PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
What does it tell you that PLAN would rather use more the smaller Z-9C with its small payload rather than Ka-28 in the ASW role? You still haven't been able to answer my question. Ka-28 is an old helicopter with high maintenance cost and bulky/unimpressive sonar suite. They have no interest in more. They bought some Ka-31 when they lacked AEW helicopter. It was so unimpressive that they went for the Z-18 platform. What do that tell you? The ka-28/31 platform does not suit PLAN's needs. The sensors on them don't meet PLAN requirements.

Z-20 is currently the most advanced helicopter in PLAN. The powerful engine allows it to carry heavy payload while retaining high speed and operate in the toughest environment. It was designed all along to be the naval helicopter of the future for PLAN.
Not sure what there is to tell to be honest, other than you saying the PLAN is seemingly unsatisfied with the Kamovs because they don't fly them as much...

Has the PLAN ever indicated their preference for Z-9C in high intensity ASW over Ka-28 beyond the mere fact they fly the Z-9C more frequently than the Ka-28 (to do what exactly; how many Z-9Cs are in PLAN's employ vs Ka-28s)?

The Z-9C has always been a low cost platform compared to either the Ka-28 or the Z-20, that has never been in doubt. Like I said, unlike the Ka-28, the Z-9 isn't a dedicated ASW platform but a multi-role one. It's a classic 'strength in numbers' proposition with the Z-9.

Still, I don't know where you get the impression the Ka-28's sensor suite is unimpressive, based on how it performs against what, an AQS-13-derived Type 605 dipping sonar form the SH-3 era that's even older than the Ka-27 itself, which is what the Z-9C has going for it? Or its surface scanner which, unlike that on the Ka-28, doesn't have sub-surface search capability? Or the lack of MAD?
 

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
Not sure what there is to tell to be honest, other than you saying the PLAN is seemingly unsatisfied with the Kamovs because they don't fly them as much...

Has the PLAN ever indicated their preference for Z-9C in high intensity ASW over Ka-28 beyond the mere fact they fly the Z-9C more frequently than the Ka-28 (to do what exactly; how many Z-9Cs are in PLAN's employ vs Ka-28s)?

The Z-9C has always been a low cost platform compared to either the Ka-28 or the Z-20, that has never been in doubt. Like I said, unlike the Ka-28, the Z-9 isn't a dedicated ASW platform but a multi-role one. It's a classic 'strength in numbers' proposition with the Z-9.

Still, I don't know where you get the impression the Ka-28's sensor suite is unimpressive, based on how it performs against what, an AQS-13-derived Type 605 dipping sonar form the SH-3 era that's even older than the Ka-27 itself, which is what the Z-9C has going for it? Or its surface scanner which, unlike that on the Ka-28, doesn't have sub-surface search capability? Or the lack of MAD?
From Huitong's blog:

"The helicopter was seen (March 2015) carrying a new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with a design similar to American AN/AQS-22"

and

"An image released in December 2017 suggested an ASW version of Z-9D (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?) has flown, which has a crash position indicator (CPI) installed on the starboard side of its tail boom, a Beidou antenna on top of its cabin, and could carry up t0 two new Yu-7K/Yu-11K ASW torpedoes under the stub wings. A recent image (March 2021) indicated that the new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ASW helicopter has entered the service with PLAN, carrying a 2-digit serial number, a new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and a new surface search radar."

With Z20F and Z9DF in production, I don't see any requirement for more Kamovs.
 

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
From Huitong's blog:

"The helicopter was seen (March 2015) carrying a new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with a design similar to American AN/AQS-22"

and

"An image released in December 2017 suggested an ASW version of Z-9D (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?) has flown, which has a crash position indicator (CPI) installed on the starboard side of its tail boom, a Beidou antenna on top of its cabin, and could carry up t0 two new Yu-7K/Yu-11K ASW torpedoes under the stub wings. A recent image (March 2021) indicated that the new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ASW helicopter has entered the service with PLAN, carrying a 2-digit serial number, a new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and a new surface search radar."

With Z20F and Z9DF in production, I don't see any requirement for more Kamovs.
That looks to me like PLAN realised the Z-9Cs weren't cutting it, so they've decided to make improvements in making new Z-9Ds.
 

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Though to be clear, I'm not advocating the Ka-28 should be the sole ASW helo in the PLAN. It's a specialised and expensive piece of kit, that much we've all since established.

