Type 054B/next generation FFG thread


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...
 

externallisting

New Member
Registered Member
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...
A railgun is part of a system, component parts of which have only been tested across US and CN ships as I understand. A 130mm gun I don't think accomplishes much other than dick waving, the US "desire" to acquire one might simply be more to factors such the lack of an intermediate gun within the calibre range.. the warship picture you shared I think was intended to act as some form of offshore artillery in a bombardment role, akin to the Zumwalt class in an obviously smaller capacity.

Whilst it is certainly be possible a 130mm gun "works" on 054bs, what would the justification be for doing so? Simply adding more dakka to a ship to please enthusiasts accomplishes nothing, at the cost of leaving less money available for actual and useful upgrades and optimisation available to other vessels, operating within the confines publicly understood.

PLAN has its own set of requirements I don't believe in any way influenced by such ideas, and despite disappointing legions here and elsewhere they arent building 20x CVN's and 055's, witnessing the launch of numerous new platforms and systems is far and beyond cool to a pedestrian such as myself.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yes, there's no way for the 054B to be more expensive than the 052D, at least when we look at the long term average (assuming the initial price could be higher due to the new technologies).

As for the VLS, if it'll really feature the U-VLS, does that mean it'll rely on the new "555"? So they'll have to trade some range for quantity.

I think its difficult for a frigate to have the long range radars that can pop a bomber before it launches its antiship missiles. Doing so, with ever larger radars, means the frigate will have to bump its weight category to a destroyer. The ever extending range of antiship missiles, along with the radar horizon, means it is also increasingly difficult to do so even with a destroyer. No surprise that many smaller destroyers or larger frigates, like the Akizuki class or the Constellation class, considers the ESSM as their main SAM. Frigates that are not hard core front line AAW type ships, or frigates still with ASW in mind, like the RN Type 26 and Type 31, are focusing on shorter ranged defenses that deal with saturation attacks, which is in the same line of thought as their predecessors.

It becomes more important to stop the swarm of missiles coming at you, rather than the bomber before launching. Rather than stop the sniper, you are there to deal with saturation attacks.

I won't be surprised that 555 will be the main SAM of the 054B.

How many VLS? The easy way out might be for 32 VLS. That's plenty of 555s, 128 of them, unless some of the VLS goes into ASROCs. Slanted mounted antiship missiles is the most convenient since you can just deck mount YJ-83/YJ-12/YU-11. If you want to go for elegance, mounting antiship missiles on VLS, you have to consider where to mount the taller, deeper VLS that can hold YJ-18s.

There is the question of what other missiles.

Will it still use HQ-16X? HQ-16s were born to be cold launched anyway, at least with their land based version. That's also adaptable to U-VLS. Is there going to be a longer ranged HQ-16C?

Will 054B use the new AESA target illuminators? Likely meant for a new version of HQ-16 (at the least, the seeker is modified to recognize the output of the new illuminators).

Will using 555 make these target illuminators moot? The lack of target illuminators on the 052D and 055 series means 555 needs to be actively guided. Personally, if 054B uses 555 as its main SAM, you don't have to bother with the AESA illuminators, which reduces the ship cost. It simplifies the ship design and its layout. Maybe its time to cut the cord with the HQ-16 and relegate that with the 054A.

I also personally think that 555 makes AESA a must. With 128 missiles, the ship is meant to track and engage as many targets in med to close range as it can, with the speed and agility of multiple electronically steered beams.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think its difficult for a frigate to have the long range radars that can pop a bomber before it launches its antiship missiles. Doing so, with ever larger radars, means the frigate will have to bump its weight category to a destroyer. The ever extending range of antiship missiles, along with the radar horizon, means it is also increasingly difficult to do so even with a destroyer. No surprise that many smaller destroyers or larger frigates, like the Akizuki class or the Constellation class, considers the ESSM as their main SAM. Frigates that are not hard core front line AAW type ships, or frigates still with ASW in mind, like the RN Type 26 and Type 31, are focusing on shorter ranged defenses that deal with saturation attacks, which is in the same line of thought as their predecessors.

It becomes more important to stop the swarm of missiles coming at you, rather than the bomber before launching. Rather than stop the sniper, you are there to deal with saturation attacks.

I won't be surprised that 555 will be the main SAM of the 054B.

How many VLS? The easy way out might be for 32 VLS. That's plenty of 555s, 128 of them, unless some of the VLS goes into ASROCs. Slanted mounted antiship missiles is the most convenient since you can just deck mount YJ-83/YJ-12/YU-11. If you want to go for elegance, mounting antiship missiles on VLS, you have to consider where to mount the taller, deeper VLS that can hold YJ-18s.

