Ideal PLAN Frigate

WHAT?! It took you this long to realise that I was talking about the VDS being used passively?!

Click to expand...

Of course not, all sonars types should have both modes. I just don't see the advantage of passive sonar either from a VDS or bow mounted, other than the VDS can let you listen deeper below a thermocline for better submarine detection. But for OTH ship detection? So go ahead and explain then.

Err, I believe I have told explained convergence zones and stuff. You might want to find out more about that and how it limits bow sonars.

Click to expand...

Please explain then. I can understand that going deeper can increase range but what if this goes below a thermocline?

Of course not, all sonars types should have both modes. I just don't see the advantage of passive sonar either from a VDS or bow mounted, other than the VDS can let you listen deeper below a thermocline for better submarine detection. But for OTH ship detection? So go ahead and explain then.

Click to expand...

Sigh. When I mentioned target Identification at range using sonar, one with a basic understanding of sonar would naturally have understood that I was mentioning sonar operating in the passive mode. I guess for you I have to be more explicit then.

Please explain then. I can understand that going deeper can increase range but what if this goes below a thermocline?

Click to expand...

I believe I have explained it earlier, but apparently you either didn't couldn't understand or couldn't read. The advantage that VDS gives is not merely range, but that it can cover the dead zones between convergence zones that a depth restricted bow mounted sonar, can't. If a thermocline exists and the VDS goes beneath it, it would be hard-pressed to receive any acoustic signals above the thermocline. Incidentally, that's another reason why the VDS equipped Formidable is superior in ASW to the 054A - any sub hiding below a thermocline is not impervious to detection from the Formidable the way it would be against the 054A. (It would be better for you if you were willing to spend some effort to search for your answers yourself on google. Laziness is no excuse for ignorance)

I'm tryin to find out where how your explanations can go ahead and make VDS sound better for OTH targeting and identification and your responses failed to answer. And please don't refer to Google. I tried that and I failed to see how VDS makes a difference for OTH targeting over bow mounted sonars.

I'm not talking of sub detection below the thermoclines and I already mentioned that.

Please keep to the topic and explain.

Come to think of it, going deeper actually does not improve OTH range at all, because sonar is not electromagnetic radiation or radar; it does not need line of sight, it only needs the continous presence of the water medium. We know that surface waves and sounds are quite completely capable of traveling across the surface of the oceans for vast distances.

According to Jane's Missiles and Rockets, quoted by the Indian Defense Forum at Bharat-rakshak.com, there are 2 Klub-N AShM variants:


The 3M-54E is 8.22 meters long, 533mm diameter, and weights 2,300 kg.
The 3M-54E1 is 6.2 meters long, 533 diameter, and weights 1,780 kg.

One major difference between these 2 missiles is that the 3M-54 is super-sonic, while the 3M-54E1 is subsonic. Both missiles have folding wings.

The YJ-62, without the booster, is reported as being 6.1 meters in length and 1,140 kg in weight.

With the booster, the YJ-62 is 7 meters in length and weights 1,350 kg.

========================================

IMO if you need to install a longer missile, you can design your ship with a taller deck. If the variation is only +/- 1 meter, it's not that big of a difference. But the weight of the missile is another matter.

Since we're talking about frigates, and PLAN frigates doesn't use YJ-62, let's look at the YJ-83 instead. Unfortunately I don't have good specs for the YJ-83, so we'll have to borrow from YJ-82 and speculate.

The YJ-82 is reported as 6.4 meters in length, 360mm in diameter, and weights 715 - 815 kg. We'll assume the YJ-83 is slightly longer, but heavier at ~1,000 kg.

Usually, on PLAN Frigates, they install 6 or 8 SSM's. 8 x YJ-83 is approx. 8,000 kg by my estimate.

~8,000 kg (8 metric tons) is sufficient weight for:
* 6 x YJ-62 w/booster
* 4.5 x 3M-54E1
* 3.4 x 3M-54
* 6 x 91RE2 (ASW)

So, if you designed a frigate to carry 8 x YJ-83 SSM's, then change your mind and want to install 8 x Klub-N SSM's, you'd need to double your weight estimate by another 8 tons.

For the ASW Frigate, I'd prolly go for 8 x Klub-N VLS and have standard loadout of 6 x 91RE2 and 2 x 3M-54E1. That would require about 11.5 tons.

Basic anti-ship missiles, such as the Exocet, YJ-83, Harpoon etc are all about the same size, partly because they are designed to fit inside a conventional 21' torpedo tube.

A new trend being led by the French is that future frigates will increasingly be used as land-attack cruise missile platforms; see FREMM with Scalp missiles. Since a LACM variant of the YJ-62 is a more credible notion than an adaption of the YJ-83, I'd favour the newer '62 for a future frigate; not that I expect the PLAN will actually follow my advice.

If the PLAN wanted to maximise ASW capability in a frigate, then neglecting SSM fit altogether would be understandable given the abundance of YJ-83s already deployed aboard other assets, but that wouldn't be the ideal frigate IMO. A halfway house would be to fit 4 YJ-83s with only basic fire control systems, envisaging using the ship's datalink to recieve off-ship targetting etc.


Personallly I prefer the concept of an arsenal ship designed primarily as a cruise missile platform for power projection, but with ASW and AD capability.

planeman said:

The stats suggest that:
YJ-62
Length: 6.1m (withou booster); 7m (with booster)
Diameter: N/A
Wingspan: N/A
Launch weight: 1,140kg (without booster); 1,350kg (with booster)

Klub (3M-54E)
Length (m) 8.220
Diameter (m) 0.533 (21' for torpedo tubes)
Weight (kg) 2,300

BUT, from the phot evidence of the 052Cs shows that the YJ-62 tubes are MUCH fatter than 21' (about that of the YJ-63 tubes) making them take up more space.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also, because they are mounted in incline launchers they take up more deck space, which has a greater effect on the number of weapons carried.

In my previous concept I envisaged a folding fin YJ-62 type of weapon making it take up the same amount of deck space as the YJ-63/Harpoon etc. A diagram of the weapons layout of my previous design:
[qimg]http://i11.tinypic.com/4g9a8ba.jpg[/qimg]
As you can see the two quad YJ-62 launchers are mounted behind the bridge firing out over the side of the ship. Behind that the vertical launch modules are mounted, limited in depth by the boat stowage below.

A revised layout has a large missile deck within the ship, of similar dimensions to the vehicle deck on the fast ferries on which the hull is based. The missile deck is shown as having four quad YJ-62 launchers, two firing port and two starboard (you can only see two because the others are directly behind them, firing out the other side). This arrangement takes up a large amount of internal space but allows for the non-compact missile launchers seen on the 052C.
[qimg]http://i11.tinypic.com/2hnc935.jpg[/qimg]
The missile deck could be cleared for alturnative weapons fits, or "commando" configuration.

In this version I have used the deck space saved by the elimination of the SSM launchers behind the bridge to relocate the vertical launch modules into a single bigger module in the centre of the ship.

The ship's launch would have to be relocated, so the boat shed under the hanger deck could be enlarged.

Click to expand...

Did I say anywhere that 052C uses that YJ-62?

The stuff that China exports is certainly not the stuff it uses. I had previously thought the missiles on 052C are similar in size and appearance to the export YJ-62. However, if you can show that the tube is much thicker, then that just means the missile on 052C would carry more fuel, larger seeker and such.

Transient said:

I thrashed the 054A for having less ASW capability than the Formidable, as is evidently so. I didn;t trash it specifically for not having a TAS.

Click to expand...

If in its operating environment, TAS is not that useful, then why should that be used as a strike against it.

Uh, China isn't exactly known in military procurement circles as a 'reference customer the way Singapore is. Besides, even if the indigenous TAS is fitted, do you think it can match the standards of western equivalents? I don't think so, but you are free to assume whatever you want, as you seem to do.

Click to expand...

huh? What does that have to do with anything? The point as I state is that both navy equip sonar more suitable for their environment. Which actually explains why the bow mounted sonar on 054 is so tiny. But you for some reason see the need of saying that China would know less about its needs.

I have shown that the Formidable is more capable than the 054A by virtue of its ability to target and ID the enemy silently with its VDS, as well as its superior organic heli, the SH-60. I will elaborate later.

Click to expand...

As we explained to you many times, targetting is not an issue for 054A. It installed Bandstand for a good reason, + it will use other targetting assets in PLAN.

You rely on assumptions and rumours. They may be right, they may not be right. At the end of the day, you are just choosing the parts you'd like to be true. And yet you demand concrete proof from others.

