Future PLAN orbat discussion

Tam said:

The fact they went on so quickly to build eight samples is unprecedented and quite a bit of a surprise.

Click to expand...

They probably did it because a lot subsystems are leveraged from existing platforms like 052d which have already gained a bit of experience.

Tam said:

For them to reach over 70 Type 056 and 30 Type 054A is already too much in my opinion.

Click to expand...

They unified the class design in this generation. 30x 054a are better than 10 each of 053H1, H1G, H3. Likewise with 037 and 056. I'm referring to the underlying base capabilities and not addons.

What they need to do in the next generation is standardize sensors/software to be scalable across different classes for a more seamless fusion of info and achieve CEC. This'll also help in derisking a certain class with some deficiency by relying on other class of ships until itself undergoing an upgrade to the latest hardware. This should allow for proper phased MLU of each class without making any of them obsolete in the short run.

Tam said:

I would think they would need to slow down on the 055 so they could accumulate operating and testing experience on the first 8 to 12 samples to find out what they did wrong and what they can use to improve on the next batch. Normally PLAN tends to build around two class samples to obtain operating and testing data before going on to build the rest quickly. The fact they went on so quickly to build eight samples is unprecedented and quite a bit of a surprise.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the "build a few, pause/accumulate experience, resume production" is an expectation we should have for the PLAN surface combatants going forwards.

When they used to do that during the 2000s it was at a stage where they were trying to rapidly iterate and catch up in terms of technology and subsystems.
However we saw with 052D, 056/A, and 055 they all moved straight into production of quite a large number without significant pause in their class.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the new normal going forwards, and if the first batches of 054B/057/future frigate, 055A, and 052E (if there is one) are similarly significant in size as well.

As for the 052D, even in its extended form, the design is starting to get long in the tooth, and they need to think ahead in planning for a destroyer viable in the technological environment 2030 to 2040. Still if they are planning to continue to build the DL form, they would need some testing and usage data to determine if its viable to continue work on this model, improve the model or work on the next model instead.

The last thing you need is to mass produce something in that in a few years, you found yourself in a large pool of obsolete material. That's the situation the PLA has been before.

For them to reach over 70 Type 056 and 30 Type 054A is already too much in my opinion. The production on these should have stopped before and transit to more advanced designs earlier, like years before. But since you already have this, the next thing in mind, not just for a successor but to plan for their midlife refit aimed at updating their electronic sensors and suites.

Click to expand...

There have been rumours already of successors in the works to the three categories of major blue water surface combatants the PLAN has; the frigate (054A), medium destroyer (052C/D) and large destroyer (055) categories.


As far as procurement size goes, I don't think 30 054As are too much necessarily, as that depends on how many total frigates the PLAN intends to field going forwards in the longer term.

For a while now, I've thought that a fleet of some 60-70 blue water capable frigates, 50-60 medium destroyers, and 25-30 large destroyers would make for a viable "critical mass" of surface combatants. which would be a ratio of about 2.5 : 2 : 1 between the major categories.



Additionally, there is only so much iterative advancement between classes you can do before the value of introducing advancements is no longer worth it and/or if you have a demand or requirement for a certain number of ships by a certain projected time period.
In some cases, better is the enemy of good enough, and for the PLAN, the 054A's capabilities may have been sufficient for them to be comfortable building a large run of them knowing it can be upgraded as part of an MLU in future and also knowing that they needed a certain number of blue water capable, modern frigates. All the while perhaps they were happy to wait for a new class of frigate to succeed it in production (and supplement in service) with a greater enhancement of capabilities when it emerged.



Also I'm moving some of these posts to the future orbat thread.

Bhurki said:

They probably did it because a lot subsystems are leveraged from existing platforms like 052d which have already gained a bit of experience.

Click to expand...

Even to the subsystems that are leveraged from the 052D, they are not the same. Like that Daft Punk song, they are bigger, harder, stronger, particularly with the main radars. Then you have brand new radars on top of that. There are many changes across the other electronic systems, such as a brand new ECM panel, that one can say the many of the components are new. You also have a new CEC system, first to be spotted on the 055, and currently shared with the carriers (Liaoning after 2019 refit) and the 075. At the same time, the 055 discarded many of the legacy systems from the 052D.

