I don't understand where this obsession with the Type 054B comes from. There is no need for such a ship in the PLAN. The existing fleet of 30 Type 054A's and 2 Type 054's can handle whatever tasks the PLAN has in mind for its frigate fleet. Going forwards its all about the Type 055 and the Type 052D and maybe Type 052E down the road. But I don't see a place for the Type 054B in the PLAN's future fleet. Unless the Type 054B is a export only platform for countries that wants a modern warship but can't afford a large DDG class of ships.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
The "obsession" with 054B follows from rumours that an 054B is going to emerge and that PLAN have placed a large order for it. We can only discuss what has been currently reported as being possible to happen, and at present the 054B is definitely in the "possible" to "likely" category.
There's been lots of debate about having a two tier blue water 055X and 052X surface combatant fleet, versus a three tier blue water 055X, 052X and 054X fleet. There are good arguments for each of the two options, and I think it's a vast oversimplification to say there is no need for a notional 054B considering we don't know what your vision of an 054B is (not only in terms of capability and size but also in terms of things like cost, running costs, and such, relative to 055s and 052D/Es), and what overall surface combatant fleet size you have in mind.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Based on past development trends and strategies, it does not seem unreasonable that China would like to trial certain new technologies on a frigate sized vessel rather a full size destroyer. In particular, they may want to take a conservative approach towards IEPS. Even the US and UK, with the longest naval traditions and most advanced maritime technologies and industries seemed to have faced challenges and issues with their IEPS systems in destroyer sized vessels. The more interesting question would be if the B series will fufill the same role as the A class, or if it would be more blue water ASW focussed rather than general-purpose escort.
By the sounds of it the next major variants of Chinese DLG, DDG and FFG are all intended to have IEPS; 055A, 052E, 054B respectively. I am not sure which one will come out first, however I suspect that we won't see the technologies "trialled" and "proven" on a class of warship first before implementing them fleetwide.
Instead it sounds like we may see such ships with IEPS being introduced within a few years of each other.
As for 054B fulfilling a similar role to 054A -- 054A is supposedly the PLAN's best ASW vessel currently already, while having respectable MR AAW and ASuW. I expect any 054B to build on those existing strengths with a new generation of subsystems and weapons, as well as likely to be somewhat bigger than 054A to facilitate new subsystems as well as greater endurance/range.
I think it would be much easier to start out with the IEPS systems on large vessels like the destroyers. The electric conversion and storage systems will take up space. Especially the initial non-optimized systems that will be developed.
The problem with some proposals I have heard about, where the frigate has a similar amount of engines as a destroyer, is that it wouldn't be cost effective.
I also think IEPS is still a bit of a solution in search of a problem to be honest. All that generated electric power has little practical use in most cases. The exception is the carrier platform, where EMALS will be more compact than a steam catapult.
I agree that China could use more ASW capabilities however. So I think for that reason it is likely they will build more frigates. Not to mention it will be most cost effective as a platform in case on an actual conflict.
The problem with some proposals I have heard about, where the frigate has a similar amount of engines as a destroyer, is that it wouldn't be cost effective.
I also think IEPS is still a bit of a solution in search of a problem to be honest. All that generated electric power has little practical use in most cases. The exception is the carrier platform, where EMALS will be more compact than a steam catapult.
I agree that China could use more ASW capabilities however. So I think for that reason it is likely they will build more frigates. Not to mention it will be most cost effective as a platform in case on an actual conflict.
A good amount of the 052D pricing comes from the Type 346A radars and the VLS.
The given idea sounds like a tricked up 052B. Or basically an 052X type with reduced amount of radars and equipment to save money but functions like a 054X with gas turbines.
How a ship the size of an 052D can be cheaper? I worked something out with my imagination. Its basically a 054X equipment ship on a 052X hull, but meant to be cheaper than the 052D, with the pricing intended to be somewhere between a 054A and a 052D.
32 or 48 U-VLS at the front only instead of 64 front and mid. The middle of the ship, we should just place 8 to 16 canisters on racks for YJ-12 missiles. The racks can be replaced for those of the YJ-83, YJ-62 or YU-11. Another option would be to use the Type 054A VLS instead.
A smaller single or dual faced rotating AESA on top of the mast instead of having the Type 346A. This can be either the SR2410C or the "Chinese Lantern" design we have seen as a mockup on Wuhu. A direct analogy would be the RN Type 26 or the Type 45. This will be the main long range search radar and also for surface search.
Double hangers on the back with the length extended for larger helicopters.
We still use the Type 344 and 366 radars for gunnery and anti ship for the cheaper option unless we change the FCR to a fixed four faced X-band AESA which is the more expensive option.
MR90 Front Domes for HQ-16 as the cheap option, or a four faced X-band radar set in an integrated mast below the rotating search radar AESA. This X-band radar is to be used for missile target illumination. If so, the 344 and 366 radars would be eliminated and replaced by this which would also serve as the fire control radar.
