The United States and China are both in the process of
building a new class of frigate. The US
is building the Constellation class frigate and China is building the Type 054B
which is an evolutionary advance on the Type 054A. China has built/building 50 Type 054A and an
unknown number of Type 054B for a total of, perhaps, 70 some Type 054 frigates. In contrast, the US plans to build 20
Constellation class ships.
Let’s take a look at the cursory specs and see how they
compare.
 |
| Type 054B Launch |
As the specs demonstrate, the Constellation is just a bit
inferior in several respects with the only advantage being a greater number of
anti-ship missiles. The Chinese frigate
has better stealth, a more powerful gun, ASW torpedoes, and an extra close in
weapon. Based just on these specs, the
Type 054B is the superior vessel. That’s
a disappointing commentary on ship design and the underlying combat-mentality
that went into each country’s design.
The US had an opportunity to produce a modern, state of the
art, optimized frigate and instead opted for an obsolete base design some 20
years old. As with the Burke Flt XXIV,
or whatever they’re up to now, the Navy has opted for the illusion of a safe
design instead of a modern combat capable and survivable design. China, on the other hand, has opted for a
state of the art modern frigate.
Frigates are ASW ships. The Constellation has NO torpedoes of its own? Do they assume the helo will magically be able to always be available fly and drop torpedoes? I suppose they can be retrofitted, but with all the bewildering amount of changes from the original European version, you would think more not less ASW armament could be added.
ReplyDeleteSince the navy keeps wanting to add more new unproven tech, how about an overpriced update to depth charges and mousetraps that could at least have some utility.
VLS ASROC
Delete"VLS ASROC"
DeleteVL-ASROC is listed as a "future" capability and does not currently exist for the Constellation class.
"The Constellation has NO torpedoes of its own?"
DeleteWorse, no VL-ASROC.
"Frigates are ASW ships."
Constellation class is NOT a ASW frigate. It's a mini-Burke but with substantially less capability.
054a usually carry 8 VLS SAROC (Yu-8) in its 32 VLS (rest 24 for HQ-16 SAM). There is no information on 054B yet but size of its VLS are the same. These VLS are smaller than 052D and 055.
DeleteSAROC are for long distance while these 324mm for short range.
Giving Burkes also carry VL-ASROC in their VLS, there is no reason Constellation will have. Problem is delay after delay include R&D on key parts not finished yet. We won't have full picture in near future.
"...how about an overpriced update to depth charges and mousetraps that could at least have some utility."
DeleteThat probably would be better than a lot of ideas being implemented now!
I'd like to see an anti-submarine missile with more range. It could be an upgraded VL-ASROC, a dusted-off and revived RUM-125 Sea Lance, or something else.
I'd also like to see the surface fleet equipped with longer-ranged torpedoes. New 21-inch (533 mm) torpedoes could arm ASW corvettes and frigates. ASW destroyers might carry 25.6-inch (650 mm torpedoes).
"I'd like to see an anti-submarine missile with more range. "
DeleteWhat range would you see as being useful and effective? Consider that submarine torpedoes have ranges of 20-50 miles.
If you have contact on a submarine at extended range, presumably via a helo, wouldn't it be easier just to have the helo drop a torpedo?
"Giving Burkes also carry VL-ASROC in their VLS, there is no reason Constellation will have."
DeleteYou seem to be suggesting that there is no need for a Constellation to have ASROC since a Burke can supply it. That would be correct if we could guarantee that there was always a Burke paired with a Constellation and within range of the target.
The reality, of course, is that frigates will often operate on their own (patrol, convoy escort, picket duty, etc.) or simply be too far forward of a surface group for a Burke to be in range (remember that VL-ASROC has a range of only about ten miles). For example, if a Burke were, say, two miles separated from the frigate, the effective ASROC range for the frigate (via the Burke) would only be around 8 miles. If the Burkes are close to the high value units and the Constellations are deployed as an outer escort, the Burkes ASROC probably couldn't even reach the frigates (wartime groups don't sail bunched up like you see in publicity photos).
If ASROC is deemed useful (and I'm not sure it is) then the frigate needs its own.
"What range would you see as being useful and effective?"
DeleteI figure, 40 miles. The RUM-125 Sea Lance may have had a range of 40 miles, though that figure may have never been nailed down.
"If you have contact on a submarine at extended range, presumably via a helo, wouldn't it be easier just to have the helo drop a torpedo?"
Yes, but here is what got me thinking about extending the missile's range:
1. I imagine the true capabilities of the SQS-53C sonar are a secret, but I've come across claims that its effective range is over 40 miles. (An ASW frigate might be using a smaller bow-mounted sonar, but a destroyer would use the SQS-53C or a follow-up).
2. I found the DASH helicopter to be very interesting and asked about developing a modern, similarly basic counterpart. You asked me if it made sense to lengthen a ship for the landing pad and hangar, aviation fuel tanks, and extra berthing spaces and potable water for the technicians, or instead to develop a VL-ASROC with greater range? The answer to your question is that an improved missile a better idea.
3. On the fleet structure page, your frigate (destroyer escort) does not carry helicopters, so perhaps it would benefit from ASW missiles with a longer range. They might not fit in the pepperbox launcher your DE has. That launcher has its strengths and weaknesses compared to a VLS, but I'm getting off topic.
4. I really like this article; it is very thoughtful. https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2024/02/a-second-life-for-retiring-burkes.html Quote: "...(we ought to develop a substantially longer range VL-ASROC!)"
So, that is why I am interested in longer-ranged ASW missiles.
Today's sentence caught my attention:
"If ASROC is deemed useful (and I'm not sure it is) then the frigate needs its own."
I would set up an ASW frigate (FF) with two 16-cell Mk41 VLS modules. Eight cells would be quad-packed with 32 ESSMS. The remaining 24 cells could carry VL-ASROC missiles. That may seem like a lot. Some of the old Cold War frigates had no reloads for the pepperbox launcher. I've read that some had eight reloads.
I ask, has a weapon like the ASROC ever been used in combat? Do we know how effective it would be? I've read that "hundreds" of ASW munitions were expended in the Falklands. I know the old joke about what happens when you assume, but I think it is reasonable to assume that fighting modern submarines won't be easy. Twenty-four ASW missiles might not be too many.
We absolutely need a longer ranged VL-ASROC but we need to carefully consider the likely tactical scenarios as we develop specifications.
DeleteThe proper reply to, 'why not just have the helo drop a torpedo', is that the helo only has a maximum of two torpedoes and that's far from a guarantee of a kill especially considering that the torpedoes are the lightweight versions which are not considered one-hit/one-kill. Ominously, ASROC uses the lightweight torpedo (can't be a heavy torp due to size constraints).
"come across claims that its effective range is over 40 miles."
The SQS-53C is both active and passive. There are no definitive public statements of active range but my best estimate is that it's on the order of 5 miles. Passive mode can produce contacts out to forty miles or so using convergence zone ducting but the conditions have to be just right. I suspect that's the number you've seen.
Convergence zone detection gives an approximate bearing but does not generate a range or firing solution. In fact, it's hard to determine which convergence zone you're hearing (you're aware that there may be multiple convergence zones at multiple distances, right?).
So, using the -53 passive capability as a justification for extended range ASROC is insufficient, by itself.
"I really like this article; it is very thoughtful"
They're all thoughtful! :)
"The proper reply to, 'why not just have the helo drop a torpedo', is that the helo only has a maximum of two torpedoes and that's far from a guarantee of a kill especially considering that the torpedoes are the lightweight versions which are not considered one-hit/one-kill."
DeleteGood commentary. Thank you.
China has? "has opted for a state of the art modern frigate." I mean OK it looks nice I suppose. But we know it has undergone rigorous tests? Based the PLAN's deep combat experience of recent years. No political hackery or well reported corruption could be involved. The US design must be inferior? I can't help but see a bit of a reverse of the foreign ship yards are superior thing here.
ReplyDelete"The US design must be inferior? I can't help but see a bit of a reverse of the foreign ship yards are superior thing here."
DeleteI have no access to internal Chinese test data or evaluations of the Type 054B. I'm basing my assessment on a visual comparison and a listing of cursory specs. Given that, my conclusion is objective and stands. There is no other conclusion possible from the information we have to work with.
If you have access to Chinese data or reports that would contradict my assessment, please share. Otherwise, accept the assessment.
If we ever get comprehensive data on Chinese ships, we'll reevaluate, if necessary.
Kath, I have something you might enjoy reading if you haven't seen it already. Its been really well thought out, and is to at least the standard of this blog. Must have taken quite a while to research and write.
DeleteIn addition, Chinese shipbuilding in the civilian sector has a pretty good reputation. Chinese built ships are not sinking at a noticeably higher rate than anyone else, and they are building up the Navy side so fast with evolutionary development rather than revolutionary that you kind of have to admire them. The old attitude that anything made in China is junk is so 1990s.
https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/china-s-navy-is-using-quantity-to-build-quality
"Otherwise, accept the assessment."
DeleteYup, when you are building 1000 ships per year vs the US building 10 per year you are bound to learn how to do things right pretty quickly. ONI says China has 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of the US. How many giant Chinese shipbuilding cranes do you have to sabotage vs how many giant US shipbuilding cranes. It hard to believe how fragile and shallow the US logistics train has become. And it doesn't seem like anyone cares much.
I've also been learning more about how shallow the precision guided weapon pool actually is. I know its been discussed here before, but reality is starting to stare us in the face with what looks like Israel taking on Hezbollah in Lebanon which could quickly involve Iran, Russia, China and even Turkey if Israel uses Greek sector airfields on Cyprus.
The world is very quickly becoming a much more dangerous place.
Divert the budget from buying 20 Constellation class frigates to ordering 054Bs from China and you might get 40 054Bs, plus the bonus of early completion. Win-win.
ReplyDelete(Okay, just kidding.)
We are missing some relevant points of comparison. Propulsion. Who has better sound emission, Range? What's the survivability standard? Connie probably has he better aviation potential if the Navy ever wises up and sticks with a 2 MH-60 detachment. That one is obviously another problem they will magically discover down the road. We also don't know the sonar situation although with no bow Connie is off to a bad start.
ReplyDeleteBest comparison is that one exists and is in the water while the other isn't.
"relevant points of comparison"
DeleteAnd if you have any actual data about those, you let me know and I'll reevaluate. Until then, we stick with what I've given.
"2 MH-60 detachment."
I do not know that the Constellation is capable of operating 2 -60's. It's advertised as one -60 and a Fire Scout. If you have definitive information about this, let me know.
I'd go buy the new Japanese Mogami class frigates. I would see if you could add a Phalanx and double the VLS cells to 32. Otherwise it matches the Chinese one.
ReplyDeleteI like the concept of this ship. Anti sub and mine warfare. Wonder why they curtailed the order from 22 to 12 ships though.
DeleteThey'll continue to build the frigates but modified to an anti-air version.
DeleteI just marvel that we can't take a ship of this size and put a 5" gun on it instead, 2-4 Rams instead of 1, and worst case stretch it a few feet longer and double the size of the VLS. Cost increase would be a rounding error given the total cost of this ship.
ReplyDeleteWe can. It's a budgetary decision
DeleteI'm OK with no torpedos. Wrong size ship to be chasing submarines.
ReplyDeleteYou do know that the traditional role of the modern frigate is ASW, right?
Delete7000 tons is too large for a sub-chasing frigate.
Delete"7000 tons is too large for a sub-chasing frigate."
DeleteCouldn't agree more. We were incredibly effective chasing down Soviet subs with our 2500 ton DDEs during the Cold War. We had US fleet SAW to cover us so we could concentrate on the ASW mission.
Technology has improved so much since then that even 2500 tons might be excessive.
Build single purpose warships. They work so much better at the mission required.
How relevant is the gun for a warship, beyond warning shots? Let's face it, the gun is pointless.
ReplyDeleteSure, a 100mm gun or a 5" gun has more range, but so what? Is that range getting used? The only instance that matters is for shore bombardment, and CNO has repeatedly shown his opinion that 5" is irrelevant for shore bombardment.
sounds like the fighter mafia in the 60s. Fighter's don't need guns. Nice to have one or more for self defence from small boat swarms and the like.
Delete"How relevant is the gun for a warship"
DeleteHow long have you been reading this blog? There are many potential uses for a naval gun, as has been repeatedly and explicitly spelled out in these writings. I've even written illustrative fictional stories about it! Go back and reread the blog!
"CNO has repeatedly shown his opinion that 5" is irrelevant for shore bombardment."
Incorrect! I've stated that small caliber - such as 5" or less - guns are ineffective for general fire support and area bombardment especially against fortified positions and hardened targets. However, in specific cases, 5" guns are highly useful and completely appropriate. The outstanding example is the WWII Normandy assault where destroyers provided precision fire support against German artillery and gun positions.
