Taiwan Naval Projects

[Ingraman]

A couple of images I found in old H.D. for a second batch of Kwang Hua I program.
Original K.H. I Flight 1 PFG-2 was the FFG7 Perry, with minimal modifications.
Flight 2 was intended as AAW ship, with the ADAR-2N phaesd array radar.
32 or 48 VLS proposed, 4500 ton.
ADAR-1 was a land based radar connected with the Tien Kung 1 (or Tien Kung I) SARH missile.

 

[JFC Fuller]

This link, in Chinese, has a detailed description of the Flight II ADAR-2N equipped frigate referenced by Ingraman above and dating to 1994. It's fascinating to see how much Gibbs and Cox could squeeze into the basic FFG-7 class hull and single shaft propulsion configuration; 48 Mk-41 VLS, a 5" gun, 2 Phalanx, 8 AShMs and what was essentially SPY-1F.

From an alternative history perspective, given the 1994 date, a variation of this design could have been a candidate to replace the USN's Knox class frigates had the Cold War not ended. 48 VLS cells being sufficient for a reasonable number of AAW missiles in addition to VL-ASROC or Sea Lance.

 

[TomS]

I have a Navy briefing from a Frigate market survey, undated but probably done around the mid-1990s. Can't post the full slide but a couple of interesitng items pop out.

1) This design required a 45' stretch compared to the last FFG-7 (FFG-61 USS Ingraham). Full load displacement rose to more than 5000 tons, versus just over 4000 for FFG-61. (JFC Fuller's link shows this grew even further, to nearly 6000 tons)

2) The US Navy assessors had some concern about the stability solution chosen -- high freeboard and low metacentric height. In other words, this ship would roll, a lot, and rely on not quite burying the rail for recovery. This sounds like a recipe for inadequate damaged stability to me.

 

[JohnR]

Did it retain the single screw and powerplant of the OHP's, or was it changed to a twin screw arrangement and revised power plant?

 

[TomS]

Did it retain the single screw and powerplant of the OHP's, or was it changed to a twin screw arrangement and revised power plant?

Single screw. It would have been the largest such surface combatant ever, supposedly.

 

[Hood]

Impressive but as TomS says, probably impractical due the constraints inherent with stretching a ship too far.
It looks like a complete redesign topside and the stretch must have altered the hullform somewhat. Wouldn't it have been easier to just start again from scratch to design a proper export frigate?

 

[Tzoli]

Putting the text into google translate here are the actual data (not 5" gun but 3" )
There seems to be two designs, the first was a modification of the Cheung Kung as it uses the same hull, the other later version was a much larger ship.

Dimensions:
138,1 x 14,3 meters
151 x 15 (minimum) meters (late design)
Displacement: 6.000tons (full load, late design)
Engines: Not clear on the shp but 1 shafts General Electric LM2500 not sure if one gas turbine or two, shp stated at 41.000 so probably two turbines on the single shaft
Armaments:
First Design:
2x4 Hsiung Feng II AshM,
1x1 76mm/62 Mark 75 (OTO-Malera Compact?)
4x8 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM (Mk-41 VLS for SM-2MR)
1-2x21 RIM-116 RAM CIWS/SAM or Barak-1 SAM
2x1 40mm/70 Bofors probably Breda Type 564 CIWS
1-2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
2x S-70 Seahawk Helicopter

Late Design:
2x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AshM,
1x1 76mm/62 Mark 75 (OTO-Malera Compact?)
6x8 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM (Mk-41 VLS for SM-2MR and VL-ASROCK)
1-2x21 RIM-116 RAM CIWS/SAM or Barak-1 SAM
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
1x S-70 Seahawk Helicopter

 

[1Big Rich]

A couple of images I found in old H.D. for a second batch of Kwang Hua I program.
Original K.H. I Flight 1 PFG-2 was the FFG7 Perry, with minimal modifications.
Flight 2 was intended as AAW ship, with the ADAR-2N phaesd array radar.
32 or 48 VLS proposed, 4500 ton.
ADAR-1 was a land based radar connected with the Tien Kung 1 (or Tien Kung I) SARH missile.

Thanks for that. I've read a lot about the PFG Flight 2, but have never seen an image before....

Regards,

 

[TomS]

Just found in my paper files a 1995 ASNE Symposium briefing on this ship (link is just to a library reference, sorry), which the authors describe simply as an Advanced Frigate.

It's quite close to the late model design above. At this stage, length overall was 498 feet (151.8 m), with a design full load of 5000 tons and a limiting displacement of 5308 tons. The hull had minimal mods around the bow, stern, shaft lines and flight deck geometry but was stretched midships by 45 feet in length and 5.6 feet in beam (only 2.5 feet at the waterline; the hull flares out noticeably above that).