A single Type 1130 CIWS at the front and 24 missile HQ-10 launcher at the rear on top of the hanger.
The option of a rear radar with either the Type 364 surface search radar or a Type 517X metric wave radar. These are not necessary though and can be deleted to reduce costs.
Due to not having the Type 346, the deckhouse would be lower, and would resemble that of the 052B.
I think a sensible armament and sensor outfit would be:
32 UVLS
8 slant launch AShM (or 8 amidship VLS for AShM)
CIWS any combination of H/PJ-11 or HHQ-10.
Single or two face rotating AESA, about the size of Sea Eagle (but not SR2410C sized; too small). Could be something like Type 346A but half the area. Installed in an integrated mast up top, with additional small X band AESAs and ESM ECM arrays installed in the mast as well.
No need for additional VSR or SSR (X band AESA MFR would take the latter's job)
SAMs to be all ARH; i.e.: no need for dedicated illuminators, but can guide older SARH SAMs with X band AESA, whether it be the quad packed "3-5" SAM that's been rumoured or perhaps even HHQ-9 variants (as they should be able to fit in 7m U VLS)
Obviously new generation sonars, and new ASW weapons that can fit in the U VLS as well.
Such a ship would basically have similar capabilities to what the USN has outlined for its FFGX
These CGIs have been posted before, fan made of course, and I consider them to be a worthy successor to 054A.
Last edited:
VLS itself are but glorified tubes, thay are not expensive at all.
Expensive parts are their contents and interfaces.
052c, v.2
If 054b is a prospective GP combatant, it requires much richer mission spaces, equipment and interfaces, for manned and unmanned distributed platforms. Larger hanger with more fuel and storage is welcome, of course, but it isn't enough.
And it is much more important than tubes this and that.
Last edited:
HHQ-9 is already at least 6.8m in length. If you are going to add the cold launch gas system underneath it --- and remember this is a CCL --- which means the cold launch system has to be within and set at the bottom of the missile canister, not below it as most cold launch systems do --- the length of the VLS would have to be longer than 7m. You also have to make it up to 9 meters deep because in order to allow for longer ranged subsequent variants of the HHQ-9 like the HHQ-9B which has a longer range. A longer range can point to having a longer missile. S-300 5V55 missiles are already 7m and the longer ranged 48N6E goes over to 7.5m, and the longer 48N6E is what's used on the Type 051C. The longer length won't be a problem for the 052X hull.
There is something wrong the fan CGI which I will explain.
Exhibit A
You don't need the Type 055 like arrays on top of the bridge, because on the 055, they were meant as IFF interrogators for the Type 346B, and that radar is not used in this case. Another set of arrays is used for surface search, which we don't need since the rotating array inside the lantern should do that job. The small set of four arrays just beneath the lantern in particular the strip like one might be used for IFF interrogation instead.
I suspect the mast as envisioned, and actually copied from a real mock up in Wuhu, isn't complete.
Exhibit B.
This image is from the cover of a book published in China about conceptual designs leading to the final Type 055. The author is the designer of the Type 055. You can see from this version of the mast, you got the rotating array in the Chinese lantern above the mast, but the arrays over the bridge are absent. That points to one set of the arrays over the bridge as this same purpose as the lantern.
The mast here features the X-band AESA set that we see on the top mast of the actual Type 055. If this set, and with the possibility that it can illuminate for the HHQ-16, is used on the 054B, it would be situated this way on the mast with the rotating search radar on top. Once more, no more of the arrays on top of the bridge, which I think is also quite expensive and adds cost to the frigate compared to a single or dual faced rotating array. With cost being the feature, the rotating array would be chosen.
If you want to cut costs further and with it some capability, you can delete the X-band AESA and just use the good old Type 344 mechanical radar, which is also on the fan CGI. One of the leaked raw drawings featured that this wasn't removed.
This is similar to the Thales STIR, as both radars have a French base origin, but the STIR isn't just gunnery radar, but also has anti-ship and missile illumination, all in one piece, while the Type 344 is only gunnery only, relying on the Type 366 for anti-ship and Front Domes for missile illumination. On the 051B refit, the Type 366 is eliminated which points to its version of the Type 344 having anti-ship capability. You would have to use the Front Domes for multiple engagement with the older SARH type HHQ-16, as even if the Type 344 is modified for missile illumination there is only one and it can't cover the back or handle multiple targets at different directions.
However, by going back to the mechanical radars, reduces the benefits and points of being a more advanced platform from the Type 054A. So I would think the 054B needs to feature the new X-band AESA and do away with the mechanical radars.
I would think the fan CGI is basically sound, but it should replace the radar sets as per Exhibit A to more like Exhibit B (minus the Type 346 radars of course).