Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: PLAN new ship just about to launch: 054A Frigate
YelliChink    10/6/2006 8:22:26 PM
PLAN is just about to have a new frigate launched: 054A. This one is based on 054 (PRCS Ma-Anssn) which has some stealth feature, but equiped with Russian build radars and ESM and has a vertical launched short range missile system. The air-defense system may be Chinese made HQ-16 or Russian SA-N-9. No further detail is available at the moment.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
YelliChink       10/6/2006 8:28:42 PM
 
From its appearance, the ship can be said as well thought and well designed, although the compartment and capability of its combat system is unknown. The stealth feature is dangerous because PLAN still operates lots of old ships that reflect radio waves like angle reflectors.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    YC   10/6/2006 8:42:48 PM

 The stealth feature is dangerous because PLAN still operates lots of old ships that reflect radio waves like angle reflectors.
Remember that stealth varies with perspective.  
From a surface ship the 054A may appear a bit stealthy, but from a airborne radar the ship looks like it would  light up like a christmas tree.   
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn       10/6/2006 10:59:11 PM

It has been reported the Type 054 only has older HQ-7 system. The source is the United States Navy, which I think would have better sources than sinodefense.com

I think the HQ-16 listing is just rumor.

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       10/11/2006 7:55:08 PM
To be fair to mainland China, they are advancing their navy by leaps and bounds.  Compare the semi-modern ships they are geting today to the Luda class etc which they based their fleet round 10 years ago.
 
Quote    Reply

Francois       10/11/2006 10:01:33 PM
Still, they need some coherency.
Every six months, a new boat appears, it is the best in the world, and then nothing.
The naval division of the People's Army is still an handicaped infant.
Nothing fits together!
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn       10/11/2006 11:04:23 PM

Still, they need some coherency.

Every six months, a new boat appears, it is the best in the world, and then nothing.

The naval division of the People's Army is still an handicaped infant.

Nothing fits together!

Actually, I would argue this is a wise strategy.

If you aren't in a naval race, and China isn't, the best way to move your fleet forward is with short runs of ships introducing new technologies steadily in each new class.

This is the model the US Navy really needs to adopt, short runs of new ship classes with a steady upgrade program. The advantage of this strategy is the design base stays at its peek by introducing a new class every few years.

This is the model for the Japanese submarine programs, and as GF can tell you, it is extreamly successful.

BTW, the reason China isn't in a Naval race is because their focus is on anti-navy. Their anti-navy strategy is designed to make the US Navy ineffective, by forcing them to stand off at ranges beyond effective strike capability.




 
Quote    Reply

EW3       10/12/2006 12:17:32 AM
Since you haven't been in the Navy, you have to be the son of a USN officer (probably O-6 or above)
 
 
Quote    Reply

Francois       10/12/2006 4:57:34 AM


Actually, I would argue this is a wise strategy.

If you aren't in a naval race, and China isn't, the best way to move
your fleet forward is with short runs of ships introducing new
technologies steadily in each new class.


This is the model the US Navy really needs to adopt, short runs of new
ship classes with a steady upgrade program. The advantage of this
strategy is the design base stays at its peek by introducing a new
class every few years.

This is the model for the Japanese submarine programs, and as GF can tell you, it is extreamly successful.

BTW, the reason China isn't in a Naval race is because their focus is
on anti-navy. Their anti-navy strategy is designed to make the US Navy
ineffective, by forcing them to stand off at ranges beyond effective
strike capability.
The problem I have with this is that you need, before such implementation, to have any kind of nature technological base.
That is not the case of China.
 
They go in any direction aimlessly. It is costly and ineffective.
 
Regarding the japanese O-class, they follow one single impletary path, since the first Oyashio (1962), which were an evol of the KD-7 class +lessons learned from the Ming. They kept a straight line of design implementing new techs with any new generation.
 
I can't see anything the like in PLA-N.
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn       10/12/2006 12:00:44 PM
 
I guess I see it differently.
 
They are building medium sized runs of frigate sized ships to keep the industrial base strong, and they appear to be running a new 2 ship destroyer class every 2 years with incrimental technological improvements as their technology base catches up to their industrial base.
 
The augment their slow development on the top end by buying from Russia, which provides a basis of comparison for future improvements to both the industrial base and technological base.
 
By additionally refitting older ships for new roles, for example very old patrol class vessels becoming ADP destroyer escort type platforms, and building smaller stealth ships they are additionally able to reuse old platforms for new ideas, removing the need to develop experimental class ships.
 
I don't see the aimless behavior you do, can you describe what about their strategy is aimless?
 
Quote    Reply

Francois       10/15/2006 9:52:01 PM

 I guess I see it differently.
 

They are building medium sized runs of frigate sized ships to keep the industrial base strong, and they appear to be running a new 2 ship destroyer class every 2 years with incrimental technological improvements as their technology base catches up to their industrial base.

The augment their slow development on the top end by buying from Russia, which provides a basis of comparison for future improvements to both the industrial base and technological base.
 
By additionally refitting older ships for new roles, for example very old patrol class vessels becoming ADP destroyer escort type platforms, and building smaller stealth ships they are additionally able to reuse old platforms for new ideas, removing the need to develop experimental class ships.
 
I don't see the aimless behavior you do, can you describe what about their strategy is aimless?


The Chinese military is so secretive that we all have our own speculative vision of it, I have to consent.

I follow you for the "anti-navy" part, but only partially.
Actually, in my thinking, PLA-N is playing that card against the US, in a Taiwanese scenario, or to gain a permanent access to the Pacific Ocean (for its deterence assets).
In this case, they (we all) know that they can't win with "conventional" forces (navy vs navy).
 
But looking elsewhere (South China Sea), they need a strong navy.
They claim the whole place, and not that ALL their best assets are based in the East Sea Fleet.
They want there an overhelming superiority. And they don't see only the protection of the SLOCs IMHO.
 
I don't understand your analogy with the japanese sub fleet, and I hope you can enlight me.
 
Now, the chinese are trying everything they can try, knowing they have a denied access to superior western designs (embargo).
But why don't they stick to one design, and improve it linearly and constantly?
Why do they design so many hull with so many different systems, and never get to the climax of so needed technology?
If you make one step in every direction, you are prone to walk around and go nowhere, aren't you?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics