054B/next generation frigate

[blindsight]

Tam, can you give us an example of a Chinese civilian IEP ship that uses fully indigenous IEP technology? I have a hard time finding one.

I found several examples, including a cruise ship, that utilize substantial Western IEP technology (from ABB, for example).

Cruise ship (2023 est):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Based on what I could gather from ABB's azipod technology, these are AC systems, but everyone on this forum has been saying that PLAN is pursuing DC grids only:
View attachment 76884

Rescue vessel (2020):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From what I could gather, this vessel uses a DC grid, but at a relatively low voltage of 1000 VDC, which may not be scalable to meet the power demands of frigate or larger size vessels: ABB's 1000VDC is claimed to scale up to 20MW. Type 054 has 27 MW just for the diesel propulsion, based on data from the Chinese wiki. I couldn't find any info on its electrical generation capacity. I guess the total would come close to 30 MW.

State-of-the-art civilian onboard DC, 2018:
View attachment 76885

However, I am somewhat skeptical as to what degree these civilian technologies are applicable on a naval combatant, that is expected to take significant damage and continue fighting. The USN developed an elaborate zonal redundant IFEP architecture (IFTP) for the Zumwalt, that is quite unlike civilian implementations.

The civilian route will be good in building a foundation in human engineering capital and experience, but additional work will be required to create militarized applications.

Some cutters of China Coast Guard have IEP, supposed to be an indigenous system, not exactly civilian though.

And some civilian ferries as far as I know. But I don't think they're that comparable with war ships.

 

[blindsight]

Their 2011/12 refit should be enough till the end of their days. It would keep them viable as a quasi-frigate. None of these systems, the ESM, the ECM, the VDS, the TAS, are outdated and they are current. In terms of ASW and EW, they are current and even with the rest of the fleet. HQ-10 is a bit of a sloped upgrade or slopegrade (slopegrade is the direction when you mix upgrade and sidegrade) over the HQ-7. The radars it uses, while mechanical, are also current.

There should be only one major refit, and for 052, the 2011/12 event is it. This does not mean it didn't have other minor refits since then. The most obvious of that happened recently when the 052 received two circular SATCOMs which appears to be a mandatory fit as soon as possible refit on every PLAN ship. These SATCOMs should have a flat panel or phase array for communicating with satellites or high flying objects like UAVs. The urgency of these installations suggest these things are important.

The refit 052 received around 2004 was quite significant too. Since the two 052s are the last ships still equiped the obsolete HHQ-7 (besides 521&524, which were planned to be sold), I don't believe PLAN plans to use them as combatants for 10 more years. Especially, 112 is always used as a command ship.

 

[Blitzo]

It's never my focus wether there's a planned gap or not. My point is that PLAN won't put 054B into mass production before it proves to be reliable. By then, the new batch of 20 054A will have already been completed.

I don't think you understand what "mass production" means.

For 055, they "only" launched one 055 in 2017, but in 2018 they launched three 055s, in 2019 they launched two 055s, in 2020 they launched two 055s.
However, in 2017, when they launched "only" one 055, they had already began mass production, because the nature of warships is that they are long lead items, and even though in 2017 only one 055 was launched, the work on the second to eighth 055s had already began at varying stages.

For 054B, if they launch "only" one 054B in say, 2024, and say if they "only" launch two 054Bs in 2025, that does not mean the ship hasn't started mass production -- because in those years they could've already began work on successive ships up to the eighth hull or more intended to be launched in 2026, 2027 or onwards.

That is what I mean by saying I don't believe that there will be a "planned gap" in mass production. If we assume steel cutting for hull #1 has indeed begun (and therefore hull #1 would be launched in 2024), then my position for a yearly launch for mass production of 054Bs without a planned gap, could look something similar to this in terms of 054Bs launched per year:
2024 - 1 054B
2025 - 2 054B
2026 - 4 054B
2027 - 4 054B
2028 - 4 054B
2029 - 054B production continues...

Whereas on the other hand, the whole point of what you wrote was that you wanted a planned gap after the first batch of two to four ships were built, for a pause of "a couple of years" per your post #172. Assuming an initial batch of four ships with a two year gap, using a similar initial launch of the first 054B in 2024 to mine, the annual 054Bs launched would look something like this:
2024 - 1 054B
2025 - 2 054B
2026 - 1 054B
2027 - no 054B due to "planned gap"
2028 - no 054B due to "planned gap"
2029 - 054B production recommences...


Do you see the difference, and do you understand why my position is one of going into mass production immediately?

Do you understand that even if they only launch 1 or 2 054Bs in the first couple of years of production, that the ship class itself could still have entered mass production, if they've already began work on the next ships that would be launched in the third, fourth and fifth years of production???

 

[blindsight]

I am not sure if 054B is a given that it will use IEPS. It can be that IEPS is going to be used on a PLAN vessel, emphasis on "a" vessel, not the 054B. I have my own doubts ever since the moniker "054B" is retained. A new power plant platform change can result in a new designation, even with IEPS. Note that 053, 054 and 056 are all diesels. 054B can in fact be an all diesel platform, without IEPS, with the main focus of its changes being more related to its sensors. You want the economy and reliability of the 054 platform, along with the point that it is cheap to build, but combine that with a more advanced sensor set up.