Click to expand...

I didn't demand anything. I was congradulating you for finding some source. as shown with Chinese military, internet sources are far from accurate.

You working for the PLAN? Do you know all their purchases?

Click to expand...

Exports get reported. You may have noticed all of the news articles I post. If they are exporting many sets of shtil, we would know by now. JDW is reporting Tor-M1 negotiation with China. That's right, no deal has been signed yet and there is already reports on it. And we hear every S-300 deal whether land or ship based. Do you think shtil is different? And just that you know, I catch everything out of Interfax.

The more you talk the less you show about how much you understand about the concept of 'stealth'. Stealth is not a stand alone measure. Stealth is part of a repertoire of measures, ALL working towards the end goal of improving survivability. Hard-kill, soft-kill, LO measures, they are all part of the survivability toolbox. Stealth does not negate the use of other measures, and hence there is no reason why stealth cannot be mentioned beside hard-kill and soft-kill measures, especially when stealth can affect the effectiveness of soft-kill measures.

Stealth improves survivability through two ways. One is by making the ship harder to find, and thus target. Another is by improving the effectiveness of its soft kill suite because they do not have to mimic a ship with a large RCS. As you should be able to see, these two advantages the Formidable has over the 054A give it an edge in Survivability with respect to ASuW. Another thing is that the Formidable is better able to target the enemy with its VDS and more capable heli, the SH-60. These advantages all taken together makes the Formidable a clear winner in ASuW.

Click to expand...

So, you basically stated what stealth means with warships, but haven't combatted my argument at all. Let me go back to your original statement:
"Formidable being a stealth design will have a higher chance of effectiveness when using soft kill measures. This also affects its ability in ASuW, because it is harder to find."
So basically, you are using stealth design (the hull) as an advantage over 054A. Now, I've shown you that even though 054A is less stealthy in terms of hull alone than Formidable, it's not an issue, because a much weaker version of C-802 had no problem finding an even stealthier hull. Now, for some reason you have to lecture me on other methods of soft kill when I was the first one to bring it up. It's like comparing a F-15 to a F-16. F-15 is larger than F-16, but an AAM with a modern seeker will have no problem finding both. Similarly, Formidable may have a smaller RCS, but it's not small enough that a modern seeker would not be able to find it. So, it's not really that much of an advantage, certainly not enough to tilt a confrontation. The other methods of soft kill are far more relevant as far as I'm concerned.

EW planes are much further away than the ASTER is to the ASM missiles. That decreases the EW effectiveness. In fact, when facing an aircraft, the aircraft is likely to have an easier time jamming the SARH seeker of the missile since the illuminator's radar waves have travelled a further distance than the Aster's.

Click to expand...

you are still jamming a much more powerful radar that is also given targetting information from the search/tracking radar (which is most likely AESA radar, whose frequency hopping capability makes it much harder to pick up, let alone jam), making it much harder to jam than the small seeker of a missile operating alone.

All I said was that you were pulling figures from your posterior. Since they were from your S, any debate around them is like flies around whatever comes out from your bum.

Click to expand...

hmm, why don't you tell us how many missiles you think 32 HH-16 and 32 aster 15 can intercept? To give you a basic idea, the Russians advertise 9M317 to be able to score hits on missiles 43 to 80 something percent of time. FM-90N claims a 80% hit probability against missiles.

In two specific angles only, yet you gave the impression that 4 FCRs could be used under all circumstances?

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at the 4 FCRs carefully. The two near the hangar can theoretically illuminate target in all angles, since there really isn't any superstructure blocking. As for the two FCRs in the front, they are blocked in less than 90 degree of the angle (this should be pretty obvious). Let's just say they are each blocked for 75 to 90 degree from a certain direction. That means in 150 to 180 degree out of 360 degrees, 3 out of 4 FCRs can illuminate target. In the remain 180 to 210 degree out of 360 degrees, all 4 FCRs can illuminate target. Alternatively, the only way that a massive strike would leave a FCR completely out of it is if they all come from that range of 75 to 90 degree angle.

And what has that got to do with the Formidable? ff

Click to expand...

were you not reading my previous posts? PLAN has some type of Aegis like system in its navy among its modern ships. Formidable does not.

