054B/new generation frigate

Cloud_Nine_ said:

This isn't directed against you but people are often so hung up on quad-pack ESSMs that they forget ESSM is a small and low-energy missile designed for capital ship self-defense.

Click to expand...

People are hung up on quadpacking because they are stat-brained. They think of capabilities like VLS cells or hull counts or tonnage as STR and DEX and CON which will add together in a magical formula to produce victory. But reality is not DnD. Reality cannot be distilled down into a single neat number.

There's nothing wrong with quadpacking as a capability, but it's not a magical 4x buff to VLS. It is a tool which is very useful in its proper role, nothing more and nothing less.

Wrought said:

People are hung up on quadpacking because they are stat-brained. They think of capabilities like VLS cells or hull counts or tonnage as STR and DEX and CON which will add together in a magical formula to produce victory. But reality is not DnD. Reality cannot be distilled down into a single neat number.

There's nothing wrong with quadpacking as a capability, but it's not a magical 4x buff to VLS. It is a tool which is very useful in its proper role, nothing more and nothing less.

Click to expand...

Yes thats my point too. I am just not sold on ESSM itself and not quad-packing.

votran said:

isn't 054B 50% bigger than 054A ? i have hard time to understand why bother with way bigger ship if missile number stay the same , specially when HHQ-16 basic version ~ ESSM , but ESSM can be quad pack into a single mk41 VLS
for example : jap mogami class 16 mk41 if quad pack with essm block 2 = 64 missile total twice number 054b carry
and mogami weight ~ 054A

Click to expand...

The B certainly has better weaponry however bigger doesn't always corelate to more weapon systems. It could be better seakeeping qualities, better environmental factors and better crew comfort which aid in morale especially on long distance voyages.
Bigger gym, bigger galley, bigger cold storage etc...
A bigger ship also allows for better sensors which are equally as important as the weapons themselves.
O54A though capable was not design to operate really far from Chinese shores.
Back when it was conceived, PLAN was still a brown water navy hardly venturing past the 1st or at most 2nd island chain.
I think their many missions on the 054A to Persian Gulf, Africa etc. brought back invaluable input to affect the design of the B version.

votran said:

View attachment 147833
all the empty space both side VLS launcher seem waste ? enough for atleast 16 more VLS

Click to expand...

The cross-section of the bow section is V Shape, it is wide at the top deck and narrow at the bottom. You would also need to provide spaces at the bottom to equipment, pipings, and also walkway for maintenance personnel. And also a safety spaces underwaterline in case the hull is breached. There is no such wasted spaces.

At mid-ship where the cross-section is U shape, you can utilise the botoom spaces more fully.

votran said:

isn't 054B 50% bigger than 054A ? i have hard time to understand why bother with way bigger ship if missile number stay the same , specially when HHQ-16 basic version ~ ESSM , but ESSM can be quad pack into a single mk41 VLS
for example : jap mogami class 16 mk41 if quad pack with essm block 2 = 64 missile total twice number 054b carry
and mogami weight ~ 054A

Click to expand...

It isn't that B is overarmed - at this point, it's more that 054A is overarmed. As others said, current HHQ-16 is already at the very edge (heaviest) for frigate AAW weapons.
It's frankly unlikely 054A can support full range engagement of its armament against mean (LO/VLO) target; 054B shows how much you need for that.
In this sense, carrying full H/AJK-16 in a rather small hull just to maintain high altitude deterrence and work as a glorified large USV VLS carrier is somewhat wasteful.
If one was really to build a new second tier frigate from scratch, i guess 16 UVLS(aimed primarily at 555 missile, for 24...32 SAM+10...8 VL-ASROC), at most 24 cells would be perfectly fine.

But commonality matters, as do available stocks of much shorter-ranged, legacy HHQ-16s.