antiterror13
Brigadier
It may not be considering a new class and China is in no hurry, will be a lot of testing and verifications. I think likely in 1H 2025 and then mass produced like 054A
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It may not be considering a new class and China is in no hurry, will be a lot of testing and verifications. I think likely in 1H 2025 and then mass produced like 054A
I hope 054B is more like 054 (build just 2 for tech demonstrator purposes) rather than mass produced like 054A
Really feel like it's not big enough of a step up from the 054A. I'm one of those still praying hard for 054C with UVLS
Considering the new 054a batch - impossible. For new series to begin that soon, 054B should've finished trials without any suspicion of trouble by now.
This is obviously not what happened, and it is normal and natural for something so new.
Full update of electronic suit is upgrade not big enough?
Oh the boxes... as if PLAN urgently lacks uvls of all things.
TBF, one legit argument WRT armaments of PLAN FFGs lies with the apparent lack of quad-packable MRSAMs that can be launched from the 650mm VLS cells of the 054A/AG/B FFGs.
This is when compared to most of the FFGs with the slightly narrower 635mm Mark 41 VLS cells which are able to quad-pack RIM-162s, bringing visibly higher overall numbers of SAMs that can be carried onboard them.
And TBH, given how the 650mm VLS have largely the same dimension as the Mark 41 VLS cells while also having the same hot-launch mode - It should be technically feasible to have quad-pack capability for these 650mm VLS cells as well.
Even by having only 4 to 8 cells quad-packing MRSAMs on the 054A/AG/Bs, a total of 44 to 56 SAMs can be carried onboard the FFGs, instead of the present maximum of 32 SAMs. This means that 32 VLS cells should be sufficient enough for FFGs that are meant for large-scale production.
(Of course, this would bring additional argument(s) on whether it is worth the effort to develop two separate types of quad-packable MRSAMs for both the 650mm VLS and 850mm UVLS cells. If the effort isn't exactly worth it, then it does seem more beneficial for future PLAN FFGs to utilize the UVLS. But then, can the HHQ-16/B/C also be adapted for the UVLS, or should the HHQ-16 family be given up in favor of focusing on HHQ-9/B/Cs only?)
In the meantime, instead of arguing for more VLS cells on future PLAN FFGs, I'd be more inclined to argue for an additional 4 to 8 slanted missile canisters mounted amidships, bringing a total of 12-16 canisters onboard. Considering that these missile canisters can launch both YJ-83AShMs and torpedo-tipped missiles, this can leave the all of the 32 VLS cells onboard to be filled with HHQ-16/B/C and quad-packable MRSAMs only, strengthening the anti-air capability of the individual FFGs.
At the same time, the resulted slight increase in the FFG's length without eating into below-deck spaces can certainly go towards increasing the size of the propulsion system, and/or more storage spaces for fuel and forage to enable greater endurance.
This is when compared to most of the FFGs with the slightly narrower 635mm Mark 41 VLS cells which are able to quad-pack RIM-162s, bringing visibly higher overall numbers of SAMs that can be carried onboard them.
And TBH, given how the 650mm VLS have largely the same dimension as the Mark 41 VLS cells while also having the same hot-launch mode - It should be technically feasible to have quad-pack capability for these 650mm VLS cells as well.
Even by having only 4 to 8 cells quad-packing MRSAMs on the 054A/AG/Bs, a total of 44 to 56 SAMs can be carried onboard the FFGs, instead of the present maximum of 32 SAMs. This means that 32 VLS cells should be sufficient enough for FFGs that are meant for large-scale production.
(Of course, this would bring additional argument(s) on whether it is worth the effort to develop two separate types of quad-packable MRSAMs for both the 650mm VLS and 850mm UVLS cells. If the effort isn't exactly worth it, then it does seem more beneficial for future PLAN FFGs to utilize the UVLS. But then, can the HHQ-16/B/C also be adapted for the UVLS, or should the HHQ-16 family be given up in favor of focusing on HHQ-9/B/Cs only?)