Okay, if it's defense against small boat swarms, then 127mm doesn't fit the bill because you need gun depression and a high rate of fire, so that means 57mm and 76mm are adequete calibers.
DeleteAnd sine 5" is ineffective outside very specific instances, is it worth carrying a weapon for that use case? How often do we see this use case happening? 5" cannot do area bombardment and cannot destroy fortifications. It can not supress enemy guns becase those guns will be dug in further beyond the shoreline, out of range of 5".
The failure to keep working on the 8" shell was a missed opportunity.
I used to advocate developing new 5-inch guns with higher rates of fire for use against small boat swarms, but I've changed my mind. I don't think that is a good idea. Modern 5-inch guns with air burst shells might work well against inexpensive, UAVs, but that is speculation.
DeleteThe book On the Gunline: U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Navy Warships Off Vietnam, 1965-1973 says that light and heavy cruisers still used their 5-inch guns against smaller targets. The book also says destroyer escorts used 3"/50 guns to shell enemy positions, though this weapon was considered marginal for that mission. The 5-inch and 76 mm guns might be useful for fire support when the enemy is nearby friendly troops. I realize that a ship is not as stable a platform as land artillery, and whether naval artillery should be considered in that situation would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. (The Navy and Marines might have a policy for this, but I don't know.)
"The failure to keep working on the 8" shell was a missed opportunity."
Everyone here probably agrees with you on that. However, CNO's vision for a future fleet includes smaller, more specialized warships, and the Mk71 8-inch gun might be too big for destroyers as he envisions them.
None of this is to say the 5" gun is ideal for all situations. But with respect, it is not worthless, either.
"5" is ineffective outside very specific instances"
DeleteYou have a badly flawed view of 5" guns. They are useful for blockade work, stopping/sinking smaller cargo ships, dealing with larger patrol boats and corvettes, providing shore fire support, conducting precision fire support, bombarding non-hardened facilities, and conducting anti-ship combat, among other possible uses.
The USS Wainwright and USS Bagley sank an Iranian La Combattante II fast attack craft with 5" guns during Operation Praying Matis after multiple Standard missiles and Harpoons failed to sink it.
"127mm doesn't fit the bill because you need gun depression and a high rate of fire"
You seem to have an unrealistic concept about small boat defense. The US 5" gun can depress to -15 deg and deal with any of the larger missile boats that are ubiquitous among our likely enemies.
The 5" gun has limitations, to be sure, but it is highly useful as a general purpose gun. There's a reason it became one of the standard guns on almost every US warship in WWII and many amphibious/logistic ships.
"the Mk71 8-inch gun might be too big for destroyers as he envisions them."
DeleteCorrect.
I see. 5" is good for shore bombardment when CNO proposes it. I've noticed that you don't favor it when other posters suggest it.
DeleteI'm going to spell this out one more time and hope you actually read what's written.
Delete5" is ineffective for general area bombardment such as is conducted as a pre-assault bombardment. 5" is ineffective against hardened targets.
5" is useful for soft target, precision fire work as was graphically demonstrated at Normandy.
Most people who promote 5" do so as a REPLACEMENT for large caliber guns rather than as a niche SUPPLEMENT.
Read what I've actually written and consider your next comment very carefully.
With all the issues of constructing Constellation, while the ship design is not yet complete, ( the Constellation design is now larger than the FREMM ),we now we have a weapon such as vertical launch ASROC being considered ! What other systems will be added ? (SEWIP block 3, directors for ASROC, modifications to the engineering plant,software. or who knows what else will be added ! CONOPS was not considered ! I take your point about the NAVY designing a modern steath frigate. The original FREMM design variant, chosen by the US NAVY was the ASW variant .
ReplyDeleteYou might want to throw Japan's Mogami-class for comparison. It's a bit shorter, but features a stealthy design. Japan appears to be acquiring about 20 ships, but may build some more for export.
