054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I wouldn't exactly call Naval News as mainstream media given both Xavier and Alex are present on this forum.
And also, 054B is a sufficiently niche topic (frigates lack the attention grabbing power of carriers, amphibs or large destroyers) for even among general naval enthusiasts, that most of them probably wouldn't even have noticed the class unless they had a specific PLA interest... Until 054B production rate reaches the 4 or more per year stable rate that 054A had in the past.
Although I understand that the O54B represents a significant advancement in capability over the 054A, can anyone shed some light on what specific capabilities 054B possesses that the 054A lacks and whether these new capabilities are worth the economic tradeoff represented by the roughly 50% increase in tonnage (and associated increases in shipbuilding cost, shipbuilding time, maintenance cost, fuel/ammunition/supply usage, crew required and their salaries) over the 054A?
To me it seems like the 054B is edging into DDG territory with regards to tonnage and capabilities (despite having 32 VLS cells) and I feel like there's an arguement to be made that 054A represents a more sound strategy of not "putting all your eggs in one basket" when comparing a 054A fleet to a 054B fleet of equivalent tonnage/crew count, not hull count.
If the PLAN procures a low-mid-high mix of the 054B, the 052D/E's successor and the 055's successor in the coming years, there is a frigate gap as the 054B is essentially a destroyer on the smaller side, the 052D/E a destroyer on the larger side and the 055 a full-blown cruiser.
To me it seems like the 054B is edging into DDG territory with regards to tonnage and capabilities (despite having 32 VLS cells) and I feel like there's an arguement to be made that 054A represents a more sound strategy of not "putting all your eggs in one basket" when comparing a 054A fleet to a 054B fleet of equivalent tonnage/crew count, not hull count.
If the PLAN procures a low-mid-high mix of the 054B, the 052D/E's successor and the 055's successor in the coming years, there is a frigate gap as the 054B is essentially a destroyer on the smaller side, the 052D/E a destroyer on the larger side and the 055 a full-blown cruiser.
A lot good portion of this is still informed speculation because we don't know the full extent of the differences 054B will have from 054A, but of the ones we can be fairly confident in:
- a much larger hull, which by itself of course provides more volume and displacement that you can use for more capable subsystems, quietening, crew comfort, stores and fuel (endurance), but also provides much more future growth capacity than the 054A's 4000t hull. There are also benefits for seakeeping
- a substantially more capable sensor suite (of which one we highly expect is the new twin faced rotating AESA, but also likely the full passive and active suite and sonar as well) than 054A
- a substantially more modern and capable combat management system with associated networking and back end, again, with more growth potential, than 054A
- a more capable sensor suite and CMS and networking suite also means you have the options to carry much more capable weapons, even if 054B uses the same H/AJK-16 VLS as 054A
- a substantially more modern and capable propulsion system; we expect IEPS or CODLOG, both of which has benefits for much greater electrical power generation than 054A, as well as the ability to operate even more quietly than 054A at mission speeds by virtue of electric propulsion options that removes the need for reduction gear at those speeds (in case of CODLOG that is -- if it's IEPS then you'll be electric at every speed). Additionally, 054B is expected to have a greater top speed than 054A to enable it to more reliably keep up with CSGs of the future than what 054A can do
- a more modern ship also means greater automation -- which is to say, a 054B's crew size may not actually be that much larger than 054A
A ship is much more than just the number of VLS it has.
If a ship lacks the sensors, the combat management capability, the networking, the endurance, the signature reduction, etc, that you need in a modern era, then at best it needs to operate in a support role with more capable vessels, and at worst it borders on being a liability.
054A as it stands is probably right on the edge of what is still useful in a high intensity war for the PLAN, and that is because it has a good ASW suite and it can network with friendly PLAN and PLA assets to enable its weapons to overcome the limitations that some of its sensor suite has. Additionally, more growth capacity, a higher top speed, more endurance, all make it a much more future proof ship than 054A.
It is likely 054B's crew size will not be substantially bigger than that of 054A due to advances in technology and automation; all of which means that 054A is far from the more economical, survivable/distributed frigate class in the modern age. Instead, 054A is becoming at risk of being obsolete and non-competitive in high intensity environments if it lacks substantial offboard support.
054B is likely aimed to rectify all of the above.
As for how 054B slots in with other surface combatants in the PLAN -- you are correct, 054B in terms of displacement begins to edge into the lower band of what we've considered to be destroyers.
However, 054B is far from the first to do so. FREMM, Constellation, and heck the Type 26 family, are all at destroyer level displacements or beyond (the Type 26 frigates will actually out displace the existing destroyer classes of the respective navies that have bought them!).
For the PLAN, with the introduction of 054B, what is likely is that future medium destroyer classes (i.e.: which the 052C/D currently sit in), will likely see an increase in displacement correspondingly to perhaps 8,000-9,000t maximum displacement, where the extra tonnage will primarily be used for the same additions we expect for 054B (sensors, networking, propulsion, combat management, future proofing, crew comfort etc).
