054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I think the Type 054B is a fine platform with good electronics and sensors. But the weapon systems will need to evolve to be able to handle current and near future threats be those drones or air launched cruise missiles. Expecting it to be able to handle ship launched ballistic missiles is probably way too much on this size of platform though. That will be handled by the destroyers.
If the Type 054B can easily be out ranged in terms of strike weapons by something the US will produce by the thousands then it isn't much use at all. It needs some sort of strike weapon that can outrange the US ones. And something like the Kalibr-M is basically easily within reach to develop for China. You just need to stretch the fuel tanks of the cruise missile.
If the Type 054B can easily be out ranged in terms of strike weapons by something the US will produce by the thousands then it isn't much use at all. It needs some sort of strike weapon that can outrange the US ones. And something like the Kalibr-M is basically easily within reach to develop for China. You just need to stretch the fuel tanks of the cruise missile.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to criticize you specifically, but the last couple of posts just seem like you aren't posting with any specific direction or thought.
Posting about the increase in range of LACMs without relation to 054B initially is just random.
Now you are saying you posted about the increase in range of LACMs in context of current and future threats like drones or ALCMs, which necessitates weapons systems to evolve and iterate, which is fine, but I also do not see how that is related to 054B.
In the last page, haven't I already posted about how weapons systems do evolve and iterate? If you are wanting verification that new variants of missiles are being developed or exist, well we are not going to get timely updates for it, but it shouldn't be a particular question that weapons systems get new variants and updates over time, and 054B will see the benefits of those variants and updates as well.
Furthermore the evolution and capability of weapons systems is also dependent on the sensors, networking and combat management system you have; the two cannot really be unlinked from one another.
I am basically trying to guess how this design will be improved. I expect the air defense and surface strike components to be enhanced like I said. If you look at the Russian large corvettes/light frigates they have been switching Project 20380 from having 8x Kh-35 launchers to have 8x UKSK VLS. The Kh-35 is just too low spec for modern threats. It will be interesting to see what the PLAN will use as a surface strike component on this Type 054B ship since that isn't installed yet. The YJ-83 won't cut it for China, just like the Kh-35 doesn't cut it for the Russians. Let alone on a ship as large as this.
Well at the extremely long strike ranges I am talking about for surface targets the ship will have to access other recon assets, orbital or whatever, or it won't be able to target anything. The AESA radar helps in that it will likely have better capabilities against drones or swarm attacks than the older radar. But for this you need the proper SAMs for the task. Which is why I think it needs quad packed small SAMs.
The AESA radar will also help against stealth targets. Be those aircraft or stealth cruise missiles.
Last edited:
Not preference or aesthetics related. It reduces RCS and costs nothing more. What even is so important above these turrets that the designers chose to go for built in ladders and sacrifice RCS for? A removable ladder placed inside close by and some locking mechanism or fastening method, would not have increased costs. Say they build 50 of ships. That's 50 ladders and locks. The PLA could have stuck to the Type 22 window design style. It would have been cheaper, lighter, easier to construct, and would have reduced the RCS. Not sure why they abandoned that. I do see it on their new concept ship they are building, so that's nice. You have a good point on the other things I mentioned.
I think the answers to this question are fairly finite.
This frigate with its larger beam should be able to accommodate 2x4 YJ-12s without much trouble, and in future if new slant launch AShMs are developed they can also be integrated.
A better question is why among all of the many surface combatants that the PLAN has developed, built and procured in the modern era, why have they retained ladders on the turrets of their main guns like their 76mm, 100m and 130mm types. Thus, in turn why do you think they should start omitting it on 054Bs?
Perhaps re-evaluation as to the RCS impact on whether they have ladders on the turrets or not would be worthwhile first?
The same goes for the Type 22's window/porthole design -- how that feature is not present aboard any of their other surface combatants that emerged after Type 22? Perhaps it also is not that important for RCS contribution either.
Well both of these features are on the Visby like prototype, so how useful are they? Maybe they made it to find out.
Maybe they are already aware and have decided that pursuing those kind of RCS reduction measures on surface combatants the size of corvettes, frigates and destroyers with the sensor fit, configuration and weapons fit that they have are not worthwhile.
As I've mentioned to you before in a different thread a few weeks ago, you should recalibrate your expectations a little bit.
If you have come up with a theory/hypothesis like "why don't they pursue RCS reduction method X on these ship classes" and we have not observed those measures on current or recent ship classes, then maybe there is a reason for it, maybe it's because they aren't actually that important for the warship types at present. Maybe the value they bring are not sufficient to make those changes worthwhile or worth the tradeoff in loss of practicality.
Either way, talking about them in a manner that suggests they are obvious no brainers and are either necessary or "possible," really isn't helpful. At minimum, if you think something could be useful, at least consider asking "why haven't they done so" rather than stating it as if it is a declaration of fact.
