054B/new generation frigate

Iron Man said:

Please cite an article where USN SSNs have antiship Tomahawks as their "standard payload", i.e. that they are carrying block V Tomahawks, say as opposed to surface ships where it would make more sense to have them.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, USN doesn't even have anything else for their boat cells atm.
It's either TLAMs, or air.

You're again assuming what's logical from your perspective, what would you do if you were them.

It may be indeed right, but we're talking about decisions made by them; not by us.

Iron Man said:

LOL there is no triangle if it's just a line with both torpedo and target heading in the same direction. Besides torpedo "triangles" are so WW2. Modern torpedoes aim at their targets directly by acoustics or by wake. BTW, I don't know of any US (or Japanese) torpedoes that could make up 50 miles distance against an uncooperative target.

Click to expand...

Triangle is but a figure connecting 3 points, and thus by default giving shortest intercept geometry. It won't get outdated until the end of this world.

US/japanese don't go that far, it's indeed an extreme example. Still, they go far, and against predictable advancing target (convoy, for example), initial range may match or even exeed (currents matter) geometric one.

Iron Man said:

Also, not pointing the nose at the target during launch costs almost no time unless you launch in a semi-ballistic trajectory like SM-2.

Click to expand...

Some do, like CAMM(which in effect is ASRAAM, i.e. is extremely agile). But that's a 90 kg weapon, intended for WVR.

HQ-16(which is in fact exactly in SM-2MR class, which is why both developed to same ranges) on its launch, before it accelerates enough, isn't as agile. It takes seconds.

Gloire_bb said:

With all due respect, USN doesn't even have anything else for their boat cells atm.
It's either TLAMs, or air.

You're again assuming what's logical from your perspective, what would you do if you were them.

It may be indeed right, but we're talking about decisions made by them; not by us.

Click to expand...

So there's no actual evidence these latest Tomahawk iterations are on board USN subs. The US military almost certainly has PLENTY of Tomahawk inventory given how it loves to use this missile. While I have no doubt that the newest Flight III Burkes are getting the block V Tomahawks, the newest Virginias could easily just be using existing stock.

Gloire_bb said:

Triangle is but a figure connecting 3 points, and thus by default giving shortest intercept geometry. It won't get outdated until the end of this world.

US/japanese don't go that far, it's indeed an extreme example. Still, they go far, and against predictable advancing target (convoy, for example), initial range may match or even exeed (currents matter) geometric one.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't think that's how modern torpedoes work anymore. They get launched, their seekers turn on, and they home in on the source. The old way of launching unguided torpedoes at where ships are projected to be in a short while doesn't jive with how active seekers or wake homers work.

Gloire_bb said:

Some do, like CAMM(which in effect is ASRAAM, i.e. is extremely agile). But that's a 90 kg weapon, intended for WVR.

HQ-16(which is in fact exactly in SM-2MR class, which is why both developed to same ranges) on its launch, before it accelerates enough, isn't as agile. It takes seconds.

Click to expand...

Flight profile is a function of software, not necessarily size. If you watch an HHQ-9, for example, that thing has a range similar to the SM-2MRIIIB (200ish km) but it frequently does not fly a semi-ballistic flight profile. It tilts toward the target soon after launch in many cases, probably in the instances where its target is close by.

Iron Man said:

So there's no actual evidence these latest Tomahawk iterations are on board USN subs

Click to expand...

I'll probably leave it , let's agree to disagree

Self-explanatory. Some of these images are better versions of previously shared ones.

Said to be the tender document on the hydraulic coupling devices for the aforementioned 4x new 054B FFGs.

The stated (propulsion) power of the main (propulsion diesel) engine for the warships is 8008 kW, i.e. about 8 MW, which matches what @爱若丰狂SOYO历 on Weibo (former name @勤劳朴实罗素历) mentioned last month.

Judging by the dates stated for the 4 ships, the construction will begin very soon (if not already).

However, I should note that this is posted by @lyman2003 on Weibo, so kindly take the claim with a healthy amount of salt for the time being.

what do we know about the power terrain ?

is it faster than the Type 054+ can it keep up with a CSG?

or even accompany a Type 901 fast tanker

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Said to be the tender document on the hydraulic coupling devices for the aforementioned 4x new 054B FFGs.

