054B/next generation frigate

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Given the broader beam of the B, I was expecting the top radar to be placed on a taller mast. 3x3 metres should not be that heavy.

We have yet to definitively know how big or high the array will be placed yet, so I would hold fire as to how whether expectations are being filled or not.

It is also worth keeping in mind that the array is likely to be two sided as well, rather than single sided, which doubles the top weight for the array and back end and cooling.


The estimated beam of 054B also is not actually as wide as proper destroyers either or even like larger frigates such as FREMM, and is estimated more at 18m, which is wider than the 054A's 16m but lower than the 20m of FREMM or 20.8m of Type 26.
 

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
The estimated beam of 054B also is not actually as wide as proper destroyers either or even like larger frigates such as FREMM, and is estimated more at 18m, which is wider than the 054A's 16m but lower than the 20m of FREMM or 20.8m of Type 26.
I am aware of that and not expecting 45 m asl as Sampson on Type 45. The CGs so far are placing the radar similar to 054A.

Regarding the expectations - CGs also are expectations. Why should I hold off mine? I am just commenting on what I see.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I am aware of that and not expecting 45 m asl as Sampson on Type 45. The CGs so far are placing the radar similar to 054A.

Regarding the expectations - CGs also are expectations. Why should I hold off mine? I am just commenting on what I see.

If the 054B does place the radar height similar to that of 054A that would be very reasonable given the fact that the dual face AESA would be much heavier than the Sea Eagle radar and given the beam has only increased by 2 meters compared to 054A.
It almost definitely is not going to have the radar mounted as high as something like Artisan on the Type 26 or the Kronos on the Italian FREMM, given they are 20.8m and 20m in beam respectively, whereas 054B is about 18m in beam and carrying a heavier two sided array versus the lighter single sided array design of Artisan and Kronos.


As for expectations, the CGIs are so far are informed estimates. The word choice of “I was expecting” implies that we definitively know what the specific configuration (height, relative array size) will be and your expectations in the past are no longer valid.
If you’d written “I am expecting the top radar to be on a taller mast” then that would be reasonable as it means that we don’t know what the specific configuration will be yet.
 
Last edited:

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
As for expectations, the CGIs are so far are informed estimates. The word choice of “I was expecting” implies that we definitively know what the specific configuration (height, relative array size) will be and your expectations in the past are no longer valid.
If you’d written “I am expecting the top radar to be on a taller mast” then that would be reasonable as it means that we don’t know what the specific configuration will be yet.
If CGs are considered informed estimates and I make a comment on those estimates, I don't see a difference whether I say was or am.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
If CGs are considered informed estimates and I make a comment on those estimates, I don't see a difference whether I say was or am.

Well, your meaning can only be conveyed by your word choice. Informed estimates in PLA watching means estimates that are not made from nothing, but they also are still estimates nonetheless with features that are subject to change. Given you were talking about a feature (radar mast height) that is unconfirmed but using the past tense of your expectations, it implied that you believed the radar mast height shown in the CGI was representative of what the real thing will be.
If that isn’t what you meant, that’s fine, and it is good you were able to clarify it.

In any case, on the radar height on the mast, if 054B is able to maintain the same height for its twin face AESA as 054A that would be quite reasonable I think. In fact if they are able to maintain 054A radar height for 054B, that would actually be a bit higher than I expected.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Do we know if and how widespread and effective is the CEC practiced across all branches of the PLA (PLAGF, PLAAF, PLAN, PLARF, PLASSF) right now?

There appears to be an older, slower and non directed (means it's omnidirectional) datalink used with just about every vessel. They appear like dipoles on the mast arms.

The Type 055 was the first to introduce a phase array directed datalink or CEC similar to USG-2. You can find these four panels on top of the integrated mast above the four panels of the X-band AESA.

images (1).jpeg

This shows you the evolution of the USN CEC. They began migrating to the third one on the right with four planar arrays around the late 2000s and is a required upgrade to AEGIS Baseline 9. This upgrade continues gradually throughout the fleet even today.

The Chinese four planar CEC array first appeared in the 055. But it has appeared in other ships. In the Liaoning, an older ESM set was removed to install four planar arrays on each side of the island. In the Shandong, these arrays are in the pyramid foot that holds the Type 382 radar at the top. The Fujian appears to bristle with these arrays, not just four, but six or eight, suggesting an enhanced system that will let it communicate with more ships or planes simultaneously. They are found in the crown mast on top of the island, well they are not yet there but the openings to fit them are already evident. On the Type 075, I find four planar arrays right where the two ESM units are in the main mast.

For aircraft, these would appear as tear drop blisters on the sides or a nice round blister on the bottom of the belly, a good example is the naval Z-20C. Some people say it's some kind of radar but I disagree. A radar would have been on the chin. You can suppose you can find blisters along naval Y-8s and Y-9s including AEW aircraft. It is obvious that naval aircraft and helicopters would connect to this network, especially if they are launched from such ships.

On the Type 054A Binzhou, the frigate had these arrays on the top of it's hanger as an trial platform. It went to it's Gulf of Aden mission with it and stopped over at Greece for a visit. These arrays were photographed by OSINT bloggers, though it was wrong to assume that they are some new radar. Since then the arrays have been removed from the Binzhou.

Any future MLU to older ships, including the 052C and 052D should take account of these.

In the prototype Lantern radar for the 054B at Wuhan, the stem of the radar featured these arrays, which point that they are part of the requirements even though the Lantern design was cancelled for the new dual sided radar design that has a much larger and more powerful radar than the one inside the Lantern.
 
Last edited:

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
In any case, on the radar height on the mast, if 054B is able to maintain the same height for its twin face AESA as 054A that would be quite reasonable I think. In fact if they are able to maintain 054A radar height for 054B, that would actually be a bit higher than I expected.
Russian Fregat M2M or MAE-3 double-face radar weighs 2.5 tons. Weight of Sea Eagle should not be much different. What would be your estimate for weight of the new double-faced radar on 054B?
 
Top