Bangladesh
Bangladesh Navy indigenous Frigate development program.
- Thread starter monitor
- Start date
Bangladesh
Expect @Nilgiri to not respond as the Type-054B can quad pack 4x32 Medium range missile(70km) for a total of 128 SAMs whereas the best that India will have soon is the P-17B class that carries 32 Barak-8 SAMs that are slightly longer ranged at up to 90-100km.
In fact there is a good case for arguing that the Type-054B frigate is actually a more powerful ship than the
P-17B destroyer despite the fact it has 2/3rds of the weight.
Proof/official statement????
The Ronin
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,386
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Type 54 A or B whatever it is, will be on top of BN's frigate list because of budget, price, weapon commonality. It's an easy assumption, don't think China will let go their 2nd biggest arms exporter to European option that easy nor BN will try if they can get a good customized frigate with European radar-sensors in cheapest price among all other offer.
No blabbering. Do you have official statement or proof that @UKBengali is claiming "incoming Chinese Type-054B frigate"?
Brainsucker
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,679
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I can understand the skepticism but let's look at this logically.
You have a batch of six frigates being built (over time) at roughly $350 Million a copy. which makes the package well north of $2 Billion. For any nation (especially China) this is a lucrative export order.
Navantia, Fincantieri, DCNS, Damen, all will be interested and will offer their best designs. There is no 'security issue' on sharing stealth designs for frigates. China at best would keep their proprietary tactical data link system a secret. Radar sensors and electronics made in China are all 'inspired by' Western makes like RACAL, Ericsson, Hughes etc., nothing 'proprietary' there.
What big secret will the Chinese keep by not offering their best designs and hardware?
What will they hold back ensuring that they win by offering the most modern design and price-bidding for this contract?
I'd say not much.
The integrated mast, 130mm gun and universal VLS is a fairly common commodity these days. So is the type 730 CIWS (again, an 'inspiration' from Russia). If the Italian and French builders offer a FREMM type design with all the goodies, will the Chinese be foolish and not offer the same level of armament?
Look at the crow's nest mast of the 054A and see if in today's stealth-centric world, it cuts it anymore...
Now let's look at the clean integrated mast of 054B with APAR as you mentioned,
Pretty standard stuff....
Sorry, but FREMM is a 6800 tonnes Frigate. It is out of your criteria of the Frigate that you want to procure. If what you seek is a 3000 - 4000 tonnes Frigate. Most of the European today Frigates have more than 5000 tonnes weight.
These are the list of 3000 - 4000 tonnes warships (not the only) :
1. 051 Luda Class Destroyer 3600 tonnes - No VLS
2. 052 Luhu Class Destroyer 4800 tonnes - No VLS
3. MEKO 360 3360 tonnes - 24 SAM VLS
4. Asagiri class Destroyer 3500 tonnes - No VLS
5. KDX-1 Okpo 3900 tonnes - 16 Sea Sparrow VLS
6. Hatakaze Class 4600 tonnes - No VLS
7. Hatsuyuki Class 3050 tonnes - No VLS
8. Kashin Class 4000 tonnes - No VLS
9. Murasame Class 4550 tonnes - No VLS
10. Takanami Class 4650 tonnes - No VLS
11. 054 A Class Frigate 4000 tonnes - 32 SAM VLS
12. Anzac Class Frigate 3600 tonnes - 8 cell MK-41 VLS
13. Brahmaputra Class Frigate 3850 tonnes - no VLS
14. Bandenburg Class Frigate 4900 tonnes - 16 SAM VLS, 2 RAM
15. Bremen Class Frigate 3680 tonnes - 16 SAM VLS, 2 RAM
16. Cassard CLass Frigate 4500 tonnes - No VLS
17. Formidable Class Frigate 3200 tonnes - 32 SAM VLS
18. etc (I'm tired to research)
Basically, almost non 3000 - 4000 tonnes warship has universal VLS. Even if there is, it has only a very limited amount of missile, like Anzac with only 8 universal VLS. So 054A is not a bad offer from the beginning after all. The 054B Frigate that still non existence even today even has more than 5000 tonnes because of the size that it has compared to 054A (search it in Chinese Defense Section, there is a comparison of size between 055, 054B and 054A. Basically 054B is way bigger than 054A).
And for Type-730 CIWS as inspired by Russian? I beg to pardon, but which Russian CIWS that the 730 CIWS inspired from? I know AK630 CIWS and Kashtan, but they are way different to type-730. But I know that Type-730 is not kept only for PLAN as Indonesia has procure this weapon for our ship. And even the PLAN 054A standard use the bigger, and better CIWS than Type-730; Type 1130 CIWS. For AK630 CIWS that offered in Export Variant, it's actually a Russian design CIWS. If you think that it's bad, then tell Russian about that.
I beg to pardon if you said that Type 054B radar / Avionic system is a pretty standard stuff, look again at the rear system. It is very similar to the 055 Destroyer radar / Avionic system. And don't tell me that 055 Destroyer's radar / avionic system is a standard stuff.
Maybe yes, standard stuff. But it is a standard stuff of the best system that western countries have today. Will they (Western countries) sell it to Bangladesh? Maybe. But also maybe not.
But I won't close the possibility that China will offer the 054B to Bangladesh. Because they have already have 052D and 055. So 054B won't be their best in today standard. Plus, they think Bangladesh as a friend. So selling one of the best stuffs is actually very possible to happen.
But the appearance of a 054B in Bangladesh Navy will throw the balance of power in the region, as Bangladesh will definitely outclass the Myanmar Navy capability.
Last edited:
The Ronin
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,386
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Did BD military ever disclose the offer they were given to public??
What's with this messy list?? Why did you bring all those non stealthy old options here too?? Stick with the French, Italian, Dutch and Chinese ones. And Incheon class do have 8 and 16 cell option with quad pack. It's not like they have to offer or we have to take the exact same 5000 ton frigate but they still can offer a ship with UVLS, better CIWS and LACM. (With 32 cell or less vls and LACM or not). There's no obligation in it , is there?? If the design is based on Type-54B which isn't even built yet it doesn't actually matter. It won't be 5000t anyway. Remember their export variant of Type-54A's displacement?? less 200 tons than the original but have a FL-3000N CIWS in addition with almost same features if i am not wrong. With France, Italy and Netherlands in competition China have to bring all the cards they can. And why did you mention FREMM? Belharra was actually offered.
this is the only tiny proof we have if we don't count other source as reliable.
http://www.theindependentbd.com/post/132616.
Brainsucker
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,679
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
For the crap list, well, just spare me for that. I spent some of my time to research for that. I know that many of them are old. I just want to say to Bilal9 that it's very rarely that a 3000 - 4000 tonnes ship has a Universal VLS.
About old or not, it doesn't matter isn't it? Even some countries still welcome an old American Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate if the US give them the green light for it. Warship is expensive. Most the best Destroyer today has the tag price of more than 1 billions USD. If you have the money, then get the best. But if not, even an old '80 era warship is still an option.
About FREMM, I just answering Bilal9, because he mentioned FREMM. And even Belharra has no universal VLS. It still use SAM VLS. But it doesn't mean that Belharra is bad. It's actually good, a very good 4000 tonnes Frigate, with of course a tag price of at least 840 million USD (for France. They'll sell with higher price to other country. French just procure 5 Belharra for 4.2 billions USD). https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...gate-designed-for-the-french-navy-and-export/
Also Incheon doesn't has UVLS either. Basically it's rarely that a ship below 5000 tonnes have Universal VLS. Maybe because they're too small for the U-VLS?
The export variant of 054A has a FL-3000 N RAM, yes. But they change the CIWS with AK-630 CIWS. not a bad CIWS, but smaller than 730 CIWS. It also has the same 76mm main gun, as the PLAN version of 054A. But the Chinese Frigate that you mentioned; with Type 730B CIWS, 130mm main gun, Universal VLS, APAR.... Is it not a 052D Destroyer that you mentioned? A Type 052D Destroyer has a tag price of more than 700 millions USD. maybe it almost 1 billion in export tag price.
IF 054B is indeed has the 130mm Main gun, Universal VLS, APAR dome, Type 730B CIWS, it should be heavier than 5000 tonnes. It will be a heavy frigate / light destroyer specification. Good for Bangladesh if you can procure it. So it won't has the same price tag as the 054A.
So how much Bangladesh Budget to procure these advance warship? If you have the money, just take the best. If not, just seek the most economic but capable for your navy.
But I can imagine that Myanmar and India won't be able to sleep soundly if you can procure 6 Belharra.
Last edited:
The Ronin
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,386
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Yes it obviously matter for us. These 6 flag ship will be backbone for our navy and it will be here for next 30 years. Also it will pave the way for future indigenous warship with bigger displacements.
Which country?? Only country with poor military budget will go for these. Why would i care about them?? It's my country that matters, it's our country and frigate program we are talking about. We can afford better.