The trend of modern ships needing more tonnage for sensors and networking rather than weapons alone, is something that's been obvious for a while. Consider how Flight III Burke displaces basically the same as a Ticonderoga, yet the Ticonderoga has a larger VLS count of 122 (while also having 8 harpoons and an extra 127mm gun), and the Burke only has 96 VLS. That extra displacement for the Flight III Burke is going somewhere useful and essential -- it's primarily for more capable sensors and onboard processing/back end.
If you've read that twitter thread, I'm confused why you think 054B is a stretched 054A.
Its beam is two meters wider than 054A, while being longer by some 10-15 meters -- 054B is an entirely new hull compared to 054A, not merely stretched.
Furthermore, 054B is basically guaranteed to have an entirely new sensor suite to 054A, and 054B's propulsion suite is also expected to be entirely new as well (either IEPS or CODLOG), rather than keeping the 054A's CODAD.
It seems the only things they're keeping may be the H/AJK-16 VLS and possibly the 76mm main gun (and I suppose the CIWS) -- however in every other respect the ship more than earns the title of being an entirely different class from the 054A.
If anything, this ship should be expected to be named as an entirely separate numerical "class" but the fact they're calling it 054B just goes to show that our existing assumptions for how they name ships should be highly revised if not thrown out of the window.
Last edited:
I do admit my fault. My comment was much too simplify of a summary.
This ship is longer to handle a better helicopter and wider I guess for other reasons like structural integrity and to handle a new radar suite and possibly new CIC (my assumptions). And of course with all these extra displacement, it needs a new powerplant different from 054A to push this extra weight forward (and provide more power for newer sensors) and also keep up with others so it needs to be faster than 054A.
This is entirely new ship apart from the 054A so why is it still referred to as 054B and keeping the 054 series? Is there an official designation?
Last edited:
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I believe PLAN realizes there is a frigate gap which is why 054B is being built. By latest standards, the 054A is allready outdated and a generation or two behind. It's also small compared to the latest Western ones.FREMM is already bigger.
When the Constitution and Type 26 class frigates go to sea they will significantly outclass the 054A. They will likely be more capable than 054B as well though the capability gap is obviously much narrower.
I believe we've had bidding documents for the new class titled "0XXB" or something like that, causing 054B to be the accepted designation, and virtually the entire Chinese language PLA watching scene names it as 054B as well, so while we do not yet have an official name, it is as close to official as we can get thus far.
Given this is an entirely different ship from 054A, and if it is indeed officially confirmed to be 054B, then people might start wonder what rhyme or reason the PLA has for the designation of their ships.
After all, in the past it was thought that possibly "051" meant steam powered, "052" meant gas powered, "054" meant diesel powered etc (though even that wasn't fully clear because the 053 family existed and are also diesel powered)... and alternatively people thought maybe it was related to hull lineage (but that's also kind of silly because the original 051s have almost no relation to the 051B/C, and the 052D is such a significant difference from the original 052 that it's laughable).
But if 054B does have IEPS or CODLOG propulsion, that is of course different from 054A's CODAD, and 054B's hull is obviously different from 054A's hull as well.
So the answer for our question "why did PLAN name this frigate as 054B," might be "lol, lmao".
I'd be careful with word choice here, because the Constellation class, Type 26 and 054B are all intended for slightly different roles and also have different displacements despite all technically being modern "frigates".
Their capability profile are all slightly different, but I would say that if 054B has some of the features that has been rumoured (namely IEPS) it may have a good argument to be among the most technologically advanced of the bunch.
And while the 054A itself is certainly outdated, by virtue of networking and a relatively upgradeable configuration, it can still very much be relevant even in a high intensity conflict in certain scenarios. I would say 054A is better described as "not as future proof" and generally "not as advanced or capable" as current modern frigates.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Sure ... I have nothing against your sound reasoning. One on one battles would be extremely rare these days especially with weapons systems having g range in the hundreds if miles. From that standpoint even an 'outdated ship will serve its purpose.
I agree 100% about future proofing and scalability.
054B while right off the oven may not look like it's revolutionary vis a vis A, I'm 99.9% sure it was designed with future weapon systems and sensor suite in mind. Once we know the power output we will know for certain how future proofing it will be because one thing that is pretty universal is future proofing means more power to spare.
In terms of being revolutionary, I do agree with you a bit in that scalability and future proofness is a focus for it as much as it is for other frigates.
But 054B is actually a bit notable in that if it does have the long rumoured MVDC IEPS, it would mark a rare occasion in which a PLAN ship in a given role/category has a significantly more advanced key subsystem (in this case propulsion/powertrain/hotel load power system) than almost every other contemporary ship in the same category out there.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Yes, I myself am most interested in the heart of the ship as well. Also see max output though that may be classified.