Type 054B/next generation FFG thread


Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
It's all about use and needs. If you want 130mm - then your needs are primarily being able to deliver indirect fire on a far away, likely static, target. Yet you're still able to hit lightly armed ships at medium distances, if the tactical situation warrants it. And you still have some semblance of anti missile capability (with appropriate ammo) at short distances.

If you want 100mm - then you probably still want the above, though you want it on a smaller platform that can't easily house a 130mm gun, and are thus okay with weaker range/boom performance. You may enjoy somewhat better anti missile performance and perhaps more cost efficient anti-lightly-armed-ship performance.

If you want 76mm then you likely want a multipurpose gun - something that can engage both missile targets well, and still be decent and cost effective against lightly-armed-ships. Your coastal bombardment capability will suffer greatly, mostly due to very poor range that will expose you to the enemy. But it may be acceptable in some situation where threat level from the coast is extremely low.

If you want 57mm gun then you really want anti-missile capability first and foremost. While still retaining some basic capability of engaging small boats with virtually no weapons on the cheap. You can more or less forget about coastal bombardment unless the opponent is basically without proper weapons to strike back.

So... tonnage has some to do with it, but planned use has more to do with it.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's all about use and needs. If you want 130mm - then your needs are primarily being able to deliver indirect fire on a far away, likely static, target. Yet you're still able to hit lightly armed ships at medium distances, if the tactical situation warrants it. And you still have some semblance of anti missile capability (with appropriate ammo) at short distances.

If you want 100mm - then you probably still want the above, though you want it on a smaller platform that can't easily house a 130mm gun, and are thus okay with weaker range/boom performance. You may enjoy somewhat better anti missile performance and perhaps more cost efficient anti-lightly-armed-ship performance.

If you want 76mm then you likely want a multipurpose gun - something that can engage both missile targets well, and still be decent and cost effective against lightly-armed-ships. Your coastal bombardment capability will suffer greatly, mostly due to very poor range that will expose you to the enemy. But it may be acceptable in some situation where threat level from the coast is extremely low.

If you want 57mm gun then you really want anti-missile capability first and foremost. While still retaining some basic capability of engaging small boats with virtually no weapons on the cheap. You can more or less forget about coastal bombardment unless the opponent is basically without proper weapons to strike back.

So... tonnage has some to do with it, but planned use has more to do with it.
For PLAN, the primary targets should be on land :)
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
Gun ranges are still just too short for land attack.

Low-cost guided glide bombs like the SDB or JSOW-ER should be a better option.
Gun on a ship is still the most persistent option+it allows for more shells per unit of volume of the ship than any competition.
Finally - the very same gun serves in ASuW and AAW roles. And ship will have to be there during landing operations anyways.
Overall, guns are simply very convenient weapons to have. And inconvenient not to have.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Gun on a ship is still the most persistent option+it allows for more shells per unit of volume of the ship than any competition.
Finally - the very same gun serves in ASuW and AAW roles. And ship will have to be there during landing operations anyways.
Overall, guns are simply very convenient weapons to have. And inconvenient not to have.

The issue is that shell accuracy just isn't very good.

So you either need very large numbers of shells or expensive guided shells.

I don't see ships getting that close to shore these days.

If you want ground support, recon drones are better, and then any platform can attack the targets.
 
Last edited:

externallisting

New Member
Registered Member
It depends on how large the 054B will be. If it's just around 5000t, I can see the point. For 6000+t, I still feel 130mm should be the better choice.
Russian ships can be compared most closely to Israeli ships, which pack a huge amount of armament and weapons at the expense of range and time on station. The specific ship you posted was designated for green sea operations, operational parameters China doesn't necessarily share. The class is also designated specifically IIRC to be able to be capable of shore support (ie bombardment) missions.

An 054B regardless of IEPS is unlikely to feature a railgun for a multitude of reasons..
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Russian ships can be compared most closely to Israeli ships, which pack a huge amount of armament and weapons at the expense of range and time on station. The specific ship you posted was designated for green sea operations, operational parameters China doesn't necessarily share. The class is also designated specifically IIRC to be able to be capable of shore support (ie bombardment) missions.

An 054B regardless of IEPS is unlikely to feature a railgun for a multitude of reasons..
I don't believe the 054B will feature a railgun. I even doubt any surface combatant would have that in the next two decades.
However, the 130mm gun on the 052D should be perfectly suitable for a 6000+t frigate. I don't see why you think it's a green sea combination...
 

Top