Not for us. Heck i can't even think about a warship with stealthy design and minimum AD (not CIWS) as most new ships are being built like this nowadays. Even Steregushchiy class have 12 cell vls for MRSAM. 80 era ships are obsolete now cause even a ship with minimum AD has still have chance to get hit by AShM.
FREMM, Belharra is totally in different league than Type-54A. UVLS or not you can't compare Aster 15/30 with a Buk rip off Chinese HQ-16.
It's actually have two six-barrel Type 730A 30 mm guns for short-range self defence now with new design.
http://www.janes.com/article/69073/china-s-csoc-showcases-a-new-4-000-tonne-frigate
Maybe you didn't understand what i said before so let me try one more time. It's not like China will give us the exact Type-54B with 5000 tons displacement. If there is a export variant or something based on this it will have less displacement. Like their export variant of Type-54A with 3500 and then 3800 tons. You can customize the ship as your wish. 130mm or 76mm, With or without LACM, Quadpack UVLS 32 cell or less than it. However it stays in 4000+ you can still get those features.
Last edited:
Brainsucker
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,679
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Didn't I said in my previous post that if you have money, just get the best? And what is your basis about your claim that Aster 15/30 can't be compared to HQ-16? Please show it here.
Bilal9
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 26,569
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
These are mostly old (old!) ships you have listed here brother.
I appreciate your spending the time for this research but VLS became common for destroyers only a decade or so ago. VLS for frigates is even newer. Eventually - as missiles get smaller and more sophisticated, even corvettes will get modular VLS tubes. Which is the wave of the future, as VLS tubes protect missile casings much better than having them sit on the superstructure.
Nowadays VLS is a MUST for all new build frigate designs, especially 4000 ton frigates which will be the lead ships for our mid-sized Navy. Like @The Ronin mentioned, China will offer her best technology for this 4000 ton frigate design. When I mentioned FREMM, I meant the overall design and features, not necessarily the size. We cannot exceed 4000 tons for our naval fight scenario which is the upper limit of draft for Bay of Bengal (BoB) Littoral areas.
Why are we bringing up frigate designs (Anzac Class) they started building in 1993 (some 25 years ago). What relevance does it have for warship design TODAY?
Nowadays almost all frigates come with a minimum of 16, sometimes 32 VLS tubes.
Whichever Chinese modified frigate design we get (based on our BoB naval protection and fight scenario and if Chinese offer is chosen) will be quite different than the corresponding PLAN design. Look at how Bangladesh Navy heavily modified the 056 corvette design toward C13B, for our own scenario and specs.
So if we want to customize ours with VLS tubes we will do it (there is more dynamic balancing stuff to take care of as well in the design because of this).
I stand corrected. However the Type 730 CIWS is not an original design anyway. It is a mishmash of the Dutch Goalkeeper and Two French systems, SAGEM's SAMOS and the Thomson-CSF's SATAN, which were offered for evaluation to China in the guise of a PLAN purchase many years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_730_CIWS#Origin
Money talks. And bullsh*t walks.
Any technology (however sophisticated) can be purchased, given enough money can be offered. I say '055 Destroyer's radar/avionic system (are) standard stuff' because almost all of China's radar/sensor designs are 'inspired by' far more sophisticated Western stuff from the likes of Hughes/RACAL/Ericsson, yes the 055 sensors also included in this group.
The Chinese have set up technical institutes for this sort of research, but if you can conduct a few quick design shortcuts (using copying) in lieu of costly and time-consuming design, there is no issue for the Chinese. Morality will sometimes take a back seat when the stakes are this high. The Chinese are just leapfrogging progress, who can argue with that?
And finally yes - the West has far better 'stuff' than the 055 Destroyer's radars/sensors. More expensive, more reliable, just BETTER. Trust me on this.
Bangladesh is not a rogue state flouting international law, it has been a respectable, responsible member of the international community (UN) since it's existence, supplying the largest number of troops to international peacekeeping efforts. It is a signatory to IAEA rules. The international status quo has NO reason to be displeased with Bangladesh (look at the recent Rohingya episode and how we handled it unlike how some brain-dead types would have handled it).
So if the West can share sophisticated technology with Thailand for example, why not Bangladesh?
I don't think Bangladesh having 054B's or mini-FREMMs will make a difference to anyone. It is a basic step.
Just buying a thoroughbred Arabian horse doesn't automatically make you a better rider or a 'race winner'.
A lot more in terms of skills and practice is needed.
And Bangladesh is surrounded by countries who have indigenous world-class frigate building skills. I don't even underestimate Kyan Sittha class fronted by Myanmar Navy. They have gone one better than us, at least on the surface.