Machinery is basically unchanged from the FFG-7, meaning two LM2500 and four ship service diesel generators. The main difference is a new chilled water system, which the new radar would need.

Steel structure up to the 01 deck and high strength steel on the upper strength deck (the FFGs used mild steel, which is a lot cheaper) then aluminum for the two deckhouses above that. Protection of some sort (some steel, some kevlar, some just spaced) for key spaces (basically the VLS, the gun magazine, CIC, the electronics spaces, the PAR waveguide, the torpedo launcher room, and the engineering central control room).

Armament includes a 5-inch gun in a shaped housing, not a 3-inch, and two RAM as well as two Phalanx (no Barak -- this version looks like it might have been intended for the US Navy?)

Interestingly, the drawing has 2 RAST tracks and dual hangars with the helo control station cab between them, not a single hangar. Looks a lot like a baby Flight IIA Burke.

There is a fair bit about the combat system, but nothing terribly new to folks familiar with how AEGIS works. Some surprisingly detailed range and coverage charts, but I suspect they are notional, not real.

Edit: Added a scan of the general combat system arrangements.

 

[TomS]

Impressive but as TomS says, probably impractical due the constraints inherent with stretching a ship too far.
It looks like a complete redesign topside and the stretch must have altered the hullform somewhat. Wouldn't it have been easier to just start again from scratch to design a proper export frigate?

Looking at it, I think there was a lot of influence from this design into the G&C International Frigate concept. Similar topsides arrangement in many ways, though the later design has separated machinery spaces and a second stack, so very different internally.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Hi to all
Anyone have more info about this
Aparently was a project for the RoC Navy to built a AEGIS FFG based on OHP FFG.
Tanks in advance

 

[alejandrogrossi]

From Shipbucket
This could be conjectural profile

I do my on modification to the conjetural profile

I know that this not the place for this drawins.
But ime interesting in find more info (if exist) about that project

 

[Dilandu]

Aparently was a project for the RoC Navy to built a AEGIS FFG based on OHP FFG.

I knew that such a projet existed (but was cancelled due to end of Cold War, the desire to de-escalate Taiwan matter, and reluctance of USN to export their most advanced military tech), but little more. Thanks for the data!

 

[Dilandu]

This could be conjectural profile

Apparently there was supposed to be a second Mk-41 VLS set on rear (16 cells), in place of one of hangars.

 

[DWG]

Apparently there was supposed to be a second Mk-41 VLS set on rear (16 cells), in place of one of hangars.

That AD Baker III illo and note in AlejandroGrossi's post says 4 quad-packed cells, not 16 cells. That might not seem a lot considering the size of a Seahawk, but it's weight high in the ship, rather than sunk below deck level.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Apparently there was supposed to be a second Mk-41 VLS set on rear (16 cells), in place of one of hangars.

Yes
but I dont like the such idea.
In my version, 32 VLS on the front (24 SM-2 and 32 ESSM -not bad for a FFG-) and the 2 SH60

 

[Dilandu]

In my version, 32 VLS on the front (24 SM-2 and 32 ESSM -not bad for a FFG-) and the 2 SH60

When they were designed, there weren't ESSM yet. Only the old RIM-7. And while RIM-7M was VLS-capable, it can not be quad-packed, so it required a whole cell for one missile. Not a good trade.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

When they were designed, there weren't ESSM yet. Only the old RIM-7. And while RIM-7M was VLS-capable, it can not be quad-packed, so it required a whole cell for one missile. Not a good trade.

Absolutly yes. In that time no ESSM. 16 +16. But in this day. 32VLS FFG on a OHP enlarge body will be great.

 

[Dilandu]

Absolutly yes. In that time no ESSM. 16 +16. But in this day. 32VLS FFG on a OHP enlarge body will be great.

Frankly, I suspect that it was the reason for the VLS in place of hangar. Most likely it wasn't supposed to be a Mk-41 (I do not recall Mk-41 being quad-packed) but actually Mk-48 on-deck VLS for Sea Sparrow missiles:

 

[Airbus A340]

I think we also need to look at the capability of ESSM vs SM-1. AIUI SM-1 is not effective against sea skimming missiles. So, it makes sense to equip an OHP with some mechanism to shoot NATO Sea Sparrow or ESSM, anything to give it capability against missiles. SM-1 was there to prevent recon aircraft from getting close enough to visually pick out what kind of ships were in the formation, that's all it could really do. That is an obsolete capability. I also want to add that however effective SM-1 was when fired from DDGs etc. it was less from the OHP because the OHP combat system was built to cost.

 

[Dilandu]

I think we also need to look at the capability of ESSM vs SM-1. AIUI SM-1 is not effective against sea skimming missiles. So, it makes sense to equip an OHP with some mechanism to shoot NATO Sea Sparrow or ESSM, anything to give it capability against missiles. SM-1 was there to prevent recon aircraft from getting close enough to visually pick out what kind of ships were in the formation, that's all it could really do. That is an obsolete capability. I also want to add that however effective SM-1 was when fired from DDGs etc. it was less from the OHP because the OHP combat system was built to cost.