So while there is a lot of systems taken from the 052D, there are also an unprecedented number of new systems on board the 055.

The 055 maybe the ship to have an all solid state sensor system to reach service anywhere in the world. It could have been the Zumwalt but we know what happened to that.

They unified the class design in this generation. 30x 054a are better than 10 each of 053H1, H1G, H3. Likewise with 037 and 056. I'm referring to the underlying base capabilities and not addons.

What they need to do in the next generation is standardize sensors/software to be scalable across different classes for a more seamless fusion of info and achieve CEC. This'll also help in derisking a certain class with some deficiency by relying on other class of ships until itself undergoing an upgrade to the latest hardware. This should allow for proper phased MLU of each class without making any of them obsolete in the short run.

Click to expand...

CEC can work across ships with differing families of sensors, for example, Wasp class and Nimitz class to AEGIS Burke.

The problem of the 054A, is that it uses sensors that operates in a way that is so completely different from the 052C/D. It feels like the 054A doesn't belong to the same country, or the same decade. Their weapons systems are not even compatible. That will not stop a 054A from operating in a CEC environment with a 052C/D or 056A with the proper datalink and combat management software.

But the strain comes from logistics and training. The HQ-16 does not operate like the HQ-9, whereas most ships in the West, US allies included, use the Standard family, and the ESSM that works the same like it in guidance principle and system. If you put an HQ-16 on a 052C/D, it won't work. If you put an HQ-9 on a 054A even if you put a U-VLS on it, it won't work.

The problem in the long run is that it is difficult to invest long term development projects on two different SAM and VLS systems where you should only be investing in one. If you improve on the HQ-9 it means zilch benefit for the 054A. If you improve on the HQ-16, it means zilch benefit for the 052C/D.

If I were to develop, let's say a quad pack MRSAM for the U-VLS, it will only work on the 052D, but not on the 054A. Our new hypothetical SAM may end up fitting on the 054A's VLS on a one to one basis only. If you develop a quad pack SAM for the 054A's VLS, such a SAM might end up a bit small and under performing. It appears the H/AJK-16 and the HQ-16 system is going to be a technological dead end.

While the 054A has surprisingly large amount of sensors --- five different sets of radars and emitters --- without counting navigation radars --- they are also dated, with European frigates (at a great financial cost) going into AESA since the early 2000s. Now there are also cheaper frigates that are going solid state, like the Italian PPA and the French FTI. The problem of older, mechanical sensors is their "noise" --- their radar emissions coming from their sidelobes can be picked up by ESM, and lets you geolocate the ship for targeting. Older sensors may also not be as agile in dealing with modern ECM. Older sensors may not be as good in detecting and locking on to stealthier threats in time.

The 054A maybe good in handling threats circa 2000, and still good around 2010, but 2020 is probably where it ends as new weapons like the LRSAM are coming, and has no role by 2030 other than being a target. So these ships, around 30 of them, is going to need a hefty midlife update program to happen even if the ships are still young.

The main benefit of going AESA is not in the penile comparisons of radar ranges but because digital beamforming allows for near extinction of sidelobes and very fast responses against highly maneuverable targets, while solid state emitters allow for unprecedented agility in frequency and modulation changes against ECM. A ship for example, can scan the skies with nearly undetectable LPI emissions, as these emissions won't trigger the target's ESM and the target won't know its being scanned.

I am pretty sure the PLAN knows well all this --- its the very point of making the 055 all solid state in the first place. The next step is to bring all these technologies to the rest of the fleet. At the frigate level, that should be the goal of the 054B.

The end of the 052D should be for the same reason. The 052D has an AESA but it is also full of secondary old style mechanical radars that can be compromised in a modern EW environment. The next step in the 052X line is to turn the class into all solid state sensors. But that will be the job of the 052E. An MLU can be warranted for the 052D's older type radars, such as the Type 364 on the top mast.