But I guess not for long.
Last edited:
Brainsucker
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,679
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
These are mostly old (old!) ships you have listed here brother.
I appreciate your spending the time for this research but VLS became common for destroyers only a decade or so ago. VLS for frigates is even newer. Eventually - as missiles get smaller and more sophisticated, Even corvettes will get modular VLS tubes. Which is the wave of the future, as VLS tubes protect missile casings much better than having them sit on the superstructure.
Nowadays VLS is a MUST for all new build frigate designs, especially 4000 ton frigates which will be the lead ships for our mid-sized Navy. Like @The Ronin mentioned, China will offer her best technology for this 4000 ton frigate design. When I mentioned FREMM, I meant the overall design and features, not necessarily the size. We cannot exceed 4000 tons for our naval fight scenario which is the upper limit of draft for Bay of Bengal (BoB) Littoral areas.
Why are we bringing up frigate designs (Anzac Class) they started building in 1993 (some 25 years ago). What relevance does it have for warship design TODAY?
Whichever Chinese modified frigate design we get (based on our BoB naval protection and fight scenario and if Chinese offer is chosen) will be quite different than the corresponding PLAN design. Look at how Bangladesh Navy heavily modified the 056 corvette design toward C13B, for our own scenario and specs.
I stand corrected. However the Type 730 CIWS is not an original design anyway. It is a mishmash of the Dutch Goalkeeper and Two French systems, SAGEM's SAMOS and the Thomson-CSF's SATAN, which were offered for evaluation to China in the guise of a PLAN purchase many years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_730_CIWS#Origin
Money talks. And bullsh*t walks.
Any technology (however sophisticated) can be purchased, given enough money can be offered. I say '055 Destroyer's radar/avionic system (are) standard stuff' because almost all of China's radar/sensor designs are 'inspired by' Western stuff from the likes of Hughes/RACAL/Ericsson products, yes the 055 sensors included. The Chinese have set up technical institutes for this sort of research, but if you can conduct a few shortcuts in lieu of costly and time-consuming design, there is no issue. Morality will sometimes take a back seat when the stakes are this high.
And yes - the West has far better 'stuff' than the 055 Destroyer's radars/sensors. More expensive, more reliable, just BETTER. Trust me on this.
Also - Bangladesh is not a rogue state flouting international law, it has been a respectable, responsible member of the international community (UN) since it's existence, supplying the largest number of troops to international peacekeeping efforts. It is a signatory to IAEA rules. The international status quo has NO reason to be displeased with Bangladesh (look at the recent Rohingya episode and how we handled it unlike how some brain-dead types would have handled it). If they can share these technology with Thailand for example, why not Bangladesh?
I don't think Bangladesh having 054B's or mini-FREMMs will make a difference to anyone. It is a basic step.
Just buying a thoroughbred Arabian horse doesn't automatically make you a better rider or a 'race winner'.
A lot more in terms of skills and practice is needed.
And Bangladesh is surrounded by countries who have indigenous world-class frigate building skills. I don't even underestimate Kyan Sittha class fronted by Myanmar Navy. They have gone one better than us, at least on the surface.
But I guess not for long.
Don't underestimated old design bro. Even if they are '80 design, they have teeth, and they bite.
About 055, no. Type 055 Destroyer is one of the best surface combatant in the world today. Comparable to even the best Destroyer in the world; like Arleigh Burke Flight 3. Even 052D is also very powerful and capable. But I agree that 054A and 052C are behind the Western today standard. Just browse to the Chinese Defense Section and ask about the 055 Destroyer there.
Are you kidding with having a FREMM, or other AAW Destroyer will make no different to anyone? Just a single modern AAW ship with AEGIS like configuration can deny the enemy Aircraft to take off from the airfield without being targeted by the ship, as long as her airfield is inside the ship's radar range. That show how powerful is an AEGIS like AAW ship.
The Ronin
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,386
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
This was actually a different thread under "Possible Chinese Offer For Bangladesh Frigate Program" before being merged with this thread.
Does not matter,
on what basis you (punny propaganda paddler) and your partner in crime @UKBengali made the claim "incoming Chinese Type-054B frigate"?
When your forum is flooded with pure bs from propaganda source you kept quiet and allowing it. What does it say about forum rule????
@UKBengali made claim and he needs to give the proof for his claim.
You on the other hand, polluted the forum with bdmilitary.com propaganda which has no credibility or basis, period. Your "explanation" is more propaganda and no credible source.
I am asking @The Eagle to live upto forum rule what he is preaching and discard your propaganda galore.
Last edited:
