054B/new generation frigate

T

tamsen_ikard

Captain
Registered Member
hypatia said:
As people have pointed out numerous times when you've made this argument, hypersonics have a much wider minimum range than subsonic cruise missiles like YJ-83 and are much less maneuverable to boot, which could make them much less useful in the opening stages of a conflict, with American and Chinese vessels opening fire on each other from mere hundreds or even dozens of kilometers apart rather than thousands. That's not to say that hypersonics are less useful, of course, far from it, but YJ-83 still has a niche, one that a frigate designed for relatively lower intensity missions is particularly well suited for.
Click to expand...
First of all, I only see 2 scenarios where frigates will fire their anti-ship missiles in a wartime scenario. Either they are part of a much larger fleet including carriers and other destroyers and they fight another enemy fleet. In this scenario, the frigates can fire their missiles as part of fleet wide salvo to overwhelm the defences of the other fleet. I don't think minimum range will be a problem in this scenario. No fleet will engage another fleet in less than 50-100 KM.

Another scenario could be there are multiple frigates as part of a wolf pack that are widespread across a large area, and they attack enemy fleet or ships as part of an ambush from multiple directions. Again, I don't see minimum range as a problem in this scenario either.

The likelihood of a lone frigate engaging another lone navy ship in a duel in close range is likely not possible in this modern era full of satellite and drone surveillence.

In this modern day and age, subsonic cruise missiles are completely useless against modern ship air defense. I expect 100% interception rate. How are they any good compared to a cheap suicide drone in terms of capability? They are basically just expensive suicide drones.

Its better to have shots that actually have chance of penetrating air defense than having a shot that is basically a waste.

If Hypersonics are too much, even YJ-15 supersonic missile is a better choice than the old YJ-83.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
If it's replacement for 051bc/052(b)/956e(m) - ideally, increased weapon fit with 16-24 full depth UVLS cells and ~24-32 ones able to accept HQ-16F missiles; flag and improved processing facilities.
Click to expand...

If we're 20 years ago, then this move could be viable. But we're in 2026, and China certainly isn't lacking in the warship building department to warrant such moves.

The 054B FFGs and the next-gen FFGs are never meant to replace the pre-052C DDGs. Newer 052Ds and next-gen general purpose DDGs will.
 
H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
First of all, I only see 2 scenarios where frigates will fire their anti-ship missiles in a wartime scenario. Either they are part of a much larger fleet including carriers and other destroyers and they fight another enemy fleet. In this scenario, the frigates can fire their missiles as part of fleet wide salvo to overwhelm the defences of the other fleet. I don't think minimum range will be a problem in this scenario. No fleet will engage another fleet in less than 50-100 KM.
Click to expand...

If you're part of a larger battlegroup your destroyers are already carrying hypersonics and more "exotic" cruise missiles. YJ-83 can be part of the salvo mix while also being more appropriate for low intensity missions.

That's the thing with the frigate... it's small enough where it can be used on low intensity missions, and good enough to meaningfully contribute to a battlegroup. I don't think anyone expects any actual frigate to be able to prosecute high-end fights independently.
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
new 054b.jpg
Upper ship is the alleged new 054b, as reported by Jane's. The lower ship should be one of the initial pair of 054B, as it was built. (this very thread, post #1101, containing Horobeyo's tweet. Do correct me if either of those two claims are wrong.

Anyway, that's doesn't seem to be the same ship. Sure, the two ships may not be fully to scale, the lower one may need to be slightly bigger, but still - not by so much as to account for the differences. I am seeing different bow shape. I am seeing VLS well moved forward and possibly made slightly bigger. One would expect the smaller opening in front of the VLS to be retained at this stage if a gun is to be placed there. Yet on the new ship it's either deleted or covered and positioned quite forward, where the bow is already narrow. Plus different positions of holes for the machinery aft. Lower ship has one closed already, but still, the upper ship seems to have a whole new big opening aft of that, one that the lower ship does not seem to have.

So - is that even a 054B? Or a new ship completely? Or is it a so heavily modified 054B that we might as well call it 054C? Or maybe the lower image is not one of the initial 054Bs?
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
tamsen_ikard said:
First of all, I only see 2 scenarios where frigates will fire their anti-ship missiles in a wartime scenario. Either they are part of a much larger fleet including carriers and other destroyers and they fight another enemy fleet. In this scenario, the frigates can fire their missiles as part of fleet wide salvo to overwhelm the defences of the other fleet. I don't think minimum range will be a problem in this scenario. No fleet will engage another fleet in less than 50-100 KM.

Another scenario could be there are multiple frigates as part of a wolf pack that are widespread across a large area, and they attack enemy fleet or ships as part of an ambush from multiple directions. Again, I don't see minimum range as a problem in this scenario either.

The likelihood of a lone frigate engaging another lone navy ship in a duel in close range is likely not possible in this modern era full of satellite and drone surveillence.

In this modern day and age, subsonic cruise missiles are completely useless against modern ship air defense. I expect 100% interception rate. How are they any good compared to a cheap suicide drone in terms of capability? They are basically just expensive suicide drones.

Its better to have shots that actually have chance of penetrating air defense than having a shot that is basically a waste.

If Hypersonics are too much, even YJ-15 supersonic missile is a better choice than the old YJ-83.
Click to expand...

