054B/next generation frigate

A.Man said:

051B has 48 VLS cells, 8 missiles per VLS. 052C has 6 missiles per VLS.

Click to expand...

The 051B has 32 VLS for HHQ-16s, same as the 054A/B.

snake65 said:

051B has similar displacement and dimensions to 054B. 32 cell VLS, 16 slant YJ-12, 2 CIWS. And 2 hangars for Ka-27. I rest my case.

Click to expand...

So, with the 052 and 051B (which were built in the late-1990s) designed to carry 2 helicopters in their hangar, while the 052Ds (which are built in the 2010s and beyond) and the 054B (which are built in the 2020s) were designed to carry only 1 helicopter in their hangar - That means there is certainly more to why these newer surface combatants for the PLAN carry only one helicopter per ship compared to the older ones, rather than just a mere "oversight".

If fact, every DDG since the 052Bs (bar the 055s) has reverted back to carry only 1 helicopter per ship hangar.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

The 051B has 32 VLS for HHQ-16s, same as the 054A/B.


So, with the 052 and 051B (which were built in the late-1990s) can carry 2 helicopters, while the 052Ds (which are built in the 2010s and beyond) and the 054B (which are built in the 2020s) can carry only 1 helicopter - That means there is certainly more to why these newer surface combatants for the PLAN carry only one helicopter per ship compared to the older ones, rather than just a mere "oversight".

If fact, every DDG since the 052Bs (bar the 055s) has reverted back to carry only 1 helicopter per ship.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not pay attention. I was talking about 051C.

You can pack a lot of stuff into a smaller and older platform. No doubt even more can be packed into a newer larger one. Just be prepared to compromise on crew comfort and growth potential.

Someone recently mentioned here that modern ships keep getting larger without necessarily adding more weapons.

These days it's more about designs which easily allow upgrades, and focus on sea keeping + crew comfort.

Deploying only one helicopter on PLAN's latest DDG and FFG (except type 055) clearly shows different defence doctrine between China and most of other countries.

I don't have inside info from PLA, and I doubt most of us have, so here it is just my 3 cents worth of opinion.

Main operation areas and most likely areas of future conflict and war between China and its opponents are likely to be SCS, East China Sea and aeas within 2nd island chain.

Basically these are shallow seas where PLAN should be able to place a lot of seabed listening and detection devices. In a joint operation any combinations of these seabed stations, a single helicopter, one or more small submarines (SSK) and the surface ship (DDG or FFG) with ASW gear, plus one or couple of Y9Q ASW, acting together should be sufficient to deter encroachment of hostile submarines. And all of them could be engaging within hours after the first sign of detection.

On the deep ocean and far area seas, PLA ships should operate in a flotilla which might ot might not be having type 055 but there would be multiple units of helicopters since a small flotilla of say, a DDG, FFG and and a replenishment ships should be able to carry 3 helicopters. In a larger flotilla, they may include type 055, and/or type 071/075 etc with even more helicopters.

I don't foresee in war time, a lone DDG or FFG oprtaing in far away sea like Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean or beyond 2nd island chain.

The advantage of dual helo platforms is not so much greater ASW performance by operating more helos simultaneously, but rather greater availability, sustainability, flexibility and efficiency.

kwaigonegin said:

Some of your points are all valid however they remained excuses. As to not making enough helos, that's a not a valid excuse. I'm 10000% sure making Z20s etc. is not a major constraint for China's MIC.
A modern destroyer designed in the late 2000s (052DL) SHOULD have facilities for 2 onboard helos. It's a huge oversight in my opinion.
This comes from decades of experience where 1 unit is simply inadequate.
Unless PLAN intends to never operate outside of the 1st island chain this may potentially cause issues.
When you have 2, you have almost a 100% helo availability.
When you are sub hunting a 2 ship helo working in concert scales up effectiveness in a few order of magnitudes. When you launched torpedoes from 2 diffetent vectors you up the probability hit significantly.
Even if you just use one they can take turns to refuel for continous time on station.. etc.
If one goes down there is another for immediate SAR.
The advantages of having 2 vs 1 in the high seas is a forgone conclusion and an absolute MUST for any vessels over 7k tons intending on operating outside the comfort zone. Even more so for PLAN with very limited FOBs.

Click to expand...

I agree that PLAN should have an affordable oceangoing combatant with dual helos and I am disappointed that 054B has not gone down this path. That said, I don't think we should be looking at 052D as the appropriate locus for such a capability. 052C/D are already "dense" combatants. They are smaller than other types around the world with a high-end AAW fit, alternately they offer significantly greater AAW capability than similarly-sized combatants around the world. That dense packaging of capabilities inherently comes with compromises, and I think a single helo is a reasonable compromise for that platform as it stands, though the question could be revisited if a notional future medium destroyer displacing 8000-9000 tonnes were to eventuate.

kwaigonegin said:

Some of your points are all valid however they remained excuses. As to not making enough helos, that's a not a valid excuse. I'm 10000% sure making Z20s etc. is not a major constraint for China's MIC.
A modern destroyer designed in the late 2000s (052DL) SHOULD have facilities for 2 onboard helos. It's a huge oversight in my opinion.
This comes from decades of experience where 1 unit is simply inadequate.
Unless PLAN intends to never operate outside of the 1st island chain this may potentially cause issues.
When you have 2, you have almost a 100% helo availability.
When you are sub hunting a 2 ship helo working in concert scales up effectiveness in a few order of magnitudes. When you launched torpedoes from 2 diffetent vectors you up the probability hit significantly.
Even if you just use one they can take turns to refuel for continous time on station.. etc.
If one goes down there is another for immediate SAR.
The advantages of having 2 vs 1 in the high seas is a forgone conclusion and an absolute MUST for any vessels over 7k tons intending on operating outside the comfort zone. Even more so for PLAN with very limited FOBs.

Click to expand...

Systems are never free, and adding another hangar for a ship of a given size means you have to give something up.

The advantages of having two helicopters versus one helicopter is obviously a forgone conclusion, but the cost of having a ship with a hangar for two helicopters on a given hull size in context of all of the other modern subsystems that a ship needs is NOT a forgone conclusion.


The question that should be asked, is if one desperately felt like a second helicopter hangar was needed, then how much would need to be sacrificed on a given ship?
Or, alternatively, one could ask if a ship is meant to operate in a task group anyhow where other surface combatants will all have their own helicopters (in turn potentially with a larger force projection-capable ship like a carrier or a LHD which will have their own helicopters as well), just how much is it required for a given lone surface combatant to have two helicopters versus the other elements of what a modern surface combatant may need?

Blitzo said:

Systems are never free, and adding another hangar for a ship of a given size means you have to give something up.

The advantages of having two helicopters versus one helicopter is obviously a forgone conclusion, but the cost of having a ship with a hangar for two helicopters on a given hull size in context of all of the other modern subsystems that a ship needs is NOT a forgone conclusion.


The question that should be asked, is if one desperately felt like a second helicopter hangar was needed, then how much would need to be sacrificed on a given ship?
Or, alternatively, one could ask if a ship is meant to operate in a task group anyhow where other surface combatants will all have their own helicopters (in turn potentially with a larger force projection-capable ship like a carrier or a LHD which will have their own helicopters as well), just how much is it required for a given lone surface combatant to have two helicopters versus the other elements of what a modern surface combatant may need?

Click to expand...

I keep coming back to FFG-7 Perry, which was explicitly a budget program with compromises and cutbacks everywhere except to the suite of ASW capabilities that were the core task of the platform. Dual Seahawks were insisted upon for even this budget 054A-sized warship as that directly addressed the high-end and high-volume submarine threat that USN confronted in the late Cold War period. I believe that period and its challenges provide the best point of comparison for the challenges that PLAN faces today and going forward.

Contemporary USN is something of a mess (though, notably, a mess comprised largely of dual-helo combatants) while most of the other traditional naval powers that we may have looked at for comparison purposes are more or less in preservation mode, whether they admit it or not. Besides Cold War-era USN, JMSDF is probably the next-best example of a service that has long prioritised ASW. JMSDF of course has dedicated ASW helicopter carriers, but it also has 6000-tonne combatants (the Murusame/Takanami/Akizuki/Asahi series) with hangars that appear capable of accommodating two Seahawks, even if they only routinely deploy with one.

In any case 054B only has a single helo and there is no use complaining about it when there are many other interesting features to discuss or yet to be confirmed.

Lethe said:

I keep coming back to FFG-7 Perry, which was explicitly a budget program with compromises and cutbacks everywhere except to the suite of ASW capabilities that were the core task of the platform. Dual Seahawks were insisted upon for even this budget 054A-sized warship as that directly addressed the high-end and high-volume submarine threat that USN confronted in the late Cold War period. I believe that period and its challenges provide the best point of comparison for the challenges that PLAN faces today and going forward.

Contemporary USN is something of a mess (though, notably, a mess comprised largely of dual-helo combatants) while most of the other traditional naval powers that we may have looked at for comparison purposes are more or less in preservation mode, whether they admit it or not. Besides Cold War-era USN, JMSDF is probably the next-best example of a service that has long prioritised ASW. JMSDF of course has dedicated ASW helicopter carriers, but it also has 6000-tonne combatants (the Murusame/Takanami/Akizuki/Asahi series) with hangars that appear capable of accommodating two Seahawks, even if they only routinely deploy with one.

In any case 054B only has a single helo and there is no use complaining about it when there are many other interesting features to discuss or yet to be confirmed.

Click to expand...

I keep thinking about the Perry as well, and to be honest the reason I think about it is just a reflection of how different the USN of then and the navies of today (including the PLAN today) are.

Frankly, the fact that the Perry was able to squeeze so many subsystems of the time, including dual helicopter hangars, into a 4000t hull was not only impressive, but probably not doable with the sort of requirements of today. I'm not only thinking about damage control, but also the complexity and size of modern subsystems (weapons and sensors), but also the expectations for crew facilities.