ReplyDeleteIn the old days, nations did their best to spy on or observe other countries naval construction, and build equal or better vessels. While being reactionary in shipbuilding isnt the best strategy, at the same time, at least you have some benchmarks to attain and surpass. We used to lead the way, but havent for some time, and maybe we should be looking at our competitor for our future benchmarks, because putting in the effort to build a second-best ship, especially one that won't be built in overwhelming numbers is foolish. On another note, somthing I noted was the ships speed. While CVBGs obviously dont run around at Flank all the time, the common 30+kts spec wasnt continued for these ships. So if these ships are to be integrated into battle groups, how much of an issue might that be, especially if theyre used for ASW where sprint/drift with their tail would be a common tactic?? And what about when the carrier is doing flight ops, and they can't hardly keep up?? Theres just so much wrong with this programme!! It feels like its a mistake before the first ship hits the water, and should be cancelled and re-thought out now...
ReplyDeleteThe author states, "As the specs demonstrate, the Constellation is just a bit inferior in several respects with the only advantage being a greater number of anti-ship missiles. missiles."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, we can think about why we changed from 054A to 054B, mainly because of the larger tonnage, and secondly because of the consideration of adapting to the newer modern standards (stealthy appearance, money-saving double-sided AESA radar).
This type of frigate is obviously designed to match China's carrier strike group for ocean warfare (increased tonnage, no significant change in configuration).
Why don't they add a bunch of weapons? Because they have a large number of 055/052D destroyers, and anti-ship missiles will be deployed on these major warships.
The 054B will specialize in anti-submarine and general purpose miscellaneous missions.
They are very confident that the design is really based on the mission requirements they have set, regardless of outside eyes and comparisons.
They didn't build anything like the Jumwalt/LCS/Constellation, etc., which would be regrettable.
Luckily, the US Navy is starting to follow China's example of taking small steps and not aiming too high (or is it no longer capable of doing so?), and is building ships like the Constellation. The US Navy is starting to follow China's example of taking small steps forward, no longer aiming too high (or no longer capable of doing so?), and starting to build mediocre but useful warships like the Constellation.
The only regret is that the price is not significantly different from that of the Arleigh Burke destroyers, so the benefit is very low.
I don't think "no ASW" is correct for the FFG-62. The plan includes:
ReplyDelete- SQQ-89A(V)15,
- MK-41 VLS (VL-ASROC capable)
- One MH-60R.
No over-the-side torpedoes, but honestly those are kind of useless against modern submarine threats.
A second MH-60R would be nice, but not sure hangar can accommodate.
Correction. The FFG-62 will carry the SQQ-89(V)16 Undersea Warfare Combat System, which includes a variable depth sonar (VDS) and a multi-function towed array (MFTA).
Delete"none" ASW in the post table refers to weapons, not sensors or software.
DeleteThe Constellation does not have VL-ASROC and there are no plans to add it that I'm aware of. The official Navy info graphic lists VL-ASROC as a "future" capability which means it will never happen.
The Constellation is clearly not intended to have ASW as its primary function. Evidence is the absence of a ASW torpedoes, no VL-ASROC, and only a single helo. Another major unknown is the degree of acoustic silencing, if any. When you add that up, it's obvious that ASW is a distant tertiary function, if even that.
I don't disagree. I'd accept low-end ASW capability if the FFG-6× was cheap enough to be procured in numbers. Unfortunately that doesn't seen to be the case.
DeleteNot only a farce that they can't "out-capable" a Chinese equivalent, but took a foreign design that is already looking to move on in that respective country to a next gen design and we yet still can't even get it launched in a timely fashion. Has US shipbuilding really fallen so far that we can't even design one, let alone build one, without it taking 20 years and then there is the multitude of issues post launch? If they were going the route of using one that is out there, at least make it the most capable frigate in the world using sound, proven principals.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing fundamentally groundbreaking about the Type 54B, it's merely an evolution of the Type 54A.
ReplyDeleteYet at the same time, such a thing seems to be beyond the reach of most armchair generals and thinkers.
The general consensus is that China's ship designing and building system is one that is built on borrowed time (being heavily subsidized and what not) which cannot be implemented in the USA for one reason or another.
Ignoring all that hollow rhetoric, the fact remains that China can get the kind of ship it wants, when it wants, how it wants, and how many it wants. And it had been doing it for decades now. While the armchair generals are just twiddling their thumbs in their seats hoping that new ships will fall from the sky like manna.
Nothing seems to be good enough or possible for them. Any attempts to oversee and direct naval shipbuilding and design is derided as "socialist".
These armchair generals are in a sense, surrendering already and are just merely crafting an excuse for the inevitable humiliate.