054/A FFG Thread II

[Blitzo]

The problem with your theory is that it requires there to be a 054B that originally did NOT have IEP that subsequently displaced several hundred tons more WITH IEP that was then 'fixed' with a redesign. This to me is entirely NOT the most reasonable assumption as IEP has been associated with the 054B for a long time. Though it is within the realm of possibility, it is obviously not the default assumption.

I fully agree that IEPS has always been associated with 054B for a long time. But I don't see how my idea suggests that isn't the case.

Given what is written, clearly he is saying that originally they thought 054B would have to displace a few hundred tons more (but relative to what?) due to the introduction of IEPS (well technically he writes "改系统" which really makes "changing system" which I we can sensibly interpret to changing or advancing new subsystem/s) -- however additional design allowed them to prevent the increase of that few hundred tons.

Putting it very simply:
054B (with IEPS) original design: added a few hundred extra tons relative to XYZ
054B (with IEPS) revised design: did not add those few hundred extra tons that 054B-original-design would've had relative to XYZ, while still having the same systems (including IEPS) that the 054B-original-design would've had.


In other words, both the "original" 054B and the "current" 054B both included IEPS, but design changes meant the "current" 054B managed to include IEPS without the increase in extra few hundred tons displacement of the "original" 054B which also included IEPS. The question is what the "few hundred tons" greater displacement was relative to -- was it relative to 054A, or relative to 054B now, and if it is relative to the latter, well that means we don't know



.... that said, I'm a little bit dubious as to whether fzgfzy is actually referring to IEPS when he says "改系统" because 系统 can refer to systems or subsystems in a general sense rather than explicitly IEPS, unless one is interpreting it in context of his overall post which talks about IEPS a bit more. If he is not referring to IEPS explicitly, then he may be talking about any number of changed "systems" or "subsystems" when he is talking about the "few hundred tons".

 

[Iron Man]

Given what is written, clearly he is saying that originally they thought 054B would have to displace a few hundred tons more (but relative to what?) due to the introduction of IEPS (well technically he writes "改系统" which really makes "changing system" which I we can sensibly interpret to changing or advancing new subsystem/s) -- however additional design allowed them to prevent the increase of that few hundred tons.

Putting it very simply:
054B (with IEPS) original design: added a few hundred extra tons relative to XYZ
054B (with IEPS) revised design: did not add those few hundred extra tons that 054B-original-design would've had relative to XYZ, while still having the same systems (including IEPS) that the 054B-original-design would've had.

Nope. There is simply NO reason for them to say they got rid of a few hundred ton increase in the 054B's displacement if the 054B already included IEP in the design from the beginning. If an IEP was already part of the 054B's design from the beginning, there would be no "extra" displacement to design away because the displacement of the IEP would already have been factored into the initial design; the introduction of the IEP occurs simultaneously with the introduction of the 054B; they are one and the same. There would be no IEP introduction to have to "design away".

The only reason they would say that displacement was increased due to the introduction of the IEP is if there were originally a non-IEP version of the 054B. Then they would say, "IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054B's transmission gearboxes for an IEP. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away". Given that IEP was associated with the 054B from the beginning, this is a very unlikely possibility. They would ALSO say this if they are comparing displacements of the 054B to the 054A and saying "well the 054B's IEP in place of the 054A's CODAD is costing us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away".

 

[Blitzo]

Nope. There is simply NO reason for them to say they got rid of a few hundred ton increase in the 054B's displacement if the 054B already included IEP in the design from the beginning. If an IEP was already part of the 054B's design from the beginning, there would be no "extra" displacement to design away because the displacement of the IEP would already have been factored into the initial design; the introduction of the IEP occurs simultaneously with the introduction of the 054B; they are one and the same. There would be no IEP introduction to have to "design away".

The only reason they would say that displacement was increased due to the introduction of the IEP is if there were originally a non-IEP version of the 054B. Then they would say, "IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054B's transmission gearboxes for an IEP. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away". Given that IEP was associated with the 054B from the beginning, this is a very unlikely possibility. They would ALSO say this if they are comparing displacements of the 054B to the 054A and saying "well the 054B's IEP in place of the 054A's CODAD is costing us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away".

Umm no, the entire sentence of that part of his post is saying that the change of a new system or systems (in this case which is assumed to refer to IEPS), originally would've resulted in an increase of a few hundred tons, but they managed to redesign it so that introducing those no system/s would not result in an increase of a few hundred tons.

What you wrote here:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054B's transmission gearboxes for an IEP. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away"

-- is basically essentially what I described in my last post, if you just swap 054B for 054A.

