Type 054A FFG News & Discussions

[UserUnknown2025]

how does it compare with the Daring class warship?

Daring class is a destroyer hence it has more armament (48 vs 32VLS). However, the 054, being a frigate, is a lot cheaper than the daring class destroyers.

 

[lcloo]

how does it compare with the Daring class warship?

Daring class is a destroyer thus it should be compared with type 052D destroyers. Type 054A is a frigate, thus the comparable Royal Navy ship is the type 23 frigates.

Type 23 has a 4.5 inch gun (100mm equivalent), older generation PLAN frigates used to be equiped with 100mm (4.5 inch) gun but the current frigate class are equiped with 76mm gun which is more effective in its anti-air (including anti-missile) and anti-surface roles, due to faster reaction time and higher rate of firing.

In air defence capability, type 23 is inferior to Type 054A because its Sea wolf is a short range (10KM) missile designed for point defence, while type 054A's HQ-16B is an area defence missile with 70KM range.

Type 23 is actually a generation older than type 054A. The next generation type 26 frigates for Royal Navy can be compared with the new type 054B PLAN frigate that will appear in next one or two years.

 

[lcloo]

i have only issue with its main gun it should be taken out put some other useable system

Chinese frigates used to be equiped with 100mm (4.5 inch) guns. The change from 100mm gun to 76mm gun seen to be a step backward, but in reality it is just the opposite. PLAN's experiance with 100mm gun and 76mm gun showed that the 76mm dual purpose gun is far more effective, especially in air defence, though with a shorter range.

The shorter range of 76mm guns is not a big problem, as anti-ship missiles are more than compensate for tergeting enemies located beyond the range of 76mm gun. 100mm gun on the other hand does not give siginificant advantage in the intergrated weapon suite of the ship. For small targets not worth using the long range anti-ship missiles, a helicopter with short range missile can cover far beyond the 100mm gun range.

 

[Super Falcon]

Chinese frigates used to be equiped with 100mm (4.5 inch) guns. The change from 100mm gun to 76mm gun seen to be a step backward, but in reality it is just the opposite. PLAN's experiance with 100mm gun and 76mm gun showed that the 76mm dual purpose gun is far more effective, especially in air defence, though with a shorter range.

The shorter range of 76mm guns is not a big problem, as anti-ship missiles are more than compensate for tergeting enemies located beyond the range of 76mm gun. 100mm gun on the other hand does not give siginificant advantage in the intergrated weapon suite of the ship. For small targets not worth using the long range anti-ship missiles, a helicopter with short range missile can cover far beyond the 100mm gun range.

this is a point im talking why waste important space on already limited space bring more important weapon than useless one

 

[lcloo]

this is a point im talking why waste important space on already limited space bring more important weapon than useless one

Well, you are challenging the navies of the world because that is the norm of weapon layout configuration, be it Pakistan Navy, Chinese Navy, US Navy or Russian navy.

The reason for a main gun is that there are on many occassions, you will want to hit a target that is not worth expending the expensive missiles that may cost millions of dollars each. A pirate boat, a smuggler's speed boats etc can be dealt with a cheap gun shot that may cost hundreds of dollars. Also you may need to fire a warning shot on foreign ships illegally entering your territorial water.

 

[Super Falcon]

Th

Well, you are challenging the navies of the world because that is the norm of weapon layout configuration, be it Pakistan Navy, Chinese Navy, US Navy or Russian navy.

The reason for a main gun is that there are on many occassions, you will want to hit a target that is not worth expending the expensive missiles that may cost millions of dollars each. A pirate boat, a smuggler's speed boats etc can be dealt with a cheap gun shot that may cost hundreds of dollars. Also you may need to fire a warning shot on foreign ships illegally entering your territorial water.

An why not use gautling gun rather than this gautling can tear apart any thing solid or even 50 cal sniper

 

[Beast]

Chinese frigates used to be equiped with 100mm (4.5 inch) guns. The change from 100mm gun to 76mm gun seen to be a step backward, but in reality it is just the opposite. PLAN's experiance with 100mm gun and 76mm gun showed that the 76mm dual purpose gun is far more effective, especially in air defence, though with a shorter range.

The shorter range of 76mm guns is not a big problem, as anti-ship missiles are more than compensate for tergeting enemies located beyond the range of 76mm gun. 100mm gun on the other hand does not give siginificant advantage in the intergrated weapon suite of the ship. For small targets not worth using the long range anti-ship missiles, a helicopter with short range missile can cover far beyond the 100mm gun range.

100mm gun is far effective compare to 76mm gun if shore bombardment is needed.

 

[lcloo]

100mm gun is far effective compare to 76mm gun if shore bombardment is needed.

No doubt 100mm is better at shore bombardment than 76mm gun, that I cannot disagree with you. However, the role of a frigate seldom called for shore bombardment, that is the job of destroyers and cruisers ( and battleships and heavy cruisers in bygone days).

