054B/new generation frigate

I would be very shocked if 054B doesn't use UVLS. And if they use 7m UVLS, then HQ9 completely makes sense. Maybe they won't carry a lot of it, but in a joint environment. It may sometimes be more logical to fire from 054B vs 052D.

Also, that's not really the largest improvement here. I would expect it to have higher degree of automation than 054A, the latest combat system and integration with rest of the fleet, fewer crew requirements, larger berthing, better damage control system and be able to sustain blue water operation better than 054A. 054A is really a good enough solution for PLAN of early 2010. It's not a great solution going forward. A 5000 to 5500t frigate using newer propulsion system that can sustain 30 knots around the world in a carrier group and carry Z20 and/or lates VTOL drones is necessary.

Blitzo said:

I said "200-300km" and "over 400km and ABM".

Click to expand...

200-300 is the current 052D in the first place.
Unless we're talking about some specific non-destroyer missile of new intermediate format(SM2-ER-ish) - we're talking about HHQ-9.
HQ-9 size/energetics support 400+ km engagement(40N6 proves the point).

So there is just no difference. 150km missiles can be pressed into either ~400-450(lighter) or ~650kg relatively short form-factors, giving substantial size differences. For 200-300 we're again looking at full-sized canisters(SM-6/40N6-sized) - and here you start to artificially limit yourself.

The point though is, what this 200-300 envelope does add to us? Ability to participate in theater-level air-sea engagement? It will, but it's a fleet destroyer mission. Will it extend of a frigate to operate alone or in a small unsupported group? Frankly speaking - barely so - it won't even stop stand-off weapons from this range envelope from being used - as those do not rely on plane energetics anymore.

Blitzo said:

No, a vessel with half the VLS count of 052D, with a shorter ranged sensor suite, and inability to carry 9m long VLS, certainly cannot replace 052D.

Simply being capable of carrying and utilizing a LR SAM like HQ-9 does not make a ship a destroyer -- it's also about magazine size, total simultaneous engagements that can be managed, sensor suite refresh rate. In all of those domains, 052D will still be far more capable than 054B.

Click to expand...

Half the number of equally deep dumb boxes, i mean, VLS cells, saves you no money, upfront or sustainance (the crew will still require the exact same number of "big" physical launches per year to maintain the skills). You will, however, pay for a hull capable of accepting a full 32(?) stack of deep cells.

Somewhat shorter sensor suite gets into a weird spot - while you save some money on energetics - you still have to fit full CEC apparatus and appropriate CIC (or horizon and command ineffeciencies will eat much of your engagement envelope) - i.e. you're fitting less capability for ~almost the same money(that is without accounting for a new intermediate missile).

Upfront modern vessel with ARH missiles will have more than enough channels anyways...

Basically, the result appears to me to be a destroyer nonetheless. Artificially gimped and bad destroyer - but a destroyer.

Blitzo said:

I think modern frigates need the ability to engage or at least threaten ISR aircraft and/or strike fighters at relatively long ranges with their own organic weapons, which necessitates LR SAMs.
The bulk of a frigate's weapons suite will obviously still be mostly MR SAMs, but having the ability to reach out and touch targets at 200km or over 200km, is still very valuable.

In the case of 054B, the 7m length variant of the UVLS is perfect for it, and also happens to be the length that the HQ-9 is carried in, so why not simply standardize the HQ-9 family as the PLAN's new regular LR SAM?


If 054B does use UVLS, then they will be able to standardize their SAMs across their UVLS equipped ships (052D, 055 and 054B up to that point), including 3-5 for quad pack MR SAM, HQ-9 variants for LR SAM, and whatever future VLR SAM and ABM capability (that only 052D and 055 will be able to carry).

Click to expand...

The problem is that those will have literally minutes to duck below the horizon and get out of the way of ARH seeker. A couple of such cycles - and well, you're empty regardless.
To meaningfully engage at such ranges you need eternalities(for example, fleet). Whole point of a modern frigate(or, to be exact. the other way around) is to have a cheaper warship not reliant on those - thus still fully capable of protecting itself (and its group) without unnecessary costs associated with "line of battle"(just for analogy) ships. Thus it is close to equal in capability when put out of such context, for often as little as 25-50% of upfront money cost.

Gloire_bb said:

200-300 is the current 052D in the first place.
Unless we're talking about some specific non-destroyer missile of new intermediate format(SM2-ER-ish) - we're talking about HHQ-9.
HQ-9 size/energetics support 400+ km engagement(40N6 proves the point).

So there is just no difference. 150km missiles can be pressed into either ~400-450(lighter) or ~650kg relatively short form-factors, giving substantial size differences. For 200-300 we're again looking at full-sized canisters(SM-6/40N6-sized) - and here you start to artificially limit yourself.

The point though is, what this 200-300 envelope does add to us? Ability to participate in theater-level air-sea engagement? It will, but it's a fleet destroyer mission. Will it extend of a frigate to operate alone or in a small unsupported group? Frankly speaking - barely so - it won't even stop stand-off weapons from this range envelope from being used - as those do not rely on plane energetics anymore.

Click to expand...

200-300km is 052D using HQ-9s in the 7m UVLS.
I expect a VLR SAM using the 9m UVLS to emerge in the near future.

