054B/next generation frigate

1. Long-range sensors to track target and provide fleet air defence, also have command capabilities
2. CODOG, the extra power from gas turbine to better leverage the power output flexibility of IEP and future-proofing for more power-hungry sensors and direct energy weapons
3. Enough hanger space to house two helicopters
4. 64 universal UVSL, with some stike capabilites.

Bltizo said:

All of the above is dependent on the idea that the radars of the 052D and 055 are "only" capable of guiding SAMs with a maximum range of HHQ-9B.
Instead, I believe that the radar systems on 052D and 055 are actually capable of guiding SAMs with longer range than HHQ-9B, which have yet to enter service and should be in development.

For 054B's primary radar, it looks large enough to be able to support effective engagements in excess of 200km (it looks larger than the SPY-6(V3) which will be on the Constellation class frigates and they will be capable of supporting SM-2 Block IIIC), while for 052D and 055, they should be capable of effectively engaging equivalent targets in excess of 400km.
That is to say, 054B's radar should be able to make use of HHQ-9B/family SAMs effectively at its maximum range, because I believe the HHQ-9B currently is significantly outranged by the radars on 052D and 055.


To cross post what I wrote on CDF about a year ago, my position still remains that I think the below should be the three main categories of SAMs that the PLAN should pursue for its new generation of surface combatants:

"
I have a vision for what will differentiate medium frigates, medium destroyers, and large destroyers/cruisers going into the future, in terms of AAW.

Basically, I expect all medium frigates, medium destroyers, and large destroyers/cruisers to be capable of having, at minimum:
1. long range (200km) air defense
2. medium range (50km+) air defense (quad packed)
3. minimum capability of active phased array radar of at least medium to long range (i.e.: 300km+) and associated sensors.

The differentiators in AAW capability between medium frigates, medium destroyers, and large destroyers/cruisers, IMO, will be:
A) large destroyers/cruisers and medium destroyers capable of carrying very long range SAMs (200-400km+) and ABM systems, which frigates cannot carry
B) large destroyers/cruisers > medium destroyers > frigates, in terms of simultaneous engagement capability
C) large destroyers/cruisers > medium destroyers > frigates, in terms of maximum power/size/range of their active and passive sensors
D) large destroyers/cruisers > medium destroyers > frigates, in terms of magazine size of relevant weapons systems/cells


So, putting that all into context, in terms of SAM capability groups, I basically see three types:
- Medium Range Quad Packable SAM -- 50km range, for medium to short range area air defense, targeting the band from ~50km to CIWS range. I believe this will be the 3-5 missile.
- Long Range SAM -- 200+km range, for medium to long range area air defense, targeting the 200+ km to 30km band. I believe this will be variants of the existing HQ-9 that we all know and love, designed to make use of the 7m long UVLS
- Very Long Range SAM -- up to 400+ km range, for very long range to medium/long range air defense, targeting the 400km to 100km band. I believe this missile will be either a highly evolved HQ-9 missile (perhaps with a booster), or a clean sheet design missile. It would make use of the 9m long UVLS.

Of the above missile types, I think large destroyers/cruisers as well as medium destroyers will be able to accommodate all three types of missiles -- however in terms of magazine size, the large destroyers/cruisers will have larger magazine size overall (including more 9m long UVLS to accommodate more SAMs of the Very Long Range category) than the medium destroyers.
Frigates on the other hand, will only carry the Medium Range Quad Packable SAM and the Long Range SAM -- with an overall magazine size that is even smaller than the medium destroyers, and whose AAW loadout will be mostly Medium Range Quad Packable SAMs with a small number of Long Range SAMs.


Simply put -- I think that any new frigate developed today to enter service in the mid 2020s, *needs* the ability to reach out and hit aerial targets out to 200+ km.
They don't have to have the same magazine size or the simultaneous engagement capability as a large destroyer/cruiser or a medium destroyer, but they need to be able to reach out to 200+ km.
It goes without saying they will need the sensors and fire control to support that capability -- and the twin face AESA we've seen on test ship 892 seems like a perfect fit for that sort of role.
"

Click to expand...

optionsss said:

It's very interesting to see what PLAN wants to do with their next family of frigates. I think there are two approaches, a large 057 variant

1. Long-range sensors to track target and provide fleet air defence, also have command capabilities
2. CODOG, the extra power from gas turbine to better leverage the power output flexibility of IEP and future-proofing for more power-hungry sensors and direct energy weapons
3. Enough hanger space to house two helicopters
4. 64 universal UVSL, with some stike capabilites.

