054B/next generation frigate

[Lethe]

I keep thinking about the Perry as well, and to be honest the reason I think about it is just a reflection of how different the USN of then and the navies of today (including the PLAN today) are.

Frankly, the fact that the Perry was able to squeeze so many subsystems of the time, including dual helicopter hangars, into a 4000t hull was not only impressive, but probably not doable with the sort of requirements of today. I'm not only thinking about damage control, but also the complexity and size of modern subsystems (weapons and sensors), but also the expectations for crew facilities.

The Perry and its contemporary, the Spruance class which entered service at about the same era, were both ships with twin helicopter hangars where large parts of the USN surface combatant fleet outright lacked organic helicopter facilities. The Charles F Adams destroyers, and the cruisers of the era either had minimal helicopter accommodation facilities or outright lacked them. In many ways the Perry and Spruance could be seen as making up the deficiencies for the rest of the fleet of the time, while also orienting themselves for a more ASW role relative to the USN's other surface combatants.

Things have certainly changed, the question is why. My contention is that the essentials of effective ASW favouring dual helo platforms have not changed since the late Cold War period, that what has changed for USN and most allied navies in recent decades is (a) the disappearance of the high-end, high-volume Soviet submarine threat that formerly demanded first-rate attention and (b) lower budgets reflecting that low-threat environment, which translates to fewer helicopters in service, with fewer pilots and technicians, fewer sensor packages, fewer munitions and lower parts inventories, such that having only one helo per ship is ultimately an easy and even attractive compromise to make, because the budget isn't there to do two helos properly anyway. My contention is that what we are seeing with all these single helo, supposedly ASW-focused ships is akin to a "minimum viable product", because services are trying to retain all the capabilities and proficiencies of the past while investing in contemporary and cutting-edge developments, all on relatively shoestring budgets and without clearly defined threat scenarios to focus their attention, leading to force structures that are all breadth and no depth.

It may well be impossible to do dual Seahawks on a modern Perry-sized hull given contemporary systems, crew habitability, survivability standards. But we are talking about a ship that is at least 50% larger than Perry and one that appears to be mostly a new design that is therefore not beholden to the compromises of the past.

The likes of the Marusume/Takanami/Akuzki/Asahi, as far as I can see, have a single enlarged hangar which can accommodate a 10 ton class helicopter and some extra equipment, but does not look able to actually accommodate two 10 ton helicopters side by side. The positioning of the helicopter secure/traverse system relative to the hangar on those ships certainly lends itself in a way that the recovered helicopter takes up 2/3rds of the overall width of the hangar space.

Absent photographic evidence of these ships with two helos in the hangar simultaneously, I am inclined to think you are correct. However I would note again that this is in the context of a force structure that is centered around dedicated ASW helicopter carriers (another concept that I think is worth exploring for PLAN).

Whenever the topic of helicopter hangar count comes up for new PLAN surface combatants (either new classes, or new batches of existing classes), I feel like there is a default expectation that PLAN surface combatants should come with two helicopter hangars, but I think people's reference scales are calibrated a bit incorrectly.

My personal reference scale is late-Cold War USN, secondarily the Soviet Union of the same period and also JMSDF, because I believe that the submarine threat that PLAN confronts today, and the resources that PLAN can bring to bear to meet them, bears a greater resemblance to those eras, services and programs than to any contemporary points of comparison such as the modern European frigate programs. That perspective may well be miscalibrated or even simply wrong, but I hope that it is at least comprehensible.

 

[zavve]

If the Type 054B is equipped with the 160km class ARH HQ-16FE and GaN AESA it would be substantially superior in anti-air warfare compared to the Type 45, and indeed all warships from Europe.

No. A Type 45 is substantially better than a Type 054B at AAW.
1. You can't compare HQ-16FE to Aster 30. Aster has the best P/k of any SAM in the world, the Type 45 carries 48 of them. Type 054B carries maybe 32-48 of the worse HQ-16FE.
2. The T45 radar is mounted higher, it can see better over the radar horizon compared to Type 054B.
3. As a complement to SAMPSON, the T45 carries S1850M. The Type 054B secondary radar is (speculated) to be C-band which can't compare to S1850M at long-range detection.
4. The Type 45 is also being upgraded with 24 Sea Ceptors, new diesel sets and radar software upgrades.
5. There are many ships in Europe that outclass Type 054B in AAW, some of them: Horizon, Type 45, FREEM DA, IH, Sachsen & F100

 

[grulle]

Scaffolding has been put up around the masts and superstructures.

See I told you the protrusion behind the bridge superstructure is only temporary.

Now there's sooooo much space in the middle of the ship. I feel like there is definitely a VLS there.

 

[Gloire_bb]

If the Type 054B is equipped with the 160km class ARH HQ-16FE and GaN AESA it would be substantially superior in anti-air warfare compared to the Type 45, and indeed all warships from Europe.

While it will indeed be alright in this regard, AA under no circumstances can be described just by single number (reach).
p.s. HQ-16F. While we didn't see this index, E is now for export.