There is the question of what other missiles.

Will it still use HQ-16X? HQ-16s were born to be cold launched anyway, at least with their land based version. That's also adaptable to U-VLS. Is there going to be a longer ranged HQ-16C?

Will 054B use the new AESA target illuminators? Likely meant for a new version of HQ-16 (at the least, the seeker is modified to recognize the output of the new illuminators).

Will using 555 make these target illuminators moot? The lack of target illuminators on the 052D and 055 series means 555 needs to be actively guided. Personally, if 054B uses 555 as its main SAM, you don't have to bother with the AESA illuminators, which reduces the ship cost. It simplifies the ship design and its layout. Maybe its time to cut the cord with the HQ-16 and relegate that with the 054A.
Do we know that Type 054B is to be a AAW dedicated ship or is this just speculation? The extant 054s while being multipurpose, are arguably relatively more capable at ASW than AAW, and I would not expect that to change.

128 ARH SAMs will not come cheap. And we are talking about a cost-saving platform here. Take a look at the ESSM: the Block 2 which introduces a dual mode ARH/SARH seeker comes at twice the cost (almost $2M per unit) of Block 1 which have just a SARH seeker. A full loadout of 128 ESSM Blk II would come out close to $250M, a 1/3 of the Constellation class cost.

IMHO, the new ESA illuminators are an argument against organic ARH SAMs.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Do we know that Type 054B is to be a AAW dedicated ship or is this just speculation? The extant 054s while being multipurpose, are arguably relatively more capable at ASW than AAW, and I would not expect that to change.

128 ARH SAMs will not come cheap. And we are talking about a cost-saving platform here. Take a look at the ESSM: the Block 2 which introduces a dual mode ARH/SARH seeker comes at twice the cost (almost $2M per unit) of Block 1 which have just a SARH seeker. A full loadout of 128 ESSM Blk II would come out close to $250M, a 1/3 of the Constellation class cost.

IMHO, the new ESA illuminators are an argument against organic ARH SAMs.

That sounds like the defense military industrial complex ripping off the US tax payer. Or you can turn on the Fed's printing presses. $250 million is going to be chump change with today's inflation. I don't recall seeing illuminators on the Constellation so that's how they are going to fly, with Block 2 ESSMs. In China's case, that's a branch of the Chinese government paying a state owned company, so this is like flipping money between pockets of the same coat. Ultimately both ESSM Blk 2 and 555 for their respective navies are going to be purchased with their respective sovereign currency.

I don't think 054B is an AAW dedicated ship, it should be multirole. If you want a dedicated AAW frigate you should expect much longer ranges. You already have the 052D for that.

The new AESA illuminators are an argument against ARH SAMs and a pro for the continuation of the HQ-16. That and a good potential that a future frigate will be equipped with a 24 missile HHQ-10 launcher, giving you a total of 56 missiles at your disposal.

On the other hand, that quad pack missile on the VLS has a sign there that says "FM3000N". The original FM3000 missile is a land based short to medium range missile that happens to be active radar guided. That, and if the missile is supposed to equip 052D and 055, it would have to be active guided. So there are stars aligning here.

I guess this will depend if the 054B will come with U-VLS or AJK-16 for their VLS.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think 054B is an AAW dedicated ship, it should be multirole. If you want a dedicated AAW frigate you should expect much longer ranges. You already have the 052D for that.
Then we are in agreement.
The new AESA illuminators are an argument against ARH SAMs and a pro for the continuation of the HQ-16. That and a good potential that a future frigate will be equipped with a 24 missile HHQ-10 launcher, giving you a total of 56 missiles at your disposal.
Yes.
On the other hand, that quad pack missile on the VLS has a sign there that says "FM3000N". The original FM3000 missile is a land based short to medium range missile that happens to be active radar guided. That, and if the missile is supposed to equip 052D and 055, it would have to be active guided. So there are stars aligning here.
Not necessarily on the 055, if the new X-band radar multifunctions as a target illuminator for SARH (possibly even TVM?) missiles.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Then we are in agreement.

Yes.

Not necessarily on the 055, if the new X-band radar multifunctions as a target illuminator for SARH (possibly even TVM?) missiles.

Yes, but the 052D lacks this X-band radar. Any short to medium range SAM needs to work on both the 052D and 055, and not have ordnance specific to one ship. Any long range SAM or HQ-9 also needs to work on both ships, and even shared with the 052C.
 

Top