Erm, I strongly suspect you underestimate SM-1 missiles quite seriously. Against the majority of non-sea-skimming aerial treats they worked perfectly. They could kill enemy attack planes, high-altitude supersonic missiles and low-altitude (non-sea-skimming) subsonic missiles, like P-15 Termit, for example. For Taiwanese, who were supposed to fight against a PLAN/PLAAF forces - mostly equipped with legacy Soviet equipment from 1960s - the SM-1 was perfectly potent weapon.

 

[TomS]

I think we also need to look at the capability of ESSM vs SM-1. AIUI SM-1 is not effective against sea skimming missiles. So, it makes sense to equip an OHP with some mechanism to shoot NATO Sea Sparrow or ESSM, anything to give it capability against missiles. SM-1 was there to prevent recon aircraft from getting close enough to visually pick out what kind of ships were in the formation, that's all it could really do. That is an obsolete capability. I also want to add that however effective SM-1 was when fired from DDGs etc. it was less from the OHP because the OHP combat system was built to cost.

Not at all. The inclusion of SM-1 on the FFG-7s was not a counter-snooper thing; SM-1MR wasn't long enough ranged to see off reconnaissance aircraft, who were absolutely not going in for a close visual reconnaissance (ESM would suffice to sort escorts from cargo ships). Rather, it was intended to counter sub-launched pop-up ASCMs (SS-N-7, mainly) fired from inside a convoy's outer air battle perimeter. It absolutely could take sea-skimmers, at least of that generation, and the FFG-7 combat system was designed for that (hence the CAS ball).

 

[Dilandu]

Rather, it was intended to counter sub-launched pop-up ASCMs (SS-N-7, mainly) fired from inside a convoy's outer air battle perimeter.

Yep. And also to add some more defense capabilities against air-launched missiles in case of major attack on convoy.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

This may be relevant:

Post in thread 'Taiwan Naval Projects' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/taiwan-naval-projects.35365/post-417923

With your image (of the other thread) I do my version. More 2020 sytle.

 

[DWG]

That AD Baker III illo and note in AlejandroGrossi's post says 4 quad-packed cells, not 16 cells. That might not seem a lot considering the size of a Seahawk, but it's weight high in the ship, rather than sunk below deck level.

I wondered what the actual numbers were:
Empty weight of an 8-cell Mk 41 module: 12.2tn
ESSM Mass : 280Kg
Loaded mass of 4 Mk 41 cells with quadpacked ESSM: =10.58t
(actually rather more given 4 cells probably weigh over 50% the weight of an 8 cell module, plus the weight of the quadpack cannisters, and there's the fire control cabinet as well, but that could be below deck)

Empty weight of an SH-60 Seahawk: 6.9tn (MTOW: 10.43tn)

So even 4 quadpacked cells slightly outweigh a Seahawk at Max Take Off Weight

(And for 16 cells, 2x12.2 + 16x4x.280 = 41.32t)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Aparently was a project for the RoC Navy to built a AEGIS FFG based on OHP FFG.

I'd be surprised if they could pack that much topweight into an OHP... Those SPY-1 radars are not light.

 

[Dilandu]

So even 4 quadpacked cells slightly outweigh a Seahawk at Max Take Off Weight

Correction: the original text said "quad-pack", NOT "quad-packed". There weren't any ESSM in 1980s, and while the vertical launch Sea Sparrow already existed (the RIM-7M version) it still have it's old wide wings, and only one could be fitted per cell.

My IMHO, there are two explanation:

* There was some kind of smaller Mk-41 proposal for 4-cell module only in 1980s

* The original article mixed things up, and actually two 4-cell Mk-48 modules (a light VLS specifically for Sea Sparrow missiles) were planned.

The second one seems to be more realistic, frankly. Both due to technical reality & weight considerations.

 

[DWG]

Correction: the original text said "quad-pack", NOT "quad-packed". There weren't any ESSM in 1980s, and while the vertical launch Sea Sparrow already existed (the RIM-7M version) it still have it's old wide wings, and only one could be fitted per cell.

You says 'in the 1980s', but that's a 1990 dated illustration, probably from Combat Fleets of the World given it's AD Baker III, talking about a class ordered in 1989. So it's really very late 80s verging on 90s. In fact the 1989 orders were for the entire class, both Kwang Hua Batch 1 and Batch 2, so the Batch 2 hull wouldn't be laid down until after the four Batch 1 ships - though ultimately they were all completed as Kwang Hua Batch 1 not Batch 2 (ie as Cheng Kung class OHP clones). Ship 5, Tzu I, wasn't laid down until 1994, commissioning in 1997, and would probably have been later still if built as Batch 2. So thinking of this as an 80s design is really misleading.

