054/A FFG Thread II

[Tam]

Via LKJ86 at the PDF. Frigates 525, 549, 577 and 599.

525 is in the midst of her MLU. There don't seem to be any activity on the ship. 549 is in the midst of maintenance and minor refit.

The gems in the comparison between 577 and 599. 577 is the older ship, if this is already evidenced by the rust in her bow. But more than that, the picture gives you a direct comparison between "old" 054A vs. "new" 054A or 054A+. Aside from the change of the Type 730 CIWS to the 1130, there are less evident but significant details from an electronics standpoint.

The ECM on the 054A is changed to the Type 726-3 ECM unit on the 054A+. The 726-3 ECM is the standard ECM used with Chinese destroyers like 052C/D so its bringing the ship's ECM up to that level.

Minor changes in the ESM unit near the top of the mast.

Around the Type 364 SSR in the funnel mast, on the 054A+ the radar is fenced in by what I guess is a new IFF system.

Towards the back, the SATCOM has changed from a globular shape to a more cylindrical shape that's nearly flat on top. I am not sure what it means. I can only imagine that in the old SATCOM, you have a mechanical gymballing parabolic antenna that turns and follows the satellite. This would require a bulb like spherical dome. In this new non spherical and faceted dome, the antenna may consist of a flat series of phase or planar arrays around a circle, or it can be a conformal array wrapped around in a circle, and one phase or planar array on top of it.

The new SATCOM appeared after the 054A+, and this may delineate what is the third batch of 054A+. 599 belongs to this batch. Changes to the mast ESM and the addition of IFF on the Type 364 might be particular to the third batch, but I like to see more pictures.

 

[Tetrach]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Previously, it was reported that Type 054B frigate’s whole-electric integrated transmission system was difficult to achieve the ideal speed because of power limitation. It may not be a “fleet frigate”. At that time, everyone was still thinking about whether a “052E” similar to the British Type 26 frigate would be developed, which would be a 6,000-ton fleet frigate or common destroyer, with big tubes to launch YJ-XX missiles.

But according to Chinese military expert Xi Yazhou, Type 054B frigate might be redesigned – the specific situation is not clear, but considering the situation of the fleet in the next decade or so, the “new 054B” may return to the simple side, no longer use of whole-electric integrated transmission with high technical difficulty – after all, even the United States Zumwalt-class destroyer and the British Type 45, which were regarded as benchmarks of “whole-electric integrated transmission”, are facing frequent technological maturity and reliability problems, thus they are using a much more mature mechanical transmission, while the primary engine is changed from four diesel engines to a single high-power gas turbine plus two diesel engine.

Xi Yazhou also assumed a new Type 054B frigate: speed of 30 knots, combined gas and diesel oil, tonnage increased to about 5,000 tons, integrated mast, small-sized four-plane radar, 32 units of general-purpose vertical launch tubes, one tube for four kinds of missiles: small-diameter medium- and short-range anti-aircraft missiles (or might HHQ-16B), and Yu-8 anti-submarine missiles can also be installed. And the vertical launch system can also accommodate YJ-18, YJ -18 land attack cruise missiles, and even YJ-XX anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Type 054B frigate configured in this way has far more practical performance than the British Type 26 frigate. The active Type 054B can be used as the main part of the “base force”, playing the role of the British Type 31, Japan’s 30FFM or the United States FFG (X).

Of course, this is only the Xi Yazhou’s good wishes – if Type 054B frigate is still focused on anti-submarine and would rather endure the lower speed and continue to use the whole-electric integrated transmission, this couldn’t be said to be surprising."

 

[Tam]

That sounds much more like a Chinese Admiral Gorshkov. Not that i don't mind.

 

[snake65]

That sounds much more like a Chinese Admiral Gorshkov. Not that i don't mind.

View attachment 55412

Well, Gorshkov is still having more tubes even in the original design - 32 SAM plus 16 SSM and full load D of 5600 tons. Second batch will have 32 plus 24 VLS, but it's going to be significantly larger at D=8000 tons

 

[Tam]

Well, Gorshkov is still having more tubes even in the original design - 32 SAM plus 16 SSM and full load D of 5600 tons. Second batch will have 32 plus 24 VLS, but it's going to be significantly larger at D=8000 tons

I am thinking 054B is 32 U-VLS dedicated for SAMs, 8 to 16 U-VLS dedicated to YJ-18 or other ASM. Let's say 8 is the minimum for ASM bearing VLS.

Another variation would be for 32 VLS to be the AJK-16 with an improved HQ-16, with 8 to 16 U-VLS for YJ-18 or other ASM.

Adm. Gorshkov however, by Chinese naming standards, would have been a 052X. Because two gas turbines, and two diesel engines, which is the format of the 052 series.

I was thinking more in terms of the Gorshkov's radar format. You have one rotating S-band on top for search radar, and four fixed faced panels of X-band underneath it for fire control.

If you reduce your S-band search radar for a frigate into four small fixed panels, the range and its ability to detect LO objects isn't going to be as good as a single large S-band array that you can rotate. Having four large panels is the best but its the high end for the cost range. We're dealing with what performs more optimally for something that would cost less: four smaller fixed faced radars or just one big radar you turn around.

For range and sweep volume, the big single rotating radar would take it. However, for speed of target tracking and updates, having four fixed smaller panels would do better as it always keeps one face at the targets all the time, and the sweeps are all electronic. That's why the search radar on the Gorshkov rotates, but the fire control radars are fixed.

The Gorshkov however, still keeps separate gun fire control radar (Puma) and an antiship fire control radar (is that Positiz?) while the Chinese frigate, based on what we have seen on the Type 055, would have dispensed these other dedicated fire control radars and integrate them with the four panel X-band.

