eecsmaster
Junior Member
just a quick note, the JMSDF 8x8 designation is 8 surface ships and 8 helicopters, not frigates.
Ideal PLAN Frigate
- Thread starter adeptitus
- Start date
you are comparing a ship coming out in 2009 to a ship that you've seen nothing but a few pictures. We've seen pictures of TLAS products from China. Do you think they create them just for show? As I said, if they want to use 054A as an ASW frigate that it should be, it will be on there. I will first wait for the first bunch of 4 054As to all come out before making an assessment.
btw, for all of your clamour toward Formidable, I don't even seen a bow mounted sonar on it. All it has is that towed array sonar.
Why don't you show which sonar you are talking about that can track targets from 100 km out?
I really hope you are not intentionally trying to misunderstand me. We all see that bandstand is a huge radar and takes up a lot of space. To me, it's value does not justify its size if it can only guide missiles for OTH strikes. As explained by Crobato, it can track targets too.
There is too much evidence that VLS is going on 054A. (just look at that model, it's been right about every other part of 054A we can see)
As for 1 and 3, do you really think China isn't going for a common VLS? That they are just stuck in a development or ideological phase?
Now, where I got the HH-7 and common VLS information? Some big shrimp on Chinese board. When is it going to happen? Not on the current 054A, but again, I'm waiting for the remaining 054As to come out. We've seen nothing but incremental growth among PLAN ships and I don't expect that to change.
First of all, there is more to stealth design than just the stealth shaping, there is also decoys, ECM and such. Maybe you would like to enlighten us with the capability of Formidable's ECM with that of 054A?
Second of all, if you are able to engage targets at a longer range, then you can shoot them down earlier. So, if 10 missiles are coming at both, HH-16 might be able to shoot down 2 or 3 missiles before they even reach 10 to 15 km, and then they can launch more illuminate against newer targets. I hope you understand this. You have a chance to shoot down their missile carrier before they get to launch those AShM at you.
Third of all, I think the more powerful illuminators are probably less prone to getting jammed than the seekers of an AAM.
Fourth, you have 32 missiles on board, if you use them up, you don't have any more air defense. How many AShM do you think you can shoot down? 15 if you are lucky? If you have CIWS, you can keep on going.
Fifth, as for your scenario of mass strikes from one side. can you please point out to an angle that would only allow 2 illuminators and 1 CIWS to handle incoming missiles? Are you assuming that the illuminators on 054As can't rotate?
Sixth, you are conveniently forgetting again that it is operating as part of an air defense network. 054A is not DDX, it's not meant to operate on its own. Providing that it's in a network with 052B/C/D, it will be able to shoot down missiles as part of the network.
Your passive towed arrays that you are very proud of are less than optimal for green water/littoral use. It is precisely for that reason that the latest AB Flight IIs have their TAS removed.In fact the very reason why the DUBV-43 was developed was because the French had to operate in a green water (Mediterranean Sea, much lije the South China Sea) zone that severely limited the use of towed arrays.
Why have a bow mounted sonar when a VDS does the job?
The ALOFTS used on the Formidable. Its low operating frequency of 2kHz allows for long range operation, allowing for (explicitly stated) "long detection range to the first and second convergence zones".
As a point of reference, two CZ can be 125+km in the North Atlantic.
Also, the SQR-18(V) upon which the ALOFTS' receiver array is based on has been used to provide targeting info for Harpoons.
Then that is purely your opinion is it not? Someone could say that for the size and cost of a destroyer, it should be able to fly and submerge as well. That doesn't make it able to do so, isn't it? :rofl:
Ah, so you meant that it could track targets too. Yes, that's true. But it still suffers from two disadvantages - it is active, meaning that it can reveal the ship's location and identity to the enemy when in operation, and it is not able to provide the target identification.
There is still no concensus that the missiles are going to be HQ-16 or Shtil yet, and you are making so big leaps by assuming that the HQ-7 and HQ-16 is on the ship?
The Formidable uses NGDS decoy launchers. We do not yet know the ECM suite for the Formidable uses, but the fact that the Formidable is a true stealth design means that its soft kill measures are rendered much more effective as opposed to when they have to work with a less-stealthy vessel.
First, with a Pif-Paf control system, I would suspect that the Aster has a higher Pk against highly maneuverable ASMs than Shtil/HQ-16. Of course, as a person arguing for the 054A, you are entitled to your own opinion regarding this. Second, how many ASMs out there have radar jamming devices aboard? How many of those ASMs are in service of how many navies? Third, as the Aster approaches its target, jamming effects are decreased. Finally, with a higher Pk against missiles, the 32 mag may prove to have the same effectiveness as the 054A with its extra two CIWS.
And the radar illuminators on the opposite side as well as the superstructure are radar translucent? My my, the PLAN has advanced far beyond anyone (other than tphuang) can fathom.
Just as the Formidable operates as part of SRSN's network. Are we comparing the RSN vs the PLAN or the 054A vs the Formidable?