 

[Gloire_bb]

No. A Type 45 is substantially better than a Type 054B at AAW.
1. You can't compare HQ-16FE to Aster 30. Aster has the best P/k of any SAM in the world, the Type 45 carries 48 of them. Type 054B carries maybe 32-48 of the worse HQ-16FE.
2. The T45 radar is mounted higher, it can see better over the radar horizon compared to Type 054B.
3. As a complement to SAMPSON, the T45 carries S1850M. The Type 054B secondary radar is (speculated) to be C-band which can't compare to S1850M at long-range detection.
4. The Type 45 is also being upgraded with 24 Sea Ceptors, new diesel sets and radar software upgrades.
5. There are many ships in Europe that outclass Type 054B in AAW, some of them: Horizon, Type 45, FREEM DA, IH, Sachsen & F100

1. Self-declared p/k of 1?
Aster-30 isn't magical. Especially because its 'magic', pif-paf, was imported.
2. Not crucial. It's an optimization, and 054b array is also high. 054b can expect far better fused battlefield data, too.
3. Maybe; is it crucial?
4. Both have their self-defense systems with different advantages and disadvantages. Type 45 also loses Aster-15 with that, and while 'overall' an upgrade - this is not an equal replacement.
5. Most of the listed are under at least a question mark(as it is against Constellation). Which isn't nice for purpose built AA ships.

 

[Biscuits]

No. A Type 45 is substantially better than a Type 054B at AAW.
1. You can't compare HQ-16FE to Aster 30. Aster has the best P/k of any SAM in the world, the Type 45 carries 48 of them. Type 054B carries maybe 32-48 of the worse HQ-16FE.
2. The T45 radar is mounted higher, it can see better over the radar horizon compared to Type 054B.
3. As a complement to SAMPSON, the T45 carries S1850M. The Type 054B secondary radar is (speculated) to be C-band which can't compare to S1850M at long-range detection.
4. The Type 45 is also being upgraded with 24 Sea Ceptors, new diesel sets and radar software upgrades.
5. There are many ships in Europe that outclass Type 054B in AAW, some of them: Horizon, Type 45, FREEM DA, IH, Sachsen & F100

Never heard any sources that say the late block HQ-16 would have any worse p/K than the aster 30. Given the disparity in electronics and missile engineering experience between the 2 countries, I'd expect the opposite.

So the type 45 has potentially better CIWS and a taller mounted radar (but we do not know if it's quality is up to par), while losing out at everything else. Not a good look for something supposed to be a DDG, given that 054B is just a FFG.

 

[by78]

See I told you the protrusion behind the bridge superstructure is only temporary.

When did we ever discuss this protrusion? Did you get me confused with someone else?

 

[zavve]

1. Self-declared p/k of 1?
Aster-30 isn't magical. Especially because its 'magic', pif-paf, was imported.
2. Not crucial. It's an optimization, and 054b array is also high. 054b can expect far better fused battlefield data, too.
3. Maybe; is it crucial?
4. Both have their self-defense systems with different advantages and disadvantages. Type 45 also loses Aster-15 with that, and while 'overall' an upgrade - this is not an equal replacement.
5. Most of the listed are under at least a question mark(as it is against Constellation). Which isn't nice for purpose built AA ships.

1. That is a marketing number, but I strongly believe Aster has a substantially higher p/k than HQ-16F.
2. Nothing is "crucial" but I would argue radar height is a very important metric. If someone can figure out the height of the 054B that would be very interesting but I doubt it comes close to T45s 39m.
3. It certainly is not crucial, but it does strongly matter when it comes to AAW.
4. Of course, for example in ASW the Type 054B runs laps around the T45, which does not even have a towed array.
5. Please provide some arguments, IMO all of those ships are clearly superior to the 054B in terms of AAW.

Never heard any sources that say the late block HQ-16 would have any worse p/K than the aster 30. Given the disparity in electronics and missile engineering experience between the 2 countries, I'd expect the opposite.

The HQ-16 is a big and heavy missile. Aster is a dart with PIF-PAF, with a booster attached. Which missiles would you think would have a better p/k? BTW, the Aster is not British, it is Franco-Italian. And what disparity in electronics and missile engineering? MBDA and Thales are some of the most experienced companies for missiles in the world...

So the type 45 has potentially better CIWS and a taller mounted radar (but we do not know if it's quality is up to par), while losing out at everything else. Not a good look for something supposed to be a DDG, given that 054B is just a FFG.

If you do not know if the quality of SAMPSON is up to par, then maybe ask a question instead of making assumptions. When excluding AAW Type 45 is not comparable to Type 054B, simply because Type 45 is an AAW specialist.

 

[grulle]

When did we ever discuss this protrusion? Did you get me confused with someone else?

I was talking to ACuriousPLAFan lol. he said the box behind the superstructure was part of the ship. but it has now been removed.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I was talking to ACuriousPLAFan lol. he said the box behind the superstructure was part of the ship. but it has now been removed.

I believe you may have misunderstood my words. Never once did I refer that blue-coloured box as the "protrusion deck from behind the fore superstructure".