The primary role of a frigate is to defend a fleet or a flotilla against air/missile attacks and hunting of submarines. In modern days, even if you have a battleship with 220mm or 240mm guns, chances is the shore battery of anti-ship missiles will get you first. Recent examples is in Yemen, and in Falkland war as well, where a County class destroyer HMS Glamorgan was hit by a land-based missile (MM-38 Exocet) which struck the ship causing damage and killing 14 sailors. HMS Glamorgan was at 33KM off shore.

Shore bombardment weapons todays would be mainly ship launched land attack missiles like what US and Russians employed during the current Syrian scenario, where the ships stay away at safe distance.

 

[lcloo]

Th

An why not use gautling gun rather than this gautling can tear apart any thing solid or even 50 cal sniper

Type 054A has 2 sets of CIWS which is basically a radar control 30mm gautling gun, and has many stations for mounting 12.76mm (0.5 inch) heavy machines guns.

The weapons onboard constitued many layers of defence, consist of SSM, armed helicopters, area defence SAM, torpedo, YU-7 torpedo missile, 76mm gun, 30mm CIWS, anti-submarine rocket depth charges, multi-purpose rocket launchers for decoys/ chaff. Each of this has their own range, and these made out layer upon layers of defensive cricles.

Also, the main gun is usually located at the bow section of the ship where the "V" hull is most prominent, which meant under the gun deck, the usable space is very small, you can't utilise it for other weapon systems other than small calibre ones. This below deck space is basically big enough to store gun ammunitions only.

 

[LKJ86]

 

[Beast]

No doubt 100mm is better at shore bombardment than 76mm gun, that I cannot disagree with you. However, the role of a frigate seldom called for shore bombardment, that is the job of destroyers and cruisers ( and battleships and heavy cruisers in bygone days).

The primary role of a frigate is to defend a fleet or a flotilla against air/missile attacks and hunting of submarines. In modern days, even if you have a battleship with 220mm or 240mm guns, chances is the shore battery of anti-ship missiles will get you first. Recent examples is in Yemen, and in Falkland war as well, where a County class destroyer HMS Glamorgan was hit by a land-based missile (MM-38 Exocet) which struck the ship causing damage and killing 14 sailors. HMS Glamorgan was at 33KM off shore.

Shore bombardment weapons todays would be mainly ship launched land attack missiles like what US and Russians employed during the current Syrian scenario, where the ships stay away at safe distance.

Not necessary. In modern days shore amphibious landing, most critical enemy asset are neutralized but still cant discount small arty or mortars hidden in cave and appeared to attack on shore landing unit. That is where the role of Frigate and destroyer protecting marines landing on enemy shore come in. The bigger the calibre, the better. They are acting like fire support for marines.

 

[lcloo]

Not necessary. In modern days shore amphibious landing, most critical enemy asset are neutralized but still cant discount small arty or mortars hidden in cave and appeared to attack on shore landing unit. That is where the role of Frigate and destroyer protecting marines landing on enemy shore come in. The bigger the calibre, the better. They are acting like fire support for marines.

This is how PLAN Marines eliminate enemy hiding in caves.

And Z-10 is more than capable taking out enemy artillery and tanks. Also the 105mm gun of ZTD-05 has similar calibre to 100mm gun mounted in older frigates like type 053, and the large numbers of ZTD-05 put on shore has many fold greater fire power than a few frigates.

Frigates should be staying at safe distance providing air defence and anti-submarine patrol to ensure all amphibious warfare ships are safe.

The disaster of Bluff Cove in which British landing ship RFA Sir Galahad and RFA SIr Tristram were attacked by two waves of Argentine A-4 Skhawk, British casualties were 48 killed and 115 wounded. Lack of air defence was the main contributing factor.

The worst fear of a landing force are air attacks and submarine attacks, frigates and destroyers should stay away from shore to form a sentry line against air and under-water threat, even after a beachhead has been established, because you will need a continuous logistic supply ships sending more men and war supplies for many days sailing towards the beachhead

 

[Liquidmetal]

Daring class is a destroyer thus it should be compared with type 052D destroyers. Type 054A is a frigate, thus the comparable Royal Navy ship is the type 23 frigates.

Type 23 has a 4.5 inch gun (100mm equivalent), older generation PLAN frigates used to be equiped with 100mm (4.5 inch) gun but the current frigate class are equiped with 76mm gun which is more effective in its anti-air (including anti-missile) and anti-surface roles, due to faster reaction time and higher rate of firing.

In air defence capability, type 23 is inferior to Type 054A because its Sea wolf is a short range (10KM) missile designed for point defence, while type 054A's HQ-16B is an area defence missile with 70KM range.

Type 23 is actually a generation older than type 054A. The next generation type 26 frigates for Royal Navy can be compared with the new type 054B PLAN frigate that will appear in next one or two years.

Thanks for the reply, so is the type 54A the best frigate in the chinese inventory or are there other options for PN?

