054B/next generation frigate

SquireAU said:

Well, I know and that is why I am sceptical of the jump to CODAD myself. However, I think that 伏尔戈星图 based his conclusion on the size of the holes in the. Independently, some people believe it's CODAD because of the official designation 054B (Alex Luck among others).

In addition, there's now good evidence that 054B uses a brand new Diesel engine, and for the first time one that has been completely independently developed by China: The CS16V27 has been officially announced in a press release on May 20 2023, and it also looks like it has been confirmed to have been ordered to Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard.

Of course 054B could still use generators and electric motors for noise reduction instead of pure CODAD, but the need to independently develop a Diesel engine that is stronger and more energy-dense than 16PA6V-280STC (5.2MW) explains the delay in getting 054B construction started; after all 054A is at the maximum displacement possible for pure Diesel propulsion

One argument for IEP of some form is that 054B is much larger than 054A and yet the CS16v27 Diesel engine is slightly smaller than 16PA6V-280STC and weighs about the same (ca. 30 tons). Given that armament hasn't changed by much and neither the new rotating AESA nor the longer flightdeck take up excessive space, it stands to reason that some of the extra displacement would have gone towards propulsion; specifically to make it more quiet. Better rafting is a given, but if you do have electric motors that are apparently good enough to equip submarines, it makes imminent sense to go for some kind of IEP and the displacement is available.

In addition, 28-29MW is barely adequate to reach 26 knots in a CODAD configuration; however IEP is more efficient by about 16%, which would bring the propulsion power into the normal range for a fast surface combatant and allow reaching 28-30 knots - after all the inability to keep up with destroyers has been a major flaw of 054A.

View attachment 118190

View attachment 118200

View attachment 118191

By the way, it has also been announced (back in December 2022) that there is a 6-cylinder version of the new engine which can generate 2-3MW and weighs about 11 tons; perhaps an alternative to the MTU 4000 series gensets that are most likely used on 052D? Would explain how that ship can now be offered for export given that MTU won't allow its gensets to be used for military exports:

View attachment 118199

Click to expand...

IEP provides fuel burn efficiency across a typical spectrum of a naval combatant’s mission speeds as it enables running of prime movers at their optimal operational parameters.

It does not provide an advantage by itself in achieving higher top speeds. On the contrary, it is less efficient in this respect. Which is part of the reason why you don’t typically see electric propulsion on nuclear powered carriers that place importance on top speed (which is well above that of cruisers and destroyers)

BoraTas said:

PLAN usually gives type numbers after propulsion arrangement. If the same holds here this ship has 4 diesel engines. That is not very good for CV escort missions as speeds above 25 knots would be needed frequently. Also, there are arguments against an ASW frigate:

Click to expand...

TBH, I doubt that the PLAN would choose to retain the same top speeds of the 054A for the 054B, considering that the 054Bs are meant to succeed the 054As and become actual parts of any Chinese carrier strike/battle group as the primary ASW component for the group.

Not saying that the 054Bs will become highly ASW-specialized warships like the Asahis of the JMSDF, though.

Gloire_bb said:

There is no special difference between similarly equipped destroyers and frigates in this regard.
Provided you have enough DDs(which China now has in extreme overabundance), it's just names.

Click to expand...

China is extremely SHORT in destroyers, can you tell us how many they have vs the USA please?

Andy1974 said:

China is extremely SHORT in destroyers, can you tell us how many they have vs the USA please?

Click to expand...

The US has 11 carriers and 9 LHAs alone +allies and their underdefended CSGs, and +all the commissions and presence all over the world. All of that is to be served by destroyers, because they don't have anything else.

China has 2 carriers for a destroyer force >50 strong. And as many frigates (superbly suitable for Chinese 3 LHAs) on top.
All that for mostly local commitments and still a very token global presence (well below, say, Ru navy).

ACuriousPLAFan said:

TBH, I doubt that the PLAN would choose to retain the same top speeds of the 054A for the 054B, considering that the 054Bs are meant to succeed the 054As and become actual parts of any Chinese carrier strike/battle group as the primary ASW component for the group.

Click to expand...

Now likely 100% diesel propulsion(as on 054A) suggests they just aren't. 054B, as of now, seems to be a very direct continuation of 054A in role.

Another detail to pay attention to is the presence of waterline exhaust vents. The French FREMM variant has them there for the forward diesel generator sets.

Gloire_bb said:

The US has 11 carriers and 9 LHAs alone +allies and their underdefended CSGs, and +all the commissions and presence all over the world. All of that is to be served by destroyers, because they don't have anything else.

China has 2 carriers for a destroyer force >50 strong. And as many frigates (superbly suitable for Chinese 3 LHAs) on top.
All that for mostly local commitments and still a very token global presence (well below, say, Ru navy).

Click to expand...

I honestly don't think the PLAN is actually oversupplied with DDGs (and FFGs, for that matter) as compared to the 2 CVs (soon to be 3) and 3 LHDs (soon to be 4).

As of 2023:
- For the USN, there are ~4.4x Burke DDGs & Ticonderoga CGs for every CVN & every LHD/LHA.
- For the PLAN, there are ~16.6x 054+054A FFGs* & 051C+052C+052D+055 DDGs* for every CV & every LHD.

*I didn't take the older DDGs (x9) and FFGs (x10) of the PLAN into account, as they are more suitable for patrolling the East China Sea and South China Sea, both of which are closer to the mainland (and hence, closer to effective PLAAF and PLARF cover) instead of venturing beyond the 1IC (of which the modern DDGs and FFGs are more capable of doing).

