054B/new generation frigate

taxiya said:

Gearbox's power loss is about 5% in case of multiple propeller shafts and prime movers, 95% efficiency.

In IEPS the shaft power (from the prime mover) to the propeller shaft is reduced by electrical generator and motor, both at over 96%, in total at 92% efficiency.

So overall, electrical drive train is on the same level if not better than mechanical drive train in delivering thrust (therefor speed) from the same prime mover.

Click to expand...

Mechanical reduction can be 99% efficient.

Electrical propulsion has more conversion stages: prime mover -> generator -> motor drive -> motor -> propeller compared to prime mover -> reduction gear -> propeller

Based on some of the research I could find, electric propulsion plants incur about 8-10% loss in total power conversion: so 90-92% vs 99% for mechanical drive.


Quoting a CRS report ()
Less Efficiency at Full Power

Electric-drive systems can be less efficient than mechanical-drive systems for full-power (i.e., maximum-speed operations, due to the energy losses involved in converting RPMs into electricity, and electricity back into RPMs.

Zichan said:

Mechanical reduction can be 99% efficient.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely wrong. Did you even try to understand my post? What efficiency are you talking about? From what point to what point?
Here is a paper regarding mechanical drive train of ships. Just to give you a rough idea.


Department of Marine & Transport Technology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Netherlands Defence Academy, The Netherlands

The following is exactly what I just said about electrical drive train, repeating it does not prove any points of yours.

Zichan said:

Electrical propulsion has more conversion stages: prime mover -> generator -> motor drive -> motor -> propeller compared to prime mover -> reduction gear -> propeller

Based on some of the research I could find, electric propulsion plants incur about 8-10% loss in total power conversion: so 90-92% vs 99% for mechanical drive.
View attachment 118251

Quoting a CRS report (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)
Less Efficiency at Full Power

Electric-drive systems can be less efficient than mechanical-drive systems for full-power (i.e., maximum-speed operations, due to the energy losses involved in converting RPMs into electricity, and electricity back into RPMs.

Click to expand...

Gloire_bb said:

Well, for starters, because PLAN does exactly that.
Since the 1990s, ASW has been compact enough to not require separate(or too large) ships physically.

A frigate is a ship operating anywhere, often alone - on a more sustainable basis.
But so are the submarines, especially nuclear ones: they threaten everyone, both fleet, rear, next to shore, and on the far side of the World.

Click to expand...

Well, for starters, according to your vision PLAN is not building a Global Combat Ship, which is primarily ASW, but rather an extended 054A with better endurance and crew accommodations.

PLAN obviously has a limited choice of ASW sensors and weapons and major modern surface combatants are equipped similarly, not because their missions are similar.

The actual role of 054B can be only speculative until the exact outlay of power train and weapon load is clear.

snake65 said:

Well, for starters, according to your vision PLAN is not building a Global Combat Ship, which is primarily ASW, but rather an extended 054A with better endurance and crew accommodations.

Click to expand...

I don't have a vision here [anymore] - talking about visions was ripe when we didn't see the ship yet.
Now it's more of a statement of what we see - 054A (balanced multi-purpose frigate) is going to be replaced by 054B (balanced multi-purpose frigate).
New hull with lower signature; Diesel propulsion (some form); Medium-range SAM system with modern FC + full self-protection suite; standard modern PLAN ASW suite (i.e. ~full); DP gun; Single helicopter.
No SSM yet, but there will be something, right?

snake65 said:

PLAN obviously has a limited choice of ASW sensors and weapons and major modern surface combatants are equipped similarly, not because their missions are similar.

The actual role of 054B can be only speculative until the exact outlay of power train and weapon load is clear.

Click to expand...

We already know enough for a reasonable judgment of what we see as of now...
After that, it's more of an open denial/disappointed expectation.

Multiple posts deleted.

Posts complaining/simping for a bigger navy are irrelevant to this thread.

The twitter thread comparing 054B with other ships in terms of construction also is not relevant for this thread because we all already know how fast 054B was built and we don't need to introduce ships from other navies into this thread and derailing it further.

One more image from the launch. Good view of the 100 mm main gun. Via @horobeyo on Twitter.

A high-resolution version.

Are they going to close the gap for the aesa? I really hope so otherwise it just looks 'unfinished'.

kwaigonegin said:

Are they going to close the gap for the aesa? I really hope so otherwise it just looks 'unfinished'.

Click to expand...

I'm sure they will.

anyone can get in touch with these PLA photo takers. tell them to get a peek of the middle of the ship haha.