Type 054B/next generation FFG thread


KampfAlwin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yet to what amount of trouble? Big? Small? Unresolved? The Zumwalt itself is already long past that, and its been going around to a few places. Yet compare that to its radars which we have not heard news since.

If Ma thinks its not a mature tech yet, the PLAN won't put it on the 054B. What is so hard for you to understand? That the PLAN is obligated to put untested tech on a mission critical platform? They can decide not too. They have no obligation to put it on the 054B if it isn't mature. Next generation frigate is such a strategically important platform that they should want zero risk to it. Do you think they are so set in stone that 054B must absolutely have IEP? No it is not and decision making has to be flexible to say we can't do this, we can't accept this, let's go with the proven method instead. If IEP is not mature, the 054B is going in with conventional diesel approaches. The thing is, they have a schedule and they will maintain it. They need to have an X number of ships by this year and this year and it needs to be done.

Read up what went on with the Constellation class FFG. The RFIP calls for an existing mature and proven platform. The USN actually wanted something that was already designed and placed in the water as opposed to designing from scratch. They wanted zero risk. They don't want to experiment any longer.
I mean, that's why they're building more 54As right? In case the 54B has some problems that needs fixing. What's the point of not introducing IEPS and other new tech if you're just going to build more 54As?
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yet to what amount of trouble? Big? Small? Unresolved? The Zumwalt itself is already long past that, and its been going around to a few places. Yet compare that to its radars which we have not heard news since.

If Ma thinks its not a mature tech yet, the PLAN won't put it on the 054B. What is so hard for you to understand? That the PLAN is obligated to put untested tech on a mission critical platform? They can decide not too. They have no obligation to put it on the 054B if it isn't mature. Next generation frigate is such a strategically important platform that they should want zero risk to it. Do you think they are so set in stone that 054B must absolutely have IEP? No it is not and decision making has to be flexible to say we can't do this, we can't accept this, let's go with the proven method instead. If IEP is not mature, the 054B is going in with conventional diesel approaches. The thing is, they have a schedule and they will maintain it. They need to have an X number of ships by this year and this year and it needs to be done.

Read up what went on with the Constellation class FFG. The RFIP calls for an existing mature and proven platform. The USN actually wanted something that was already designed and placed in the water as opposed to designing from scratch. They wanted zero risk. They don't want to experiment any longer.
The Zumwalt-Class have got some problems with harmonic filters, which limited the system power. I think that was not a minor issue.

Any tech break-through can't be called mature before fully tested. So, you suggest PLAN never try any new tech or what? Thet have to try IEP at certain point one day. And when they do that, they may do it in a conservative way. I'm not saying I'm sure about anything related to 054B. Neither do you. So, just wait and see.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
New hull/propulsion plant isn't some video game "research accomplished" combination.
It's inherently quite risky.

Canonical case a german ww2 ship propulsion - which, contrary to common belief, was seen as mature enough, was reasonably tested both on land and civilian ships(and worked there well!). The "only" thing was it wasn't really tested on warships(KM had no time to do it) - and this small detail alone crippled Kriegsmarine for the whole ww2.

Zero risk is raft with the sail - and it won't buy you maritime parity with the US.
In a by default tech-intensive fighting domain(which seas 100% are), you take calculated risks and take risk-mitigation measures.
And contrary to beliefs of many, such measures don't mean that country x "isn't a leader in field y".
Irresponsible behavior with public money is a sign of political whatsoever meddling, not of a solid innovation process.

Excuse me? Maybe that's what the Kriegsmarine decided due to the urgency of war, but may not be what the PLAN decided.

How is this related with direct maritime parity with the US? Look at all the Chinese space programs, they are not meant to go chase to chase, toe to toe with the US. The Chinese space program doesn't operate like the Soviet Union's. Instead, they proceed at their own pace, based on what's achievable with them. That actually leads to some incredibly successful results. Look at the 003. Its not meant to directly match the US either. Despite all the advantages of nuclear, they went conventional, has one elevator and one catapult less. They do what is achievable. Smaller, achievable steps being done more numerously can get you farther than a few bold steps that would sometimes fail miserably, even catastrophically. Every step forward is a plus.

Regardless of what's going into the 054B, the PLAN will do what is achievable for them. They will be the ones to judge if IEPS is mature or not to go into the ship. If the 054B is a green, this is not going to be some kind of test platform like the 052 or the Han class that they have to fix and refit over and over again. Those days are long over for the PLAN. When the 054B launches, she will be straight off a reliable mission critical ship.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I mean, that's why they're building more 54As right? In case the 54B has some problems that needs fixing. What's the point of not introducing IEPS and other new tech if you're just going to build more 54As?

I don't believe they are building 054As because they think 054Bs are going to be faulty. The parallel production of 052C/052D, 055/052D, 056/056A, don't suggest that.

Its possible they already inked an existing contract for the 20 054A prior to validating the 054B. The reason why 20 054A was inked in the first place, could have been because of the cancellation and reset of an earlier 054B plan. This led to a gap that the PLAN rushed to fill by signing this 20 ship contract. Then the "reset" 054B came out faster and was validated sooner than expected. The parallel production of ships like the 052C/052D and 056/056A comes from contract overlap, an existing contract that you have to finish and a new contract that you just signed.

In any case I would also expect the 20 054A to have improvements batch by batch if existing contracts allow for revisions.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Excuse me? Maybe that's what the Kriegsmarine decided due to the urgency of war, but may not be what the PLAN decided.

