054B/new generation frigate

nimitz123 said:

I think that it’s an YJ-83 but why them when they have a supersonic missile with longer range available. I don’t think weight is the problem here as type 054B is close to 6000t

Click to expand...

Was discussed in this topic multiple times.

Missile speed is means to an end. For multipurpose frigate it will be detrimental against its expected target set, for rather dubious advantages in situations rather unlikely to happen.

When China built Soviet-style salvo fleet in the past, larger missile made sense; you can see it with older half of PLAN order of battle(which is still operational), or, say, in modern Indian navy(truest modern example of "Gorshkov navy"). For China, after the switch to American model, it is kinda pointless.

I cannot overemphasise any combatant in operational service is a complex organism that needs to meet certain requirements and every subsystem is a means to achieve that target. People in public discussions waste far too much time counting missile cells or looking at paper specs of certain individual weapons. For 054B I think it is intended to be an ASW hull with general purpose capability coming second. That is not the same vs eg what Pakistan desires. They actually want their 054AP to be more potent in ASuW and AAW regimes because realistically its the best combatant they can afford, whereas PLAN has 052D and 055 to meet such requirements. As such putting YJ-83 on 054B seems like a very sound decision.

Is there not a similarly sized anti-ship missile which is newer in tech and cheaper or the same price? If so I don't see any reason not to upgrade to something better. Or potentially something similar to the JASSM / LRASM stealth cruise missile or naval strike missile. If all newer/better anti-ship missiles are much more costly then it makes sense due to a limited budget being allocated to ASW systems.

polati said:

Is there not a similarly sized anti-ship missile which is newer in tech and cheaper or the same price? If so I don't see any reason not to upgrade to something better. Or potentially something similar to the JASSM / LRASM stealth cruise missile or naval strike missile. If all newer/better anti-ship missiles are much more costly then it makes sense due to a limited budget being allocated to ASW systems.

Click to expand...

Yj-83k is a very new weapon.

There is always a possibility that they already designed it that they can switch out the canisters as necessary if the mission requirement is for anti-surface. For ASW, it is possible that these existing canisters are holding a few yu-8 rocket assisted torpedoes.

Gloire_bb said:

Yj-83k is a very new weapon.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the air launched weapon? what are its improvements over the base YJ-83? IMO subsonic non-stealthy anti-ship missiles would only score hits on enemy warships due to saturation attacks, they are relatively easy to detect and shoot down compared to LRASM etc

para80 said:

I cannot overemphasise any combatant in operational service is a complex organism that needs to meet certain requirements and every subsystem is a means to achieve that target. People in public discussions waste far too much time counting missile cells or looking at paper specs of certain individual weapons. For 054B I think it is intended to be an ASW hull with general purpose capability coming second. That is not the same vs eg what Pakistan desires. They actually want their 054AP to be more potent in ASuW and AAW regimes because realistically its the best combatant they can afford, whereas PLAN has 052D and 055 to meet such requirements. As such putting YJ-83 on 054B seems like a very sound decision.

Click to expand...

I agree. The biggest threat to PLAN is from subsurface. This is especially true if 54B will be part of a future CSG.
Let the destroyers deal with AAW, the frigate can hunt down subs. All you néed is a hull that has a sophisticated asw suite, a highly experienced sonar tech and a LAMPS type helo.
You don't need a billion dollar hull for that.
Any commander of a task force will tell you that they would rather deal with 50 bogeys than a lone hunter killer.

polati said:

Isn't that the air launched weapon? what are its improvements over the base YJ-83? IMO subsonic non-stealthy anti-ship missiles would only score hits on enemy warships due to saturation attacks, they are relatively easy to detect and shoot down compared to LRASM etc

Click to expand...

The newest version of YJ-83 feature both a radar guidance and a thermal optic seeker, which can be used to strike targets in littoral waters where shallow waters can affect radar returns due to rocks and a shallow sea bed, or it can be used to strike land targets, such as ground or truck based launchers of antiship missiles, SAM missile complexes, shore located radars and so on. This can be helpful in a Taiwan scenario, or let's say Japan installing antiship missiles launchers in Ryukus Islands, or deal with littoral combat ships or fast attack craft, which Taiwan has a number of. Or let's say some faction decides to fire antiship missiles from the shore against Chinese or bound for China shipping, or threaten to cut sea lanes off with small but fast attack craft with antiship missiles.

I think more than anti submarine, the PLAN itself is increasingly acting like a mini US Navy, projecting power and defending sea lanes and trade routes for Chinese shipping. Why do they send missions to the Indian Ocean and the coast of Africa and the Middle East? Each of these missions involve two frigates.

The dual seeker YJ-83 is also used with Type 056A corvettes. In fact you may find many pictures of them being launched with these ships.

polati said:

Isn't that the air launched weapon? what are its improvements over the base YJ-83? IMO subsonic non-stealthy anti-ship missiles would only score hits on enemy warships due to saturation attacks, they are relatively easy to detect and shoot down compared to LRASM etc

Click to expand...

Consider me sceptical about ship-to-ship firing opportunities for light ascm fired from a frigate. Meaning, targeting a ship that can actually chew through a salvo reliably.
May happen, but not the primary use case really.


For rough analogy(as all analogies), consider them analog to ww2 cruiser torpedoes(not japanese ones). Deterrent/finisher in ASuW, not a primary(secondary, tertiary) ship sinker.
But in modern context - it's also a light surface strike solution as well as weapon of choice for USUW/small surface craft, including ones in cluttered environment.

She's on the magazine cover of Ship Knowledge.