Here is a good article on the PLAN's ASW efforts.
Enjoy.
But the Fregat is not the only radar system on the ship. Exported Bandstand is composed of two radars, an active component called Mineral ME-1 (25 targets up to 250km) and a passive component called Mineral ME-2 (50 targets up to 450km). That's according to the Jane's/Yizhong Chang's article. At least that takes care of the passive part.
So essentially they are ESMs. And the C-Pearl-M ESM does the same on the Formidable.
And what happens when the illuminator is blocked by the other illuminator? So what happens when the missile moves into superstructure's FOV? The rear 2 FCRs have good FOV, but the front 2 do not enjoy as good positions.
Illuminators are coordinated by the FCS. Since they time share, they're not following and lighting a target across the sky but only light the targets when the missile is close enough. Thus you can put up a lot of missiles into the air more than you would expect the illuminators would normally handle, and the illuminators would juggle across the missiles. If the other illuminator is being blocked by the second illuminator, the second illuminator should be handling the target instead and the other illuminator should switch back and illuminate targets within its FOV. Hence why I think Bandstand may be used because the SAMs are being controlled via datalink until they reach terminal stage then the illuminator takes over. Unless more than six targets have been *terminally acquired all at the same time* by the missiles, I don't think two illuminators with time sharing would be swamped by the workload.
Just remember, multisaturation attack tends to be conducted against all angles.
Just remember, multisaturation attack tends to be conducted against all angles.
why do you just assume that it's DUBV-43? What do you think this is?
right, that's why all the major surface warships have Bow mounted sonar, huh?
see, keep this up, post more real evidences.
if you read my posts more carefully, maybe you would've read that part.
- yes, there are still people out there who refute the service status of J-10, doesn't mean it's not in service.
let's see the evidences for VLS
- we don't see the deck that AAM launchers are normally placed on for PLAN ships
- every major ship systems have been placed on the launched 054A, yet we haven't seen a AAM launcher
- and the picture, I think it's pretty obvious that's the model for at least the first set of 054As.
- as for HH-7 and HH-16, I didn't say they are both on this particular 054A, but it will be on future CFX and CDX.
If an old version of C-802 with a truck monted radar have no problem hitting the much smaller SAAR 5, what makes you think Formidable will fool the more advanced YJ-83?
you are facing aircrafts too, you know. You are facing EW planes that are jamming shipborne radar and missile seekers. The much smaller missile seekers would be more affected.
Right, you have 32 missiles, let's say Aster 15 is that amazing, it will hit 15 targets and HH-16 will hit 10 targets. How many targets do you think 10,000 30mm munition can take out? Think about it.
hmm, I really hope you are not talking about the 2 illuminators beside the hangar, since I see nothing blocking in between them. The only blocking is by the superstructure on the illuminators in the front (but only one of them can be blocked at one particular time) The worst I can see is 3 illuminators and 1 CIWS having clear path at the target. And since the angle between the missile and ship is constantly changing, this worst case scenario might not stay in formation for very long.And the radar illuminators on the opposite side as well as the superstructure are radar translucent? My my, the PLAN has advanced far beyond anyone (other than tphuang) can fathom.
If there is an "Aegis-like" network being set up between the future ships in PLAN fleet as I expect, that will be more complex than non-Aegis like networks.
I believe I have told you about the limitations of TAS in the operating environment of the 054A?
Singapore is well known for their meticulous requirements planning in the military procurement circle. If the RSN determined that the Formidable needed a bow sonar, it would have had one. It seems that the RSN determined that the VDS and the Heli could do the job.
Finally, when we take into account the ship as a whole, with ASW capability and ASuW capability, it is pretty obvious that the Formidable has an advantage over the 054A.
Ironical, when all you have provided so far are assumptions.
But you don't know yet if they have achieved the integration of the HQ-7 with a 'common VLS' don't you? You don't know that the VLS is for the SHtil or the HQ-16 don't you. You don't know a lot of things yet, yet you said that the 054A will have HQ-7s as part of its layered anti-air system?
The Saar V was not aware of the missile attack and took no measures to stop the missile. So its Barak and soft kill systems are not ineffective. They were just not operating at the time. Finally, there was a report of one of the ASM missiles locking onto the wrong target and hitting a cargo vessel. That could be the result of the significance of a small RCS despite no soft-kill measures like decoys or ECM being deployed.
Is the jamming aircraft going to be so near the missiles? Otherwise they are at a disadvantage since the Asters are MUCH closer to the ASMs than the jammers are. Also, can the jammers jam both the Aster's radar and the Herakles at the same time, which are operating on two different bands?
You are pulling figures from your posterior.
Which is why your early assumption that all 4 FCRs can be brought to bear is wrong. At most 3 can be brought to bear against a single vector stream attack.
I thought we were comparing ships and not navies? Or do you sense that your position is untenable and hence this effort to bring in the rest of the PLAN into debate?