054B/new generation frigate

Gloire_bb said:

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).

Click to expand...

Project 11356R was designed as a stopgap solution to plug the hole until the much more ambitious Project 22350 became available.
It is basically a Krivak frigate hull with VLS (UKVLS for Kalibr and Shtil for Buk) added to it.
China imported those weapon systems and sensor suite to make the Type 052B destroyer. So the technology itself is perfectly known to the PLAN. The Type 054A has a significantly different hull and CODAD propulsion. While the Project 11356R much like the Krivak uses COGAG propulsion.

The Type 054A has a slower top speed but should have lower fuel consumption and increased range and endurance as a result.
The basic Type 054A hull is much closer in specifications to the French La Fayette frigates than any Russian ship.

Missile and electronics system miniaturization has enabled a huge capability increase in modern frigate designs compared to Cold War era designs.

If you look at the French Formidable-class stealth frigates, which are modern derivatives of the French La Fayette frigate design, they even look kind of similar to the Type 054B in terms of the main radar and sensor mast setup.

The main difference between Type 054B and the Formidable-class seems to be that the earlier was more optimized for endurance and the latter for speed.

Gloire_bb said:

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.

Click to expand...

They picked a hull that was much larger than of the Perry frigates to begin with (FREMM) and made it even larger.
It makes sense if the goal is either to counter or defend against salvos from supposedly smaller Chinese ships in the same class.

Except the Chinese decided to make their own ships 50% bigger.

Project 22350 is already in service (3) and 7 in building

Gloire_bb said:

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.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are trying to say, but I will respectfully disagree. Russian method is using specialized ships to keep up with dominant power in combat, at cost of level of control. The large frigate popular around the world is opposite. It is essentially for patrolling the sea as long as there is no serious competition. This a punching down strategy. Russian way is punching up. Russians cram their frigate with as much weapons as they can to fight. Europeans are packing very little weapon for the weight, but nevertheless overweight. Equating the Soviet method to modern European method cannot be more wrong when they are polar opposite.

Gloire_bb said:

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.

Click to expand...

Japan and South Korea for instance, do operate quality destroyers. Those two are nowhere close to US/China's might. If the Europeans wanted, they could very well order from those two. Destroyers while relatively pricy, are not prohibitably unaffordable. For the money these Europeans are paying for a frigate, China could get a 055. Therefore money is not an issue. It is a matter of priority. They got the priority wrong, China with 054A got it right. The only exception is Russia, who do get the priority right, but actually lacks money. Russian navy is a special case that spend most money on subs for nuclear deterrence, their case do not apply to most country.

Gloire_bb said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am gonna need some evidence on bolded statement....

Those two are nothing alike. Gorshkov is packed to the brim with weapons in a small platform. It is a strike platform that is undersized due to Russian budget. 054A is a modest frigate that perform utility missions, no focus on surface combat, only personal air defence. But despite their differences, both are more sensible solutions than 'large frigates'. Russian way(undersized 'destroyer') is when you are poor. Chinese way is when you have powerful Hi set up. Europeans, their way(oversized frigate) is good for nothing.

Gloire_bb said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was very clear 054B is not a heavy frigate, and that is why I praised it. The armament is more or less identical, except the electronics and possibly ASW capability. Just a improved 054A, but China grew stronger during the time so China's Lo now looks a bit too good to be Lo. But make no mistake, it shares more or less the same role as 054A, for more blue sea focused PLAN. If US navy is sensible, they should aim for something similar to 054B.

Ok, I'm still trying to understand something. I have asked this before, but I haven't got a proper explanation.

054B have almost the same weapon systems as the 054A: 32VLS, Gun, 8 Mid Ship Missiles, HQ-10+ CIWS instead of 2 CIWS. Yet the 054B have an 2000 ton increase in displacement over the 054A.

So where all that increase in tonnage went into? I mean, don't think the new radars system is that much heavier than the old one.

sr338 said:

Ok, I'm still trying to understand something. I have asked this before, but I haven't got a proper explanation.

054B have almost the same weapon systems as the 054A: 32VLS, Gun, 8 Mid Ship Missiles, HQ-10+ CIWS instead of 2 CIWS. Yet the 054B have an 2000 ton increase in displacement over the 054A.

So where all that increase in tonnage went into? I mean, don't think the new radars system is that much heavier than the old one.

Click to expand...

Larger size for more fuel, supply and comfort for personnel. Size determines endurance.

GiantPanda said:

Larger size for more fuel, supply and comfort for personnel. Size determines endurance.

Click to expand...

Also new electronics and radars would need more power and new diesel engines with 50% more power would need more space

I think 054B would get big boost in ASW which obviously need more space and power

sr338 said:

Ok, I'm still trying to understand something. I have asked this before, but I haven't got a proper explanation.

054B have almost the same weapon systems as the 054A: 32VLS, Gun, 8 Mid Ship Missiles, HQ-10+ CIWS instead of 2 CIWS. Yet the 054B have an 2000 ton increase in displacement over the 054A.

So where all that increase in tonnage went into? I mean, don't think the new radars system is that much heavier than the old one.

Click to expand...

To add to whats already said, increased dimensions to hold a Z-20 helicopter or bigger.

For the new electronics, you also need bigger generators and more powerful cooling systems.

Ship likely has a bigger room for data processing. You need more room for IT and it's not just for radar processing, but sonar and ESM/EW processing. The EW systems on this ship appears all new.

I disagree with the asessment of same weapon. The same weapon can get enhanced range and accuracy if the guidance system is improved, which it has. For example new dual AESA will improved anti ship and air defense even if same set up. It is a fairly capable ship despite minimal weapon change.

And this 054B will likely have the latest HQ-16 SAM which is HQ-16FE with 160kms range, significantly better than 40 to 70 kms range from previous HQ-16

The number VLS may be the same 32 but have different missiles, much better ones

Tam said:

To add to whats already said, increased dimensions to hold a Z-20 helicopter or bigger.

For the new electronics, you also need bigger generators and more powerful cooling systems.

Ship likely has a bigger room for data processing. You need more room for IT and it's not just for radar processing, but sonar and ESM/EW processing. The EW systems on this ship appears all new.

Click to expand...

With increased power for propulsion, 054B should have higher top speed. Does it means 054B has the speed and endurance to operate in a CBG where as 054A couldn't?

Though I am a tad bit disappointed if it doesn't have IEPS