054B/new generation frigate

S

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
pesoleati said:
Totally agree!

Move 1130 back to the same locations as on 054A and they should have role for 16 more VLS
Click to expand...
Alternatively, I think they could just redesign the superstructure

The 054B superstructure/bridge area looks inefficient, as if it was just carried over from the 054A except they made the radar mast a bit more stealthy.

It doesn't really look that well integrated compared to other integrated superstructure/bridge/radar mast like on the experimental frigate, 055, FDI class, Sigma 12516 or Mogami class

Just make the superstructure more compact, maybe angled to the sides (eg Istif class or LCS), then a 1130 will make more sense
 
Last edited:
P

pesoleati

New Member
Registered Member
pkj said:
The 052Ds have the same layout with the 1130 in the front, and the HQ-10 in the back.

Are you saying that the 052D layout is inefficient also?
Click to expand...


can't you read? the issue was the conflict between the shorter length of the 054B vs the requirement of putting the 1130 in front of the bridge. Think!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwt
Dante80

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is nothing to think, there is no issue. There never was. People just don't know what they are talking about.

The superstructure is fine, there is no such thing as "the bridge looks inefficient" and there are no CIWS conflicts, the 1130 arcs are not "affected by 054Bs shorter length" (FFS).

The fact that we even have these kind of comments (oh no, YJ-83? oh no, what is that derpy deck gun housing? oh no, no UVLS? oh no, why have that tonnage without looking like a ex-soviet glass cannon? etc etc) is indicative of the severe lack of knowledge or critical thought online (from gamers, children, terminally online fanboys and other groups that have no insight or relevant knowledge on the subject at hand).

I'm not talking about/trying to insult any of our posters here btw, this is a general phenomenon. Here is another angle of the ship, does it look "inefficient/cramped" there?

1000138416.jpg
 
Last edited:
P

pkj

New Member
Registered Member
pesoleati said:
can't you read? the issue was the conflict between the shorter length of the 054B vs the requirement of putting the 1130 in front of the bridge. Think!
Click to expand...

I have indeed read your original post and now your new response.

Your original words were "Move 1130 back to the same locations as on 054A and they should have role for 16 more VLS"

But moving the 1130 back to amidship would mean more weight, fatter compensatory beam, and likely slower speed.

054A's 28k speed already causes issues when trying to catch errant Japanese destroyers and keeping up with PLAN's new fast carrier(s).

Also, if two 1130s amidship is more efficient/better, then PLAN would likely have kept that in their new 052D & 055......but PLAN chose not to.

So it makes sense for 054B to not go back to the "old" 054A's layout and adopt the 052D/055 layout instead.......a fat slow 054B with 16 more VLS tubes is still a fat slow 054B.


Bottomline, PLAN designers surely would have considered all the pros/cons and likely made the deliberate choice when putting the 1130 up front.
 
Last edited:
Cloud_Nine_

Cloud_Nine_

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Video of a 054B FFG at sea with its double-sided AESA phased radar rotating. Posted by @lyman2003 on Weibo.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
I can't pinpoint any specific points but I also can't shake the feeling this is rendered or edited at least and not real shots. Just looks really off.

The wake looks off unless 054B has a ridiculously extended stern flap which we know she doesnt. Part of the ship might be from a real shot but the rest looks way off. The HQ-10 launcher is weirdly proportioned and the shades of the hull just looks... weird...

Someone else also pointed out the waves looks very much rendered too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top