Tam said:

The problem of the 054A, is that it uses sensors that operates in a way that is so completely different from the 052C/D. It feels like the 054A doesn't belong to the same country, or the same decade. Their weapons systems are not even compatible. That will not stop a 054A from operating in a CEC environment with a 052C/D or 056A with the proper datalink and combat management software.

But the strain comes from logistics and training. The HQ-16 does not operate like the HQ-9, whereas most ships in the West, US allies included, use the Standard family, and the ESSM that works the same like it in guidance principle and system. If you put an HQ-16 on a 052C/D, it won't work. If you put an HQ-9 on a 054A even if you put a U-VLS on it, it won't work.

The problem in the long run is that it is difficult to invest long term development projects on two different SAM and VLS systems where you should only be investing in one. If you improve on the HQ-9 it means zilch benefit for the 054A. If you improve on the HQ-16, it means zilch benefit for the 052C/D.

If I were to develop, let's say a quad pack MRSAM for the U-VLS, it will only work on the 052D, but not on the 054A. Our new hypothetical SAM may end up fitting on the 054A's VLS on a one to one basis only. If you develop a quad pack SAM for the 054A's VLS, such a SAM might end up a bit small and under performing. It appears the H/AJK-16 and the HQ-16 system is going to be a technological dead end.

While the 054A has surprisingly large amount of sensors --- five different sets of radars and emitters --- without counting navigation radars --- they are also dated, with European frigates (at a great financial cost) going into AESA since the early 2000s. Now there are also cheaper frigates that are going solid state, like the Italian PPA and the French FTI. The problem of older, mechanical sensors is their "noise" --- their radar emissions coming from their sidelobes can be picked up by ESM, and lets you geolocate the ship for targeting. Older sensors may also not be as agile in dealing with modern ECM. Older sensors may not be as good in detecting and locking on to stealthier threats in time.

The 054A maybe good in handling threats circa 2000, and still good around 2010, but 2020 is probably where it ends as new weapons like the LRSAM are coming, and has no role by 2030 other than being a target. So these ships, around 30 of them, is going to need a hefty midlife update program to happen even if the ships are still young.

The main benefit of going AESA is not in the penile comparisons of radar ranges but because digital beamforming allows for near extinction of sidelobes and very fast responses against highly maneuverable targets, while solid state emitters allow for unprecedented agility in frequency and modulation changes against ECM. A ship for example, can scan the skies with nearly undetectable LPI emissions, as these emissions won't trigger the target's ESM and the target won't know its being scanned.

I am pretty sure the PLAN knows well all this --- its the very point of making the 055 all solid state in the first place. The next step is to bring all these technologies to the rest of the fleet. At the frigate level, that should be the goal of the 054B.

The end of the 052D should be for the same reason. The 052D has an AESA but it is also full of secondary old style mechanical radars that can be compromised in a modern EW environment. The next step in the 052X line is to turn the class into all solid state sensors. But that will be the job of the 052E. An MLU can be warranted for the 052D's older type radars, such as the Type 364 on the top mast.

Click to expand...

Just a few points.

For a Frigate (like the Type-54A):

• In a low-intensity ASW/convoy role, it will likely be the only escort vessel with an area SAM system, and would have to rely on its own sensors anyway. The Type-56 only have point-defence. So a Type-54A would never need to use CEC. Plus it would be operating in areas where its mechanical radars wouldn't actually be used often. In the ASW role, it will likely never become obsolete, because the towed arrays, VDS and helicopters are upgraded independently of the main platform
• In a high-intensity SAG/CSG role, again, it won't become obsolete because of the ASW suite. But yes, in the air defence role, it will suffer if it doesn't have CEC and modern radars.

So in summary, I think the Chinese Navy can usefully use 30x Type-54A over the course of their lifespan.
There will be lots of convoy and ASW requirements in low-risk and medium-risk areas.

But for SAGs and CSGs in the highly-contested waters past the 1st Island Chain, is a modernised ASW Frigate with the UVLS and AESAs actually the right ship?

I'm leaning towards a ASW/Missile destroyer with UVLS, CEC and a few standardised AESA radars, so it can operate with a task group.
And that there is a requirement for a minimum of 30 such ships, which would justify an entirely separate programme, if need be.

Tam said:

The 054A maybe good in handling threats circa 2000, and still good around 2010, but 2020 is probably where it ends as new weapons like the LRSAM are coming, and has no role by 2030 other than being a target. So these ships, around 30 of them, is going to need a hefty midlife update program to happen even if the ships are still young.

Click to expand...

It really depends on the mission I think. Frigates seem to be blue water workhorses in PLAN, deployed on escort, anti-piracy or flag showing missions. The 054A is cheaper to operate on those lower intensity environments, and has been doing that for quite some time now (not for a lack destroyers completely taking over the mission I think).
At the same time, the ship (especially the 054A+ hulls) is a competent - and cheaper - ASW picket asset for battle groups. While 056 is predominantly designed for the littoral, the 054 can pretty much act as a ocean escort (using the same OHP/Spruance lo/hi mix the USN had in the past).

So I wouldn't really say the ship has no role going forward. I agree that it will need a good MLU refit, and may be completely surpassed by the next PLAN frigate project on the battle group escort role. Those ships will be pretty valuable though, for years to come still.

AndrewS said:

Just a few points.

For a Frigate (like the Type-54A):

• In a low-intensity ASW/convoy role, it will likely be the only escort vessel with an area SAM system, and would have to rely on its own sensors anyway. The Type-56 only have point-defence. So a Type-54A would never need to use CEC. Plus it would be operating in areas where its mechanical radars wouldn't actually be used often. In the ASW role, it will likely never become obsolete, because the towed arrays, VDS and helicopters are upgraded independently of the main platform
• In a high-intensity SAG/CSG role, again, it won't become obsolete because of the ASW suite. But yes, in the air defence role, it will suffer if it doesn't have CEC and modern radars.

So in summary, I think the Chinese Navy can usefully use 30x Type-54A over the course of their lifespan.
There will be lots of convoy and ASW requirements in low-risk and medium-risk areas.

But for SAGs and CSGs in the highly-contested waters past the 1st Island Chain, is a modernised ASW Frigate with the UVLS and AESAs actually the right ship?

I'm leaning towards a ASW/Missile destroyer with UVLS, CEC and a few standardised AESA radars, so it can operate with a task group.
And that there is a requirement for a minimum of 30 such ships, which would justify an entirely separate programme, if need be.

Click to expand...

Even if the Type 056 has point defense, its search radar isn't, and would still be capable of at least a 100km+ range, so it can still be used in a radar picket scanning for low flying targets and sharing this information to a destroyer. As an ASW vessel, the Type 056 would want to exchange sonar information with an ASW helicopter to engage a submarine, or to a pack of other 056 and their helicopters with sonars creating a sonar net. So network centric warfare and sensor fusion is still welcome in this ship, and likewise, for the Type 054A, exchanging data between ship to helicopter and ship to patrol aircraft in this same role with the 056A. With the Type 382 radar on the Type 054A ranging up to 250 to 300km, there is value for this ship in a network, as well as operating in an ASW role exchanging sonar information with other ships, both 056A and other 054A, with ASW helicopters and aircraft.

There is no doubt that the two ships are useful, but are they survivable in a high intensity environment? That's the question. They might not be obsolete in the ASW or escort role but what are they going to do to defend themselves, lets say a stealthy antiship missile attack? I doubt there would be such a thing as a low risk or medium risk areas. Every area would be in a risk, given the range of missiles such as LRASM and the reach of airborne sensors locating targets.

I also think that both Type 056A and Type 054A already has some kind of high speed data interface, notably in the latest batch of 056A, and as a retrofit on the 054A starting from the earliest ship. Said array is also appearing on the 052C and D as a retrofit. This array reminds me of something that is a conformal phase array like those used in satellites and telecommunication.

Tam said:

Even if the Type 056 has point defense, its search radar isn't, and would still be capable of at least a 100km+ range, so it can still be used in a radar picket scanning for low flying targets and sharing this information to a destroyer. As an ASW vessel, the Type 056 would want to exchange sonar information with an ASW helicopter to engage a submarine, or to a pack of other 056 and their helicopters with sonars creating a sonar net. So network centric warfare and sensor fusion is still welcome in this ship, and likewise, for the Type 054A, exchanging data between ship to helicopter and ship to patrol aircraft in this same role with the 056A. With the Type 382 radar on the Type 054A ranging up to 250 to 300km, there is value for this ship in a network, as well as operating in an ASW role exchanging sonar information with other ships, both 056A and other 054A, with ASW helicopters and aircraft.

Click to expand...

Your scenario doesn't make any sense.

Yes, you could put a search radar on a Type-56, but it's not going to have a 100km+ range against a low flying target because of the radar horizon.
And how often would a Type-56 actually be picking up targets AND have a nearby destroyer within range to shoot long-range SAMs?
If the Type-56 Corvette and Destroyer are that close, you might as well have the destroyer operating its search radar instead.
So datalinking for air targets is a nice to have, but it's not critical.

But in general, you're better off with airborne sensors which can cover a vastly larger search area because they have a radar horizon of 420KM+

---

A Type-56 sharing sonar data is as simple as calling the helicopter or other ships via radio.
Submarines just don't move very fast when compared to a missile or plane.
Nor do you face situations with hundreds of targets.
You only have to deal with 1 or 2 submarine targets at a time.

So datalinking on submarine targets is a nice to have, but it's not critical.

There is no doubt that the two ships are useful, but are they survivable in a high intensity environment? That's the question. They might not be obsolete in the ASW or escort role but what are they going to do to defend themselves, lets say a stealthy antiship missile attack? I doubt there would be such a thing as a low risk or medium risk areas. Every area would be in a risk, given the range of missiles such as LRASM and the reach of airborne sensors locating targets.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Type-56 Corvette or Type-54 Frigate are really survivable in a high-intensity environment either, unless covered by Air Defence Destroyers.

But there is such a thing as low-risk and medium-risk waters in the Western Pacific.

Remember that airborne surveillance and AWACs can operate safely over mainland China.
The radar horizon is over 420km, and you've got long range SAMs, some which have a range of 400km.
So anywhere in this area is effectively a Chinese bastion which is really high risk for enemy aircraft to operate.

This is where you will see Chinese cargo ships and Chinese amphibious ships hugging the Chinese coastline.
But they still face threats from submarines and antiship missiles.

I also think that both Type 056A and Type 054A already has some kind of high speed data interface, notably in the latest batch of 056A, and as a retrofit on the 054A starting from the earliest ship. Said array is also appearing on the 052C and D as a retrofit. This array reminds me of something that is a conformal phase array like those used in satellites and telecommunication.

View attachment 56665 View attachment 56666

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

...

• ... a Type-54A ... In the ASW role, it will likely never become obsolete, because the towed arrays, VDS and helicopters are upgraded independently of the main platform
• ...

Click to expand...

thought for an ASW vessel the most important would be her hull mounted sonars (not your "towed arrays, VDS and helicopters"), no?

for sprint-and-drift the Type 056 should be good enough if you know what I'm saying

Jura said:

thought for an ASW vessel the most important would be her hull mounted sonars (not your "towed arrays, VDS and helicopters"), no?

for sprint-and-drift the Type 056 should be good enough if you know what I'm saying

Click to expand...

Remember the hull sonar can't penetrate below the thermocline layer where a submarine is hiding, but a VDS can.
Plus a towed array is more sensitive than the hull sonar.

AndrewS said:

Remember the hull sonar can't penetrate below the thermocline layer where a submarine is hiding, but a VDS can.
Plus a towed array is more sensitive than the hull sonar.

Click to expand...

back to my question Today at 8:10 PM Andy, according to you, yes or no:

for an ASW vessel, frigate size, the most important are her hull mounted sonars?

(answering "no" would imply "for an ASW vessel, frigate size, the most important are her TAS, VDS and helo")