Future PLAN orbat discussion
- Thread starter kwaigonegin
- Start date
That would be a no in my view.
In other words, the hull mounted sonar would be the least important.
It's not that the hull sonar isn't worth having, but the TAS and VDS are more sensitive and can go under the thermocline layer
And you need the helo to engage at long distance.
You see SURTASS ships that only use TAS and VDS.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL funny you had to pull some USN trash, but it's OK
a byproduct (posting here as I expect larger Chinese ASW vessels to have similar capabilities):
Spanish Navy F110 Frigates to Get Sonar Suite from Thales
That chat looks really old. It shows an S-3 and doesn't show active towed arrays that can operate at variable depths below or above the thermocline layer.
Plus it's not a surprise that they rate active sonar as best against quiet submarines.
What are you even talking about?
You asked him a question and he gave you an answer, and your reply is impossible to understand (what does USN trash mean)??
And yes, for the record it is well established that for a surface combatant doing the ASW mission, having a high performing TAS+VDS set is more essential than a high performing bow sonar.
Obviously having a bow sonar is still useful and important, but with current technology, the presence of TAS+VDS is the differentiating factor between more capable Vs less capable ASW surface combatants when all else is held equal.
Low flying targets don't fly low enough during midphase. A low flying target in midphase on its way to a much higher value target than the 056A can still get caught in its radar. You have to remember that during midphase, the antiship missile still has to fly in an altitude where it needs to LOS with the aircraft or ship that launched it to obtain mid phase updates. During this interval, a ship can not only detect the missile with its radar, but also pick up the communication signals between the missile and the plane or ship, and direction find those signals. Also during midphase updates, the threat spotter plane will have to be using its radar to locate and lock to the target ship (not the 056A but a higher value ship), which allows the 056A to acquire these emissions and direction find those signals to the source aircraft. The 056A then shares this information to another ship or plane of its side, which can allow the other ship to target the spotter.
Did you notice that the Type 056A has improved its communication and ESM features in the last batch, with visible additions and changes to its ESM and its SATCOMs?
There is always the possibility the radar on the Type 056A might have MOTH like the Type 022's. Just to remind you that the Type 054A has the Type 366 radar, which uses microwave duct propagation for OTH finding of not only of its surface targets, but also of low flying skimmers. This method can be weather situational however.
Which is true but aircraft isn't as stationary nor as persistent as ships are. There is always a question of the ship being detected due to stealth shaping of the ship and the radio clutter from the sea surface.
This one is a dead wrong. While the helicopter can pick up sonar data, it may not have sufficient means to identify it due to limited size of the computer it can carry. The sonar signal has to be sent to the ship for further processing where you can have a larger computer do signal analysis.
Wrong again. Submarines can move fast enough underwater even with an SSK. That's like 20 knots or so with an SSK, 30 knots with a nuclear submarine. Or the submarine may choose to be on its tactical speed (4 to 5 knots) trying to be on its quietest. CEC among the ASW ships and helicopters has its advantage of creating an extended sensor net.
No there isn't.
It might be high risk for aircraft to operate but what if they are launching LRASM or Tomahawk type antiship missiles?
IMO this still doesn't answer the question as to whether the 054A was a sensible procurement choice with the production run that it had.
Considering that the PLAN is still actively upgrading legacy ships like Sovs and more recently the 051B with a similar sensor and weapons suite to what the 054As have, suggests to me that they are comfortable having such a system in service for the next 10 years or so. As second line surface combatants, I believe the capability they offer is quite adequate.
For 054As, it is certainly reasonable to expect them to get an MLU in the future, perhaps starting in the mid 2020s for the earliest boats. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't receive an MLU during their service life.
But the way you write about 054A, makes it seem like you think 054A should have developed a more advanced variant with more capable sensors (AESAs, more integrated electronics etc) partway through its 30 ship run.
I think you are both overestimating the PLAN's expectations for 054A, as well as forgetting how recent it was that the PLAN had started building 052C/Ds and 055s in large numbers.
Compared to 052C/D, the 054A was a much more medium tier, medium technology, medium capability surface combatant. Its primary combat systems were not even cutting edge for the PLAN when the class was first introduced (i.e.: 052C emerged around the same time as 054A did).
052C/D production began in earnest around 2010, and then 055 production began around 2015-2016 as well, and these were two concurrent classes of advanced, large AESA toting warships carrying the fruits of the PLAN's R&D and combat system development over the prior decade or more.
I question whether it would have been wise for the PLAN to stop 054A production to move onto an improved frigate with the capabilities you're talking about during this exact time period, given the profile 054A was meant to have in the PLAN's overall force structure, as well as the other surface combatant programmes the PLAN had going on at this time.
OTOH, I can very much see the argument for having an improved frigate (whether it's called 054B or 057 or whatever) enter service in the early 2020s, featuring similar technologies and systems to what 055 had -- but by the time 054B/057 enters service those technologies and systems will be mature and cheap. It is also likely that 054B/057 may introduce one or two new key technologies to their class (such as IEPS), but it will still overall be much lower risk as it will be porting over technologies and systems that are mature when it enters service.
That is exactly what I think they would have done.
Its less challenging to develop an AESA for the frigate when its downscaled from an existing AESA like the Type 346 and when you already have the development expertise developed from previous projects. I would think by 2011 onwards, that is no longer a problem for China. There were prototypes of radars that were on top of labs, test mockups and prototypes on the weapon ships.
An advanced frigate should have already developed by 2016-2017, and in fact CSSC was already showing models of such in defense exhibits.
If they had stopped at that time (2015-2016), they may already be mass producing a more advanced frigate right this moment.
If you have moved the needle forward, to say, mass producing the 054B/057 around 2017, by 2025, you may already be ready for the new frigate like 054C/057A.
You don't need the Type 055 to make these technologies cheap and proven. You can move the needle forward faster by putting it in frigates earlier, and it would be easier to mass produce the frigate.
Last edited:
In 2011 they had only recently restarted production of 052C, the first 052D had yet to even be launched, and 055 was 6 years away from launching.
What would the costs of developing a successor to 054A at that time have been, not only in terms of development and overall naval and ship design resources, but also in terms of procurement costs of what other programmes an "054B" of that era would have effected. E.g.: would 052D and 055 have had their schedules moved accordingly to the right, and would as many of those ships have been procured as we have seen today?
I'm aware of those proposed export designs, yet the fact that the PLAN did not procure them should say something about where their priorities were and what their value of those designs were.
Yes, but as I wrote above in the first part of this reply -- at the expense of what else?
In theory yes, but two big caveats:
1: repeating myself from above -- would mass producing 054B/057 in 2017 have caused the PLAN to cutback on 052D or 055 procurement in this period?
2: more importantly, would your "2017" 054B/057 be as capable as the current "early 2020s" 054B/057 that we are expecting? I doubt it. Your "054C/057A" might end up as capable as the current "early 2020s 054B/057" that we are expecting.
That said, I understand where you are coming from, and it's a reasonable thought experiment to consider if it may have been good for the PLAN to move onto a "2017 054B" successor to 054A in that time period. And I obviously agree that the 054A is not as "future proof" as it otherwise could be without an MLU.
But I don't think that going for an "2017 054B" is anywhere the more sensible or clear cut decision as you're making it out to be, because there may be a heap of other factors that could have explained why they went for 30 054As, in terms of available technology and/or costs of said technology of the time, in terms of the technologies they wanted for a true new frigate that was sufficiently more advanced than 054A, as well as the very real possibility that they had additional other new surface combatant programmes going on at the same time that were more important.