054B/next generation frigate

[Tam]

I think 054B is a disappointing upgrade. It makes no meaningful upgrade to the armamant from the looks of it. Same HQ-16 VLS with the same VLS count. If it uses slant launchers with old school subsonic anti-ship missiles then it will be the exact same armament package. The only saving grace will be if they Switch from 8 Yj-83 to 16 YJ-12 missiles. Then it could be considered a bit more uparmed in terms of land and anti-ship attack.

So far, I have been very disappointed with the 054B. Maybe all that tonnage went to endurance and that is its only saving grace.

Not the same old HHQ-16. Moderned HHQ-16F. Active guidance with 160km range. They likely outranged the old HHQ-9A (125km) on the 052C unless the 052C is now updated to the HHQ-9B (250km+).

YJ-12 isn't capable of land attack. YJ-83B is. The range of these is probably about 300km+.

Radar outfit is also superior to the 054A and is comparable to the large European frigates.

 

[gelgoog]

It is still kind of lame with regards to weapons package.

The number of missile launch cells is ok. But they should have added at least some fullsized VLS cells to the design.
Same cells as in the destroyers.

The Japanese Mogami class frigate is supposed to have some Mk 41 VLS cells for example and it is much smaller.

 

[GiantPanda]

I think 054B is a disappointing upgrade. It makes no meaningful upgrade to the armamant from the looks of it. Same HQ-16 VLS with the same VLS count. If it uses slant launchers with old school subsonic anti-ship missiles then it will be the exact same armament package. The only saving grace will be if they Switch from 8 Yj-83 to 16 YJ-12 missiles. Then it could be considered a bit more uparmed in terms of land and anti-ship attack.

So far, I have been very disappointed with the 054B. Maybe all that tonnage went to endurance and that is its only saving grace.

You start adding destroyer weapons, you'll get destroyer costs so why bother with a frigate?

This is an upgraded frigate designed to do better in some of the blue water roles that was once allotted to the 054A -- faster speed and more endurance to stay with the CBG but still cheap enough to give numbers for pickets.

 

[doggydogdo]

The number of missile launch cells is ok. But they should have added at least some fullsized VLS cells to the design.
Same cells as in the destroyers.

Why would they add "fullsized" VLS? having two different types of VLS on a single ship is just going to make it more expensive logistically, without providing meaningful value.

 

[HardBall]

I think 054B is a disappointing upgrade. It makes no meaningful upgrade to the armamant from the looks of it. Same HQ-16 VLS with the same VLS count. If it uses slant launchers with old school subsonic anti-ship missiles then it will be the exact same armament package. The only saving grace will be if they Switch from 8 Yj-83 to 16 YJ-12 missiles. Then it could be considered a bit more uparmed in terms of land and anti-ship attack.

So far, I have been very disappointed with the 054B. Maybe all that tonnage went to endurance and that is its only saving grace.

I'm honestly not sure what you are comparing it to. Type 054B's weapons load is pretty much in line with most western navies, or really most other navies' surface ships of a similar displacement. Maybe you are thinking of Admiral Gorshkov or something along those lines? That's a rather far outlier to compared to.

One thing I do agree is that they would be better off putting in a few UVLS for quad packing short/medium range SAMs, that should be more of a requirement as time goes on, especially if this were to become a front line picket ship for large battle groups.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

What's with all the talks of trying to mold PLAN FFGs into DDGs anyway?

While I agree with the need/potential to increase the number of armaments (i.e. VLS cells) and corresponding systems onboard newer Chinese FFGs to be better at countering future threats - Unlike European and Australian FFGs which are essentially their "ship-of-the-line" surface combatants, Chinese FFGs are essentially second-line, "do-your-everyday-job-as-told"-type of surface combatants. There are growing number of 052C/Ds and 055s who can actually do the heavy-lifting in the PLAN, leaving the 054A/Bs to do the more menial, boring tasks in the fleet.

Besides, unlike the European and Australian navies, the PLAN needs FFGs in massive quantities, which mean that the FFGs must be quicker to build, cheaper to procure and easier to operate. Those abomination of 8000-10000-ton FFGs (Type 26, F126) are not how China should design and build her own FFGs.

