054B/new generation frigate

ChongqingHotPot92

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
Dante80 said:
I still think this is going with YJ-83, but we will have to see.

Pretty impressed with the speed of the project!
Click to expand...
Well there is a reason why the PLAN is rushing to replace all the slant launchers with YJ-12. The Ukraine conflict and recently failed Houthis’ assault on NATO vessels (using Iranian derivatives of C-802) clearly demonstrated the inferiority of non-stealthy subsonic cruise missiles. One assume that it is nearly impossible for YJ-83s to penetrate USN’s carrier battle groups. However, so long as the incoming cruise and ballistic missiles have speeds above Mach 3 (ideally Mach 4) would be much more challenging for SAMs to intercept them. This is why the Ukrainians consistently failed to intercept the 1970s era KN-22s. It is rumoured that the YJ-12s could reach Mach 4 during terminal phase. The YJ-83 is roughly the same as Boeing Harpoon and Exocet in terms of capabilities. All traced back to technologies of late 1970s and early 1980s and are not arguably obsolete for lacking the ability to penetrate layered defense. CJ-10s and Tomahawks are likely to face similar challenges.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
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.
Click to expand...
They haven't, 20380 and 20385 are being built in parallel, latter being... "corvette leaders" of sorts. But that's offtop.

Strictly speaking, apart from theater-level strike role(as opposed to tactical), which is a concern of higher level command and not of the skipper at sea, light dual-purpose ASCM is a wastly more useful weapon to have on you.

Same - and more, due to its dual-band seeker (allowing for much better target identification, especially for smaller targets and against clutter) - applies to YJ-83. It's just a suitable multitool for a frigate. Nothing more, nothing less.

ChongqingHotPot92 said:
Well there is a reason why the PLAN is rushing to replace all the slant launchers with YJ-12.
Click to expand...
It doesn't?
Old heavy subsonic(and supersonic) ASCMs were replaced with it, and that's it pretty much.
 
Last edited:
N

no_name

Colonel
^^^ Seeing that grey tray is why I said a few pages back there seems to be no mid-ship vls

But yj-12 could still be slant-launched right? As long as the dimensions fit?
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
Dante80 said:
I still think this is going with YJ-83, but we will have to see.

Pretty impressed with the speed of the project!
Click to expand...

Why?, I don't see that. I think almost certain will be fitted with YJ-12. hopefully 16x but perhaps likely 8x YJ-12, would it be possible 2x 6 YJ-12 configuration or 3x 4 YJ-12?
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Seems like the 054B FFG could indeed be armed with YJ-83 instead of YJ-12.

View attachment 123965
View attachment 123966
Click to expand...

Not that I have particularly strong feelings about it, but why do you think that the presence of the flame deflectors and the drop-down panel indicates YJ-83 rather than YJ-12 (or indeed any other slant launch AShM like YJ-62 in theory, though it is of course very unlikely and I list it only for posterity).
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
ChongqingHotPot92 said:
Well there is a reason why the PLAN is rushing to replace all the slant launchers with YJ-12. The Ukraine conflict and recently failed Houthis’ assault on NATO vessels (using Iranian derivatives of C-802) clearly demonstrated the inferiority of non-stealthy subsonic cruise missiles. One assume that it is nearly impossible for YJ-83s to penetrate USN’s carrier battle groups. However, so long as the incoming cruise and ballistic missiles have speeds above Mach 3 (ideally Mach 4) would be much more challenging for SAMs to intercept them. This is why the Ukrainians consistently failed to intercept the 1970s era KN-22s. It is rumoured that the YJ-12s could reach Mach 4 during terminal phase. The YJ-83 is roughly the same as Boeing Harpoon and Exocet in terms of capabilities. All traced back to technologies of late 1970s and early 1980s and are not arguably obsolete for lacking the ability to penetrate layered defense. CJ-10s and Tomahawks are likely to face similar challenges.
Click to expand...
Right. They could make stealthy versions of the subsonic cruise missiles with roughly the same size. Maybe with more modern engines you could also increase the range and IR stealth.
But I think the most viable solution is something like the Kalibr with the high Mach speed terminal stage. That is something that China basically already have available and in production.

Gloire_bb said:
They haven't, 20380 and 20385 are being built in parallel, latter being... "corvette leaders" of sorts.
Click to expand...
That used to be the case. But not anymore. Read about the planned upgrade to the Steregushchiy (hull 530). It was also publicly announced the Russians plan to make similar upgrades to the other Project 20380 hulls. They are all going to get UKSK VLS and Redut.

In the case of the Type 054B, you could say that the UK's Type 31 frigate has similar displacement. But that comes with 32 Mk 41 VLS cells which have a much wider range in terms of payloads you can use.
 
Last edited:
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
Not that I have particularly strong feelings about it, but why do you think that the presence of the flame deflectors and the drop-down panel indicates YJ-83 rather than YJ-12 (or indeed any other slant launch AShM like YJ-62 in theory, though it is of course very unlikely and I list it only for posterity).
Click to expand...
Yes, mainly due to the presence of the flame deflectors. I'm not so sure about the drop-down panels, though.

For the 054A FFGs in PLAN service, every ship has two flame deflectors located right behind the twin YJ-83 missile cannister groupings.
u=2107381489,193123332&fm=253&fmt=auto&app=138&f=JPEG.png
u=1572950091,4209866701&fm=253&fmt=auto&app=138&f=JPEG.png

Meanwhile, the 054AP FFGs operated by the Pakistani Navy, which are armed with YJ-12 AShMs have no such flame deflectors.
006qLVAkgy1hlusf96o3xj30nq0ftgnd.jpg
pns054ap.jpg

Besides, there's the observation where the YJ-12 missile cannisters actually span across much of the 054AP's beam length - Which, as a result, doesn't leave sufficient spacings for the flame deflectors to be installed behind them. The 054B FFG, while being wider than the 054A, is only wider by around ~2 meters from satellite observations by others - Which, again, may not be wide enough for the flame deflectors to be installed there.

Of course, this is based on my (and Big Bun's) current observation, which may change if the PLAN decides to go with YJ-12 for the 054Bs instead.
 
Last edited:
K

KangarooPriest

New Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
YJ-83K in its latest form is more or less Chinese counterpart to NSM. Heavier, but also twin seeker and twice the warhead.
Click to expand...
You mean J right? Regardless though, the YJ-83s are still big round missiles. I doubt the NSM is particularly stealthy unlike the LRASM (although Kongsberg does advertise it as such), but even the newest YJ-83s don't seem to even make an attempt at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top