Mid 90s is still early for ESSM, but as it's AD Baker III we can't easily discard his wording which explicitly says four Mk 41 cells subdivided into 16. By the late 80s the ROC has developed Tien Chien (Sky Sword) I and is working on Tien Chien II, along with Tien Kung (Sky Bow) I, we can't rule out the possibility they had an indigenous missile in mind - the Wiki article on the Chien Kungs heavily implies the Batch IIs were intended to carry an indigenous SAM.

 

[Dilandu]

Mid 90s is still early for ESSM, but as it's AD Baker III we can't easily discard his wording which explicitly says four Mk 41 cells subdivided into 16.

You are right, of course, but still we can't exclude the perfectly realistic possibility of just a mistake in article.

 

[SK2]

The G&C (and US Navy in the background) has full support the the project (PFG Flight II), but it was cancelled due to issues other than end of Cold War. In fact it started after the Cold War.

The main issues were:

1. Concern on stability with lengthening of the hull. The hull was lengthen by 8 meters at least (when compare with long-hull Perry), which require comprehensive retest of hull form again. The ROCN, being a major FRAM II user at that time, express their distrust in that development

2. Single shaft survivability. Concerns were raised when when ROCN confirmed the Flight I project (long-hull Perry), when they considered the frigate as their 1st line vessels rather than a 2nd line vessel in US Navy. However the change to twin shaft was expensive and challenging so they went for the original design. That did not went well when they use it as baseline for Flight II, placing much more extensive and heavy AD equipment on to a lengthened long-hull Perry hull, while trying to maintain the same performance with the existing propulsion system.

3. Challenge in AD system. It was a new system (NOT Aegis), which was based on their newly developed land-based Tian Kong AD system at that time. Although the TK AD system itself was hugely influenced by Aegis system, turning it back to naval-based will still be a huge challenge. The majority of senior commands in ROCN preference to have a mature/developed AD system didn't help this development either.

4. Change of naval acquisition plan. Originally the acquisition plan was having 8 Perrys (4 Flight I, 4 Flight II) with 16 2nd line vessel, with French F-2000 and South Korean Ulsan class in mind, however the French counter proposal of the all new stealthy La Fayette frigates together with possible arms package changed the whole plan. The French provided several proposals, ranging from bare hull (which turn out to be the result...) to full arms package (with Aster 15), ease the pressure of the ROCN on acquiring a modern AD vessel.

5. Bribery/Spy intervention. As Taiwan was not considered as a normal country, arms acquisition was quite difficult for them. With US gradually withdraw direct support after late 70s, they struggle to find new source for arms acquisition. Lucky for them that 80s and 90s was the golden era of arms dealers, and ROCN was being offered from Argentine German arms (Meko frigates and TR-1700 submarines) to US arms left in Vietnam. These often involve in bribery (or at least request of it) in various degree, and sometimes would result in bribery competition of different companies to the same project. The French projects (Le Fayette for Navy and Mirage 2000 for the Air Force) were both involved in huge bribery package, to the French government senior officials, alleged PRC senior officials (to shut them up from complaining), and probably some Taiwan officials including ROCN, rumored to be involved with acquisition office. A senior ROCN official from the acquisition office was being killed when investigating it, which led to a huge political scandal. The acquisition office was being disbanded, with the top seniors being charged with misconduct and bribery (later acquitted).

Later it was rumored the killing was a staged spy effort by PRC in order to destroy the ROCN acquisition office, thus destroying their modernization plan (which, if true, they did it with extreme success, the ROCN did not have major acquisition until recent years).

 

[Dilandu]

The French projects (Le Fayette for Navy and Mirage 2000 for the Air Force) were both involved in huge bribery package, to the French government senior officials, alleged PRC senior officials (to shut them up from complaining), and probably some Taiwan officials including ROCN, rumored to be involved with acquisition office.

"Huge" may be an underestimation, it is rumored than more than 500 millions USD were given as bribes by Thales group to secure the frigate order.

 

[SK2]

"Huge" may be an underestimation, it is rumored than more than 500 millions USD were given as bribes by Thales group to secure the frigate order.

It was suggested, after the statue of limitation, the French and Taiwanese judicial was being misled and the Mirage case should be the the major bribery case instead of the Navy case.

 

[DWG]

You are right, of course, but still we can't exclude the perfectly realistic possibility of just a mistake in article.

I've just been reminded in reading the NFR-90 thread that NAAWS (NATO Anti-Air Warfare System) was intended to be quad-packed in Mk 41, and as NFR-90 crashed and burned in 1989, the concept of quad-packing was clearly around in time for the Kwang Hua concepts.