Type 054B/next generation FFG thread


Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
That is just a cost-savings measure as USA does not have a domestic modern naval gun between their 57mm and their 127mm.
This is true - (1)it's sometimes forgotten, but 5"/62 is actually a very expensive weapon system. You can buy 056a corvette for the price of that gun - and it doesn't even have smart munitions yet.
(2)I suspect they were already ordered when LCS was still expected to be a 50-hull program(or at least such order was promised).
(3)Furthermore, US invests a lot in this gun(MAD FIRES, for example). They like that gun.
(4)For some important functions, it's probably indeed superior(close-in air defense, defeating swarms). If these functions are important enough for the customer - it's a logical choice. Burkes in particular are known to be less than ideal against swarms - so adding constellation to the mix brings a clear improvement.
(5)Finally - USN has more 5" guns afloat than anyone else anyways. If anything - it's in their institutional interest to clearly draw a line between burkes and constellations - or someone unnecessarily smart may ask what they're paying for(Burke).
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
For example, Russian A-190.01 has >80 RPM with 15.6kg shells, with ~twice the effective danger zone of the 76mm gun against both air and surface targets.
Unless you're specifically choosing gunfire support and surface targets - it may very well be the better of both worlds.

I was thinking about this very gun which equips Russian corvettes to frigates.

Russias-Project-21631-Buyan-M-Corvettes-1.jpg

You don't need to be a big ship to use this.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
76mm feels like it would be less troublesome and more versatile than 100mm, seeing as it is much lighter and can even be used as a CIWS

Maybe they decided they need the land attack power? For a scenario in Taiwan/Korea/Japan maybe

For example, Russian A-190.01 has >80 RPM with 15.6kg shells, with ~twice the effective danger zone of the 76mm gun against both air and surface targets.
Unless you're specifically choosing gunfire support and surface targets - it may very well be the better of both worlds.
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.
 

Totoro

Captain
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

Colonel
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:

Top