 

[LKJ86]

View attachment 493610 View attachment 493611 View attachment 493612 View attachment 493613 View attachment 493614

Chinese frigate Huangshan heads to Australia for multilateral naval exercise "Kakadu-2018"
Source China Military Online | Editor Li Jiayao | Time 2018-08-22

By Duan Jiangshan and Xu Guang

ZHANJIANG, Aug. 22 (ChinaMil) -- At the invitation of the Royal Australian Navy, the Chinese naval guided-missile frigate Huangshan (Hull 570), carrying a ship-borne helicopter, set sail for Australia from Zhanjiang, south China’s Guangdong Province, to participate in the multinational naval exercise “Kakadu-2018”, on the morning of Aug. 21, 2018.

The frigate Huangshan will, on behalf of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy, join with multinational naval warships and aircraft to participate in the exercise in Darwin, Australia and its adjacent waters from Aug. 31 to Sept. 15.

It is reported that Exercise Kakadu is the largest multinational maritime exercise hosted biennially by the Royal Australian Navy. This is the first time the Chinese Navy has been invited to participate in the exercise since it began in 1993.

The frigate Huangshan (Hull 570), a new-type guided-missile frigate independently developed by China, with its hull 135m long and 16m wide at the maximum, joined the PLA Navy in 2008. Its full-load displacement is more than 4,000 tons. It has good stealth performance, far-distance guard and detection ability, and strong anti-aircraft and anti-submarine capabilities.

Since its service, the frigate has successfully implemented the Chinese naval escort missions in the Gulf of Aden and of the sea transport of Syrian chemical weapons and participated in domestic and international joint training and exercises.

Source:http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-08/22/content_9260566.htm

 

[lcloo]

Thanks for the reply, so is the type 54A the best frigate in the chinese inventory or are there other options for PN?

Type 054A is currently the best frigate in Chineses navy, it is designed for long endurance open ocean operation. Whether it is the best option for Pakistan Navy or not depends on the needs and doctrine of PN. First, does PN need a ship for open ocean operations? From an outsider's view, I think PN's top priority is (1) to prevent blockade of Pakistan's ports and shipping lanes in times of war. (2) To prevent enemy's aircraft carrier group attacking from the sea.

A large number of submarines is a good idea. However, submarines can be attacked by anti-sub patrol aircrafts like P-8, and enemy surface ships. Frigates can be a very effective protector of submarines with its air defence and anti-surface and anti-sub weapons. Submarines working with frigates is like a shield and spear.

Type 054A fits in very well as it has a 70km range air defence missile as well as anti-submarine helicopter, torpedo and torpedo missile (YU-7). YU-7 is a missile that carry a torpedo as payload, variable depth towed sonar and rocket launched depth charges, it can carry anti-ship missile which has 190km range.


Below is from Wikipedia, I don't guarantee it is 100% accurate, but you get the broad view on its capabilities.
Displacement: 4,053 tonnes (full) (CCTV report)
Length: 134.1 m (440 ft) (CCTV report)
Beam: 16 m (52 ft) (CCTV report)
Propulsion: CODAD, 4 x Shaanxi 16 PA6 STC diesels, 5700 kW (7600+ hp @ 1084 rpm) each
Speed: 27 knots estimated
Range: 8,025 nautical miles (9,235 mi; 14,862 km) estimated
Complement: 165
Sensors and
processing systems:

• Type 382 Radar
• Type 344 Radar (Mineral-ME Band Stand) OTH target acquisition and SSM fire control radar
• 4 × Type 345 Radar(MR-90 Front Dome) SAM fire control radars
• MR-36A surface search radar, I-band
• Type 347G 76 mm gun fire control radar
• 2 × Racal RM-1290 navigation radars, I-band
• MGK-335 medium frequency active/passive sonar system
• H/SJG-206 towed array sonar
• ZKJ-4B/6 (developed from Thomson-CSF TAVITAC) combat data system
• HN-900 Data link (Chinese equivalent of Link 11A/B, to be upgraded)
• SNTI-240 SATCOM
• AKD5000S Ku band SATCOM

Electronic warfare
& decoys:

• Type 922-1 radar warning receiver
• HZ-100 ECM & ELINT system
• Kashtan-3 missile jamming system

Armament:

• 1 × 32-cell VLS
  • HQ-16 SAM
  • Yu-8 anti submarine rocket launcher
• 2 × 4 C-803 anti-ship / land attack cruise missiles
• 1 × PJ26 76 mm dual purpose gun
• 2 × Type 730 7-barrel 30 mm CIWS guns or Type 1130
• 2 × 3 324mm Yu-7 ASW torpedo launchers
• 2 × 6 Type 87 240mm anti-submarine rocket launcher (36 rockets carried)
• 2 × Type 726-4 18-tube decoy rocket launchers

Aircraft carried: 1 Kamov Ka-28 'Helix' or Harbin Z-9C