054B/new generation frigate

If we accept the characterisation of 054B as the new 054A, and the corresponding assertion that it therefore falls short in some respects as a forward-looking combatant for e.g. carrier ASW escort duties, the obvious solution to the latter is 052D and its notional successors, which will assuredly be at least somewhat larger and could, at least in theory, be better optimised for ASW performance. This would mimic how USN currently structures its carrier escorts, i.e. soon to be an all-Burke affair. Of course there are question marks over both the capability and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

One way of threading this particular needle could be to build two different carrier escort designs using a common hull form and machinery, but addressed to ASW or AAW respectively: the AAW ship would have the large AESA radars, more VLS and only one helo (or perhaps even no helos), while the ASW ship would have more modest AESA arrays, fewer VLS, but two helos. The objective of the ASW variant would be to offer improved ASW performance at meaningfully lower cost than the "baseline" AAW variant. I am not strongly attached to this concept and raise it only as a possibility. Ultimately, I think these questions of escort structure depend upon a holistic examination of threat distribution, specifically if there is a mismatch between escort node density required to address anticipated aerial and subsurface threats, and the extent to which design and operating characteristics in one domain are compatible with those in another. Nonetheless, if this structure sounds unnecessarily baroque, I would invite the reader to consider the resemblance to USN CVBG structure in the 1980s. Recall that the Ticonderoga-class AAW "cruisers" were derived from the Spruance ASW destroyer hullform, and were presumptively designated as DDGs throughout most of their development cycle:

054B ~ FFG-51 Oliver Hazard Perry
052E-ASW ~ DD-963 Spruance
052E-AAW ~ DDG-47 Ticonderoga

(By 052E I am referring to any notional next-generation medium destroyer, rather than a further extension of the 052 series specifically.)

The key point of type 054B design is the primary roles given to it by PLAN. Its size, weapon, cruising, speed, crew comfort etc will have to fit into its designated primary roles, not the other way around.

We have to pin point what is its primary roles, and then justify its design. Or we can work in reverse, from its design what would be its primary roles as a frigate?

wuguanhui said:

Is there a similar estimate for the 052?

Click to expand...

Bear in mind this Type-054A cost estimate is from 2015.

The last figure I saw was 3.5 billion RMB for a Type-052D.

If you scale up the hull, propulsion and labour component, then the rest would be weapons and sensors.

tphuang said:

So fundamentally, why did they not go with something that have IEPS and 20-cylinder diesel engines + large power banks? Longer term, you can put UVLS on there and laser. That way, you can actually pack HHQ-9C in there to defend against lower end ballistic missiles and high supersonic AShM. You can combine laser defense with HQ-10 against sea-skimmers and drone attacks. You can still put long range VLS-torpedoes in there. Get rid of anti-ship missile launchers, just have 48 cell VLS.

Click to expand...

All these changes would certainly push Type 054B close to 052D cost, similar to Constellation.

At the end of the day, it’s just 6 ships and next gen FFGs are on the way (based on our rumours). The PLAN needs something to fill the interim between major generations. 6 ships is not nothing, but it’s also not a number the PLAN will stress about. I don’t think they’ll have trouble finding suitable use cases for a ship like this, regardless of how questionable any of us may find it.

Lethe said:

If we accept the characterisation of 054B as the new 054A, and the corresponding assertion that it therefore falls short in some respects as a forward-looking combatant for e.g. carrier ASW escort duties, the obvious solution to the latter is 052D and its notional successors, which will assuredly be at least somewhat larger and could, at least in theory, be better optimised for ASW performance. This would mimic how USN currently structures its carrier escorts, i.e. soon to be an all-Burke affair. Of course there are question marks over both the capability and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

One way of threading this particular needle could be to build two different carrier escort designs using a common hull form and machinery, but addressed to ASW or AAW respectively: the AAW ship would have the large AESA radars, more VLS and only one helo (or perhaps even no helos), while the ASW ship would have more modest AESA arrays, fewer VLS, but two helos. The objective of the ASW variant would be to offer improved ASW performance at meaningfully lower cost than the "baseline" AAW variant. I am not strongly attached to this concept and raise it only as a possibility. Ultimately, I think these questions of escort structure depend upon a holistic examination of threat distribution, specifically if there is a mismatch between escort node density required to address anticipated aerial and subsurface threats, and the extent to which design and operating characteristics in one domain are compatible with those in another. Nonetheless, if this structure sounds unnecessarily baroque, I would invite the reader to consider the resemblance to USN CVBG structure in the 1980s. Recall that the Ticonderoga-class AAW "cruisers" were derived from the Spruance ASW destroyer hullform, and were presumptively designated as DDGs throughout most of their development cycle:

054B ~ FFG-51 Oliver Hazard Perry
052E-ASW ~ DD-963 Spruance
052E-AAW ~ DDG-47 Ticonderoga

(By 052E I am referring to any notional next-generation medium destroyer, rather than a further extension of the 052 series specifically.)

