Type 054B/next generation FFG thread


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?
...
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
It's not just about the noise itself. Gas turbine tends have some higher-frequency noises that's easier to cancel using hydraulic dampers. Diesels have lower-frequency noises, which is harder to deal with.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I have no idea why you brought up Tianwen here. Do you really think that's comparable? Or even a related topic?
...

Yes, because every system needs to pass thorough testing on the ground, with the testing simulated to create the conditions of the operating environment. The whole principle of testing and quality control applies here as it applies to the space project.

Testing policies and principles are applied universally regardless whether its a space, air, land, or ship project. Good example. WS-10 wasn't ready based on PLAAF's own standards for the J-10, so they did not install it on the J-10 for a long time even if the WS-10 was applied to the J-11. Only when the WS-10 took its game a notch, when its finally ready for the J-10 then it goes to the J-10. None of the support the local industry and help develop the indigenous technology arguments matter here. If it doesn't meet their tests, it doesn't pass. If it meet their tests, it passes. Its that simple.

They don't operate half assed.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
It's not just about the noise itself. Gas turbine tends have some higher-frequency noises that's easier to cancel using hydraulic dampers. Diesels have lower-frequency noises, which is harder to deal with.

Hydraulic dampeners can also cancel out lower frequency noises, and they did exactly just that for the 054A and 056 series. You can also reduce vibrations further with viscous dampers, counterbalancing or contrarotating shafts, flexible engine mounts, stiffening the engine block, and even to controlling the fuel injection.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes, because every system needs to pass thorough testing on the ground, with the testing simulated to create the conditions of the operating environment. The whole principle of testing and quality control applies here as it applies to the space project.

Testing policies and principles are applied universally regardless whether its a space, air, land, or ship project. Good example. WS-10 wasn't ready based on PLAAF's own standards for the J-10, so they did not install it on the J-10 for a long time even if the WS-10 was applied to the J-11. Only when the WS-10 took its game a notch, when its finally ready for the J-10 then it goes to the J-10. None of the support the local industry and help develop the indigenous technology arguments matter here. If it doesn't meet their tests, it doesn't pass. If it meet their tests, it passes. Its that simple.

They don't operate half assed.
I'm repeating the same words here: let's just wait and see.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hydraulic dampeners can also cancel out lower frequency noises, and they did exactly just that for the 054A and 056 series. You can also reduce vibrations further with viscous dampers, counterbalancing or contrarotating shafts, flexible engine mounts, stiffening the engine block, and even to controlling the fuel injection.
I didn't say you can't. It's just about how good the results are. It's naturally harder to filter low frequency noises out. That's it.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I didn't say you can't. It's just about how good the results are. It's naturally harder to filter low frequency noises out. That's it.

Naturally harder does not make it impossible. Not to mention this has all be done decades ago in every sector that uses a diesel engine.
 

Top