In the meantime, instead of arguing for more VLS cells on future PLAN FFGs, I'd be more inclined to argue for an additional 4 to 8 slanted missile canisters mounted amidships, bringing a total of 12-16 canisters onboard. Considering that these missile canisters can launch both YJ-83AShMs and torpedo-tipped missiles, this can leave the all of the 32 VLS cells onboard to be filled with HHQ-16/B/C and quad-packable MRSAMs only, strengthening the anti-air capability of the individual FFGs.
At the same time, the resulted slight increase in the FFG's length without eating into below-deck spaces can certainly go towards increasing the size of the propulsion system, and/or more storage spaces for fuel and forage to enable greater endurance.
Last edited:
What I would really love to see is the amidships canisters replaced by 16 UVLS.
That way it can carry 8 anti ship missiles and 8 more anti-sub missiles or land attack missiles or whatever is required
But I think it's really unlikely they'll be able to find that much space for it
lcloo
Captain
What you want is a destroyer, not a frigate.
I wouldn't call it a full update of electronic suite. We can be only sure of two main radars and one of them is not exactly an update, as it already appeared on 075, 052D and now also on 054AG. New ECM, ESM, CIC/ICS - doubt it very much. Weapon systems - essentially the same with exception of 100mm main gun. Any changes in powertrain will be pretty hard to recognize from outside, CODLOG is still a possibility. Extensive testing of a new main radar and powerplant on a new hull may be enough justification for a couple of "concept evaluation ships", especially keeping in mind that PLAN has done this before at least 3 times (052, 052C and 054).
Last edited:
That's among the reasons why (unlike previously) I'm no longer looking forward to future PLAN FFGs having any amidship VLS cells.
Speaking of the debate on the number of VLS cells that future PLAN FFGs should have - Here's a list of FFGs of other navies with more than 32 VLS cells:
1. Indian Nilgiris (40 cells),
2. Spanish F100s (48 cells),
3. Russian Gorshkovs (48 cells),
4. French and Italian Horizons (48 cells), and
5. British Type 26s (72 cells).
Pretty much all the other FFG classes around the world have 32 or fewer VLS cells per ship.
However, it MUST be stressed that these FFGs listed above are meant to be their main-line (if not their largest and most capable) surface combatants; and not as second-line, general-duty/workhorse warships. Except the Nilgiris and (in the future) Type 26s, all of the aforementioned FFGs are the largest and most capable surface combatants of their respective navies.
So, if anything - Instead of aiming to cramp more VLS cells onto PLAN FFGs - Perhaps the better choices would be to:
1. Marginally increase the number of UVLS cells onboard PLAN DDGs (64 to 80) and CGs (112 to 128);
2. Introduce tri/quad-packable MRSAMs for both the VLS cells (on PLAN FFGs) and UVLS cells (on PLAN DDGs and CGs); and
3. Create an arsenal ship fleet for the PLAN, consisting of minimally-manned warships utilizing presently-available FFL and FFG hulls, with 16, 32 or (at most) 48 UVLS cells per hull.
Last edited:
Since we have seen more and more coast guard, maritime law enforcement frigates and other ships, I am beginning to think that the latest Type 054’s are less “general purpose” frigates, and more ASW focused warships.
In other words, these coast guard and law enforcement ships can take the general duties of the general purpose frigate, leaving new frigates as ASW focused specialists.
As previously mentioned, I think the best possible “ASW focused upgrade” for this role is the ability to run quietly, have good speed and endurance and support a Z-20F (ASW version).
Meaning there isn’t any need for a change in VLS at all.
In other words, these coast guard and law enforcement ships can take the general duties of the general purpose frigate, leaving new frigates as ASW focused specialists.
As previously mentioned, I think the best possible “ASW focused upgrade” for this role is the ability to run quietly, have good speed and endurance and support a Z-20F (ASW version).
Meaning there isn’t any need for a change in VLS at all.
What I still don't get is why they haven't opted to include several different types of VLS on ships like the 055 to enable the fitting of a bunch more cells like many other navies do. I.e. a portion are the largest CCL UVLS that can accomodate the YJ-21 and the other largest missiles, and the rest are some smaller version that can hold a more slender selection of missiles (but not the HQ-16 VLS). Or even a mix of 3 types. You're not going to allocate all tubes to hold the largest missile anyway so having them all be that large seems like an inefficiency.