Current version of YJ-83 is nothing like original YJ-83 in 1990s. YJ-83J is quite modern with dual‑mode terminal seeker (radar + IR) and with range of ~230kms .. quite decent actually

Obviously YJ-15 is a better missile, and may fit into the same deck space. Only time will tell whether 054B will have YJ-15
However I am quite happy with YJ-83J (much more modern and good enough)
 
para80

para80

Junior Member
Registered Member
Totoro said:
... Plus different positions of holes for the machinery aft. Lower ship has one closed already, but still, the upper ship seems to have a whole new big opening aft of that, one that the lower ship does not seem to have.
Click to expand...
FWIW here's another image of the first Hudong 054B under construction back in the day. I could be wrong, but I recall certain confusion then too about the VLS being seemingly too far forward. Maybe its just a misleading visual. Same on the various openings, which would depend on the state of assembly. Wait and see I suppose.

FqTyLggacAAkb8d.jpg
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
HighGround said:
I really don't get the disappointment personally. Well, I can sort of get behind the disappointment with propulsion, but other than that...

I mean what do people want to see? Let's say there's a 054C that comes out tomorrow. What would people want to see on it to be "satisfied"?
Click to expand...

Hangar sized for two Z-20J helos. As discussed previously in this thread and elsewhere, the reason to have more than one helicopter aboard is not to operate multiple helos simultaneously, but rather to ensure better availability and sustainability of single helicopter operation for ASW taskings. Given relatively poor helo availability, persistence and sustainment, an ASW ship with only one helo is effectively only a part-time ASW ship that requires other assets (other ships with helos, MPAs, etc.) to sustain airborne presence for prompt interrogation of distant datums. The raison d'etres for a more capable oceangoing frigate (as distinct from either a more modest frigate or an AAW-oriented destroyer) are (1) to offer first-rate ASW capabilities in a relatively affordable package and (2) to operate independently, across the full range of taskings, in lower threat environments. Both of these aspects are served by having more than one helo aboard, which I consider to be more important than adding a few more (or sexier) munitions or a few more knots of speed. See
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2021 Proceedings article regarding an independent Burke deployment with only one MH-60R aboard:

These delays resulted in the aircraft being mission capable only 72 percent of the time and fully mission capable just 33 percent of the time. In other words, the aircraft was not able to fly at all for almost a third of the deployment and was able to operate at its full capability for only a third. In contrast, a two-aircraft detachment historically has at least one mission-capable asset for more than 95 percent of deployment and one fully mission-capable aircraft for more than 75 percent [....] On an independently deploying ship, a second aircraft is needed to accomplish the mission. With two aircraft, one can fly if the other is down, and crew can swap parts to keep one helicopter fully mission capable. If HSM-48.7 had had a second aircraft, the detachment would have been able to fly almost double the number of flight hours.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
First of all, I only see 2 scenarios where frigates will fire their anti-ship missiles in a wartime scenario. Either they are part of a much larger fleet including carriers and other destroyers and they fight another enemy fleet. In this scenario, the frigates can fire their missiles as part of fleet wide salvo to overwhelm the defences of the other fleet. I don't think minimum range will be a problem in this scenario. No fleet will engage another fleet in less than 50-100 KM.

Another scenario could be there are multiple frigates as part of a wolf pack that are widespread across a large area, and they attack enemy fleet or ships as part of an ambush from multiple directions. Again, I don't see minimum range as a problem in this scenario either.

The likelihood of a lone frigate engaging another lone navy ship in a duel in close range is likely not possible in this modern era full of satellite and drone surveillence.

In this modern day and age, subsonic cruise missiles are completely useless against modern ship air defense. I expect 100% interception rate. How are they any good compared to a cheap suicide drone in terms of capability? They are basically just expensive suicide drones.

Its better to have shots that actually have chance of penetrating air defense than having a shot that is basically a waste.

If Hypersonics are too much, even YJ-15 supersonic missile is a better choice than the old YJ-83.
Click to expand...

Several questions:

One - Who says that the YJ-83 (or any subsonic cruise missile) cannot be used for striking land targets, such as enemy positions and beach-heads when supporting amphibious assault operations?

Two - Who says that the YJ-83 (or any subsonic cruise missile) can only be used in high-intensity duels between sizeable warship fleets on the high seas? Who says they couldn't be used in medium or low-intensity conflicts within the 1IC?

Three - Who says that the YJ-83 (or any subsonic cruise missile) can only be used against warships with sophisticated air defense capabilities, and/or warships that are protected by integrated air defense networks? Who says that they couldn't be used against ships that have poor or even nil self-defense capabilities?

Four - Who says that the YJ-83 (or any subsonic cruise missile) must be used in Alpha strikes against enemy warships/fleets? Who says that they couldn't be used against enemy warships during the other stages of a naval battle, such as to mop up remnants of the degraded enemy surface assets?

If subsonic cruise missiles are as useless as you claimed and are just "muh expensive loitering drones" - Then why is everyone still developing them (and measures to counter them) today? Both the YJ-18C and AKF-98 only entered public knowledge within the past couple of years (among some other unidentified ones), you know?
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
HighGround said:
I really don't get the disappointment personally. Well, I can sort of get behind the disappointment with propulsion, but other than that...

I mean what do people want to see? Let's say there's a 054C that comes out tomorrow. What would people want to see on it to be "satisfied"?
Click to expand...
They are all spoiled brats who can't ever be satisfied. PLAN should just keep everything under wraps for as long as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top