FugitiveVisions
Junior Member
First 051C then this. I guess this is the week that military intelligence decided to go lenient on VLS.
FFG 054/054A Thread
- Thread starter DPRKPTboat
- Start date
- Status
Type O54A - compared to - Taiwanese OHP (Cheng Kung class, post upgrade)
SAM
Type 054A = 32 x Shtil = more modern
OHP = 32 x Standard SM-1 = longer ranged
Gun
Type 054A = AK176
OHP = OTO-Melara Compact = draw?
CIWS
Type 054A = 2 x Type 720 =better firepower, range and more modern, plus more of them
OHP = 1 x Phalanx plus two 40mm crewed AAA
SSM
Type 054A = 8 x YJ-83
OHP = 4 x HF-II and 4 x HF-III = better by far IMO
Helicopters
Type 054A = 1 Ka-28
OHP = 2 x Seahawk = obvious edge
Sensor suite I'm not so sure about, and stealth definately favours the 054A, but all in OHP is a bit more capable in aircraft and SSMs.
SAM
Type 054A = 32 x Shtil = more modern
OHP = 32 x Standard SM-1 = longer ranged
Gun
Type 054A = AK176
OHP = OTO-Melara Compact = draw?
CIWS
Type 054A = 2 x Type 720 =better firepower, range and more modern, plus more of them
OHP = 1 x Phalanx plus two 40mm crewed AAA
SSM
Type 054A = 8 x YJ-83
OHP = 4 x HF-II and 4 x HF-III = better by far IMO
Helicopters
Type 054A = 1 Ka-28
OHP = 2 x Seahawk = obvious edge
Sensor suite I'm not so sure about, and stealth definately favours the 054A, but all in OHP is a bit more capable in aircraft and SSMs.
szbd
Junior Member
Why HF is better than YJ83?
As for adar suite, 054A is obviously more advanced.
air search: top plate 3D search and track vs SPS 49 2D early warning
surface search: top plate+type 346 vs SPS 55
fire control: 4 front dome vs 1 MK92
Cheng gong probably has better sonar suite.
The ROCN Cheng Kung (OH Perry) class FFG's are known to have SQS-56 hull-mounted sonar, but I'm not sure about the SQR-19 TAS.
The OH Perry's ability to resist battle damage is proven with the USS Stark and USS S.B. Roberts. Since PLAN ships haven't engaged in combat in recent years, we don't know how well the 054/054A's will stand up against AShM hits. But with recent improvement in quality, I suspect it's at least a lot better than the early frigates sold to Thailand.
The OH Perry's ability to resist battle damage is proven with the USS Stark and USS S.B. Roberts. Since PLAN ships haven't engaged in combat in recent years, we don't know how well the 054/054A's will stand up against AShM hits. But with recent improvement in quality, I suspect it's at least a lot better than the early frigates sold to Thailand.
HF-II has dual IR/Radar seeker. HF-III has much longer ranger and is high supersonic - more in Moskit class. In fact, on paper, HF-III is probably the best anti-ship missile out there, or damn close. Think Klub or Brahmos as equivilents.
szbd
Junior Member
The range of HF-III is 130km, and look at the testing result, it can not compare with YJ83 at all, only <50% successful hit. The official data is 85% hit rate. While YJ83 achieved 100% hit rate in 30 more testing.
The relevance of testings depend on the tests and how true the official stats are; 100% success rate impies that the tests aren't testing enough IMO. In general the tendency is towards padding a missile's resume with easy tests - classic example is US AMRAAM. But more crucially many very successful weapons have had 'troubled' gestations. Even combat records need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Just to add to this discussion
YJ-83K was tested on JH-7A and found to have hit target on 42 out of 43 attempts. PLAN also carried out tests on Sunburn and Klub. Especially for Klub, we keep on getting reports that launches failed or something like that. As for Sunburn, it's accuracy is not really that great either.
For HF-2, having dual seeker doesn't really make it better. Modern anti-ship missiles like Exocet, Harpoon and YJ-83 all pretty much use active-radar.
As for YJ-83 vs HF-3, you are getting into the typical subsonic vs supersonic debate. As we discussed before, against a modern combat ship, supersonic missiles are not more effective, but rather the most important part is to have lower radar/infrared signature and fly really low. YJ-83 definitely is a lot harder to detect than HF-3 and Sunburn due to its smaller size and lower flying altitude. In it's attacking face, it's probably flying at 3-5 m altitutde. I don't think SM-1 can consistently intercept something flying mach 1.5 flying that low. And then the other issue is whether the tracking radar can pick it up early enough to be able to intercept it.
Now to look at HF-3's performance, I use this article as reference, but I do seem to find a lot of inconsistencies in given performance data.
so you are looking at 200 km range travelling at mach 2+ and is 1500 kg. You end up getting a missile with less range than YJ-83, appears larger on radar and travel a much higher trajectory.
As for being better than sunburn, I don't think that's saying much, since I consider it the least effective out of the newly fielded PLAN anti ship missiles.
YJ-83K was tested on JH-7A and found to have hit target on 42 out of 43 attempts. PLAN also carried out tests on Sunburn and Klub. Especially for Klub, we keep on getting reports that launches failed or something like that. As for Sunburn, it's accuracy is not really that great either.
For HF-2, having dual seeker doesn't really make it better. Modern anti-ship missiles like Exocet, Harpoon and YJ-83 all pretty much use active-radar.
As for YJ-83 vs HF-3, you are getting into the typical subsonic vs supersonic debate. As we discussed before, against a modern combat ship, supersonic missiles are not more effective, but rather the most important part is to have lower radar/infrared signature and fly really low. YJ-83 definitely is a lot harder to detect than HF-3 and Sunburn due to its smaller size and lower flying altitude. In it's attacking face, it's probably flying at 3-5 m altitutde. I don't think SM-1 can consistently intercept something flying mach 1.5 flying that low. And then the other issue is whether the tracking radar can pick it up early enough to be able to intercept it.
Now to look at HF-3's performance, I use this article as reference, but I do seem to find a lot of inconsistencies in given performance data.
so you are looking at 200 km range travelling at mach 2+ and is 1500 kg. You end up getting a missile with less range than YJ-83, appears larger on radar and travel a much higher trajectory.
As for being better than sunburn, I don't think that's saying much, since I consider it the least effective out of the newly fielded PLAN anti ship missiles.
- Status