How is this related with direct maritime parity with the US? Look at all the Chinese space programs, they are not meant to go chase to chase, toe to toe with the US. The Chinese space program doesn't operate like the Soviet Union's. Instead, they proceed at their own pace, based on what's achievable with them. That actually leads to some incredibly successful results. Look at the 003. Its not meant to directly match the US either. Despite all the advantages of nuclear, they went conventional, has one elevator and one catapult less. They do what is achievable. Smaller, achievable steps being done more numerously can get you farther than a few bold steps that would sometimes fail miserably, even catastrophically. Every step forward is a plus.

Regardless of what's going into the 054B, the PLAN will do what is achievable for them. They will be the ones to judge if IEPS is mature or not to go into the ship. If the 054B is a green, this is not going to be some kind of test platform like the 052 or the Han class that they have to fix and refit over and over again. Those days are long over for the PLAN. When the 054B launches, she will be straight off a reliable mission critical ship.
Nobody can decide whether an all-new tech is mature or not without fully testing it. For the new DC-based IEP, you can't 二even find a single surface combatant in any part of the world. According to your logic, PLAN will never try it since it'll never turn mature.
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
Excuse me? Maybe that's what the Kriegsmarine decided due to the urgency of war, but may not be what the PLAN decided.
Kriegsmarine example was just an illustration of a "research complete" approach.

Instead, they proceed at their own pace,
Everyone does his development at their own pace.
It doesn't matter if China creates nuclear carriers or conventional ones, this goes beyond length measuring context. China is clearly creating a system of systems capable of taking on a similar US ecosystem.
For it, there are technologies that lie on a key path, and there are technologies that lie on a secondary path.
Nuclear/conventional propulsion for carrier doesn't lie on a critical path for China right now - and probably will never will; it's a question of optimization as of now. IEPs for frigates, though probably actually does, because whole investment into carrier battle forces has to be able to deal with US sea denial assets (read - the huge fleet of Virginias).
For this, frigates have to be capable of properly listening at higher speeds - if possible, right to the point where towed array itself becomes deaf. Because CSG at combat needs (not just "good to have") these speeds, and it needs them continuously.

US are cheating here, because they can get higher silent speeds off the shelf (+need is lower, to begin with - their opponents rely on different means of attack).
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Nobody can decide whether an all-new tech is mature or not without fully testing it. For the new DC-based IEP, you can't 二even find a single surface combatant in any part of the world. According to your logic, PLAN will never try it since it'll never turn mature.

No. According to your logic, the Tianwen Mars mission would have to take a relatively unknown and untested engine on its very first flight and cross your fingers, if anything else fails, we will improve it and try it again. That's nonsense. Everything is thoroughly tested on the ground, and even on the ground you can replicate the conditions where those systems are expected to confront.

This is why an industry creates a tight set of formal standards and the system has to pass through a long series of static tests. Its not as if you cannot create static tests for engines on the ground that can simulate its operating conditions. Before the engine ever gets into a ship, the engine has to pass through these series of testing. So before the engine ever gets to the 054B, it will be thoroughly tested through all these carefully engineered tests, standards and qualifications, and every box has to be check marked before the brass approves the final checkmark.

Kind of boggles me that you would think the PLAN and CSSC would go half assed on this.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Kriegsmarine example was just an illustration of a "research complete" approach.


Everyone does his development at their own pace.
It doesn't matter if China creates nuclear carriers or conventional ones, this goes beyond length measuring context. China is clearly creating a system of systems capable of taking on a similar US ecosystem.
For it, there are technologies that lie on a key path, and there are technologies that lie on a secondary path.
Nuclear/conventional propulsion for carrier doesn't lie on a critical path for China right now - and probably will never will; it's a question of optimization as of now. IEPs for frigates, though probably actually does, because whole investment into carrier battle forces has to be able to deal with US sea denial assets (read - the huge fleet of Virginias).
For this, frigates have to be capable of properly listening at higher speeds - if possible, right to the point where towed array itself becomes deaf. Because CSG at combat needs (not just "good to have") these speeds, and it needs them continuously.

US are cheating here, because they can get higher silent speeds off the shelf (+need is lower, to begin with - their opponents rely on different means of attack).

The question is not in the theory, but whether the system in question would pass the standards both CSSC and PLAN would set on it. If it passes, it goes to the ship. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Its that simple. It is what it is.

Its not going to be shoehorned into the ship because of an obligation to stay in step with a technological race.
 

FriedRiceNSpice

Senior Member
For this, frigates have to be capable of properly listening at higher speeds - if possible, right to the point where towed array itself becomes deaf. Because CSG at combat needs (not just "good to have") these speeds, and it needs them continuously.
Diesels are not that loud, it is gas turbines that tend to have extreme noise levels at higher output levels. A standard diesel set up is probably pretty comparable to a gas turbine IEPS set up when it comes to noise levels at high speeds.

Overall, a 4000 ton diesel frigate has much less to gain from IEPS than a 7500-14000 ton gas powered destroyer.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
No. According to your logic, the Tianwen Mars mission would have to take a relatively unknown and untested engine on its very first flight and cross your fingers, if anything else fails, we will improve it and try it again. That's nonsense. Everything is thoroughly tested on the ground, and even on the ground you can replicate the conditions where those systems are expected to confront.

This is why an industry creates a tight set of formal standards and the system has to pass through a long series of static tests. Its not as if you cannot create static tests for engines on the ground that can simulate its operating conditions. Before the engine ever gets into a ship, the engine has to pass through these series of testing. So before the engine ever gets to the 054B, it will be thoroughly tested through all these carefully engineered tests, standards and qualifications, and every box has to be check marked before the brass approves the final checkmark.

Kind of boggles me that you would think the PLAN and CSSC would go half assed on this.
I have no idea why you brought up Tianwen here. Do you really think that's comparable? Or even a related topic?
...
 

Top