The Z-9s/Z-20s have their set of uses just like the Ka-28s have theirs. What differentiates them apart from what's already been discussed is that the Z-9s/20s as multi-role helos are more flexible as they aren't limited to ASW.

That being said, I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss the Ka-28 as less capable or even obsolete simply because it's an "old" platform. The PLAN Ka-28s were contemporary export builds bought alongside the Sovs in late 90s/early 00s. They aren't so old any more than the Z-9s are new. In fact the PLAN has had Z-9s longer than they've had Ka-28s.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
If we look back at PLA's helicopter history, it's generally been an area they have neglected until very recently. During the pre-6/4 period, they were able to get some pretty advanced technology in S-70 and license production for other technology Z-8/Z-9. With S-70, they basically got their dream helicopter. They loved it so much that they kept if in service for 30 years after America stopped supporting it. They found it to have better performance than mi-17s even if 2008 after the Sichuan earthquake. With Z-9, they got a helicopter that really elevated their domestic industry, since they only had Z-5s before that. Even after 1989, the French still helped provide them with every engine upgrade that came out. As such, Z-9 was always a relatively competitive category in a long period of weakness. As such, they were able to continually upgrade it with domestic system as their electronics industry got stronger and stronger. That along with low maintenance cost made it the default choice for PLAN for most of recent history. On paper, Ka-28 should have better endurance and carry more payload and ASW gear. In reality, Z-9C won out over time.

As China started building larger surface combatants, they also finally got better at building Z-8s. Even though Z-8s are not usable on the DDGs/FFGs, they still became popular as more carriers, LHAs, LHDs and other large ships join service. By now, Z-8/Z-18 are the default large helicopter for PLAN. Despite the large Ka-31 order, they found Z-18s to be much better and have stuck with that on all the carriers and LHDs.

Which brings us to Z-20. Z-8/Z-18s are probably too large for most roles. In many areas, you probably don't need the extra size/payload of Z-8/18s. China always needed something like SH-60/NH-90. It provides the ideal size for carrying all the payload need for ASW/SAR that's vital for modern surface combatants. They can always create version that assist with amphibious assault for LHD. China never gave up on building its own version of S-70 even after 30 years. One could argue that AC-313A/new Z-8 will be a better transport helicopter for PLA. Z-20 is the ideal naval helicopter for PLAN when it comes to size, power, payload, endurance, combat system and sonar/radar. There is a reason they stretched 052D to have a hangar that can accommodate it.
 

optionsss

Junior Member
Though to be clear, I'm not advocating the Ka-28 should be the sole ASW helo in the PLAN. It's a specialised and expensive piece of kit, that much we've all since established.

The Z-9s/Z-20s have their set of uses just like the Ka-28s have theirs. What differentiates them apart from what's already been discussed is that the Z-9s/20s as multi-role helos are more flexible as they aren't limited to ASW.

That being said, I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss the Ka-28 as less capable or even obsolete simply because it's an "old" platform. The PLAN Ka-28s were contemporary export builds bought alongside the Sovs in late 90s/early 00s. They aren't so old any more than the Z-9s are new. In fact the PLAN has had Z-9s longer than they've had Ka-28s.
I think the the biggest advantage for K-28 over Z-20 is that a K-28 could fit into the hangar of 054a, and Z-20 can't.
The better range and payload of the k-28 over Z-9 is important, but the PLA might not feel that's enough to justify the extra cost, both in terms of operational and procurement. Especially the 054a frigate program is designed around cost efficiency.
PLA definitely like a multirole platform where they can modify and produce themselves over imported versions. On their carrier, a single Z-18 platform can fill the role of ASW, AEW and SAR.
 

lcloo

Captain
I think the the biggest advantage for K-28 over Z-20 is that a K-28 could fit into the hangar of 054a, and Z-20 can't.
The better range and payload of the k-28 over Z-9 is important, but the PLA might not feel that's enough to justify the extra cost, both in terms of operational and procurement. Especially the 054a frigate program is designed around cost efficiency.
PLA definitely like a multirole platform where they can modify and produce themselves over imported versions. On their carrier, a single Z-18 platform can fill the role of ASW, AEW and SAR.
What made you think that type 054A frigate's hangar cannot accommodate a naval variant Z20?

A) What is the internal length, width and height of type 054A's hangar?

