054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
This seems to be for the purpose of maritime insurance.
It is also descriptive of what has been termed a certain thing, rather than prescriptive of how each thing differs from all others, so by is descriptions any modern surface warfare combatant of 5001 tons could simultaneously be a cruiser, destroyer, frigate and corvette.
Btw, as of 2010s-2020s, there apparently appears a reasonable line between the two classes.
While the "role one"(destroyers are tilted to actively participating in the Airsea battle, frigates are more of GP/ASW combatants) is mostly true - it is only that "mostly" true, for there are quite a few AA frigates.
Other lines - cell numbers, for example - are reasonable, but blurry, with a large intersection around 48-64 cells.
There is, however, one line, which really kinda works in almost all cases - it's the presence of "heavy", very-long range, SAM complex, with SAMs so large that they are becoming fully-capable multipurpose weapons: with multiple modes of guidance(ARH/IR/GPS), warhead weights approaching 100kg mark, and ranges(against surface and land targets) exceeding 500 km - they're becoming very reasonable weapons of choice against essentially all non-submarine targets, be it ship, plane, or even a bunker.
Those are ships with strike length Mk.41(SM-6) or with HQ-9, as opposed to much lighter, <500kg, ~150km/less class weapons(PAAMS with Aster-30, Redut with 9M96E, Tactical length Mk.41 - ESSM/SM-2, HQ-16) with relatively small warheads of around 20kg.
This doesn't mean that heavier ASCMs are redundant now - but their relative advantages on ships with such SAMs have eroded substantially; for light ASMs(Harpoon, NSM) - it's essentially gone.
Frigates, on the other hand, are clearly sticking with those "medium" SAM systems. Those have managed to achieve very competitive ranges for relatively light missiles, but - unlike heavier weapons, warhead weights, among other factors, ensure the absolute need for a separate anti-ship/land attack strike system. The number of missiles for a separate strike system is inherently limited(but it slowly rises - it will reach 24 on new RN and RuN frigates), so it remains reasonable to ensure the largest possible oomph per missile.
This, as always, isn't a rule set in stone - we aren't in the era of naval treaties, after all; but as of now I can only come up with only one recent exception - the Daring class, and it isn't that much of an exception, to begin with: firstly, even during the WNT times, Atlanta class wasn't a destroyer regardless of her caliber; furthermore, even if Darings use lighter missiles than typical for a destroyer - their AA outfit is still clearly separated(and superior) compared to the corresponding type 26 destroyer.
While the "role one"(destroyers are tilted to actively participating in the Airsea battle, frigates are more of GP/ASW combatants) is mostly true - it is only that "mostly" true, for there are quite a few AA frigates.
Other lines - cell numbers, for example - are reasonable, but blurry, with a large intersection around 48-64 cells.
There is, however, one line, which really kinda works in almost all cases - it's the presence of "heavy", very-long range, SAM complex, with SAMs so large that they are becoming fully-capable multipurpose weapons: with multiple modes of guidance(ARH/IR/GPS), warhead weights approaching 100kg mark, and ranges(against surface and land targets) exceeding 500 km - they're becoming very reasonable weapons of choice against essentially all non-submarine targets, be it ship, plane, or even a bunker.
Those are ships with strike length Mk.41(SM-6) or with HQ-9, as opposed to much lighter, <500kg, ~150km/less class weapons(PAAMS with Aster-30, Redut with 9M96E, Tactical length Mk.41 - ESSM/SM-2, HQ-16) with relatively small warheads of around 20kg.
This doesn't mean that heavier ASCMs are redundant now - but their relative advantages on ships with such SAMs have eroded substantially; for light ASMs(Harpoon, NSM) - it's essentially gone.
Frigates, on the other hand, are clearly sticking with those "medium" SAM systems. Those have managed to achieve very competitive ranges for relatively light missiles, but - unlike heavier weapons, warhead weights, among other factors, ensure the absolute need for a separate anti-ship/land attack strike system. The number of missiles for a separate strike system is inherently limited(but it slowly rises - it will reach 24 on new RN and RuN frigates), so it remains reasonable to ensure the largest possible oomph per missile.
This, as always, isn't a rule set in stone - we aren't in the era of naval treaties, after all; but as of now I can only come up with only one recent exception - the Daring class, and it isn't that much of an exception, to begin with: firstly, even during the WNT times, Atlanta class wasn't a destroyer regardless of her caliber; furthermore, even if Darings use lighter missiles than typical for a destroyer - their AA outfit is still clearly separated(and superior) compared to the corresponding type 26 destroyer.
A new Type 054A frigate was launched at Huangpu Shipyard today.
It's the 31st vessel of the class. Source said that the new batch of Type 054A will be 24 vessels, including four for Pakistan Navy.
The vessels for Pakistan have slightly different configurations which been enhanced with longer range electronics and are also calked Type 054AP. Two of the four Type 054AP vessels had been launched.
One more photo of #31
steve_rolfe
Junior Member
Quick question.......with the launch of the latest 054A's , how can one distinguish which ones are for the PLAN or Pakistani Navy?
