Yes, I saw your reply in the other thread and appreciate your point of view. But I am also presenting the 052E(cono) concept to PanAsian to see what his/her opinion is. PA's concept differed from your slightly because of the wish list to be able to add Aegis like radar.
My proposal includes an advanced radar too, only it will be a fast rotating APAR (like SAMPSON or EMPAR) enclosed within the integrated/enclosed lantern mast at wuhan, rather than fixed face like SPY-1 or 346. Such an arrangement can easily be fit on a 5000 ton hull.
I don't necessarily see the 052D hull as too large and wasteful. More powerful propulsion also means higher top speed and when we look at the 054A's top speed vs 052D's, the latter has a higher rating. If the notion of this next frigate being able to do double duty as stand alone or in a task force, the higher top speed makes it a better match to the 052Ds and 055s. A successor frigate should have better performance. If there is a transition to a different propulsion such as IEPs, the potential efficiency gains can offset the added cost of using a larger hull.
054A is generally accepted as having a top speed a few knots slower than optimal, but there's no reason a 5000 ton frigate with new propulsion (either with a new powerplant or even IEPS) cannot reach the 30 knots that is desired
But the point remains that for a larger hull to achieve the same power/weight ratio as a smaller hull, there will be a need for a more powerful powerplant in an absolute sense. Hydrodynamic drag is also something to consider as well
Also, while proposing an econo destroyer, there is no limitation on implementing newer automation techniques where appropriate so one can have a 052E with smaller crew than 052D. That means cost would be less that 052D for comparison.
Yes, but still higher cost relative to a 5000 ton destroyer, for reasons that I've mentioned in previous posts.
The additional cost may be well worth it if the econo destroyer may be able to house two helos, UAV, and/or UUV. Those assets amplify the ASW capacity which is still a PLAN weak spot.
There is no reason why a 5000 ton frigate can't also have those things.
The way I see it, a 5000 ton hull can also have an aegis-lite class of radar and combat system, 32-48 VLS, two helicopter hangars, modular space for UUVs or what not, sufficienly powerful propulsion to keep up with CSGs, and also room for some future growth.
If a 5000 ton hull cannot carry all that, then I would agree that adapting the 052 hull might be worth considering. But I think they can either lengthen the 054 hull slightly, or develop a brand new hull to accommodate the above requirements quite handily without the need for excess space that would likely arise from using the 052 hull.
Your "052E" is more like the Akizuki DDG; a destroyer displacement hull with frigate level firepower. Having less firepower and less subsystems within a larger hull does have some benefits, such as more space for crew comfort, maintenance, and greater internal space overall for improving ship endurance, at the cost of buying and maintaining a larger hull and necessitating more powerful propulsion for a ship which can be considered underarmed. If greater endurance is worth the cost to PLAN then such an arrangement could be considered, but I think for a frigate, especially one having a significant ASW role, I think a ship erring on the smaller side is better... especially if a navy is also buying a significnat number of 7000+ ton and 12,000-14,000 ton DDGs.
Lastly, very little R&D costs needed when using a proven hull.
The hull of a ship isn't a significant part of the cost, but rather the subsystems, I think.
