I also think 054b is a bit lacking on armament. Actually 052d has the same issue regardless their size if you only consider the challenge from saturated attack from USN +USAF. To address this issue only, PLAN needs more VLS. I think they shouls use 054b platform to develop a unmanned armament/support ship with only data link and VLS onboard. It does not need expensive sensors, HELO facility, bridge structure and living spaces. Make it configurable to hold mix of UVLS, HQ16 VLS and even some supply storage. Not sure how many cells it can hold. It will be a huge upgrade to PLAN CBG fire power, when adding two of such ships with 128 cells of UVLS and 64 cells of HQ16 VLS on each of the ships
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
kwaigonegin
Colonel
PLANs most challenging threat matrix is subsurface. Whether 054B is a 'good or bad' frigate would largely depend on it's ASW capabilities.
At least that is how I would judge it if I'm the admiral or decision maker within PLAN.
Amatuers look at missiles and radars, professionals concentrated on what's below because just the presence of a single attack sub w/o even firing a single shot can totally alter the entire battle space above.
I don't think so.
The US&LC is moving ahead with the development of better SSN capabilities. But China isn't standing still either.
In fact, from what we do know, the 093B SSNs that Huludao is serial-building right now is comparable to the late-Los Angeles SSNs. While the late-Los Angeles SSNs are still lacking behind the Virginia SSNs, having SSNs that are comparable to the late-Los Angeles is still a considerably massive step foward in many capabilites compared to the earlier Chinese SSNs up till the early-2000s (namey the 091 and 093 SSNs), of which the PLAN had no choice but to operate them for many decades, as China do not possess the required experience and knowhow to develop and build SSN that are comparable to their Soviet/Russian, let alone their American peers at that time.
The 095 SSNs, which is expecred to begin construction within the next few years (if not already), should be at least comparable to the early-Virginia SSNs (of which the Virginia-class is typically held as the gold standard for SSN capabilities across the world right now). In the meantime, I'm hoping that future variants of the 095 SSN, if not the 097 SSN would finally place China on the same level as the US' late-Virginia SSNs, if not the SSN(X).
This goes the same for China in the ASW domain. So, if anything - I'd expect the gap between the US&LC and China to continue narrowing in the coming years.
What you just described is an arsenal ship.
However, arsenal ships that have multiple 10s if not 100+ VLS cells are going to be more of a liability than an asset, as they're going to become extremely juicy targets that have poor self-defense capabilities.
Instead, a minimally-manned, 3000-ton class hull with 32 or 48 VLS cells and a HHQ-10 CIWS, plus having similar speed and endurance as other frontline warships should do. The goal here is to spread out the firepower allocated to a fleet, such that if one or two is/are lost to enemy action, huge portions of the offensive and defensive capabilities will not get wiped out in an instant.
In fact, IMHO, China might just got really lucky with probably (one of) the most versatile ship hull design in the history of the PLAN with the 054/A/AG FFGs.
We don't need a 5000+ ton warship hull (i.e. 054B FFG) for an arsenal ship.
Last edited:
I too am quite happy with 054A. It is a good workhorse, and that is the job of a frigate. It should be as cheap as possible to perform the patrol duty while only having enough weapons to protect itself from light threats. 054B as far as I am concerned is a luxurious design that increase tonnage for blue sea operation and housing very advanced electronics. Something only superpower should pursue. Any non-superpower making bigger frigate is just being counterproductive. They should instead make a destroyer.
...yet it's the opposite from what happens in real life.
Making a destroyer isn't hard, it's giving modern destroyer an environment where it can do something frigate can't - that is hard.
That's why modern destroyers are de facto built either by 2 Space/C4ISTAR superpowers - or by those for whom any national autonomy/sovereignty from the US ecosystem is an empty sound (Japan/Korea/Australia/Spain).
Even Russia doesn't! (despite producing everything needed domestically). Tellingly perhaps, out of nations from the list above, Japan and Korea also produce everything needed domestically...but their - or should I spell it "their"? - destroyers are not built from those systems.
Yet everyone else builds heavy frigates instead - often as large and as expensive as destroyers, but less ... integrated type of warship (or, to be exact, they don't aim at full theater integration - local information environment "cloud" and OtH ship/surface targeting sufficient for coordinated strike is enough).
054B, as we see right now - is the same thing as 054A was two decades ago. The difference is that it's relevant, and built by a much more advanced nation. Lo- combatants absolutely need to be relevant, or they aren't Lo-, they just don't qualify as combatants.
054A can/will still work in lower-threat environments at now+20 years cycle, but overall they're showing their design/system age. If you want to see those limitations - look at how a couple of 11356Rs perform in Black Sea; they're half-sisters to 054A, after all, so the example is as relevant as it can get.
Last edited:
I am saying these large frigate makers are making a big mistake. They will get absolutely smoked by the Hi set up like 052D, but are not cost efficient to be a Lo. Gorshkovs are not anything close to 054A so I fail to see the point of comparing it. Gorshkovs are the best post soviet system Russia has, so it focus a lot on firepower unlike 054A. 054A is one of the few true Lo type of system that do not pretend to be anything more.
