054B/next generation frigate

[asif iqbal]

how many units are projected in this batch any ideas ?

 

[SquireAU]

Having GT or not is not the defination of IEPS.

Well, I know and that is why I am sceptical of the jump to CODAD myself. However, I think that 伏尔戈星图 based his conclusion on the size of the holes in the. Independently, some people believe it's CODAD because of the official designation 054B (Alex Luck among others).

In addition, there's now good evidence that 054B uses a brand new Diesel engine, and for the first time one that has been completely independently developed by China: The CS16V27 has been officially announced in a press release on May 20 2023, and it also looks like it has been confirmed to have been ordered to Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard.

Of course 054B could still use generators and electric motors for noise reduction instead of pure CODAD, but the need to independently develop a Diesel engine that is stronger and more energy-dense than 16PA6V-280STC (5.2MW) explains the delay in getting 054B construction started; after all 054A is at the maximum displacement possible for pure Diesel propulsion

One argument for IEP of some form is that 054B is much larger than 054A and yet the CS16v27 Diesel engine is slightly smaller than 16PA6V-280STC and weighs about the same (ca. 30 tons). Given that armament hasn't changed by much and neither the new rotating AESA nor the longer flightdeck take up excessive space, it stands to reason that some of the extra displacement would have gone towards propulsion; specifically to make it more quiet. Better rafting is a given, but if you do have electric motors that are apparently good enough to equip submarines, it makes imminent sense to go for some kind of IEP and the displacement is available.

In addition, 28-29MW is barely adequate to reach 26 knots in a CODAD configuration; however IEP is more efficient by about 16%, which would bring the propulsion power into the normal range for a fast surface combatant and allow reaching 28-30 knots - after all the inability to keep up with destroyers has been a major flaw of 054A.







By the way, it has also been announced (back in December 2022) that there is a 6-cylinder version of the new engine which can generate 2-3MW and weighs about 11 tons; perhaps an alternative to the MTU 4000 series gensets that are most likely used on 052D? Would explain how that ship can now be offered for export given that MTU won't allow its gensets to be used for military exports:

 

[antiterror13]

how many units are projected in this batch any ideas ?

I'd say 8 and then the 2nd batch with a few improvements and tweaks

 

[Tiberium]

A closer look at the masts and the scaffolding.

The area of single face of this radar is definitely larger than the sum of 3 radar of Constellation's SPY-6(V)3. It is definitely more powerful than BurkeIIA's SPY-1D.

 

[BoraTas]

I see 054B as ASW escort for CV and amphib. Hence requirement for 2 hangars. Feel free to think otherwise.

I would wait until we learn about the propulsion arrangement to call that. If it is the same as the 054A, I will say that PLAN doesn't see much use for frigates for CV escort missions. And really, it is not like they have a shortage of destroyers.

 

[SquireAU]

I would wait until we learn about the propulsion arrangement to call that. If it is the same as the 054A, I will say that PLAN doesn't see much use for frigates for CV escort missions. And really, it is not like they have a shortage of destroyers.

I'm not entirely convinced that a destroyer-only escort would make sense given the submarine thread that the PLAN carrier groups would be facing outside of the first island chain. Back in the cold war, the US Navy found frigates to be vital for ASW duties, and it's only after the Soviet submarine threat vanished that they were phased out.

Submarines naturally want to go after the most high-value targets and because destroyers in themselves are high-value targets they're a relatively poor escort, even if they can do ASW well. Frigates make such good escorts precisely because they're relatively cheap. In addition, their lower armament load-out means more available space that can be dedicated to ASW capabilities.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I'm not entirely convinced that a destroyer-only escort would make sense given the submarine thread that the PLAN carrier groups would be facing outside of the first island chain. Back in the cold war, the US Navy found frigates to be vital for ASW duties, and it's only after the Soviet submarine threat vanished that they were phased out.

There is no special difference between similarly equipped destroyers and frigates in this regard.
Provided you have enough DDs(which China now has in extreme overabundance), it's just names.

 

[BoraTas]

I'm not entirely convinced that a destroyer-only escort would make sense given the submarine thread that the PLAN carrier groups would be facing outside of the first island chain. Back in the cold war, the US Navy found frigates to be vital for ASW duties, and it's only after the Soviet submarine threat vanished that they were phased out.

Submarines naturally want to go after the most high-value targets and because destroyers in themselves are high-value targets they're a relatively poor escort, even if they can do ASW well. Frigates make such good escorts precisely because they're relatively cheap. In addition, their lower armament load-out means more available space that can be dedicated to ASW capabilities.

I agree with all of this. ASW is a high-risk mission and requires specific hardware. These mean a specialized ship that is weaker on AAW (which is hugely expensive) makes a lot of sense. You present the same or greater threat to subs at a lower cost. This skews the risk/reward ratio for subs. So, like many other people, I expected such a ship from PLAN. When I saw that the new frigate has a light AAW package compared to its size I was like "This is it". But the lack of a hangar for a second helo and the ship's designation as a 054 changed my mind a little bit.

PLAN usually gives type numbers after propulsion arrangement. If the same holds here this ship has 4 diesel engines. That is not very good for CV escort missions as speeds above 25 knots would be needed frequently. Also, there are arguments against an ASW frigate:

1- Naval assets are slow and are in low numbers. It is hard to have specialized assets in the correct place at the correct time. A general purpose (GP) destroyer like the 052D can handle anything it encounters but an ASW ship is of low use during an aerial attack. So specialized assets are usually overbuilt to an extent.

2- What are the implications for cost at the fleet level? Do you get more capability for money by using specialists? Especially considering you would need more crew, more shore facilities and you need to overbuild? The answer is probably no, considering GP ships dominate naval procurement globally.

3- An ASW escort would be at the outskirts of a naval task force by default. And remember that it has weaker AAW capabilities. Therefore its utility would be substantially reduced if aerial threat is also present. It would have to be closer to the center which would make it less useful as a screen against subs. This is also extra relevant for China because the current CV fleet and low number of aerial tankers mean the US would be advantageous in the air beyond 1500 km from China's shores.

4- China still needs a lot of seaborne AAW. The current US strategy is spamming a lot of missiles from 1500-2000 km away. For this reason, it might not want to pour money into a specialized ASW fleet escort. It might go lower end and build a better 054A. The rest of the money would be used for more destroyers.

 

[snake65]

There is no special difference between similarly equipped destroyers and frigates in this regard.
Provided you have enough DDs(which China now has in extreme overabundance), it's just names.

And why would you build an AAW destroyer and ASW frigate similarly equipped? Obviously one excels in AAW the other in ASW. And if there is overabundance of destroyers already, why would you build ships with size and ASW similar to destroyers and less capable in AAW?

 

[Gloire_bb]

And why would you build an AAW destroyer and ASW frigate similarly equipped?

Well, for starters, because PLAN does exactly that.
Since the 1990s, ASW has been compact enough to not require separate(or too large) ships physically.

And if there is overabundance of destroyers already, why would you build ships with size and ASW similar to destroyers and less capable in AAW?

A frigate is a ship operating anywhere, often alone - on a more sustainable basis.
But so are the submarines, especially nuclear ones: they threaten everyone, both fleet, rear, next to shore, and on the far side of the World.