FFG 054/054A Thread

[crobato]

It looiks to me its possible to stretch the hull slightly and put another 16 VLS cells on the rear. Though at some point its becoming very big to stay being called a "frigate".

I recently found out a small factoid. The French, though I don't know about othe European navies as well, don't really have the term "destroyer" and has not formally accepted its usage. Thus officially and formally, there are no "destroyers" in the French Navy. A vessel that in other navies can be called or considered a "destroyer" is in fact, still a "frigate" for the French. So for the French, frigates and destroyers are all frigates.

 

[Gollevainen]

Shipbuilding nor any other building for that matter isen't that simple. From outside observation some spot may seem "free" for another VLS, but without knowing whats bellow the decks you can't really make assumptions. The basic idea why it most likely is beyond reasonable effort is the general structural intergity. We don't know how the hull's supporting girders and beams that keeps the ship together goes and how much another set of VLS would affect upon it. If you need to remove even one supporting element, you need to compensate the lost support (and not to mention the inside space-arragment) and pretty soon you end up redesign the entire ship and thats really not worth of the effort.

And why you need another set of VLS? Becouse it makes the ship cooler? China currently posses no other missile system that is even able to be launched from VLS than the HHQ-16 and 32 SAMs for 130 meter frigate is more than enough. Also there is no point enlargening the design from the outset becouse chinese already have a warshipdesign which is basicly what would become if you strenghten the 054A design; 052B.

 

[crobato]

I still see no space for a towed variable depth sonar or hydrophone array... no hole in the stern, no cut out transom, no nothing. Just a hull mounted sonar. For what is supposed to be a multi-role frigate, this is a severe weakness in the capability of the ship to defend itself and carry out anti-submarine warfare. I am starting to worry if the Chinese don't place a strong emphasis on ASW, as it could really come back and bite them.

There is a hole in the stern but I wonder if its big enough. Probably not. Honestly I don't think it makes that much of a difference any longer. Submarine with sea skimmer antiship missiles vs. destroyer with ASW, mortars or ASROC, destroyer loses. The sub has missiles that has a range of at least 10X greater than any ASROC or the ship's sonar to detect the sub, regardless if its VDS or TAS.

What's more important now is to have helicopters with dipping sonars and ASW torpedoes, so you can project your ASW capabilities---both detection and striking---over a distance.

 

[adeptitus]

There is a hole in the stern but I wonder if its big enough. Probably not.

Perhaps a towed decoy system? The space requirement for those is much smaller than a VDS?

 

[dollarman]

There is a hole in the stern but I wonder if its big enough. Probably not. Honestly I don't think it makes that much of a difference any longer. Submarine with sea skimmer antiship missiles vs. destroyer with ASW, mortars or ASROC, destroyer loses. The sub has missiles that has a range of at least 10X greater than any ASROC or the ship's sonar to detect the sub, regardless if its VDS or TAS.

What's more important now is to have helicopters with dipping sonars and ASW torpedoes, so you can project your ASW capabilities---both detection and striking---over a distance.

So are you saying that it would not be worthwhile to build a frigate with a weapon set designed to counter submarines, and instead just built some form of helicopter carrier?

 

[crobato]

Yup. That's where the Japanese seems to be heading. That's where the PLAN needs to head to.

You still need ASW on frigates as a sort of self defence but that is like fighting an aircraft with long range BVRAAM with short range infrared missiles. Or a man with a sword fighting a man with a gun.

 

[Pointblank]

Yup. That's where the Japanese seems to be heading. That's where the PLAN needs to head to.

You still need ASW on frigates as a sort of self defence but that is like fighting an aircraft with long range BVRAAM with short range infrared missiles. Or a man with a sword fighting a man with a gun.

I would disagree.

A ship fully equipped with ASW sensors (hull mounted sonar, towed sonar or hydrophone array) has better detection range than any system that can be mounted on a helicopter. Why do you think recent Western ships designed for a ASW role are fitted with a towed sonar array?

 

[crobato]

Towed array is still of a limited size. Size still matters when it comes to detection. Of course TAS will still be bigger than a dipping sonar, but still far smaller than any bow or flank array. Western ships for the most part is configured against the old Soviet Navy, whose subs use mostly torpedo, not cruise missiles.

The advantage of the helicopter is mobility and numbers. Helicopter has reach and projection. Ship doesn't.

 

[tphuang]

I would disagree.

A ship fully equipped with ASW sensors (hull mounted sonar, towed sonar or hydrophone array) has better detection range than any system that can be mounted on a helicopter. Why do you think recent Western ships designed for a ASW role are fitted with a towed sonar array?

bow/hull mounted sonar like 054A is sufficient for green water. TAS from what I understand is most helpful in deep water far from the coast. In these cases, I'd still prefer naval helicopters with long range/endurance + decent payload. I'd much rather see a bunch of new Z-8s on a helo carrier (or even 071) than a couple of frigates equipped with TAS. In order for 054 series to become of an ASW frigate, it needs to be slightly larger (to be able to hold the equipments needed for ASW) and use quieter engine like gas turbine rather than diesel engine.

 

[nemo]

helicopter cannot be operated continuously due to need of maintenance, fuel, pilot fatigue, etc.