Just a quick correction on my part -

I went to Rosoboronexport Naval Systems Export Catalogue:


It seems that the Russians have different IDs for the Club-S/N missiles than Jane's. The Russians use "E" for submarine version and "TE" for ship VLS version.

Club-S:
3M-54E supersonic SSM
3M-54E1 subsonic SSM
91RE1 Subroc

Club-N:
3M-54TE supersonic SSM
3M-54TE1 subsonic SSM
91RTE2 ASROC

The export catalog doesn't have 3M-14E LACM listed, but we can assume it'd follow same naming convention of 3M-14E sub-launched and 3M-14TE VLS launched.

tphuang said:

Did I say anywhere that 052C uses that YJ-62?

The stuff that China exports is certainly not the stuff it uses. I had previously thought the missiles on 052C are similar in size and appearance to the export YJ-62. However, if you can show that the tube is much thicker, then that just means the missile on 052C would carry more fuel, larger seeker and such.

Click to expand...

I think it's widely agreed that the SSM tubes onboard the 052C are YJ-62*. The tubes are definately noticibly thicker than those of YJ-83 (/Harpoon/Exocet et al). Whilst the Tomahawk like YJ-62 is almost certainly fatter than the YJ-83, and potential much longer ranged, I think it's safe to say that the large diameter of the tubes is primarily because they are round and the rear fins do not fold:

In the diagram above a missile of the same diameter and wingspan is viewed from the front:
A. Mounted in a square box launcher like the YJ-83, Exocet MM-38, OTOMAT etc
B. Mounted in a round tube like the YJ-62
C. Mounted in a tube but has folding fins, increasing compactness like the Harpoon, MM-40 Exocet etc.

Here's a diagram showing the relative sizes of the missiles being discussed, with boosters - obviously it's not 100% accurate but it's not far off either:


Note how the booster fins of the YJ-83 fold, but the main wings of the shipboard version do not. whereas on the Klub both the forward and rear fins retract into the body meaning that although the body is longer and fatter, it can actually be fitted into a thiner launch container than either the YJ-83 or YJ-62.

A folding fin version of the YJ-82/83 must exist, but only seems to have been used on submarines. This may be because the wing folding increases weight and/or has an effect on drag, reducing the range of the missile.




*Please ignore where I've accidently called it YJ-63, I meant 62

planeman said:

I think it's widely agreed that the SSM tubes onboard the 052C are YJ-62*. The tubes are definately noticibly thicker than those of YJ-83 (/Harpoon/Exocet et al). Whilst the Tomahawk like YJ-62 is almost certainly fatter than the YJ-83, and potential much longer ranged, I think it's safe to say that the large diameter of the tubes is primarily because they are round and the rear fins do not fold:
[qimg]http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3328/missiles1nx4.jpg[/qimg]
In the diagram above a missile of the same diameter and wingspan is viewed from the front:
A. Mounted in a square box launcher like the YJ-83, Exocet MM-38, OTOMAT etc
B. Mounted in a round tube like the YJ-62
C. Mounted in a tube but has folding fins, increasing compactness like the Harpoon, MM-40 Exocet etc.

Here's a diagram showing the relative sizes of the missiles being discussed, with boosters - obviously it's not 100% accurate but it's not far off either:
[qimg]http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3745/missilesxm3.jpg[/qimg]

Note how the booster fins of the YJ-83 fold, but the main wings of the shipboard version do not. whereas on the Klub both the forward and rear fins retract into the body meaning that although the body is longer and fatter, it can actually be fitted into a thiner launch container than either the YJ-83 or YJ-62.

A folding fin version of the YJ-82/83 must exist, but only seems to have been used on submarines. This may be because the wing folding increases weight and/or has an effect on drag, reducing the range of the missile.




*Please ignore where I've accidently called it YJ-63, I meant 62

Click to expand...

Every so called source are using the export statistics of YJ-62 on the missile on 052C. I personally think that if C-802 series is the export version of YJ-8 turbojet series, then YJ-62 has to be the export version of some domestic series too. Now, the domestic version may also be YJ-62, but I would expect there to be some differences. For example, YJ-83 is terminally supersonic, but C-802 is entirely subsonic.

The given length for YJ-62 is around 7 m, so it should be slightly longer than C-802A and its diameter is 54 cm (so around that of Klub). To me, that means YJ-62 should be able to fit into a similar width tube but shorter tube than klub.