It's long rumored and reasonable. They either test IEP on 054B or 055A. To start with 054B is less risky.
I don't think designation is an issue here. The future 055 with IEP will most likely be designated as 055A, rather than a new series. The same thing here for 054B.

 

[Kich]

Is it even clear yet if this new frigate will retain the 054 nomenclature?
It could have new prime movers so then a new name instead of 054B.

 

[Blitzo]

Is it even clear yet if this new frigate will retain the 054 nomenclature?
It could have new prime movers so then a new name instead of 054B.

For now, we are calling it 054B.

Until such a time where credible people in the grapevine call it something else, we will also follow.


We also don't know whether the prime movers and propulsion arrangement of a warship class follows the same "05X" prefix. If 054B is indeed IEPS, and if 054B is indeed called 054B, then it would also help to clarify that aspect of things.

But for now, for the sake of general discussion, it's reasonable to call it 054B until a different name starts being used.

 

[blindsight]

I don't think you understand what "mass production" means.

For 055, they "only" launched one 055 in 2017, but in 2018 they launched three 055s, in 2019 they launched two 055s, in 2020 they launched two 055s.
However, in 2017, when they launched "only" one 055, they had already began mass production, because the nature of warships is that they are long lead items, and even though in 2017 only one 055 was launched, the work on the second to eighth 055s had already began at varying stages.

For 054B, if they launch "only" one 054B in say, 2024, and say if they "only" launch two 054Bs in 2025, that does not mean the ship hasn't started mass production -- because in those years they could've already began work on successive ships up to the eighth hull or more intended to be launched in 2026, 2027 or onwards.

That is what I mean by saying I don't believe that there will be a "planned gap" in mass production. If we assume steel cutting for hull #1 has indeed begun (and therefore hull #1 would be launched in 2024), then my position for a yearly launch for mass production of 054Bs without a planned gap, could look something similar to this in terms of 054Bs launched per year:
2024 - 1 054B
2025 - 2 054B
2026 - 4 054B
2027 - 4 054B
2028 - 4 054B
2029 - 054B production continues...

Whereas on the other hand, the whole point of what you wrote was that you wanted a planned gap after the first batch of two to four ships were built, for a pause of "a couple of years" per your post #172. Assuming an initial batch of four ships with a two year gap, using a similar initial launch of the first 054B in 2024 to mine, the annual 054Bs launched would look something like this:
2024 - 1 054B
2025 - 2 054B
2026 - 1 054B
2027 - no 054B due to "planned gap"
2028 - no 054B due to "planned gap"
2029 - 054B production recommences...


Do you see the difference, and do you understand why my position is one of going into mass production immediately?

Do you understand that even if they only launch 1 or 2 054Bs in the first couple of years of production, that the ship class itself could still have entered mass production, if they've already began work on the next ships that would be launched in the third, fourth and fifth years of production???

I don't think you get me right. What you described is exactly the problem here. When you still don't know wether the new system works or not, you already put a series of ships in production. Under the worst scenario, you may have to fix a lot of modules that you have already made. That can waste a lot of resources, which is never the philosophy of PLA.

 

[Tam]

It's long rumored and reasonable. They either test IEP on 054B or 055A. To start with 054B is less risky.
I don't think designation is an issue here. The future 055 with IEP will most likely be designated as 055A, rather than a new series. The same thing here for 054B.

Not sure if they should test IEP on a cost sensitive or a cost priority platform like the 054B. Maybe on the 055A or the Type 076, but not something I expect to be mass produced. The ships are going to have to retain something that made the 054/054A series a cost effective and reliable platform. If they are actually putting such in a frigate, you would be sure it would already be thoroughly tested before they would even do it.

 

[Tam]

The refit 052 received around 2004 was quite significant too. Since the two 052s are the last ships still equiped the obsolete HHQ-7 (besides 521&524, which were planned to be sold), I don't believe PLAN plans to use them as combatants for 10 more years. Especially, 112 is always used as a command ship.

I am not sure how significant is that compared to the one in '12, which introduced modern ASW sonars and EW equipment to the ship. As for the HQ-7 it has been updated, and I don't think its anymore as outdated as the HQ-17/Tor-M1.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't think you get me right. What you described is exactly the problem here. When you still don't know wether the new system works or not, you already put a series of ships in production. Under the worst scenario, you may have to fix a lot of modules that you have already made. That can waste a lot of resources, which is never the philosophy of PLA.

What I described is not a problem, because in my position, the whole reason that they would be comfortable doing mass production is that they do not foresee 054B having major issues in the first place, and if there are minor teething issues, they have 20 054As to pick up the slack. I wrote this before in post #184.


Basically, you are arguing that you think there are subsystems in the 054B which is insufficiently mature, which is why they will only produce a few ships in an initial batch before a pause of a couple of years.
Whereas I am arguing that I think they could have subsystems in the 054B which are sufficiently mature that they are comfortable to start mass production from the outset.


Please re-read my replies to you and your replies to me on the last few pages. Basically everything that you are writing and which you are asking, I have already addressed or answered.