 

[Tam]

I previously posted this in the 053 thread but I want to leave this one in this thread for safekeeping. You can see the Jiangwei that will be given to the Bangladesh. On the back you see 549 being degaussed. In previous pictures, she was in the midst of some maintenance, with radars and other equipment stripped and being overhauled. My guess is that she will get back to service soon enough.

Behind her is 525, one of the two 054 without the 'a', and she still looks fully stripped and forlorn.

 

[Tam]

One Type 054A participates in a replenishment exercise from a civilian ship. The other pictures from this tweet I posted in the 053 thread.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[snake65]

I am thinking 054B is 32 U-VLS dedicated for SAMs, 8 to 16 U-VLS dedicated to YJ-18 or other ASM. Let's say 8 is the minimum for ASM bearing VLS.

Another variation would be for 32 VLS to be the AJK-16 with an improved HQ-16, with 8 to 16 U-VLS for YJ-18 or other ASM.

Adm. Gorshkov however, by Chinese naming standards, would have been a 052X. Because two gas turbines, and two diesel engines, which is the format of the 052 series.

I was thinking more in terms of the Gorshkov's radar format. You have one rotating S-band on top for search radar, and four fixed faced panels of X-band underneath it for fire control.

If you reduce your S-band search radar for a frigate into four small fixed panels, the range and its ability to detect LO objects isn't going to be as good as a single large S-band array that you can rotate. Having four large panels is the best but its the high end for the cost range. We're dealing with what performs more optimally for something that would cost less: four smaller fixed faced radars or just one big radar you turn around.

For range and sweep volume, the big single rotating radar would take it. However, for speed of target tracking and updates, having four fixed smaller panels would do better as it always keeps one face at the targets all the time, and the sweeps are all electronic. That's why the search radar on the Gorshkov rotates, but the fire control radars are fixed.

The Gorshkov however, still keeps separate gun fire control radar (Puma) and an antiship fire control radar (is that Positiz?) while the Chinese frigate, based on what we have seen on the Type 055, would have dispensed these other dedicated fire control radars and integrate them with the four panel X-band.

View attachment 55426

20385 corvettes have integrated mast structure similar to 055. The second batch of Gorshkov may have the mast redesigned along the same lines, keep in mind that the design is already 20 years old.

 

[Tam]

20385 corvettes have integrated mast structure similar to 055. The second batch of Gorshkov may have the mast redesigned along the same lines, keep in mind that the design is already 20 years old.

Actually the mast structure of the 20385 is a bit different from the 055. The 055 may have other panels on the mast other than the X-band radar, but I doubt these panels are radars. I mentioned that one of them appears to be CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) and the other I am not sure if its a radar and if it is, what is its real band? There is no radar on top of the mast, you only have an ESM/IFF/SIGINT stalk.

20385 is different. You have a search radar on top, with the X-band in four faces below it. Much like the Gorshkov in arrangement. Note that the advantage of having the search radar at the top most is the extended radar horizon it brings. If I were to put a four faced S-band search radar that result is that I would have to lower the radars down the mast, which would reduce the radar horizon. Both 22350 and 20385 have the search radar Furke on top, but the version of the Furke on the 20385 is much smaller and less powerful than the 22350, probably because the version on the 20385 is the #1 mini version (60km range) while the one on 22350 is the full blown #4 version (200km range).

I think this is where the 20385 diverges from the 22350.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

One thing that is similar to the 055, is that the 20385's new X-band radar, called Zaslon, now integrates both gunnery and antiship functions as well as anti-aircraft, making it a true multifunction whereas Poliment in the Gorshkov is AAW only.



Beneath the X-band (pink), is possibly the S-band AESA that is more powerful than the Furke on top. In this sense, these might be the main search radars on the ship, but they are located low in the ship that it requires a smaller radar on top specifically to extend the radar horizon and scan it for sea skimmer threats, a role filled by the Furke-1. These radars slot into a function more like the SPY-1 or Type 346 while the Furke-1 works much more like the Type 364 surface scanning radar on the 052C/D. This is where the 20385 fully diverges from the 22350 who pins much of its search ability on the rotating Furke-4 at the top, making Furke-4, more like a technological successor to the Fregat Top Plate.



The set up I see on the 20385 might be more 'advanced' and possibly more expensive than the one in the 22350, and I would expect that to be the set up going on forward for the 22350M.

I also think that this setup maybe logical for an 054B/057, give or take the PLAN admiralty's willingness to sign for the cost figure on this invoice for it. The postponement of the ship may give the opportunity to rethink its radar and sensor configuration again, in the light of updated information from rival frigate designs such as Australia's Type 26, Japan's 30FF and the US' FFG(X).

 

[Bhurki]

I am thinking 054B is 32 U-VLS dedicated for SAMs, 8 to 16 U-VLS dedicated to YJ-18 or other ASM. Let's say 8 is the minimum for ASM bearing VLS.

I dont think they'll be restricting to only 32 Uvls unless they have assurance of atleast a quadpacked SAM with 30-40km range.
It'll just be too limiting to adjust AShM , Asroc, short+medium SAM,limited Lacm load(?) in such a small quantity.

Another variation would be for 32 VLS to be the AJK-16 with an improved HQ-16, with 8 to 16 U-VLS for YJ-18 or other ASM.

After seeing the way UVLS is deployed on all new ships, its difficult to assume they would like to integrate h/ajk16 since it doesn't leave much room for adding larger munitions.
This pretty much is the crux of confusion whether there would be a one or two kinds of ships from 054b/057/052e( 5k/6k/7ktons)
Seeing how the likes of gorshkov started as frigates and now are maturing towards the size of destroyers, i think the next ship will have 48-64 UVLS depending inversely on maturity/capability of armament.