Click to expand...

OHP frigates initially were designed as low-end supplement of Spruance DDs, primarily tasked with providing long range air defense (and limited ASW) for amphibious landing groups and convoys.

Suspected to be a discarded design of the 054B FFG, said to be using CODOG or CODAG propulsion configurations. Posted by SOYO on Weibo.

Lethe said:

If we accept the characterisation of 054B as the new 054A, and the corresponding assertion that it therefore falls short in some respects as a forward-looking combatant for e.g. carrier ASW escort duties, the obvious solution to the latter is 052D and its notional successors, which will assuredly be at least somewhat larger and could, at least in theory, be better optimised for ASW performance. This would mimic how USN currently structures its carrier escorts, i.e. soon to be an all-Burke affair. Of course there are question marks over both the capability and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

Click to expand...

We can see that there are severe production capacity issues at American shipyards, which are barely able to produce 2 Arleigh Burkes per year. They need these for the AAW mission, and don't have the spare capacity to produce a lower-cost ASW-focused escort for CSGs.

Lethe said:

One way of threading this particular needle could be to build two different carrier escort designs using a common hull form and machinery, but addressed to ASW or AAW respectively: the AAW ship would have the large AESA radars, more VLS and only one helo (or perhaps even no helos), while the ASW ship would have more modest AESA arrays, fewer VLS, but two helos. The objective of the ASW variant would be to offer improved ASW performance at meaningfully lower cost than the "baseline" AAW variant. I am not strongly attached to this concept and raise it only as a possibility. Ultimately, I think these questions of escort structure depend upon a holistic examination of threat distribution, specifically if there is a mismatch between escort node density required to address anticipated aerial and subsurface threats, and the extent to which design and operating characteristics in one domain are compatible with those in another. Nonetheless, if this structure sounds unnecessarily baroque, I would invite the reader to consider the resemblance to USN CVBG structure in the 1980s. Recall that the Ticonderoga-class AAW "cruisers" were derived from the Spruance ASW destroyer hullform, and were presumptively designated as DDGs throughout most of their development cycle:

054B ~ FFG-51 Oliver Hazard Perry
052E-ASW ~ DD-963 Spruance
052E-AAW ~ DDG-47 Ticonderoga

(By 052E I am referring to any notional next-generation medium destroyer, rather than a further extension of the 052 series specifically.)

Click to expand...

Current Carrier Escort doctrine looks like:

Inner Zone
2 Close-in escorts for the carrier. Performed by Ticonderogas or Type-055

Middle Zone
2 Roaming escorts. In the US Navy, this used to be performed by Spruance ASW destroyers, now Arleigh Burkes, and with a period when the OHP Frigates were also used. In the Chinese Navy, it currently looks like a mix of Type-052 and/or Type-054A

Outer Zone
2 Pickets, primarily for long-range air warfare. Performed by Arleigh Burkes or Type-052

---

So the debate is really around the composition of the 2 middle zone escorts.

Ideally, you would want at least one ship which is as low-cost as possible, so it can be used to aggressively screen again incoming submarines, whilst being an unattractive target for that submarine. So you want to make this ship as inexpensive and expendable.

However, such a dedicated high-speed design will be procured in very small numbers. At the moment there are only 3 Chinese CSGs, and this likely grow to 5 CSGs by 2030. So 5 ships (or even 10 ships) doesn't justify an entirely new ship-class, considering that the somewhat larger Type-052 hullform is already available, and shouldn't cost that much extra.

(If the Chinese Navy had a requirement for say 30 high-speed ASW Frigates for use with CSGs, that would definitely be enough to justify such a new ship-class)

So I think a stripped down Type-052D (equivalent to the Spruance) looks like the best solution, rather than an uprated Frigate design. I suspect the Type-052D radars account for the majority of the ship's cost, so you could fit a much smaller radar (comparable to Type-054B) which would still be sufficient for medium-range air defence.

