The 'U' means the VLS itself is designed for a variety of missiles. Nowhere does the 'U' suggests the system must the one and only on any/all ships. It is entirely possible that the choice of which VLS is used has everything to do with which combat system is used. The 054B may simply be using an upgrade version of the 054A. Like an older PC motherboard with only SATA but no M.2 interface. If this is so, let's hope when the combat system is updated for MLU or the next batch (like 054 -> 054A), things will be different.
054B/next generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
The 'U' means the VLS itself is designed for a variety of missiles. Nowhere does the 'U' suggests the system must the one and only on any/all ships. It is entirely possible that the choice of which VLS is used has everything to do with which combat system is used. The 054B may simply be using an upgrade version of the 054A. Like an older PC motherboard with only SATA but no M.2 interface. If this is so, let's hope when the combat system is updated for MLU or the next batch (like 054 -> 054A), things will be different.
That was discussed here before. It is basically impossible. The 052D is a way superior ship and this ship doesn't have the capabilities to act as a destroyer in 2024 let alone in future.
True, but the 052D started out as a 052, and the 054B is larger than the 052, so maybe the PLAN designed this ship with modularity and maybe exportability in mind? Either way, the 054A doesn't appear old or outdated enough to justify replacing so early.
It's not about age, it's about capability. If 054As do not have the range, for example, to perform the desired mission profile of a FFG then they must be replaced by a platform which does (assuming the necessary resources and prioritization).
The very fact that we see the rotating dual-face AESA radar mounted on the top mast on the 054B FFGs meant she was never envisioned to have area air defence capabilities that is comparable to the likes of the 052C, 052D and 055. At best, the 054Bs will serve to fill the mid-range air defence gap of the PLAN with her HHQ-16s.
For a dedicated area air defence-capable platform (of which the 052C, 052D and 055 are meant to be), the radar arrays are required to be large and powerful, which means that they are also quite heavy as a result. Mounting them on the mast is going to make the ship top-heavy and unstable.
Besides, as a dedicated area air defence platform, the ship can't afford to lose those radars, meaning that those radar arrays must be able to be repaired/maintained in case of malfunction or wartime damages, especially outside of shipyards. This is very difficult to be conducted on radar arrays that are mounted that high up on top of the mast.
This is why you see the Burkes and Chinese AEGIS DDGs all have their phased array radars mounted on the fore superstructure in fixed positions and orientations.
In the meantime, I don't think that exportability is closely related to how the 052D was envisioned by PLAN planners and ship designers, given that much of their focus is primarily aimed at the requirements and demands of the PLAN.
They aren't replacing the 054As, but relegating them to other operational domains which are more suited to their capabilites.
Is that really a VLS, or an intake hatch? I sense sarcasm but still a noob, so worth asking.
Aren't the new missiles supposed to have active radars, and doesn't that mitigate the immediate need for four sided illumination? Also I'm well aware of center of gravity effects on ship balance. It is part of the reason I mentioned the fact that the 52D started out its life as a 052, and why I dabbled with the idea that the 054B might be the start of a 052 successor. Here's some photos (obviously not to scale).
I'll settle for that.
Hmm. I don’t think it’s possible to make such sweeping statements.
Take the British Type 45 destroyer: it mounts it’s main AESA radar quite a bit higher than Type 045B and at the same time serves as a dedicated air defense destroyer. Thanks to more advanced radar technology, its capabilities surpassed those of FLI and FLII Arleigh Burke destroyers.
That is a sweeping statement against physics. Fixed phased array radar (PESA or AESA) scans the sky electronically, that is instant. A one faced AESA on type 45 sweeps the sky as fast as its motor can rotate. Being a mechanically rotating AESA is still much slower than an old 4 faced PESA on AB ships to sweep the 360 degrees around you.
054B's two faced AESA doubles the sweeping speed at the same rotating speed which is better than type 45, but still behind 052C/D.
Type 45 can mount its radar higher because it has only one small panel and lighter. It is an advantage but has its disadvantage at the same time. Type 45 being a dedicated air defence ship is because that is the best UK can get, not because it is best technical solution compared with others.
Last edited:
This is just false. A fixed phased array radar with 4 faces does not scan the sky instantly. The SPY-1 radar on the Arleigh Burke’s that I compared against can radiate only from one radar face at a time. The upgraded versions are able to radiate from two faces simultaneously, but never from all four.
PESA/AESA radars with electronic scans still require non trivial time to perform a scan: this will be a function of beam width and dwell time. Dwell time will be a function of radar performance characteristics.