I think there is possibility. It looks like a black raised platform probably covered by a tarp. Also there are what look frames for ASHM slant canisters on either side of the raised platform.
Amidship:
VLS in bow:
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I think there is possibility. It looks like a black raised platform probably covered by a tarp. Also there are what look frames for ASHM slant canisters on either side of the raised platform.
Amidship:
VLS in bow:
I'm of the same opinion as @Tam , et. al - They made the ship bigger cos they needed non-weaponry space.
Ships are designed to the role they are supposed to fulfill. Fanboy derision that a 7,000 ton ship AWD with only 48cells is grossly under-armed (Hobart Class) ignores the current threat environment and possible ffnw scalability of the design, all squeezed within real world operating costs and budgets. There is never any point discussing loadouts without first establishing the role they are supposed to fulfill and budget they have to operate within.
The common adage is that hull is cheap. So for the 054B, if along the way they've used the added space to improve on crew creature comforts, good for them - it'll probably be the most bang-for-buck improvement to the 054A wrt seakeeping and endurance. I've been of ship tours from OHP class in service with the PN (omg they were dire) to Arleigh Burkes (crowded) to more "modern" Formidable Class (cruise ship
). To a non-sailor, I must say that the stark difference in "crowdedness" below deck is very obvious between each newer iteration of warship design.Without having seen the 054A vs 054B below-deck, I will surmise that if they improve the ergonomics of the space and crew comfort, it's already a win. PLAN is on a massive expansion and recruitment to crew those hulls is one part of the game. Retention is the other that people don't seem to think about. A large part of retention is the sailor's non-war or OOTW service experience. Not having to hot bunk on 6 month long deployments is already a big win in this area.
As for the space itself, it could just simply be a multi-use space to support OOTW like the anti-piracy missions. eg; extra space for more RHIBs;
Do you have any pic that shows how this works?
I'm only familiar with bottom placed-direct exhaust slots like this ...
Roger that, thanks.
Not a very elegant solution? Space for 2nd rack instead used by the deflector?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
People keep thinking of the AKJ16 as some sort of mini-VLS when it’s basically the same size as the US mk41. So there is nothing stopping China from putting a quad packed missile in them if they wanted to. With the huge number of 054A, and now 054B using this cell, it’s future is assured and continued development support will eventually add all sorts of options.
Personally, my view is that the PLAN prefer the HQ16 over any quad packable missile because of the massive performance gulf between them. Don’t get fooled by the brochure sales pitch numbers for the likes of the ESSM. Their max range figures are only achievable under ideal circumstances, and when the target of the attack is the launch ship itself.
Due to its small volume, an ESSM will only be able to engage its engines for a fraction of the time a HQ16 can manage. After fuel is exhausted, the ESSM is just gliding and loosing speed and energy all the time while the HQ16 can sustain powered flight and full performance for far longer.
This gives the HQ16 higher PK at extended ranges, as well as the ability to intercept missiles aimed at other targets the ESSM simply won’t be able to, such as high supersonics and maybe even hypersonics under some scenarios.
This in turn allows the PLAN much greater flexibility in fleet formations and deployments of the 054A within a carrier or similar strike group formation and still being able to offer effective area defence for the fleet’s principle warships and other escorts.
Simply put, frigates are restricted to operating within a small inner ring around the fleet’s principles if they pack many small missiles like the ESSM, whereas with HQ16s, the longer range and sustained speed of the missile frees up the frigate to go further from the principle while still being able to offer the same or better degree of protection to the principle, and that opens up a much bigger range of missions the frigate can undertake, and also pushed out the fleets effective air defence bubbles.
The use of different VLS could also be the PLAN’s way of answering the modern question of what the difference is between a FFG and DDG. The UCCL VLS seems to be focused towards long range SAM and offensive firepower, whereas the AKJ16 is focused on defence with HQ16s and ASROCs.
The UCCL VLS will be more likely to get a quad packable 5-5-5 missile since the ships mounting them will be DDGs and CGs, so more likely to be worthy targets of saturation attacks themselves.
The 054B also adds a decent amount of anti-saturation capabilities themselves in the form of the HQ10 launcher.
Hull itself is relatively the cheaper component in a ship’s cost. Sensors, weapons load-out and propulsion are the principal drivers of cost. If the PLAN was looking for another relatively cheap platform, but with greater endurance and future growth potential then the Type 054B looks like it fits the bill nicely.
If you really think about that.
The PLAN doesn't have any sort of exposed illuminator radar on their new vessels like 052D, 055 and 054B
I'm not even sure that the Type 055 use a dedicated illuminator as its X-band radar can also provides fire control ( Zumwalt dual band?) intergrated into the mast.
Presumably the 054B's tiny underside radar can act as a secondary illuminator with the large rotating one a volumetric search/track radar? But that would compromise the sensors operation as the dual band radars, as we know are built as one unit. So the illum radar would be limited in arc.
Probably the sensors arent fit for now? I could not imagine developing and fielding an entirely new HHQ-16 variant when there're so many legacy versions in stock out there that could not be used.
Or legacy HHQ-16s are updated with seekers that permitted ICWI technique. So the FCR can time-share illuminating works.
Does the PLA even use a ASROC type weapon going by OSINT data? We know they have developed cruise missile-based and rocket powered torps b4 but no indication of major surface combatants using them.
Type 054B as an ASW asset would be extremely limited if it doesnt have one.
Considering that the HHQ-16 is actually more useful and more effective for intercepting anticipated supersonic and even low-hypersonic enemy AShMs than ESSM-type SHORAD...
It does makes me wonder about the possibility of swapping the AKJ-16 VLS cells with larger VLS (LVLS) cells that will allow more HHQ-16s (5x to 9x) to be packed within the same footprint of the original AKJ-16 that can only pack 4x HHQ-16s.
If viable, then there's the potential for a maximum of 40x to 72x HHQ-16s per 054B - All without having to increase the number of VLS cells on the 054B from the predecessing 054A.
Needless to say, interesting option, in my opinion.
Last edited: