PLAN Future FFG design

Solaris said:

This future PLAN frigate you describe sounds like a 054A, which is BTW far more AAW-capable than the Perry ever was, even when it had its Mk 13 launchers.

Click to expand...

Well, that is because the 054A is a far newer ship, able to leverage new technologies like VLS, newer radar and guidance (compared to OHPs day). It is the benefit of being a newer generation.
And that is what I've been saying for 054As successor, that it too will feature the same degree of generational improvements we saw in previous generations of ship type replacement. The key point is that the relative difference (or rather, relative ratio) in capability between the FFG and its DDG big brothers should remain the same regardless of generation. And I think both 054A and OHP fit that trend.

I never said the 054B should skimp on AAW and ASuW, simply that I don't think it needs an advanced AAW suite. By advanced I mean anything significantly more capable than what the 054A has now. As far as ASuW goes, this is really a non-issue, since effective ASuW for PLAN ships essentially means a gun, some slant launchers and a datalink, all of which even the 056 has.

Click to expand...

Right. Well in that case I suppose we differ in opinion as to what kind of AAW suite a future PLAN FFG needs.

Clearly I don't mean exactly the LCS. More AAW and more ASuW are probably universally desired for this platform. But the concept is sound IMO, i.e. less focus on the traditional warfare areas of AAW and ASuW (just not THAT much less), and more focus on the things larger ships don't need to be tasked to do, like ASW, minesweeping, recon, assault, etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah, same response as above.

A 32-ship run is 'successful' in anybody's dictionary. On the other hand, credible capability, higher intensity, etc., these are terms with degrees of significance and different meanings to different people. Clearly you and I have different understandings of what constitutes credible air defense. That Hagel wants a beefier ship than the LCS is unambiguous. That he therefore wants a mini-Aegis is definitely questionable.

Click to expand...

Well I don't think the USN wants a frigate with SPY-1Fs and masses of VLS. But I think 16-32VLS and a new generation medium range PAR (either active, passive, fixed or rotating) are probably on the cards.

Solaris said:

...a large proportion of the cost of a warship, or perhaps even the majority of the cost, comes from the electronics and software. Less powerful warships that try to do part of the work of a full size warship are simply going to be less cost effective than larger platforms. I'm willing to bet that the cost of an Aegis system installed into a frigate is going to be almost the same cost as one installed in a destroyer. You may get a few hundred T/R modules shaved off the price with smaller arrays, but the rest of the guts and brains are the same. But yet this frigate will load probably 32 to 48 SAM's while a destroyer will load at least twice that many. When that much of the cost of a ship cannot be effectively reduced with a smaller platform, it does not make sense to make mini-destroyers to perform some of the work of a destroyer. What you need are frigates that perform other jobs that don't require high end radars and lots of firepower, like ASW, ISR, special ops, mine warfare, etc., all of which BTW are intended for the LCS to do. All of these can be done with smaller ships. AAW is best done with larger ships sporting powerful radars, powerful combat data systems, and large masses of VLS cells.

Click to expand...

What you say here is true...if you load them up with AEGIS.

So we agree 100% on that.

However, that's not always necessary. For lower threat environments where you may not send a full blown, lathered up AEGIS DDG, you can send a decent, cheaper FFG with 3D radars and cooperative engagements capabilities. Which would be a lot cheaper than a full blown AEGIS or "frigate-sized" AEGIS system but still give them state of the art, modern capabilities just the same. That's what the patrol frigate concept is all about.

Something that has full capabilities in terms of defense and offense for the particular threat environment (which the LCS was designed NOT to have outside of modules that must be swapped out), that would allow it to do its mission and be able to confront and defeat other nation's corvettes or light frigates should they run up against them.

Anyhow, my original point here was that the Perrys, for their time, were designed to be multi-role. That's all.

And they have been upgraded by other nations to maintain that multi-role capability...again, without going a full AEGIS route.

Bltizo said:

Well, that is because the 054A is a far newer ship, able to leverage new technologies like VLS, newer radar and guidance (compared to OHPs day). It is the benefit of being a newer generation.
And that is what I've been saying for 054As successor, that it too will feature the same degree of generational improvements we saw in previous generations of ship type replacement. The key point is that the relative difference (or rather, relative ratio) in capability between the FFG and its DDG big brothers should remain the same regardless of generation. And I think both 054A and OHP fit that trend.

Well I don't think the USN wants a frigate with SPY-1Fs and masses of VLS. But I think 16-32VLS and a new generation medium range PAR (either active, passive, fixed or rotating) are probably on the cards.

Click to expand...

I think the 054B will be bigger mainly for the purpose of being able to load 32 of the newer (larger) VLS cells. If the PLAN can get those quad-packing SAM's going, just by this you will achieve a significant improvement in all areas of combat.

BTW, I found this DK-10 mockup on the internet recently:

Jeff Head said:

What you say here is true...if you load them up with AEGIS.

So we agree 100% on that.

However, that's not always necessary. For lower threat environments where you may not send a full blown, lathered up AEGIS DDG, you can send a decent, cheaper FFG with 3D radars and cooperative engagements capabilities. Which would be a lot cheaper than a full blown AEGIS or "frigate-sized" AEGIS system but still give them state of the art, modern capabilities just the same. That's what the patrol frigate concept is all about.

Something that has full capabilities in terms of defense and offense for the particular threat environment (which the LCS was designed NOT to have outside of modules that must be swapped out), that would allow it to do its mission and be able to confront and defeat other nation's corvettes or light frigates should they run up against them.

Anyhow, my original point here was that the Perrys, for their time, were designed to be multi-role. That's all.

And they have been upgraded by other nations to maintain that multi-role capability...again, without gong a full AEGIS route.

Click to expand...

This is actually exactly my conception of a future PLAN frigate is. Somewhat more advanced than 054A but not designed for high intensity AAW by use of Aegis-type combat data systems or radars.

Solaris said:

I think the 054B will be bigger mainly for the purpose of being able to load 32 of the newer (larger) VLS cells. If the PLAN can get those quad-packing SAM's going, just by this you will achieve a significant improvement in all areas of combat.

BTW, I found this DK-10 mockup on the internet recently

Click to expand...

DK-10 is definitely a top contender to be quad packed IMO. 50km range like ESSM, but has the benefit of being active radar guided



Only limitation is that at present, it's folded diameter is a teensy bit big to be quad packed into a 0.85m wide cell. However I'm sure the design can be modified to fit it if PLAN is lined up to buy it.

This is actually exactly my conception of a future PLAN frigate is. Somewhat more advanced than 054A but not designed for high intensity AAW by use of Aegis-type combat data systems or radars.

Click to expand...

I think even lower intensity ships in the modern day have some facets of aegis type combat systems: modern CICs, datalinks, integrated and user friendly combat systems that reduce crew work load etc.

But they can have reduced performance for multi target engagement, fewer consoles/smaller CIC, less high performance radar, poorer EW as I mentioned before.

Key point is that whether a ship's "aegis-ness" should not be considered as a categorical measure but a continuous one.
Personally I think the word "aegis," when used as a generic term of ships capability, should simply be said as "modern" instead. Or, maybe we should unlink the word aegis from the specific combat system of the USN and use it as a term that any navy can use, such as how dreadnoughts were named for ships following the watershed design of HMS dreadnought. But that would mean any ship with a decent radar, VLS, combat management system, datalinks, could be considered "aegis". Even 054A.

Bltizo said:

I think even lower intensity ships in the modern day have some facets of aegis type combat systems: modern CICs, datalinks, integrated and user friendly combat systems that reduce crew work load etc.

But they can have reduced performance for multi target engagement, fewer consoles/smaller CIC, less high performance radar, poorer EW as I mentioned before.

Key point is that whether a ship's "aegis-ness" should not be considered as a categorical measure but a continuous one.
Personally I think the word "aegis," when used as a generic term of ships capability, should simply be said as "modern" instead. Or, maybe we should unlink the word aegis from the specific combat system of the USN and use it as a term that any navy can use, such as how dreadnoughts were named for ships following the watershed design of HMS dreadnought. But that would mean any ship with a decent radar, VLS, combat management system, datalinks, could be considered "aegis". Even 054A.

Click to expand...

When I use the word Aegis-like I specifically refer to combat data systems that are peers or near peers to it, and not just to combat data systems that are more advanced than previous PLAN systems. AFAIK the USN uses 2 types of combat data systems: the Ticos and Burkes use Aegis paired with SPY-1/SPG-62. Every other ship uses SSDS, which is compatible with Aegis, CEC, Link 16, etc. I see the same bilevel differentiation in the PLAN going forward. Type 052C/D's and Type 055's will use a high end combat data system paired with their AESA radars presumably giving those ships a massively higher AAW capability (at presumably massively higher costs), while the rest use some less capable system, including the 054B.

Solaris said:

When I use the word Aegis-like I specifically refer to combat data systems that are peers or near peers to it, and not just to combat data systems that are more advanced than previous PLAN systems. AFAIK the USN uses 2 types of combat data systems: the Ticos and Burkes use Aegis paired with SPY-1/SPG-62. Every other ship uses SSDS, which is compatible with Aegis, CEC, Link 16, etc. I see the same bilevel differentiation in the PLAN going forward. Type 052C/D's and Type 055's will use a high end combat data system paired with their AESA radars presumably giving those ships a massively higher AAW capability (at presumably massively higher costs), while the rest use some less capable system, including the 054B.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that we will see a stratification in (relative capability of) combat systems between different ship types, as well as stratification in overall (relative) capability.

But what I'm cautioning is that in coming years, we might see frigates with equivalent or better combat data management systems than early block aegis ships as a result of technological advancement and an overall positive shift in the bell curve of a navy's surface combatant structure.


If anything, the SPY-1/SPG-62 combination is looking more and more antiquated as the years go by, so using it as a fixed metric to measure aegis-ness won't work as we start to see future frigates with more modern combat systems and more advanced radars than early burkes. Of course, that isn't to say they are more capable in an absolute sense because a frigate will still obviously lack the large VLS numbers and its radar may also be less powerful.
(And in some ways, the 054As sea eagle/orekh combination is comparable to SPY-1/SPG-62)

Bltizo said:

Yes, I agree that we will see a stratification in (relative capability of) combat systems between different ship types, as well as stratification in overall (relative) capability.

But what I'm cautioning is that in coming years, we might see frigates with equivalent or better combat data management systems than early block aegis ships as a result of technological advancement and an overall positive shift in the bell curve of a navy's surface combatant structure.

If anything, the SPY-1/SPG-62 combination is looking more and more antiquated as the years go by, so using it as a fixed metric to measure aegis-ness won't work as we start to see future frigates with more modern combat systems and more advanced radars than early burkes. Of course, that isn't to say they are more capable in an absolute sense because a frigate will still obviously lack the large VLS numbers and its radar may also be less powerful.
(And in some ways, the 054As sea eagle/orekh combination is comparable to SPY-1/SPG-62)

Click to expand...

We will have to disagree that a 054B will achieve some kind of AAW capability that is in excess of or even approaching the capability of this, yes, decades-old Aegis system, even ignoring the VLS numbers and radar power.

Solaris said:

We will have to disagree that a 054B will achieve some kind of AAW capability that is in excess of or even approaching the capability of this, yes, decades-old Aegis system, even ignoring the VLS numbers and radar power.

Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't saying the PLANs 054A successor will necessarily eclipse past aegis ships in combat systems and AAW even accounting for VLS and radar power, etc, but rather that it will happen, whether it is in the upcoming generation or frigates or the one after.

I was more cautioning the idea that FFGs cant have aegis levels of combat systems and AAW and situational awareness, because FFGs will keep advancing in future generations, but the fixed metric definition of aegis-ness will not, because it refers to the specific hardware and software on a specific few types of ship of a given frozen time period.

Bltizo said:

Well, I wasn't saying the PLANs 054A successor will necessarily eclipse past aegis ships in combat systems and AAW even accounting for VLS and radar power, etc, but rather that it will happen, whether it is in the upcoming generation or frigates or the one after.

I was more cautioning the idea that FFGs cant have aegis levels of combat systems and AAW and situational awareness, because FFGs will keep advancing in future generations, but the fixed metric definition of aegis-ness will not, because it refers to the specific hardware and software on a specific few types of ship of a given frozen time period.

Click to expand...

Well, my view of "AEGIS-like" in the sense of using the term as a general descriptive term, and divorcing it from specific brands of hardware and software, would be this:

1) Uses PARS, or APARS for its principle radar sensors.
2) Uses VLS systems for its principle ASW and ASuW weapons.
3) Has its weapons systems integrated into a sophisticated battle management system where detection, discrimination, acquisition, and fire control are all a part of that system.
4) Is capable of leading a cooperative engagement scenario with other vessels that are so equipped to be controlled by its package.

I would say that any vessel that is capable of doing these four things is AEGIS-like. I also agree that it is likely that in the future, as the technology progresses and is further micronized, that smaller vessels will gain this capability where today it is not economic to have them do so.

But that's just my own view and opinion.

Bltizo said:

Well, I wasn't saying the PLANs 054A successor will necessarily eclipse past aegis ships in combat systems and AAW even accounting for VLS and radar power, etc, but rather that it will happen, whether it is in the upcoming generation or frigates or the one after.

I was more cautioning the idea that FFGs cant have aegis levels of combat systems and AAW and situational awareness, because FFGs will keep advancing in future generations, but the fixed metric definition of aegis-ness will not, because it refers to the specific hardware and software on a specific few types of ship of a given frozen time period.

Click to expand...

Now we are talking semantics, but we are also talking about the near future, as in the very next iteration of a PLAN frigate. In 30 years who knows what kind of capabilities we will see (lasers/EM weapons, rail guns, etc.), but I think we are ok to speculate on maybe the next 5-10 years at least; for my part I am only speculating on the 054B here and its relation to other ships of the PLAN and the USN. And in that time I don't see any PLAN frigate systems surpassing the Aegis, which I repeatedly use because I feel it is still the gold standard of combat data systems even after all this time. And that is because it has been continuously updated and its bugs worked out over a period of decades, a learning process that the PLAN and its systems have not had. If you like, though, we can start referring to 'Aegis' as a placeholder for whatever the most powerful/capable combat data system is, now or 50 years from now.