You circled the blue box here.
054B/next generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I'm actually referring to this part (circled in cyan):
Even when my circle wasn't drawn nicely, I believe you guys should already understood what I'm actually referring to, based on the deck protrusion in front of the aft superstructure (marked "2"). That deck protrusion marked "2" never had a blue box on top of it in the first place, which is just across the amidship section to the deck protrusion behind the fore superstructure (marked "1").
Last edited:
This is impossible to know, depends on many factors, and extremely unlikely.
I would bet on a mid-later 2010s Chinese missile with a larger wingless airframe over a early 2000s European with huge wings.
Not by much and radar horizon is really only relevant in the point defense context.
The long-range detection role is presumably left to KJ-600, which the UK CBG's lacks.
The Type 054B already carries 24 HQ-10s.
All of the other European vessels are inferior compared to the Type 45 and not worthy of comparison with the Type 054B.
-----
Areas where the Type 054B is better (speculative):
1. GaN AESA that are larger than the SAMPSON
2. CEC with PLA air assets
3. More capable seeker on long-range SAM due to larger missile diameter
4. 1130 is significantly better than Phalanx in every metric
5. Lower RCS hull with less clutter (this might change after fitting out)
At some point, posters have to understand that stupid comparisons of military assets based on speculative or unknowable data like we are playing a video game or holding a gladiator tournament are extremely silly, juvenile and also off-topic in a flagship thread .
Moreover, to those that do understand how things work in real life (due to active experience in the field or simply friction with the subject at hand), the posters engaging in said arguments seem like toddlers - showing a fundamental misunderstanding on how military programs and assets are designed, produced and integrated according to different specific needs, doctrines, compromises and requirements of their respective navies.
Can we please drop this and get back on topic?
Moreover, to those that do understand how things work in real life (due to active experience in the field or simply friction with the subject at hand), the posters engaging in said arguments seem like toddlers - showing a fundamental misunderstanding on how military programs and assets are designed, produced and integrated according to different specific needs, doctrines, compromises and requirements of their respective navies.
Can we please drop this and get back on topic?
Lack of comparison is the thief of joy on a military forum. But yes I agree it can go overboard sometimes.
Just a note, the AEGIS system is proven in combat, I am sure that China will make an equal or better system, but, to date, Chinese ships have not entered combat. NATO ships yes.
When was the last time the AEGIS was actually tested in live combat.
in 2016, against two C-802 (export version of the YJ-83) off the coast of Yemen:
USS Mason (DDG-87) fired 3 missiles, 2 SM-2 and one ESSM as well as a Noulka decoy. One C-802 hit the water on its own, and it's unclear whether the second C-802 was successfully intercepted by electronic countermeasures or missed its target:
"The Mason was not hit by either missile. But the Navy is not certain whether its defense system stopped the first incoming missile or it just fell into the sea about 12 miles from the ship. The second missile fired at the Mason fell about nine miles from the ship, one of the officials said."