As for why they make big frigates, that is a complicated question. For most, they dont have their own subsystems, so they just cram the American big VLS on it. American as we know do not operate any frigate, so that is that. As for why American do not operate frigates, that is another separate mistake we don't need to get into.
The Russians do not have modern destroyers because their whole naval construction program was severely delayed after the sanctions due to 2014 annexation of Crimea. But there are plans to create such ships. The Project 22350M destroyer is one. And then there's the Lider nuclear battlecruiser.
Russian ships are more packed with weapons for several reasons. The Russians have less ships than they would otherwise need to guard their coastline, their fleets are quite far apart from each other. Because of this they choose to have low seamanship capabilities and lower endurance so they can pack a higher weapons load.
China has a balanced fleet, and with the latest propulsion systems coming online you should expect the average tonnage of ships to increase further. Chinese ships need good endurance so they can be used for patrol of the sea lanes to the Middle East for getting oil, or all the way to Europe to ensure the trade routes remain open.
Russian ships are more packed with weapons for several reasons. The Russians have less ships than they would otherwise need to guard their coastline, their fleets are quite far apart from each other. Because of this they choose to have low seamanship capabilities and lower endurance so they can pack a higher weapons load.
China has a balanced fleet, and with the latest propulsion systems coming online you should expect the average tonnage of ships to increase further. Chinese ships need good endurance so they can be used for patrol of the sea lanes to the Middle East for getting oil, or all the way to Europe to ensure the trade routes remain open.
Last edited:
Second-tier states still need sea power, both for their use and to contest someone else's sea power.
Everyone with any ambition or self-preservation needs it.
Yes, a strike-oriented navy (which PLAN still was just a few years ago, btw) is a less rounded/survivable concept than a "Hi" setup. It is much less capable of achieving a sustainable&exploitable sea superiority: not like nations using this concept really have the means to proactively exploit it anyway. It still can threaten (deter) and fight a "Hi" navy in a naval battle. Especially under its shore(or maybe with friendly targeting). Soviets did it against "Hi" Americans during CW more than once (without actual shooting of course), and with some remarkable successes.
More importantly, such navies most certainly can compete against each other, which is in most cases the point. Like, RN/MN won't really be able to fight PLAN - but deterring Russian Northern Fleet is certainly doable. And vice versa.
It's especially true when 2nd tier navies actually open a naval history book and get a carrier. And now, now they're one hell of a threat, no matter if they're escorted with air defense (or general purpose) frigates or true networked destroyers. Because a good strike wave or two is a lot of sudden fun.
That - for much much cheaper, and in a much more achievable manner, than a full hi navy.
Like again - who, other than the US and China can for example pay for space and air components of a Hi system?
Russia? Who'll pay, China?
Even at its current level, Russia needs to get its act together.Europe, even together: did I miss them recently being able to launch anything not by an American launcher?
India: just no capability yet, and won't come in the foreseeable future. And for them, this step isn't even the first problem - like let them get more than a single rented SSN at least.
Others: lol.
Gorshkov(22350) is not the same as 11356R(Russian counterpart to Indian Talwar class). They're closely comparable to 054A (in fact, widely speculated to be sister designs).
11356R is more offensive, 054A is more well-rounded, but from the point of view of their basic suitability - it doesn't matter. In a model Ukrainian threat environment (which, for example, all potential hostile SCS nations - Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore, - can replicate and more) - they're more or less similar. And certainly, all of those nations can replicate starlinked explosive boats.
Both designs share similar dated search radar and similarly moderately capable combat system, both use very...close HHQ-16/Shtil with more or less the same 4 illuminators; both have a couple of CIWS.
Yes, 054a is somewhat more capable of defending itself and others. Not to the point where it is something radically different.
And we can already say with sufficient certainty - no, in this moderate threat, this level of capability is at least constrained in where it can go and how much it can escort. Which is a problem. Imagine how bigger the problem will be, if SLOCs grow bigger, and individual pressure will go up. For example, just as a scenario, where Chinese frigates need to escort traffic all the way from the Gulf, without drawing units from the battlefleet.
Americans operated frigates for decades - and, while they currently s...are bad at putting any new design into production, Constellation itself is a feasible counterpart to the Burkes. Though to their misfortune, Congress does everything in its power to make it into a stupid ersatz-destroyer.
054B, while quite large, is not a “heavy frigate" per se. It's just a natural evolution of 054A, taking into account increased requirements of the (necessarily) more capable sensor/processing suite, more autonomy, as well as simply leveraging increased shipbuilding capability (like why save money on something what isn't that much of a bottleneck).
Can it nonetheless be put into high threat scenario(together with fleet)? yes, why not, it's datalinked for that. It isn't exactly optimized for that, but it can be done, and it will carry its weight, no problem.
We aren't in an era of ships of the line, there is no hard line dividing the two.
Last edited: