See reply #12 at the top of this page.
And again, the chart is only speculative at this stage. I personally think it is mostly accurate (apart from the frigates), but definitely don't take it as gospel. It's only a possible depiction.
Future PLAN orbat discussion
- Thread starter kwaigonegin
- Start date
See reply #12 at the top of this page.
And again, the chart is only speculative at this stage. I personally think it is mostly accurate (apart from the frigates), but definitely don't take it as gospel. It's only a possible depiction.
I suppose if a 054B starts construction by the beginning of 2018 it could be commissioned by the end of 2020. Regardless, having 4 of them by 2020 is a total nonstarter (unless all 4 are to be simultaneously built!)
Well, HD and HP would naturally both be involved in constructing 054Bs in such a situation.
If steel cutting only begins in early 2018 for both shipyards I can't see the Navy commissioning 4 054Bs by 2020.
If steel cutting begins in say mid 2017 for both shipyards OTOH, I think it is quite a bit more plausible, especially if we mean "by 2020" to mean "by end of 2020". But as said before, this would depend on how much bigger and more complex 054B would be compared to 054A.
I think PLAN's organic ASW capabilities among blue water capable surface combatants has already been greatly remedied with the 054A and 052D classes, with the latter half of the 054A's production run having the VDS+TAS combination and all 052Ds having VDS+TAS. Similarly, 055 has the same VDS+TAS set up. We know 054A can fire the vertically launched Yu-8 ASROC type weapon, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 052D and 055 are able to fire a similar type of weapon from their VLS in due time if not already.
Older 052Cs and the first half of 054A production run also have a TAS as well (but no VDS).
So in terms of organic ASW capabilities on blue water surface combatants I think the PLAN has probably enjoyed a massive advancement compared to the first half of the decade.
Of course, what PLAN surface combatants do need going forwards is high availability of a capable medium weight ASW helicopter which a Z-20 derivative is expected to fulfill.
That said I also do think the PLAN needs a successor frigate class to the 054A; a ship that is maybe up to 1000 tons heavier than the 054A's 4000 tons. The 054A is a very decent ship for AAW and ASW, but it could definitely be better as well, and I expect 054B's mission to be a combination of ASW and AAW (predominantly medium range), and to take advantage of various new advancements like the new universal VLS to enable firing of newer contemporary weapons, new air and underwater sensors, IEPS, possibly twin helicopter hangars, and so on.
(And of course for ASW we can't ignore many 056As they have are also equipped with VDS+TAS as well as the ability to fire the air breathing ASW ASROC weapon from slant launchers used for YJ-83s, but 056As obviously are not blue water capable).
Not all navies have a three tier surface combatant structure. Remember we're talking about the PLAN's blue water capable surface combatants here, that will soon be characterized by 055 weight class, 052D weight class, and 054A weight class.
The Royal Navy has a two tier structure with Type 45s and Type 23s (latter to be replaced by Type 26 mostly and a number of slightly smaller Type 31s), the JMSDF has their big aegis ships (Kongo, Atago, Maya soon) as well as a number of medium weight destroyers in the form of Asahi, Akizuki and their predecessors.
The USN's surface combatant force is overwhelmingly made up of Ticos and Burkes with a number of LCS in service at present as well and the three Zumwalts either in service or due to be soon, but the bulk of USN surface combatant tonnage is from Ticos and Burkes. Furthermore, Ticos and Burkes are of very close displacement to each other with IIA Burkes displacing only a couple of hundred tons less than a Tico.
So I wouldn't say there are too many navies that adopt a three tier blue water capable surface combatant structure like the PLAN does.
Most capable navies do have a three tier structure, with their nature depending on the doctrine they adopt.
Western navies simply have their third tier as the carrier they operate compared to China or Russia which only classify their carriers at the same level as cruisers.
Speaking of Type 054A as an ASW platform. One concern that I have is its diesel engine propulsion. Diesel engine noise profile has more energy in the low frequency range, compared to GTs, significantly increasing their detection range by sonar.
.... In the previous thread the topic of discussion was about destroyers and frigates -- i.e.: surface combatants.
I'm sure I don't need to explain the difference between surface combatants and carriers in a navy's structure.
Carriers are just as irrelevant to the topic of discussion as submarines or amphibious assault ships would be.
I think 054A's propulsion system is not perfect for ASW jobs across all speeds however I think it must be sufficient enough such that the Navy equipped it with as capable of an ASW suite as it did, not to mention being the first ship in the Navy's inventory with a VL ASROC weapon.
I think the noise of diesel engines themselves can be mitigated if arranged properly, for example the Type 23's low speed/low noise mode uses diesel engines arranged in a hybrid electric/mechanical manner. Obviously 054A doesn't have its diesels arranged in such a manner but I imagine it has many of the same noise isolating measures for its diesels.
In this case yes.
Are you saying that you do want me to explain the difference between surface combatants and carriers in the context of the discussion we are having?
Well first of all have a look at the relevant previous posts in that thread; the discussion was around the structure of surface combatants like frigates and destroyers.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-052c-052d-class-destroyers.t6881/page-323#post-553866
Destroyers and frigates form the primary bread and butter of a navy, whose roles are to escort ships without organic sensors or armament such as carriers or amphibious assault ships to allow those force projection vessels to do their job. Destroyers and frigates can also conduct missions by themselves such as land attack depending on the conflict.
The manning requirements and logistics necessary to sustain an equal tonnage of destroyers vs an equal tonnage of carriers is also different, and what they are able to accomplish is also different.
Another difference between surface combatants and carriers is that the former that have an organic sensor and weapons fit whereas the latter that rely on embarked aircraft or other embarked hardware to provide sensors and weapons.
Both types of warships have their role in a navy, however carriers are certainly not surface combatants and carriers were obviously not included in the subject of the discussion previously.
In summary: the previous discussion was about the structure of a navy's surface combatants not just about a navy in general. Therefore, carriers are not included in the scope of the discussion because they are not considered a surface combatant or relevant in the previous context.