The stated (propulsion) power of the main (propulsion diesel) engine for the warships is 8008 kW, i.e. about 8 MW, which matches what @爱若丰狂SOYO历 on Weibo (former name @勤劳朴实罗素历) mentioned last month.

Judging by the dates stated for the 4 ships, the construction will begin very soon (if not already).

However, I should note that this is posted by @lyman2003 on Weibo, so kindly take the claim with a healthy amount of salt for the time being.

View attachment 149500

Click to expand...

Something is confusing. I remember a post here saying the total power is 32MW (8MW x 4). More than 70% is for propulsion. There are two drive shafts. So the maximum power per shaft is about 11MW and more. This is assuming that 4X8MW is all the ship has which is certainly wrong. There will be smaller engines dedicated to electric generation. So per shaft power should be close to 16MW. The document stated 8MW on the shaft which is too low than necessary.

One may argue that 8MW is per engine while 2 engines may be connected to one shaft providing 16MW max. However this makes the document strange or even wrong because as far as the drive chain concerns only the maximum power applied (16MW) matters, whether that is single engine or two engines through gearbox doesn't matter, 8MW would be wrong as a specification.

Or, it is likely that this document has nothing to do with 054B.

taxiya said:

Something is confusing. I remember a post here saying the total power is 32MW (8MW x 4). More than 70% is for propulsion. There are two drive shafts. So the maximum power per shaft is about 11MW and more. This is assuming that 4X8MW is all the ship has which is certainly wrong. There will be smaller engines dedicated to electric generation. So per shaft power should be close to 16MW. The document stated 8MW on the shaft which is too low than necessary.

One may argue that 8MW is per engine while 2 engines may be connected to one shaft providing 16MW max. However this makes the document strange or even wrong because as far as the drive chain concerns only the maximum power applied (16MW) matters, whether that is single engine or two engines through gearbox doesn't matter, 8MW would be wrong as a specification.

Or, it is likely that this document has nothing to do with 054B.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about CODLAD?

Because while I did mention about the 054B FFGs being propelled by 4x 8MW diesel engines = 32MW (which is per @爱若丰狂SOYO历 on Weibo (former name @勤劳朴实罗素历)), that's CODAD propulsion, not CODLAD. I didn't mention about the "70% for propulsion" either.

Also, the document only mentioned the (max) power of the main engine(s), and not the max power for each propulsion shaft?

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Are you talking about CODLAD?

Because while I did mention about the 054B FFGs being propelled by 4x 8MW diesel engines = 32MW (which is per @爱若丰狂SOYO历 on Weibo (former name @勤劳朴实罗素历)), that's CODAD propulsion, not CODLAD. I didn't mention about the "70% for propulsion" either.

Click to expand...

I acknowledge that my post may be confusing. I was not talking about CODLAD. My reference to 70% for propulsion is only meant to say the general distribution of total installed power between propulsion (on shaft) and electricity for everything else, regardless how the power convereted.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Also, the document only mentioned the (max) power of the main engine(s), and not the max power for each propulsion shaft?

Click to expand...

That is the confusing part that I meant in my post. For a bidding document specifically for a conponent connected to the shaft, I was expecting that the power requirement has to be rated according to the shaft, not the engine. If one needs two engines to connect one shaft, the shaft would be connected to this component then to the gearbox/clatch assembly then to two engines. I could be wrong though.

Here is a very rough illustration of what I was thinking. There are two engines each 8MW, the yellow shafts connect each one of them to the gearbox. The yellow shaft is determined by engine (8MW). The red is the the component in the bid which is determined by the total drive power on the shaft, 16MW in case of two engine driving one shaft.

Gloire_bb said:

I'll probably leave it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, let's agree to disagree

Click to expand...

Although I'm new here and my native language is not English, I can read the note and understand that it only mentions "long-range torpedoes" and "harpoon recovery." Which, with all its shortcomings, is better than not having a missile that gives even the illusion of a standoff weapon. All this while they continue to push to get the Block V Tomahawk into service.