Or a larger 054a with some sensor upgrade, 32 UVSL, CODOG (with IEP), and dual hanger. With CODOG 054b should be able to keep up with future fast carrier fleet and provide solid ASW.

With the extra 20 054a, I think the larger variant is more and more likely. Just a better 052D.

Click to expand...

Tam said:

I suspect the HHQ-9B has a much greater range than advertised or spoken about in the media, with at least 300km or more. While it carries the same basic layout and airframe of the 9 and 9A, a number of developments puts it apart.

The missile might be using the same rocket propellant from the Chinese solid rockets used to send satellites to orbit. KT-1 or KTZ I'll check the names later.

The use of lithium ion batteries greatly extends how long the missile's electronics will run in flight, extending the flight time, how long the data link will run and its range. The batteries may keep the radar guidance seeker longer in operation and extend the seeker range.

Improved microelectronics.

My guess and just my guess is that the Type 346A/B is able to guide and data link to the missile up to 300km, and the active seeker takes it from there for the balance of the flight. The Dual Sided AESA might be able to do guidance up to 200km only and leave the balance of the range to the active seeker. This assumes the target has a large enough RCS, and if the target is stealthy and flying low, the range would greatly decrease.

The fixed radar layout of the 346x radar allows it to be liquid cooled by units situated on the hull running coolant pipes to the array. The cooler you can keep it the more power you can put on it before the amps burn out. The rotary Dual Sided AESA does not have the luxury and probably keeps a small cooling unit inside the array. Unlike the EASR on the Constellation, the dual sided construction limits the space for the cooling unit whereas the single sided radar allows for the entire back to put a larger cooling unit. However the dual sides does mean you have twice the coverage at any given time.

What's more important and what people tend to miss is that the new frigate will surely use the new four panel CEC that will be embedded in the integrated mast. The Wuhan Chinese Lantern test mockup already points to using the CEC with four panels beneath the radar dome. This allows the frigates to share and unify sensors across a ship based network at much greater speeds, range, and throughput than the older datalinks used.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

I believe "XX船超材料高透波共形桅杆" can be more precisely translated as "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

transparent

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

conformal mast for a certain ship".

Click to expand...

Andy1974 said:

Let’s talk about this. What does it mean? How does it work?

I don’t understand why the mast should be transparent to RF, I thought it would be desirable to be RF absorbent instead to be stealthy, otherwise enemy radars will also be able able to see right through it and reflect off the clutter inside the mast. Does this mean that it’s not going to be stealthy?

Otheriwse, what’s the advantage? Is it to be able to keep radars and other RF emitters protected from the elements?, inside this transparent mast? Or to hide the panels/emitters from the non-RF spectrum, eg visible?

Do we have any idea what this mast might look like? And does anyone else have meta material like this?

Click to expand...

by78 said:

Because the radar emitters are likely located inside the mast. Therefore, the mast needs to be RF-transparent to allow radio waves (of a certain frequency range) to pass through.

See images below for an example.

Click to expand...

Andy1974 said:

So it’s purpose is to protect against the elements?

Click to expand...

by78 said:

It's done for stealth.

Click to expand...

Andy1974 said:

I wonder if the meta material can change it’s RF frequency response in real time?

It would be nice to have a physical barrier to block EW interference while allowing your own frequencies through. Obviously it would have to be tuned to enemy EW frequencies and your own, and it would probably have to change those frequencies rapidly to track frequency hopping strategies.

Is that even possible?

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

In terms of maximum range aerial air warfare capability, so long as as 054B is able to physically carry the same missiles that 052D and 055 can by using 7m UVLS cells, and has the ability to effectively engage aerial targets in excess of 200km, I have no issue.

Click to expand...