Sure, having more major surface combatants attached to one flat-deck enables said flat-deck to be more protected against enemy threats than having fewer major surface combatants attached to one flat-deck.

However:
1. China is maritime-bordered by Japan and South Korea, where both the JMSDF and ROKN are also considerably potent navies in the region;
2. The JMSDF and ROKN has no proper CVs of their own, hence their majority-surface combatant fleets are highly expected to be attached to US CSGs in times of war, which helps to improve the ratio of surface combatant-flatdecks for the US in the Pacific;
3. There is also the RN and RAN of the UK and Auatralia to consider about; and
4. Last but not least, China has only herself (i.e. PLAN) to reliably depend upon in case of Pacific War 2.0.

Therefore, it actually makes sense for China to procure significantly larger numbers of major surface combatants compared to other countries. Procuring more surface combatants for the PLAN actually works - Not just to improve the odds when confronting against the combined might of the USN, JMSDF, ROKN, RN and RAN in the WestPac, but also preparing for the eventual expansion of the Chinese flat-deck fleet (CVs and LHDs) into the late-2020s and the 2030s.

On the other hand, having a large fleet of major surface combatants alone isn't enough - China needs more proper CVs that operate fighters, which should help to defend allied warships and fleets against enemy attacks. I think this also matters a lot in this discussion.

Therefore, I do believe that the number of major surface combatants and flat-decks actually go hand-in-hand with each other.

whether or not China needs hundreds of DDGs and FFGs depends on whether or not China wants/needs to transition from a regional navy to a global force like the US. the US has vast global responsibilities, and it only has like 72 DDGs.

I guess it all depends on how PLAN intends to structure thier force. Will the 54B be part of the CSG?
I guess a Fujian CSG once it comes operational will answer most of our questions.
PLAN at this juncture certainly has enough DDGs to form a CSG consist of only 055s and 052Ds. So where dies 054B fits into it?
Is it just a 054A replacement or do they intend for it to sail with the carrier/s?
If so propulsion and speed is critical. OTOH if its only relegated to coastal defence duties or patrol inside the 1IC than the ASW component may be a bit overkill.
Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to know what type of propulsion it has.

Zichan said:

IEP provides fuel burn efficiency across a typical spectrum of a naval combatant’s mission speeds as it enables running of prime movers at their optimal operational parameters.

Click to expand...

True in principle except bad practice such as Type-45 whose initial primary mover setup caused GT to run more often than wanted, that caused both higher fuel consumption and shorter life of the GT. RN's patchwork is to add a third diesel engine to the ship.

The point is that the higher fuel efficiency isn't naturally of IEPS but rather IEPS makes it posssible for higher fuel efficiency.

Zichan said:

It does not provide an advantage by itself in achieving higher top speeds. On the contrary, it is less efficient in this respect.

Click to expand...

Not true.

Propeller in a mechanical drive train has a few preset RPMs determined by the gearbox. We know that propeller efficiency (turning mechanical power into actual thrust) depends on propeller revolution speed and ship advance speed. A gearbox has limited conversion ratios, so in the full range of speed, the ship is not always running at optimal RPM setting.

IEPS by using electrical motor makes propeller runs at optimal RPM all the time because electrical motor's revolution is controlled by electrically changing frequency and wave form equivalent to a gearbox with "unlimited settings". So propeller efficiency in IEPS is much higher than a mechanical drive train.

Gearbox's power loss is about 5% in case of multiple propeller shafts and prime movers, 95% efficiency.

In IEPS the shaft power (from the prime mover) to the propeller shaft is reduced by electrical generator and motor, both at over 96%, in total at 92% efficiency.

So overall, electrical drive train is on the same level if not better than mechanical drive train in delivering thrust (therefor speed) from the same prime mover.

Zichan said:

Which is part of the reason why you don’t typically see electric propulsion on nuclear powered carriers that place importance on top speed (which is well above that of cruisers and destroyers)

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with speed. Current US and UK's AC based IEPS is not technically feasible for naval application. It should have never been used by any war ships including QE class CVs. AC IEPS only works fine if the speed is relative constant, like a oceanlinger.

The problem of AC grid is that it has to handle fast frequency/phase sychronization caused by fast load change of war ship, and its inability to use energy storage to mitigate such load fluctuation. Type-45 made the example. Zumwalt is lucky (not going anywhere) not to demonstrate the same problem, US naval is smart enough to not take that chance on their ford class CVN.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I honestly don't think the PLAN is actually oversupplied with DDGs (and FFGs, for that matter) as compared to the 2 CVs (soon to be 3) and 3 LHDs (soon to be 4).

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

If you read an American history book, (please allow me to oversimplify a complex situation) it was American Aircraft carriers that won the war in the Pacific during WW2.
I predict 50 years from now, when Chinese high school students read their history books, (it will be Chinese surface combatants that won WW3) in the Pacific. The Rocket Force will also play a role, but I'm going to limit this talk to the navy.
why?
American policy makers will never allow China to rise peacefully and become the next superpower. They will never allow China to build 11 carriers and 9 LHAs. They will start WW3 before China even has a chance to build half the number of "Flat - tops" as the US-navy.
Therefore the PLA-navy will never "catch up" to the US-navy in terms of carriers. Anybody who thinks American policy makers are going to allow this to happen all I have to say is "This is where you and I respectfully agree to disagree".

Since the PLAN will never get a chance to build enough carriers the outcome of Pacific war 2.0 will be determine by Chinese surface combatants.
The PLA-navy is not oversupplied with DDGs and FFGs. In fact they need more.