054B/new generation frigate

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Why?? If UVLS does end up being fitted there, it would be preferable to pack as much UVLS in the available space as possible as opposed to adding slant launchers using that space. Slant launchers should only be fitted as next best alternative if due to space and/or weight constraints UVLS could not be fitted in that space.
Slant launchers do all the same trick(they're storing weapons safe and for cheap, in optimal conditions), while being not intrusive, easy to fit, and easy to remove/reload. Frigate with strike cells is a de facto strike frigate, because it forces design compromises in favor of that role. Vertical boxes themselves are cheap, but they aren't cheap on ship design.

Added advantage - they don't force overly deep changes compared to normal light ASCMs, and they get you a stealthy launch for cheap (for comparison - check the famous Onyx launch sequence to see how annoying is doing the same for a VLS launch).
 

by78

General
The best ones so far.

53147001631_82e2482086_k.jpg

53146420747_656a013c92_k.jpg
53147495023_fea207bfd3_k.jpg
 
Last edited:

antiterror13

Brigadier
so "sexy" and beautiful ...... love it, can't wait to know the actual specs. Things I want to know are

* What propulsion, whether gas turbine or just diesel ?
* IEPS MVDC
* Number of VLS and whether UVLS
* What type of missiles? is it HQ-16FE or something else better ?
* How many YJ-12 in the middle, likely 2x4, but whether it is possible to have 4x4? ... how about 2x6 ?
 

HgMs

New Member
Registered Member
有人有顶上那个雷达尺寸的信息吗?我对着图比像素估摸有个3.5米左右,比星座的6英寸大多了

Anybody has detail infomation about the radar size? My estimation according to image pixi is 3.5m, which is much bigger than the 6 inch size of ConstellationClass
 
Slant launchers do all the same trick(they're storing weapons safe and for cheap, in optimal conditions), while being not intrusive, easy to fit, and easy to remove/reload. Frigate with strike cells is a de facto strike frigate, because it forces design compromises in favor of that role. Vertical boxes themselves are cheap, but they aren't cheap on ship design.

Added advantage - they don't force overly deep changes compared to normal light ASCMs, and they get you a stealthy launch for cheap (for comparison - check the famous Onyx launch sequence to see how annoying is doing the same for a VLS launch).
Going for either all slant launchers or all UVLS amidships both are reasonable design choices with different tradeoffs, but adding both makes little sense.
 

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
有人有顶上那个雷达尺寸的信息吗?我对着图比像素估摸有个3.5米左右,比星座的6英寸大多了

Anybody has detail infomation about the radar size? My estimation according to image pixi is 3.5m, which is much bigger than the 6 inch size of ConstellationClass
6 feet, not 6 inch :D
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Sounds reasonable for a 4k ton FFG, but 054B is in a 6k ton league, where it's hull can comfortably support 64 UVLS + 8/16 AShM without suffering performance degradation. However, once again, we are discussing hypothetical possibilities, and it is now quite evident that PLAN did not pursue that path.
Firstly, the UVLS cells are actually 850mm in diameter, same as those on the 052D/DL and 055 DDGs. The UVLS is also capable of both cold-launching and hot-launching missiles, which adds to the overall complexity of the system - And thus, size and weight of the UVLS as well.

Besides, the VLS cells on the 054A and 054B FFGs are 650mm in diameter, which are actually slightly bigger than the Mark 41 VLS's 635mm-diameter cells used on the Arleigh Burke DDGs. Both the 650mm-diameter VLS on the 054A & 054B and the Mark 41 VLS are capable of hot-launch only.

Even the Constellation FFGs with 7000+ tons of (full) displacement are only equipped with 32 Mark 41 VLS cells.

In the meantime, China managed to fit 64 UVLS on the 052D/DL DDGs with ~7500 tons of (full) displacement - Only by stretching the 052 family's hull to pretty much the upper limit.

Speaking of slanted AShM canisters - We need to understand three things:
1. The 054B is a guided missile frigate, first-and-foremost,
2. The 054Bs are to operate in unison with other major surface combatants of the PLAN, i.e. the 052C/D general-purpose destroyers and 055 large destroyers/cruisers, and
3. The 054B has its own roles within PLAN naval formations that the 054B will be specialized towards excelling, similar to the other two types of major surface combatants in the PLAN:
- The 054A/B FFGs are mainly responsible for ASW;
- The 052C/D DDGs are mainly responsible for AAW; and
- The 055 DDGs are mainly responsible for AAW and AShW.

To put it simply, anti-ship strike missions simply isn't a key priority for the 054B. That job is better served by the 052Ds and 055s, where both of which are actually more tailored for the job than the 054Bs ever would. The AShMs on the 054Bs are mainly for supportive roles (or even backup) to the main effort of anti-ship strike missions that are always led by and conducted by 052Ds and 055s. Hence, there is little need to have many of them onboard - Let alone presently top-of-the-line ones such as YJ-18 and YJ-21.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Going for either all slant launchers or all UVLS amidships both are reasonable design choices with different tradeoffs, but adding both makes little sense.
The only nation to go for all-slant(universal) is Taiwan - a curious choice.
Otherwise, slant ASCMs simply allow to install optimal & available weapons in a part of a typically smaller ship, which is often not usable for VLS.

Probably worth pointing out, but YJ-12, 18, and 83 are not equals, fill different niches and categories.
83 is the most universal, most capable against small/agile targets, easiest to handle, and most available.
12 is the least dependent on in-flight updates and support.
18, with its range and set of qualities is, most of all, a fleet weapon.
 
Top