But at the same time, CEC means the VLS cells can also contribute to long-range air defence against incoming missiles. So the SAMs are being guided by the radars on a KJ-600 AWACs or another ship.

Alternatively, those VLS cells could be fitted with antiship or land-attack missiles instead.

Wrought said:

You are asking why an outfit like PLAN, for which we have all long observed to be steady, conservative, and iterative in its approach to procurement, did not opt for a a new ship with IEP, 48 UVLS, and lasers? Really?

I mean, you can grumble about their approach all you want, but nobody should be surprised at this point. 054B is par for the course. And looking at the absolute mess that USN has gotten itself into trying to cram every newfangled gizmo into every hull, my guess is that PLAN is quite satisfied with their design philosophy.

Click to expand...

I saw PLAN go from 051B to 052B to 052C to 052D in not a long time frame. I've just seen the coast guard put IEPS on a 2000t hull. I saw them put IEPS + EMAL on a LHD. None of these exactly are all that conservative. When the tech is ready, PLAN will use it. As such, comes back to why 054B is needed?

if we look at 053H3 to 054, the armament stayed the same, but they got new propulsion and completely large and more stealthy hull. 054 was a nice platform to validate the new hull and propulsion ahead of 054A. A similar change from 054A to 054B would entail a far more modern propulsion that opens the way for more powerful armament in the future.

Lethe said:

If we accept the characterisation of 054B as the new 054A, and the corresponding assertion that it therefore falls short in some respects as a forward-looking combatant for e.g. carrier ASW escort duties, the obvious solution to the latter is 052D and its notional successors, which will assuredly be at least somewhat larger and could, at least in theory, be better optimised for ASW performance. This would mimic how USN currently structures its carrier escorts, i.e. soon to be an all-Burke affair. Of course there are question marks over both the capability and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

One way of threading this particular needle could be to build two different carrier escort designs using a common hull form and machinery, but addressed to ASW or AAW respectively: the AAW ship would have the large AESA radars, more VLS and only one helo (or perhaps even no helos), while the ASW ship would have more modest AESA arrays, fewer VLS, but two helos. The objective of the ASW variant would be to offer improved ASW performance at meaningfully lower cost than the "baseline" AAW variant. I am not strongly attached to this concept and raise it only as a possibility. Ultimately, I think these questions of escort structure depend upon a holistic examination of threat distribution, specifically if there is a mismatch between escort node density required to address anticipated aerial and subsurface threats, and the extent to which design and operating characteristics in one domain are compatible with those in another. Nonetheless, if this structure sounds unnecessarily baroque, I would invite the reader to consider the resemblance to USN CVBG structure in the 1980s. Recall that the Ticonderoga-class AAW "cruisers" were derived from the Spruance ASW destroyer hullform, and were presumptively designated as DDGs throughout most of their development cycle:

054B ~ FFG-51 Oliver Hazard Perry
052E-ASW ~ DD-963 Spruance
052E-AAW ~ DDG-47 Ticonderoga

(By 052E I am referring to any notional next-generation medium destroyer, rather than a further extension of the 052 series specifically.)

Click to expand...

When submarines can carry hypersonic missiles that go farther than the range of your ASW suite, any warship expected to operate away from your coast needs to be defend itself. So, Perry class frigate is not viable today.

If we assume that you cannot have an all 055 surface combatant lineup, what does your 6000t displacement ship look like? It will certainly emphasize more on ASW and expected to carry fewer attack munitions, but it needs to also be able to defend against drone swarm and anti-ship ballistic missiles.

4 diesel engines + power bank powering eMotor driving propellers would allow engines to be isolated & mounted on noise absorbers to be really quiet. Imo, this simplifies the entire propulsion and power generation setup, saving precious space for other stuff.

Power bank allows for power surges to weapon system (say to power lasers) or motor to accelerate faster. 38MW to me seems plenty sufficient for that. Laser based air defense would be able to handle mass drone swarms while not taking up more space than PJ-11. You also remove the need for replenishment at sea.

Remove the anti-ship missile launchers and have 48-cell UVLS. That allows you to go more ASW heavy or AAW heavy depending on the mission. Keep in mind that each UVLS could allow for twin-packed torpedo as well as HHQ-9C. You maybe able to survive on 40 or even 32-cell UVLS depending on other space considerations.

But given the prevalence of electric propulsion across Chinese shipbuilding industry, there really is no reason they cannot put IEPS type of propulsion across all the new warships.