Global Times said this is a far sea general purpose frigate, optimized for cost, reliability, endurance, crew comfort etc.I see 054B as ASW escort for CV and amphib. Hence requirement for 2 hangars. Feel free to think otherwise.
Interesting claim. Do you have one of these side by side comprising ?I don't understand the obsession with dual helicopter hangars. PLAN design standards require a collective protection system, degaussing and sufficiently wide damage control corridors along both sides of the ship. I recall that experiences gained from damage control on 052C revealed that the interior was too cramped, hindering effective repairs while underway. As a result, the beam on 052D was widened by 1.2m to 18.2m (some sources incorrectly label 052D as still being 17m wide, but you can measure on every side-by-side picture or satellite image that it's wider than 052C by about 1m).
Type 31 type is definitely out of question, it's a basic peacetime Gulf-optimized 'colonial cruiser'. Not even a proper trade protection ship, as it poses literally zero problems to wartime commerce threats.IMO, 054B is not a Type 26 equivalent, it is a Type 31 equivalent.
The 075 LHDs won't work, though.The fact that Type 054B, Type 054A and Type 052D all have a single hangar tells me that PLAN foresees a different naval platform to play the principal role in airborne ASW (Type 075?).
#1 and #3 would be more than sufficient. Also should consider within the next decade PLAN would be augmented by a highly competitive underseas component both in far-seas and near-seas operations.The 075 LHDs won't work, though.
This is because the 075 LHDs only have a top speed in the low-20s of knots, meaning that they are incapable of catching up with all other major surface combatants and carriers of the PLAN on the high seas. This case is actually true for all the LHDs and LHAs around the world today, i.e. America, Wasp, Mistral, Trieste, Anadolu etc.
Besides, the 075 LHDs are amphibious assault ships, first-and-foremost. They aren't designed to perform naval combat operations against enemy naval forces on the high seas.
(I had to change my initial mindsets on how I should view the incoming 076 LHDs too, as they were awfully incorrect.)
Furthermore, the PLAN is already very eager to supplement (and then succeed) the 054As with the 054Bs, mainly due to their lower top speed when compared to other major surface warships of the PLAN (052C/D, 055 and CVs). Hence, it is extremely doubtful that the PLAN would resort to an even lower-speed solution for aerial-based ASW operations in the Pacific.
With that settled, there are several solutions that the PLAN could go with in order to feasibly address the aerial ASW issues on the high seas, as follows:
#1 - Procure more 055 DDGs with dual heli hangars to carry two helis per ship; and/or
#2 - Introduce 052D-successor DDGs (in the 9-10 thousand-ton range) that should have enough size and displacement allowance to carry two helis per ship; and/or
#3 - Procure more proper large CVs (I don't think this require any further explanation); and/or
#4 - Introduce light/heli CVs which operate helis and UAVs exclusively (the Izumo and Hyuga "DDHs" of the JMSDF are perfect examples for this idea).
This is off-topic, but what you are saying for the Type 31 is not entirely true. The Type 31 was modified (from the IH) to adhere to Lloyd's Register Naval Ship Rules, DEFSTAN 02-900 and NATO ANEP-77. It has a speed of 28 knots. Type 31 has NS110 AESA, and 056 has a much smaller Type 360. The 056 has HQ 10 for AAW, meanwhile, the Type 31 will initially have 24 Sea Ceptor, 2 x Bofors 40mm mk4 and 1 x Bofors 57 mm mk3. There is also a programme to add Mk41 launchers to the Type 31 later in the decade.For 31... imagine a half-commercial, 25kn/diesel hull with a sensor/weapon suite of 056(not 056A). Maybe UVLS for LACMs.
I see 054B as ASW escort for CV and amphib. Hence requirement for 2 hangars. Feel free to think otherwise.