054B/new generation frigate

TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
Yes, I believe the current 054B we see is due to the revised requirements and likely substantial redesigns as technology advanced etc -- but the question is whether the final ship will still be called 054B, and at this stage we have no reason to think it will.
After all, if the project stuck with this name throughout and went through a Theseus' ship from a program management/requirements point of view, it may well be that it won't end up with a different name.





055's subsystems could be said to be world class at the time, but not clear cut ahead of everyone else in the way that successful implementation of MVDC IEPS would be if 054B has it.
If 054B has MVDC IEPS, it would literally be the first frontline surface combatant in the world to have it.
Click to expand...
055's radar, CIWS(30mm at 10k+ rpm) are definitely ahead of everyone else at the time, as well as the missile it carries. Most likely the power delivered is also ahead. I can expect the latter to be the case because it is the highest tonnage of the ship of its kind. It is basically a cruiser in tonnage. You would have to be looking at Ticonderoga class but that is a old cold war relic. While USA is comparable technologically, its most modern system Arleigh Burkes III is limited by the platform.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Type 055 also has integrated mast. It is an overall much more modern design than the Arleigh Burke.

Where China was falling behind was in frigate design. The Type 054B is supposed to fix that.

If you look at the Japanese Mogami class frigate for example. It has like half the crew of the Type 054A because of the additional automation. It also has a much more powerful powertrain. Just the gas turbine alone is 36 MW vs 21 MW total power in the Type 054A. It comes with integrated mast, and modern AESA radar. The weapon systems of the Mogami are more debatable though. It does have a 127mm gun vs the 76mm gun on the Type 054A. But its missile load is much worse. 16 Mk 41 VLS and 8 ASM cells, vs 32 VLS and 8 ASM cells on the Type 054A.
 
Last edited:
H

Hub

Junior Member
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
It seems 054B would be one of the best frigates in the world. But I think will be less powerful than Type 26 or FREMM (but these are Destroyer, really and cost 2-3x or more)
Click to expand...
054B is a more traditional frigate for a powerful naval force. It focuses on ASW and handling general matters like escorts. Type 26 or FREMM and constellation class are more like so-called general-purpose destroyers, the more suitable counterpart is 052D.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
It seems 054B would be one of the best frigates in the world. But I think will be less powerful than Type 26 or FREMM (but these are Destroyer, really and cost 2-3x or more)
Click to expand...
You are using term destroyer almost for 'gerrymandering' of sorts - if i don't want to compare with them, so they will be destroyers.

054Bs' purpose is precisely being comparable to them, i.e. becoming a modern frigate.
if result is visibly worse than FREMM/type 26 (those two in their multiple forms form a standard of modern ASW and GP heavy frigate, with up to 100 potential hulls between two groups), it won't be one of the best in the world.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
I don't think 054A is really falling behind. It is the rational design for a cost effective platform with pretty good armaments. Its mobility is hampered somewhat by these saving but for a Pacific navy it is completely sufficient.

The so called 'frigate' of western design is disgusting, when it gets 9000 ton almost cruiser level tonnage, only to arm like a shitty destroyer. Good for long range patrol, bad for combat. Very expensive, just build more 052D equivalents.

So no, I don't think a gap exists with 054A at all. If anything everyone else have shitty design and China is the rational one here.

054B represents the most luxurious design a frigate should ever be. This is backed up by the greatest ship building industry on the planet. It would be overkill if it were by anyone less.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Risking on going somewhat out-of-topic here:
Blitzo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Might just be only me - But I think that it's going to sound like a bummer if whatever succeeds the 052D in terms of role, i.e. general-purpose destroyer also retains the 64 UVLS cell-count.

Feels like for a general-purpose destroyer that weighs in the same range as the Flight 2 and 2A Arleigh Burkes - Other than the upgrades on radars, sensors, networking, combat management, endurance, survivability, future-proofing, crew comfort etc like the 054B - An additional 16 UVLS cells could've have been a much welcomed addition to the comprehensive firepower of the new general-purpose destroyer.