 

[AndrewS]

What's with all the talks of trying to mold PLAN FFGs into DDGs anyway?

While I agree with the need/potential to increase the number of armaments (i.e. VLS cells) and corresponding systems onboard newer Chinese FFGs to be better at countering future threats - Unlike European and Australian FFGs which are essentially their "ship-of-the-line" surface combatants, Chinese FFGs are essentially second-line, "do-your-everyday-job-as-told"-type of surface combatants. There are growing number of 052C/Ds and 055s who can actually do the heavy-lifting in the PLAN, leaving the 054A/Bs to do the more menial, boring tasks in the fleet.

Besides, unlike the European and Australian navies, the PLAN needs FFGs in massive quantities, which mean that the FFGs must be quicker to build, cheaper to procure and easier to operate. Those abomination of 8000-10000-ton FFGs (Type 26, F126) are not how China should design and build her own FFGs.

It's not just about having low-cost frigates doing "everyday-jobs"

In a wartime scenario, submarines are going to be one of the biggest threats

If you have a ship which has to do close-in anti-submarine work, you want to use the most expendable and lowest cost ship possible.

---

If you start to make your frigate more capable in anti-air and anti-surface warfare, it becomes a more worthwhile target in its own right.

 

[charles18]

Besides, unlike the European and Australian navies, the PLAN needs FFGs in massive quantities, which mean that the FFGs must be quicker to build, cheaper to procure and easier to operate.

I totally agree.

Between now and 10 years down the road, the PLA-navy is going to be severely disadvantaged in regard to SSN's.
Building a large number of FFG's would be a viable way to compensate for this disadvantage.

Of course if given enough time maybe 25 years from now, I am 100% sure China will achieve parity in everything, including SSN's. When this happens there will be no need to have an over abundance of frigates. However between now and then China needs an insurance policy to protect itself from hostile SSN's and FFG's are the most viable option.

Secondly in a Pacific War 2.0 scenario, Chinese shipping convoys are guaranteed to be attacked, probably by hostile SSN's, if not defended. Frigates will be in high demand defending shipping lines. They'll have plenty of work to do. If this feels "Low - tech" like something you read out of your high school WW2 history book, then you're right.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I think 054B is a disappointing upgrade. It makes no meaningful upgrade to the armamant from the looks of it. Same HQ-16 VLS with the same VLS count. If it uses slant launchers with old school subsonic anti-ship missiles then it will be the exact same armament package. The only saving grace will be if they Switch from 8 Yj-83 to 16 YJ-12 missiles. Then it could be considered a bit more uparmed in terms of land and anti-ship attack.

So far, I have been very disappointed with the 054B. Maybe all that tonnage went to endurance and that is its only saving grace.

You're misguided on the purpose of frigate then. It isn't fuerdai teen buying pieces of prestige to improve his chances of getting laid, or suppress classmates with new shiny iPhonehuawei.
Especially when modern armaments (VLS) aren't visually impressive in the first place. You can't show off internal boxes.

A Frigate in a 3-tier system of multirole ships is a ship, first and foremost, not taking a single more RMB for its mission than optimal.
If you have that leftover RMB - spend it on 052D, 055, or, better still, on a 093B.

32 VLS is optimal for a non-AAW combatant with a separate strike armament. HQ-16 is fully relevant, and it doesn't eat into the same production line as the "battlefleet" HHQ-9 do.
YJ-83 is also optimal, and twice their number of YJ-12 will both make the ship heavier, less universal, and more expensive. It will make it somewhat better against combat-ready high-end targets, which it ideally shouldn't even see.

Excellent deal.

 

[tanino]

1. You can have even 1000 VLS but if you launch bad products, they will always be bad even if you have a million cells. Better Few but good and built in series, see point 2, the issue of drones and saturation, is another story (important of course!)

2. Sectoral Model type Sovremennyy-class and Udaloy-class remains always relevant (and good) if I can afford to build 6 54B every year, and not 1 XXX model every 4 years, especially if I don´t have to do 10000000 ocean miles with it, then we talk about AI and propulsion type.


Ciao!