Height: Ka-28=5.3M ; Z20 >< 5.23M (Seahawk data).
Width: Ka-28=? ; Z20><3.26 (Seahawk data)
Length: Ka-28=11.3M; Z20><12.55M (seahawk data, with folded tail).

B) Why would designer of Z20 not considered internal length of type 054A during Z20's development stage?

C) Would designer of the latest batch of type 054A not considered whether the hangar of the frigate can accommodate Z20?

Without knowing the true internal dimension of type 054A's hangar, there is no way we can know whether Z20 can or cannot be accommodated inside its hangar.

Z9 helicopter's length is 12.11M. A mere 0.44M shorter than a Seahawk with folded tail..
 
Last edited:

optionsss

Junior Member
What made you think that type 054A frigate's hangar cannot accommodate a naval variant Z20?

A) What is the internal length, width and height of type 054A's hangar?

Height: Ka-28=5.3M ; Z20 >< 5.23M (Seahawk data).
Width: Ka-28=? ; Z20><3.26 (Seahawk data)
Length: Ka-28=11.3M; Z20><12.55M (seahawk data, with folded tail).

B) Why would designer of Z20 not considered internal length of type 054A during Z20's development stage?

C) Would designer of the latest batch of type 054A not considered whether the hangar of the frigate can accommodate Z20?

Without knowing the true internal dimension of type 054A's hangar, there is no way we can know whether Z20 can or cannot be accommodated inside its hangar.

Z9 helicopter's length is 12.11M. A mere 0.44M shorter than a Seahawk with folded tail..
What made you think that type 054A frigate's hangar cannot accommodate a naval variant Z20?

A) What is the internal length, width and height of type 054A's hangar?

Height: Ka-28=5.3M ; Z20 >< 5.23M (Seahawk data).
Width: Ka-28=? ; Z20><3.26 (Seahawk data)
Length: Ka-28=11.3M; Z20><12.55M (seahawk data, with folded tail).

B) Why would designer of Z20 not considered internal length of type 054A during Z20's development stage?

C) Would designer of the latest batch of type 054A not considered whether the hangar of the frigate can accommodate Z20?

Without knowing the true internal dimension of type 054A's hangar, there is no way we can know whether Z20 can or cannot be accommodated inside its hangar.

Z9 helicopter's length is 12.11M. A mere 0.44M shorter than a Seahawk with folded tail..
I should not said hangar space, I meant rear deck space for helicopter landing. While we don't know the exact dimensions of the hangar of 054a. It's widely believed the stretched 052DL rear deck is meant for adopting the eventual Z-20 helicopter. If PLA don't think Z-20 can safely land on the rear deck of 052D, I doubt they want to operate Z-20 on 054a. For Z-20 helicopter, there are many design parameters, and being small enough to land on the deck of 054a is probably not one of them.

Also, for the 054a there was a hull modification early on in the series, one of the benefit of the change was increased rear deck space, but that's a minor change compare to 052DL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SAC

SAC

Junior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
Construction of further Type 054 Frigates, without significant development, would only make sense under the following conditions:

  • Embarked helicopter requirements dictate a Z-20, resulting in the need to lengthen the hull by approximately 4 metres; and/or
  • Critical mass of ASW Frigates is needed before enough of the follow-on class of ASW Frigates will be ready.
 

lcloo

Captain
Construction of further Type 054 Frigates, without significant development, would only make sense under the following conditions:

  • Embarked helicopter requirements dictate a Z-20, resulting in the need to lengthen the hull by approximately 4 metres; and/or
  • Critical mass of ASW Frigates is needed before enough of the follow-on class of ASW Frigates will be ready.
a) I believe the addition of 4M length refers to type 052D DDG, not type 054A FFG.

b) Follow on contract for additional 30 type 054A is probably due to type 054B/type 057 not being ready to production, and also partly due to the hightened geopolitical tensions in East and South China seas. Critical mass assets of PLAN ASW is multi-dimensional, there are adequate numbers if you count Y9Q, type 056A, type 054A, all DDGs and China's network of seabed sonar sensors.

As for the length of type 054A, its landing deck is approximately 19M, and external length of its hangar is approximately 18 metres. wheelbase of a Seahawk is 8.8 metres.

Actually this question was already discussed way back to 2013. And Jeffhead had affirmed that a Seahawk size helicopter can land and can be fit into the hangar of type 054A.

 
Top