054B/new generation frigate

Dante80

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because I feel that the latest version of YJ-83 would better fit the role that I think the ship will have inside PLANs ORBAT as a long range/endurance replacement of the 054A frigate.

I don't really have a strong opinion about this btw, just a hunch. We will know anyway, sooner or later.
 
N

no_name

Colonel
I think just because we see flame deflectors does not rule out that they can swap it out in favor of yj-12 depending on mission requirement.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
iBBz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Different ships expect to face different incoming radar signals. A destroyer or frigate try to defeat long range search radar, but less concerned of incoming missiles due to its own strong jaming/close-in defences. A fast attack boat like visby or 022 would pay more attention to incoming missiles' seaker which runs on higher frequency. Attention to different freqencies makes some working measures in one scenario pointless in another.
 
Last edited:
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
I would actually prefer to see 4-8 rocket assisted asw torpedoes amid ship. Leaving all 32 vls cells for AA work.
Anti ship missiles on 054 (A or B) seem like a waste in a large peer opponent war. There should be countless other platforms capable of dishing out anti ship missiles all around China.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
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.
View attachment 123994
View attachment 123995

Meanwhile, the 054AP FFGs operated by the Pakistani Navy, which are armed with YJ-12 AShMs have no such flame deflectors.
View attachment 123996
View attachment 123997

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.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable formulation, though at this stage I would not consider the presence of flame deflectors to be definitive given how few ships actually have YJ-12s in this position yet.

I think the clearest way of differentiating between whether it'll have YJ-83 variant or YJ-12 (outside of seeing the canisters installed) would be once we have a look at the supporting base frames for the slant AShM on 054B, as those are definitely categorically and very visibly different between YJ-83 and YJ-12.
 
by78

by78

General
A high-resolution close-up of the main mast.

53469234326_fbdc233f56_k.jpg
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
by78 said:
A high-resolution close-up of the main mast.

53469234326_fbdc233f56_k.jpg
Click to expand...

The completed array structure, compared with the depiction from a paper many years back, shows some minor changes likely for better signature reduction but otherwise it's fairly consistent with what we expected:

1705473994200.png




Overall, now that it's all said and done, the rotating dual face radar for 054B is fairly impressive as the primary sensor for what will likely be a medium capability blue water combatant for the PLAN in context of its blue water capable surface combatant fleet.

Assuming an AESA (goes without saying these days), in S band (really the default band for these radars), and a reasonable refresh rate (like 30rpm), and contemporary processing and computing capabilities, this radar setup may offer a sensor capability that is on par with high end AAW destroyers of some navies which could balance array size, radar horizon and refresh rate in a practical package.
 
J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
The completed array structure, compared with the depiction from a paper many years back, shows some minor changes likely for better signature reduction but otherwise it's fairly consistent with what we expected:

View attachment 124026




Overall, now that it's all said and done, the rotating dual face radar for 054B is fairly impressive as the primary sensor for what will likely be a medium capability blue water combatant for the PLAN in context of its blue water capable surface combatant fleet.

Assuming an AESA (goes without saying these days), in S band (really the default band for these radars), and a reasonable refresh rate (like 30rpm), and contemporary processing and computing capabilities, this radar setup may offer a sensor capability that is on par with high end AAW destroyers of some navies which could balance array size, radar horizon and refresh rate in a practical package.
Click to expand...
Does the paper list the function of the smaller array? Does the side protusions contain an antenna or are they simple steel structures for RCS mitigation?
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
Does the paper list the function of the smaller array? Does the side protusions contain an antenna or are they simple steel structures for RCS mitigation?
Click to expand...

The original paper is not something that's ever been located. If I had access to it, I would share it.

As for the side protrusions, it's very likely to be for signature reduction given we know what it looks like without the side protrusions and there are no accommodation for cabling, cooling or other supports that you'd need for a side array.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top