054B/new generation frigate

Gloire_bb said:

Well, there still is HHQ-16.
If it may pack 5-3 (thus basically becoming a subvariant of the UVLS family) - it checks all the boxes.
HHQ-16 cell is more than enough for an intermediate-range missile(similarly sized SM-2MR family is 150km capable).

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean.

Are you suggesting that the 054B should use the H/AJK-16 VLS instead of the UVLS, if the H/AJK-16 VLS can quad pack the 3-5 missile?
Or are you suggesting a new length for the UVLS (shorter than 7m but longer than 3.3m), for use on 054B that is able to accommodate HQ-16?


Because if it's the former (054B using H/AJK-16 VLS), then I can't say I agree. For one, I would be surprised if the 3-5 missile can be quad packed in the H/AJK-16 VLS. More importantly, adopting the H/AJK-16 VLS means that you have to continue supporting it, and that 054B will have be limited to only using weapons that are integrated with the H/AJK-16 VLS -- or if they want to use new weapons that are developed for the UVLS, then they have to be designed and integrated for the H/AJK-16 VLS cells.

If you mean the latter (054B using a new, sub-7m UVLS length), well I'm not inherently against the idea, but it seems like a waste of a new design given such a length would likely have to be between 5-6m long if you want to be flexible enough to carry Yu-8 and have growth potential for other weapons -- and at that point why not just go for the 7m length instead?


Personally I think the 054B using UVLS should be a forgone conclusion -- the U standards for "universal" after all, and the benefits of a UVLS is that any weapons canister of a given cell length can be plugged into any ship with a VLS cell of given length or longer. Not only do you save money and time for developing and integrating a new weapon for a new canister/VLS system (if you wanted to have the same weapon across both the UVLS and the H/AJK-16 VLS), but you also gain significant logistics flexibility because now all of your newly developed weapons can be fit to any ship with the UVLS so long as the cell length is available and the combat management system/sensors can allow for it.

Using the 7m UVLS variant for 054B, I think makes sense because it is the most commonly used cell length in the PLAN's ships that use UVLS (052D and 055), and it means any weapon that is compatible with the 7m UVLS on 052D and 055 can also theoretically be fielded on 054B (especially if it doesn't require organic shipboard sensor cuing, depending on the type of weapon and/or depending on availability of CeC). It also means that they can standardize to the HQ-9 family as the PLAN's primary LR SAM, further simplifying logistics and development, and allowing the HQ-16 family to be kept exclusively to the H/AJK-16 VLS equipped vessels, all of which are of a previous generation anyhow.


The benefits of adopting the 7m length UVLS, imo, makes it worthwhile to actively have sought a solution in which they could use it as 054B's VLS, if for some reason the initial hull (such as if it was evolved from 054A) was unable to easily accommodate it at first.

What do you think a missile load out for the UUVLS would typically be during fleet operations and solo ops?

I think ChIna has her affordable, multi-purpose frigate feet taken care of with the 064A, and this will be a purebred ASW platform built to hunt Virginia subs in the deep ocean.

This is where we perceive Americas greatest advantages to be, so it’s reasonable to expect a dedicated platform for a single role, which would explain the choice of IEPS.

This hopefully means dual Z-20s.

antiterror13 said:

I don't think so, perhaps HQ-22 variant, but I think likely the more advanced variant of HQ-16 and quad-packed SAM

Click to expand...

It will. And that's because time and time again, people have a fundamental misunderstanding about the VLS length of the U-VLS, which came from a misinterpretation of its specification and the very nature and design of the Concentric Canister VLS vs traditional hot launched VLS like Mk. 41.

The specifications are really about missile length, not VLS cell length. The HQ-9 at 6.8 meters will fit on the 7 meter U-VLS because the canister is spec'ed for missiles 7 meters, even though it's actual physical length of the canister could be as long as 8 meters and ever. The reason for this is the extra length is used to contain the Cold launch gas system which is a gas bottle probably about a meter in length. In a CCL, the depth of the cell is equal to the length of the longest canister it can hold.

If you compare it with Mk. 41 Strike Length VLS, the VLS has a total depth of 7.8 meters but the canister is about 6.8 meters. The difference of the extra meter is used for exhaust channels under the canister that routes the exhaust gas to the central plenum. The 6.8 meter canister is for SM-3, SM-6, and Tomahawk. For the SM-2 and ESSM, you use a 5.8m canister instead, plus an adapter that makes up the difference of the length of the 5.8 meter canister to the top of the exhaust channel.

Bltizo said:

In any case, to cross post what I wrote in a different thread a few months ago, about my "expectations/projections" for 054B, this is what I think would make for a reasonable 054B.

"

• ~5,500t full displacement hull, enlarged and derived from 054/A hull
• Diesel and gas turbine propulsion -- arranged either in some type of CODLAG or the long rumoured IEPS
• Twin faced S band AESA (that we've seen on test ship 892 before), on an integrated mast, with or without an X band AESA (either fast rotating, below the S band array, or as four side fixed face)
• 32 forward UVLS, 7m length
• Either two quad AShM launchers aft, OR an aft 8 cell UVLS, 9m length
• One helicopter hangar, with helipad, able to accommodate Z-20F/J
• Overall more stealthy, cleaner, more integrated hull, deckhouse, smokestack and topside structures
• Not sure about CIWS, main gun (maybe 76mm, though there was that rumour about 100mm being floated), and exact organic ASW suite (though obviously an evolved TAS, VDS and hull sonar suite is expected), but these aren't that important anyway.

"

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why you think the hull would be derived from or an enlarged version of 054A.

I was on the mindset, a new ship that displaces more than 1000t than 054A with an integrated mast that gives a clean look won't even resemble 054 family. And if it incorporate the UVLS and a larger hanger and other new systems should be termed differently than 054. AKA 057.

Tam said:

It will. And that's because time and time again, people have a fundamental misunderstanding about the VLS length of the U-VLS, which came from a misinterpretation of its specification and the very nature and design of the Concentric Canister VLS vs traditional hot launched VLS like Mk. 41.

The specifications are really about missile length, not VLS cell length. The HQ-9 at 6.8 meters will fit on the 7 meter U-VLS because the canister is spec'ed for missiles 7 meters, even though it's actual physical length of the canister could be as long as 8 meters and ever. The reason for this is the extra length is used to contain the Cold launch gas system which is a gas bottle probably about a meter in length. In a CCL, the depth of the cell is equal to the length of the longest canister it can hold.

If you compare it with Mk. 41 Strike Length VLS, the VLS has a total depth of 7.8 meters but the canister is about 6.8 meters. The difference of the extra meter is used for exhaust channels under the canister that routes the exhaust gas to the central plenum. The 6.8 meter canister is for SM-3, SM-6, and Tomahawk. For the SM-2 and ESSM, you use a 5.8m canister instead, plus an adapter that makes up the difference of the length of the 5.8 meter canister to the top of the exhaust channel.

Click to expand...

Just to continue

9 meter missile cell would require at least 10 meters to contain the hot launch system inside the canister. This would be for the YJ-18.

Note that a CCL canister is completely enclosed. The bottom cap does not open up. Everything is self contained. Unlike a hot launch VLS like the Mk. 41 and the Sylver where the canister opens at the bottom to release the exhaust gases to the transfer channels directing to the central plenum where the gases are released upward.

Kich said:

I'm curious as to why you think the hull would be derived from or an enlarged version of 054A.

I was on the mindset, a new ship that displaces more than 1000t than 054A with an integrated mast that gives a clean look won't even resemble 054 family and so should be termed differently than 054. AKA 057.

Click to expand...

The PLAN Type designation is based on power plant platform. If the future frigate still uses four diesels it will be a 054X. If it uses a gas turbine it will get a different designation.

With regards to the HHQ-9B on the 054B, I am looking at a different angle. The smaller size of the Dual Sided S-Band AESA means it cannot match the full engagement ranges of the Type 346A/B (whatever its true full range is) so if the HHQ-9B is used on the 054B, it will not fully realize its full range potential. However the missile might be still be useful for shorter distances or open the possibility of a mini or shortened HHQ-9 with a shortened length and range for use with the frigate. But ... but what if the 054B uses CEC instead, relying on the sensors of a 055, or even the carriers. This can enable them to achieve the full range potential of the HHQ-9B/C, with the frigate communicating to the HHQ-9 via data link. HHQ-9 will still be an option for the frigate which will still rely on HHQ-16 as its main SAM.

The CEC arrays, which will appear as four small fixed panels, will have to be integrated into a mast. Either these will be on top of the four X-band AESA sharing the same integrated mast or on a separate integrated mast that will mount the ESM stalks.

Tam said:

With regards to the HHQ-9B on the 054B, I am looking at a different angle. The smaller size of the Dual Sided S-Band AESA means it cannot match the full engagement ranges of the Type 346A/B (whatever its true full range is) so if the HHQ-9B is used on the 054B, it will not fully realize its full range potential. However the missile might be still be useful for shorter distances or open the possibility of a mini or shortened HHQ-9 with a shortened length and range for use with the frigate. But ... but what if the 054B uses CEC instead, relying on the sensors of a 055, or even the carriers. This can enable them to achieve the full range potential of the HHQ-9B/C, with the frigate communicating to the HHQ-9 via data link. HHQ-9 will still be an option for the frigate which will still rely on HHQ-16 as its main SAM.

The CEC arrays, which will appear as four small fixed panels, will have to be integrated into a mast. Either these will be on top of the four X-band AESA sharing the same integrated mast or on a separate integrated mast that will mount the ESM stalks.

Click to expand...

All of the above is dependent on the idea that the radars of the 052D and 055 are "only" capable of guiding SAMs with a maximum range of HHQ-9B.
Instead, I believe that the radar systems on 052D and 055 are actually capable of guiding SAMs with longer range than HHQ-9B, which have yet to enter service and should be in development.

For 054B's primary radar, it looks large enough to be able to support effective engagements in excess of 200km (it looks larger than the SPY-6(V3) which will be on the Constellation class frigates and they will be capable of supporting SM-2 Block IIIC), while for 052D and 055, they should be capable of effectively engaging equivalent targets in excess of 400km.
That is to say, 054B's radar should be able to make use of HHQ-9B/family SAMs effectively at its maximum range, because I believe the HHQ-9B currently is significantly outranged by the radars on 052D and 055.


To cross post what I wrote on CDF about a year ago, my position still remains that I think the below should be the three main categories of SAMs that the PLAN should pursue for its new generation of surface combatants:

"
I have a vision for what will differentiate medium frigates, medium destroyers, and large destroyers/cruisers going into the future, in terms of AAW.

Basically, I expect all medium frigates, medium destroyers, and large destroyers/cruisers to be capable of having, at minimum:
1. long range (200km) air defense
2. medium range (50km+) air defense (quad packed)
3. minimum capability of active phased array radar of at least medium to long range (i.e.: 300km+) and associated sensors.

The differentiators in AAW capability between medium frigates, medium destroyers, and large destroyers/cruisers, IMO, will be:
A) large destroyers/cruisers and medium destroyers capable of carrying very long range SAMs (200-400km+) and ABM systems, which frigates cannot carry
B) large destroyers/cruisers > medium destroyers > frigates, in terms of simultaneous engagement capability
C) large destroyers/cruisers > medium destroyers > frigates, in terms of maximum power/size/range of their active and passive sensors
D) large destroyers/cruisers > medium destroyers > frigates, in terms of magazine size of relevant weapons systems/cells


So, putting that all into context, in terms of SAM capability groups, I basically see three types:
- Medium Range Quad Packable SAM -- 50km range, for medium to short range area air defense, targeting the band from ~50km to CIWS range. I believe this will be the 3-5 missile.
- Long Range SAM -- 200+km range, for medium to long range area air defense, targeting the 200+ km to 30km band. I believe this will be variants of the existing HQ-9 that we all know and love, designed to make use of the 7m long UVLS
- Very Long Range SAM -- up to 400+ km range, for very long range to medium/long range air defense, targeting the 400km to 100km band. I believe this missile will be either a highly evolved HQ-9 missile (perhaps with a booster), or a clean sheet design missile. It would make use of the 9m long UVLS.

Of the above missile types, I think large destroyers/cruisers as well as medium destroyers will be able to accommodate all three types of missiles -- however in terms of magazine size, the large destroyers/cruisers will have larger magazine size overall (including more 9m long UVLS to accommodate more SAMs of the Very Long Range category) than the medium destroyers.
Frigates on the other hand, will only carry the Medium Range Quad Packable SAM and the Long Range SAM -- with an overall magazine size that is even smaller than the medium destroyers, and whose AAW loadout will be mostly Medium Range Quad Packable SAMs with a small number of Long Range SAMs.


Simply put -- I think that any new frigate developed today to enter service in the mid 2020s, *needs* the ability to reach out and hit aerial targets out to 200+ km.
They don't have to have the same magazine size or the simultaneous engagement capability as a large destroyer/cruiser or a medium destroyer, but they need to be able to reach out to 200+ km.
It goes without saying they will need the sensors and fire control to support that capability -- and the twin face AESA we've seen on test ship 892 seems like a perfect fit for that sort of role.
"

Kich said:

I'm curious as to why you think the hull would be derived from or an enlarged version of 054A.

I was on the mindset, a new ship that displaces more than 1000t than 054A with an integrated mast that gives a clean look won't even resemble 054 family. And if it incorporate the UVLS and a larger hanger and other new systems should be termed differently than 054. AKA 057.

Click to expand...

Because:
1. The name of the ship used by people is still "054B". If its name turns out to be different (like 057) then the index of suspicion that it is a clean sheet hull would be higher. But at this stage, if it is still called "054B" and it has the extent of improvements that everyone is describing as well as propulsion changes to include IEPS, I see no reason why it would still be dubbed that unless there was some sort of meaningful lineage back to the 054/054A family.
2. 052D exists, and it can be traced back to the original 052, and retains the same numerical designation. If 052D with its extent of capabilities and improvements can arise from 052-052B-052C-052D, I see no reason why the notional 054B cannot arise from 054-054A-054B.

Tam said:

The PLAN Type designation is based on power plant platform. If the future frigate still uses four diesels it will be a 054X. If it uses a gas turbine it will get a different designation.

Click to expand...

We have no definitive proof of this.

Tam said:

However the missile might be still be useful for shorter distances or open the possibility of a mini or shortened HHQ-9 with a shortened length and range for use with the frigate.

Click to expand...

This is basically HHQ-16.
They are really close to something like SM-2MR.
Also only US and China uses something like that(i.e. 'intermediate caliber' for multipurpose frigates). Others use even lighter AA missiles.

Bltizo said:

- Long Range SAM -- 200+km range, for medium to long range area air defense, targeting the 200+ km to 30km band. I believe this will be variants of the existing HQ-9 that we all know and love, designed to make use of the 7m long UVLS

Click to expand...

HQ-9 form-factor roughly matches that future SM-6 Ib (with 21" booster) will be, and precisely matches 40N6.
It's already goddamn huge - and there is helluva room to work within existing canisters.