In other words, the way I interpret that part of his post (and indeed how jobjed translsates it as), is something like:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054As transmission gearboxes for an IEP in the 054B. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. Let's try to design this extra displacement away"
Obviously it makes sense to try and cut down weight through the design process if possible, if practical and if it doesn't adversely effect other aspects of the ship's performance. I see no reason why there would not be interested in designing away any additional weight that IEPS may have introduced -- if they saw an opportunity to design away extra tonnage that IEPS introduction originally would've resulted in, then they would've taken it in the design process.


What we do not know is whether those extra 300 tons or "few hundred tons" is the only extra displacement relative to 054A's displacement or if there was other additional displacement as well.

 

[Iron Man]

Umm no, the entire sentence of that part of his post is saying that the change of a new system or systems (in this case which is assumed to refer to IEPS), originally would've resulted in an increase of a few hundred tons, but they managed to redesign it so that introducing those no system/s would not result in an increase of a few hundred tons.

What you wrote here:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054B's transmission gearboxes for an IEP. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away"

-- is basically essentially what I described in my last post, if you just swap 054B for 054A.

In other words, the way I interpret that part of his post (and indeed how jobjed translsates it as), is something like:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054As transmission gearboxes for an IEP in the 054B. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. Let's try to design this extra displacement away"
Obviously it makes sense to try and cut down weight through the design process if possible, if practical and if it doesn't adversely effect other aspects of the ship's performance. I see no reason why there would not be interested in designing away any additional weight that IEPS may have introduced -- if they saw an opportunity to design away extra tonnage that IEPS introduction originally would've resulted in, then they would've taken it in the design process.


What we do not know is whether those extra 300 tons or "few hundred tons" is the only extra displacement relative to 054A's displacement or if there was other additional displacement as well.

As I expected, you now have to resort to the proposition of an initial non-IEP 054B design which was redesigned into an IEP 054B in order to justify your particular interpretation of his remarks, something we have absolutely no evidence was ever the case. When we first started hearing legitimate rumors of a "054B" from the big shrimps, it was already associated with IEP. And if the 054B's initial design had already come with IEP, then there would be no "introduction" of an IEP that added a few hundred tons because the IEP would already be in the design. This all makes sense however if if fzgfzy is comparing the introduction of the IEP on a 054B compared to the lack of one on a 054A, and saying they subsequently managed to design the displacement increase away.

 

[Blitzo]

As I expected, you now have to resort to the proposition of an initial non-IEP 054B design which was redesigned into an IEP 054B in order to justify your particular interpretation of his remarks, something we have absolutely no evidence was ever the case. When we first started hearing legitimate rumors of a "054B" from the big shrimps, it was already associated with IEP. And if the 054B's initial design had already come with IEP, then there would be no "introduction" of an IEP that added a few hundred tons because the IEP would already be in the design. This all makes sense however if if fzgfzy is comparing the introduction of the IEP on a 054B compared to the lack of one on a 054A, and saying they subsequently managed to design the displacement increase away.

? What "non-IEP 054B" are you talking about? Please re-read my post.

I'm saying that from the beginning 054B was intended to have IEPS, but that through the design process they redesigned the 054B from the beginning to an extent such that the introduction/change of new systems (like IEPS, or other systems) from the 054A meant they were able to shave off a few hundred tons.


Let me repeat myself again, just in case this isn't clear -- I believe that 054B was always meant to have IEPS from the beginning as well. My argument does not involve any 054B that did not have IEPS to begin with.
I literally have no idea why you think I believe that there was somehow a "non-IEP 054B".

 

[Iron Man]

? What "non-IEP 054B" are you talking about? Please re-read my post.

I'm saying that from the beginning 054B was intended to have IEPS, but that through the design process they redesigned the 054B from the beginning to an extent such that the introduction/change of new systems (like IEPS, or other systems) from the 054A meant they were able to shave off a few hundred tons.


Let me repeat myself again, just in case this isn't clear -- I believe that 054B was always meant to have IEPS from the beginning as well. My argument does not involve any 054B that did not have IEPS to begin with.
I literally have no idea why you think I believe that there was somehow a "non-IEP 054B".

Then you clearly misread my post, because what you were "agreeing" in my post was my portrayal of a non-IEP 054B that had a few hundred tons tacked onto it because they subsequently decided to add IEP to it. That is the only baseline you have available to you in order for them to be able to "introduce" an IEP to, and for them to subsequently "restore" the original displacement to. Think about it. What did they "introduce" an IEP to? A 054B that already had an IEP in the design? Obviously not. They "introduced" an IEP to one of two things: a 054B that did not previously have an IEP in the design, or a 054A which of course does not have an IEP in the design.

 

[latenlazy]

Then you clearly misread my post, because what you were "agreeing" in my post was my portrayal of a non-IEP 054B that had a few hundred tons tacked onto it because they subsequently decided to add IEP to it. That is the only baseline you have available to you in order for them to be able to "introduce" an IEP to, and for them to subsequently "restore" the original displacement to. Think about it. What did they "introduce" an IEP to? A 054B that already had an IEP in the design? Obviously not. They "introduced" an IEP to one of two things: a 054B that did not previously have an IEP in the design, or a 054A which of course does not have an IEP in the design.

Given that we have been hearing the 054A successor would be the first ship of feature IEP for years now, it actually doesn't make sense to assume that IEP is what was added to reduce tonnage. IEP was baked into whatever the successor would have been, whether it was a 054B or a 057 from the get go. Judging from the history of rumours around the next class of frigates and IEP, IEP is intrinsic to the design and would have been assumed as such.

The chinese phrasing does not say that the change in system that allowed for a weight reduction is the IEP. 系统 literally translates to "system" in the most vague and generic sense. 系统 could refer to propulsion or radars or weapons or anything. It could be environmental systems or electrical systems or computer systems. It could even be referring to a reduction in the weight of the IEP system they were originally going to install. It's *really* vague.

 

[Blitzo]

Then you clearly misread my post, because what you were "agreeing" in my post was my portrayal of a non-IEP 054B that had a few hundred tons tacked onto it because they subsequently decided to add IEP to it.

You should re-read that part of my post, because I wasn't agreeing to your portrayal of it, I was saying that what you wrote is essentially what I meant if you swapped 054B with 054A.

Here's the relevant part of my post:

"What you wrote here:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054B's transmission gearboxes for an IEP. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away"

-- is basically essentially what I described in my last post, if you just swap 054B for 054A.

In other words, the way I interpret that part of his post (and indeed how jobjed translsates it as), is something like:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054As transmission gearboxes for an IEP in the 054B. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. Let's try to design this extra displacement away""

That is the only baseline you have available to you in order for them to be able to "introduce" an IEP to, and for them to subsequently "restore" the original displacement to. Think about it. What did they "introduce" an IEP to? A 054B that already had an IEP in the design? Obviously not. They "introduced" an IEP to one of two things: a 054B that did not previously have an IEP in the design, or a 054A which of course does not have an IEP in the design.

The underlined part is the answer, and that's what I've been trying to get at.


First, they introduced IEPS (among other subsystems) to 054A, which is what made this new class of ship i.e.: 054B. As part of that initial 054B design it likely resulted in some degree of additional displacement to the 054B over the 054A (the degree of additional displacement is something which we do not know).
However, throughout the design process of this new class of ship (054B), they managed to design the ship to partially reduce the increase of weight that the new subsystems would've entailed, which fzgfzy describes as a few hundred tons. Whether they managed to reduce all of the increase of displacement of all the new subsystems, or only able to reduce part of the increase of displacement of the new subsystems, is something we do not know.

 

[Jura The idiot]

... IEPS (well technically he writes "改系统" which really makes "changing system" which I we can sensibly interpret to changing or advancing new subsystem/s) ...

what would be

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in Chinese?
(google translation 綜合電力推進

 

[Iron Man]

You should re-read that part of my post, because I wasn't agreeing to your portrayal of it, I was saying that what you wrote is essentially what I meant if you swapped 054B with 054A.

Here's the relevant part of my post:

"What you wrote here:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054B's transmission gearboxes for an IEP. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. We need to design this extra displacement away"

-- is basically essentially what I described in my last post, if you just swap 054B for 054A.

In other words, the way I interpret that part of his post (and indeed how jobjed translsates it as), is something like:
"IEP technology has matured, so let's swap out the 054As transmission gearboxes for an IEP in the 054B. Oh wait.... that is going to cost us an additional 300 tons. Let's try to design this extra displacement away""





The underlined part is the answer, and that's what I've been trying to get at.


First, they introduced IEPS (among other subsystems) to 054A, which is what made this new class of ship i.e.: 054B. As part of that initial 054B design it likely resulted in some degree of additional displacement to the 054B over the 054A (the degree of additional displacement is something which we do not know).
However, throughout the design process of this new class of ship (054B), they managed to design the ship to partially reduce the increase of weight that the new subsystems would've entailed, which fzgfzy describes as a few hundred tons. Whether they managed to reduce all of the increase of displacement of all the new subsystems, or only able to reduce part of the increase of displacement of the new subsystems, is something we do not know.

We were proceeding with the discussion on the assumption that the "system" is the IEP, which both you and I were talking about for the last two pages, until you starting suggesting alternative ambiguous interpretations literally only 3 posts ago (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-054-ffg-thread-ii.t4149/page-329#post-445514). If it is the case that "system" actually means "all the new systems that make the 054B different from the 054A" rather than IEP-only as jobjed stated then obviously the displacement savings is figured from that configuration. If "system" refers to the IEP, then clearly the baseline 054A is the correct reference point.