Having 80 UVLS cells instead of just 64 definitely provides more useful slots for more AShMs to be carried onboard. Plus, there's also the option of swapping those additional 16 UVLS cells with fewer but larger-diameter LVLS cells for bigger AShMs - All while retaining the same number of VLS that could go towards more HHQ-9B/C and Yu-8 (and maybe, the (H)HQ-26 too).
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Risking on going somewhat out-of-topic here:

Might just be only me - But I think that it's going to sound like a bummer if whatever succeeds the 052D in terms of role, i.e. general-purpose destroyer also retains the 64 UVLS cell-count.

Feels like for a general-purpose destroyer that weighs in the same range as the Flight 2 and 2A Arleigh Burkes - Other than the upgrades on radars, sensors, networking, combat management, endurance, survivability, future-proofing, crew comfort etc like the 054B - An additional 16 UVLS cells could've have been a much welcomed addition to the comprehensive firepower of the new general-purpose destroyer.

Having 80 UVLS cells instead of just 64 definitely provides more useful slots for more AShMs to be carried onboard. Plus, there's also the option of swapping those additional 16 UVLS cells with fewer but larger-diameter LVLS cells for bigger AShMs - All while retaining the same number of VLS that could go towards more HHQ-9B/C and Yu-8 (and maybe, the (H)HQ-26 too).
Click to expand...

In general, there is a global trend for current generation surface combatants to have greater displacement than their preceding generation equivalents, while not significantly having a much heavier armament, with the additional displacement being used for sensors, processing, combat management, crew facilities, instead. Consider how the Burke III displaces as much as a Tico yet has a lower VLS count, and lacks slant Harpoon and a second 5 inch gun etc.

This isn't the thread to speculate about what comes after 052D, but my advice is to consider the trends and avoid having hopes in general.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
The so called 'frigate' of western design is disgusting, when it gets 9000 ton almost cruiser level tonnage, only to arm like a shitty destroyer. Good for long range patrol, bad for combat. Very expensive, just build more 052D equivalents.

So no, I don't think a gap exists with 054A at all. If anything everyone else have shitty design and China is the rational one here.
Click to expand...
I agree with the size creep of European frigates being a waste. But the Japanese Mogami class frigate is 5,500 tons fully loaded. The Russian Admiral Gorshkov class frigate is 5,400 tons fully loaded. The Admiral Gorshkov has way better weapons payload and sensors, and the Mogami class has better propulsion, battle management system, and sensors.

That is why I did not talk about the Type 26 or the FREMM "frigates". In my view those are completely different designs. They approach 7,000 tons so they are basically on the size range of a destroyer like Type 052D at that point. And like you said if you compare the weapons systems on both ships, the ones in the European "frigates" come way behind.

The Japanese have been building the Mogami class frigates at a rate of like two a year. Supposedly planning to build twelve. But I doubt they won't increase the order later. They are vastly more capable than the ships they replace. And because of the improved propulsion they have more energy for the improved sensors and weapons systems. Not to mention the Mogami frigate has a top speed of 30 knots vs 27 knots for the Type 054A.

It is a mistake to underestimate the capability of Japanese (and possibly South Korean) shipyards.
 
Last edited:
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
gelgoog said:
I agree with the size creep of European frigates being a waste. But the Japanese Mogami class frigate is 5,500 tons fully loaded. The Russian Admiral Gorshkov class frigate is 5,400 tons fully loaded. The Admiral Gorshkov has way better weapons payload and sensors, and the Mogami class has better propulsion, battle management system, and sensors.

That is why I did not talk about the Type 26 or the FREMM "frigates". In my view those are completely different designs. They approach 7,000 tons so they are basically on the size range of a destroyer like Type 052D at that point. And like you said if you compare the weapons systems on both ships, the ones in the European "frigates" come way behind.

The Japanese have been building the Mogami class frigates at a rate of like two a year. Supposedly planning to build twelve. But I doubt they won't increase the order later. They are vastly more capable than the ships they replace. And because of the improved propulsion they have more energy for the improved sensors and weapons systems. Not to mention the Mogami frigate has a top speed of 30 knots vs 27 knots for the Type 054A.

It is a mistake to underestimate the capability of Japanese (and possibly South Korean) shipyards.
Click to expand...

And surprisingly that Mogami cost is "only" $387M ... wondering how much would be 054B? my guess is ~$350M

Type 26 Frigate cost is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1.31 billion (2022) per unit (est.) ... very expensive and I even much more expensive than Type 055 (~$1B)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top