The Perry and its contemporary, the Spruance class which entered service at about the same era, were both ships with twin helicopter hangars where large parts of the USN surface combatant fleet outright lacked organic helicopter facilities. The Charles F Adams destroyers, and the cruisers of the era either had minimal helicopter accommodation facilities or outright lacked them. In many ways the Perry and Spruance could be seen as making up the deficiencies for the rest of the fleet of the time, while also orienting themselves for a more ASW role relative to the USN's other surface combatants.

The likes of the Marusume/Takanami/Akuzki/Asahi, as far as I can see, have a single enlarged hangar which can accommodate a 10 ton class helicopter and some extra equipment, but does not look able to actually accommodate two 10 ton helicopters side by side. The positioning of the helicopter secure/traverse system relative to the hangar on those ships certainly lends itself in a way that the recovered helicopter takes up 2/3rds of the overall width of the hangar space.

Finally, I think we should consider the PLAN's own past 2 hangar surface combatants in the modern/near modern era.
From the late cold war to now, the only PLAN surface combatants with 2 helicopter hangars are:
- original 052
- original 051B
- 055

I won't invoke the pictures of those three classes because we can look them up ourselves, however the geometry of those hangars and their widths I do not believe are equal, and that the hangar that 055 has (suited for Z-20F) is (at minimum) a little bit wider. Given Z-20F is a bit of a wider helicopter than the Z-9s that the original 052s and 051B would have been developed around, that makes sense.

My expectation, is that for the PLAN, if we want to consider the prospects of a proper twin helicopter hangar vessel, we should probably expect a 20m beam (near 055 beam) ship.

That said, I do think the 054B's hangar space could potentially be expanded a little bit in future variants, such as a miniature hangar to accommodate 1 or 2 smaller VT UAVs (which we know they are developing) on the side in addition to the main Z-20F hangar.

But I definitely don't think we should be viewing the helicopter hangar counts of PLAN surface combatants as if two should be a baseline expectation.
For a 18ish meter beam ship, I think one hangar is pretty reasonable.
For a 20ish meter beam ship, two hangars would be a more reasonable expectation at that scale. However even then, the French FREMM and US Constellation are also in that beam class and cannot accommodate two proper 10ton class helicopters either, so go figure.


Whenever the topic of helicopter hangar count comes up for new PLAN surface combatants (either new classes, or new batches of existing classes), I feel like there is a default expectation that PLAN surface combatants should come with two helicopter hangars, but I think people's reference scales are calibrated a bit incorrectly.

I don't understand the obsession with dual helicopter hangars. PLAN design standards require a collective protection system, degaussing and sufficiently wide damage control corridors along both sides of the ship. I recall that experiences gained from damage control on 052C revealed that the interior was too cramped, hindering effective repairs while underway. As a result, the beam on 052D was widened by 1.2m to 18.2m (some sources incorrectly label 052D as still being 17m wide, but you can measure on every side-by-side picture or satellite image that it's wider than 052C by about 1m).


Given the above design standards and lessons learned, you can't have two helicopters on a <20m wide hull without compromising damage control and survivability below what the PLAN appears to consider acceptable.


The maximum possible width of a ship design is limited by its propulsion system and required design speed. PLAN ships tend to be a bit narrower relative to their length than US Navy (Arleigh-Burke, Zumwalt) or Royal Navy (Type 45, Type 26) ships of similar length because China
- is still somewhat behind in propulsion technology (though this might change with 054B),
- is unwilling to take the technological risks that lead to Type 45 having blackouts and Zumwalt's 'revolutionary' design leading to program failure,
- is unwilling to stomach the high fuel consumption associated with the Burkes (except on the higher-end Type 055) and
- requires a higher design speed for the 054B than the Royal Navy does for the Type 26.

On top of all this, there's also the weight penalty associated with a second hangar: this not only limits the displacement available for other systems but also negatively affects seakeeping ability because weight is added further away from the centre of gravity.

Finally, the PLAN lacks institutional knowledge in operating shipborne helicopters compared to its adversaries; the Z-20 is only just being introduced and much heavier than the Z-9. In contrast, the US Navy has decades of experience operating Seahawks, including under difficult conditions. Therefore, PLAN ships require a larger flight deck for safely operating the Z-20 on the 054B than the US Navy does for its Seahawks on the Burkes and Perrys; a larger flight deck means more displacement that's not available for a second hangar.


Every design is a compromise and once you look at the trade-offs that are involved it's not hard to see why the PLAN chose a single helicopter hangar for the 052D & 054B.


As Blitzo has mentioned, the Perry class is a poor analogy because it didn't feature many modern requirements that we now take for granted and had no collective protection system - hence there was no need to fit corridors on either side of the hangars. I would like to add that the Perry's superstructure was made from aluminium, which cracked over time and would be prone to melting down during a major fire, as happened to USS Belknap when it collided with the aircraft carrier USS Kennedy in 1975:

If 054B is designed as a general purpose frigate to replace 054A in new production while being more compatible with blue water missions, Wouldn't 1 hangar (with a heli and a UAV on board) be par for the course?

Where is this fascination with 2 hangars coming from?