensor introduce..

In other words,PLAN is in the right direction to having Type054A and with rumours,Type054A is going to mass produce soon! :china:

Jeff Head · Sep 22, 2006

joshuatree said:
Do you think given the budget limitations of the PLAN, it is better to build corvettes instead of frigates? I've been comparing the new Ma'anshan class frigate to the Israeli Eilat class corvette.

This is a generalization that I am about to state...but it is an important principle upon which this very discussion hinges. Basically stated, it is this:

If a nation's principle focus is on patrolling the litoral regions of its coastline, they will build more corvetees and FACs. If a nation wants to get out into the blue-water and protect ocean going sea lanes and distant national interests, they will build more frigates and destroyers.

That's the basic premise. Some nations, particularly the US, are capable of doing both and have firgates and patrol boats that can cross over a bit. In the case of the US, they have relized the need for a dedicated litoral vessel and are therefore building the LCS (Litoral Combat Ship) which will, in essence, be a very capable corvette-sized craft. My guess is there will be 50-60 of these built. The US Navy also has over fifty very capable, large AEGIS-destroyers, and thirty very capable, but aging frigates.

As the LCS comes on line, my guess is you will see more and more of the Halsey class frigates decommissioned and their litoral duties adopted by the LCS, while their ocean-going duties are adopted by the large DDG fleet.

adeptitus · Sep 22, 2006

My $0.02:

* There's a general trend of "up-tonnage" for Frigates and Destroyers over time. For example, the first Destroyer of the US Navy, USS Bainbridge (DD-1), was built in 1900 and had displacement of only 420 tonnes. By WW I era, the Wicker class destroyers wer 1,213 tonnes, and by WW 2, the Allen M Summer class destroyers were 3,315 tonnes loaded. Today the Arleign Burke class destroyer weight in at 9,200 tonnes, and the future DD(X) is expected to weight in at 14,000 tonnes.

So what does this mean? Ships in the Crovette and Frigate class are getting larger over time too! The German MEKO A-100 class Corvette weights in at 1,650 tonnes, and the future USN littoral combat ship (if you can call it a Corvette), weights in at 2,500 tonnes. The European F100 multipurpose Frigates weight in at 5,800 tonnes.

As the tonnage move up, the line between different class of ships are blurring. Look at the Wiki entry to describe Corvettes:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Typical corvettes today are between patrol vessels and frigates in both size and capability. They have a displacement between 540 and 2,750 tons (550 and 2,800 metric tons) and measure 180-330 feet (55-100 meters) in length. They usually are armed with medium and small caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and underwater warfare weapons. Many can accommodate a small or medium ASW helicopter.

Is there any real difference between a 2,500 tonne "Corvette" equipped with anti-ship missiles and ASW helo, vs. a 2,800 tonne "Frigate" equipped with the same araments?

* Up until the 1990s, the bulk of PLAN ships were still based on old post-WW2 Soviet model. This means the tonnage is "lighter" for its ship class comparred to other, more modern navies. If we were to re-classify PLAN ships according to current tonnage "norms", it'd look something like this:

Jianghu & Jiangwei class = Light Frigate/Corvette
Luda, Luhu, & Ma'anshan class = Frigate
Luhai, Luyang, & Lunzhou class = Destroyer

* The PLAN did consider building Corvettes back in 1982:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Type 037II Sub-Hunter Light Corvette:

In February 1982, the second Type 037II proposal called for a 1200 to 1500-ton sub-hunter corvette capable of supporting helicopter operations. The project never left the design stage as the PLAN moved its requirement from corvettes to larger frigates.

duskylim · Sep 22, 2006

Dear Sirs:

Currently the outlook of the People's Navy, is still that of a coastal and littoral force, that is, brown and green water, not really that of a blue water Navy. The PLAN's transition in both mission and doctrine will come with time.

Remember, it is only lately that the composition of the Central Military Commission has been revised to reflect a new "Armed Services" outlook, making the PLA, PLAAF, PLAN and the Second Artillery (strategic and tactical nuclear forces) co-equal branches.

The previous ascendancy of the PLA (Ground Forces) at the expense of the other service branches, reflected the relative importance the Army played both in the history and establishment of the People's Republic and the military background of many Party leaders themselves.

With this organizational change came new funding, enabling the process of modernization to proceed. It must be noted that this process has only just begun and like an infant the PLAN is trying out and learning many new things.

The emphasis on small vessels is also due to limitations of cost and resources, like all navies, the PLAN must do what it can with the resources given to it. But, along with the Chinese economy, the PLAN will grow.

At the moment I do not believe that the current PLAN mission involves direct challenge and confrontation with the Navies of the West or of Japan, nor does it involve extended blue-water operations of great scope. This is a learning period for the PLAN and its equipment will reflect this.

The use of FACs and corvettes merely supposes that offshore and littoral patrol will be the main duty of the People's navy, with the larger frigates and destroyers taking cruises out to the Spratley's and the Paracels or with an oiler and supply ship to show the flag.

Still surface vessels are not the main focus of the PLAN, remember its current chief came from the submarine branch, and the building rate of these boats certainly reflect this orientation.

The last large production run of major (for the PLAN) surface ships was the construction of the Jiangwei 1 and II classes, since then, only the Type 22xx FACs have been built in considerable numbers.

In contrast the Song class boats (039G) have had a large (and continuing) production run. Logically this must be where the PLAN places it hopes for the future.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

joshuatree · Sep 22, 2006

The ongoing uptonnage of all classes of ships and the blurring of the lines between them is what I am trying to get at. Of course, each nation will have their own exact definition of what is a corvette, frigate, destroyer, etc, but these days, I'm seeing less and less distinctions between destroyers and frigates as frigates grow larger and larger. Therefore, is there even a need for 054 or 054As? Why not just focus on building better destroyers whether they be 052Bs, 052Cs, or 051Cs and crank them out to fulfill the blue water ambition?

Now just because PLAN wants to become a blue water navy doesn't mean you ignore your littoral operations which is why I asked the question, wouldn't it make sense to design and build corvettes for that purpose? I used the Eliat for comparison purposes only because it was one I could find that's in existence that appears to possess blue water capability. The Visby is a corvette but appears to be on the smaller side. The German corvette appears to be in construction phase and I wanted to compare two ships that are already out there. Granted, people here have said the Eilat is actually considered a failure but I was speculating more on a ship of Eilat's size with the weapon/sensor package of the 054. The 053H3's weapon/sensor package ain't that much different from the 054 save different gun and torpedo but why the huge increase in tonnage? To increase the endurance and range of a ship, do you have to dedicate THAT much additional tonnage?

It seems large blue water navies like the US Navy is moving away from frigates. There's the CVN-21 to replace the current Nimitz, the CG(X) to replace the Ticonderogas, the DD(X) to replace the ABs. But I don't see any direct replacements for the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates unless you count the LCS but the LCS's role seems to move away from the traditional frigate role. Infact, the CG(X) is rumored to be cancelled which would mean the DD(X) would seem to replace both the cruiser and destroyer classes in the US Navy. In the past, navies worked on building specific classes for specific duties but given the cost of developing modern day weapons, the trend is to share common components and to consolidate the line of weapons. Maybe PLAN would do well with a very well designed line of destroyers and corvettes, a hi-lo doctrine? Part of developing a world class navy isn't just to match what the current world-class navies have but also to anticipate future naval trends.

corvettes instead of frigates?

joshuatree

Captain

tphuang

Lieutenant General

joshuatree

Captain

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Gollevainen

Colonel

Kilo636

Banned Idiot

Jeff Head

General

adeptitus

Captain

duskylim

Junior Member

joshuatree

Captain