If 054B uses the UVLS, then it'll be using the 7m variant. In that case, is there a reason to not integrate HQ-9 onto the ship, given the size of 054B's twin face AESA is hardly small? (it looks larger than SAMPSON, for example)

Gloire_bb said:

Half the number of equally deep dumb boxes, i mean, VLS cells, saves you no money, upfront or sustainance (the crew will still require the exact same number of "big" physical launches per year to maintain the skills). You will, however, pay for a hull capable of accepting a full 32(?) stack of deep cells.

Somewhat shorter sensor suite gets into a weird spot - while you save some money on energetics - you still have to fit full CEC apparatus and appropriate CIC (or horizon and command ineffeciencies will eat much of your engagement envelope) - i.e. you're fitting less capability for ~almost the same money(that is without accounting for a new intermediate missile).

Upfront modern vessel with ARH missiles will have more than enough channels anyways...

Basically, the result appears to me to be a destroyer nonetheless. Artificially gimped and bad destroyer - but a destroyer.

Click to expand...

054B, in my vision would have:
- 32x 7m UVLS
- twin faced fast rotating AESA (each face about 3/4 the size of a 052D AESA face)

052D has
- 16x 9m UVLS and 48x 7m UVLS
- four fixed face AESA

So, 052D has twice the number of UVLS compared to 054B (and half of the extra 32 UVLS are of the 9m long variant), and 052D also has 2.6 times the size of total AESA array size compared to 054B.

How exactly are they comparable and how is 054B "a destroyer nonetheless"?

Gloire_bb said:

The problem is that those will have literally minutes to duck below the horizon and get out of the way of ARH seeker. A couple of such cycles - and well, you're empty regardless.

Click to expand...

The ability to deter and adversely affect the mission of the enemy aircraft at long ranges would be quite valuable.
There's little to no cost in including a LR SAM capability for 054B, if it uses UVLS and given the size and likely performance of its AESA, having this capability as needed seems like a no brainer to me, especially for a frigate that may be asked to operate in moderate threat environments without support from a larger task group.

Gloire_bb said:

To meaningfully engage at such ranges you need eternalities(for example, fleet). Whole point of a modern frigate(or, to be exact. the other way around) is to have a cheaper warship not reliant on those - thus still fully capable of protecting itself (and its group) without unnecessary costs associated with "line of battle"(just for analogy) ships. Thus it is close to equal in capability when put out of such context, for often as little as 25-50% of upfront money cost.

Click to expand...

To me, it seems that you are viewing certain sensor or weapons types as if they are a dividing line between a frigate or destroyer and that the mere presence of a certain sensor or weapons type as being the prime driver of cost and capability difference.

I disagree with that -- I think the scale of a sensor or weapons type is as important.

I see the big difference between the AAW capability of a destroyer vs a frigate not as "how far they can reach out to defend a volume of airspace" -- but rather as "how many targets can they simultaneously defend against in a volume of airspace and over how many repeated raids".
The major differentiating factor (when fitted with weapons of similar characteristics and sensor of similar technology) being basically the scale of their sensor suite and their magazine size.

Of course, the larger size of destroyers means that they can carry larger VLS as well as larger sensors than frigates, but as far as the common weapons and common sensor technologies shared between frigates and destroyers, I think my statement is true.

This is a useful and interesting discussion.

Is there a chart / list somewhere of what attributes constitute modern frigates, destroyers, and cruisers?

No, there is no such thing, moreover, the beauty of the case is that only in the Chinese Navy we can see the definition of Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser.

Question: What is a "Corvette"
Answer: This


Question: What is a "Frigate"
Answer: This


Question: What is a "Destroyer"
Answer: This


Question: What is a "Cruiser"
Answer: This

Blitzo said:

200-300km is 052D using HQ-9s in the 7m UVLS.
I expect a VLR SAM using the 9m UVLS to emerge in the near future.

If 054B uses the UVLS, then it'll be using the 7m variant. In that case, is there a reason to not integrate HQ-9 onto the ship, given the size of 054B's twin face AESA is hardly small? (it looks larger than SAMPSON, for example)

Click to expand...

If there is a 7m UVLS - well, depends on the price of integration(relative to 5-5-5).
But if there is a 7m UVLS, as I wrote before, I doubt there is much point in the simultaneous existence of 052D and such an expensive 054B. Two destroyers, when frigate's reason d'etre is in not being a destroyer. It's not a sign of a bad design, quite on the contrary - and it aligns very well with the basics of naval warfare.

Blitzo said:

So, 052D has twice the number of UVLS compared to 054B (and half of the extra 32 UVLS are of the 9m long variant), and 052D also has 2.6 times the size of total AESA array size compared to 054B.

How exactly are they comparable and how is 054B "a destroyer nonetheless"?

Click to expand...

There is no requirement on how radar setup determines class - bringing in fixed modern aegis-type frigates will take less than a few seconds of search.
The point, again, is capability - you're intent on making your engagement work to twice the range, meaning that massive shadow cast by Earth curvature(but not only that - inland AA is also a mission!). That costs a lot, not just additional arrays with their power supply. And it won't be realized there where frigates are often expected to operate. If they don't operate there - again, they probably just aren't frigates.

If a ship can fully support this type of engagement - then it's a fleet action-capable destroyer. And if you put such a ship into a situation where it physically can't realize its potential due to physical restrictions of Earth - it's a triple mistake - ship isn't fighting where it should be fighting, location where it currently is, gets a lot of unnecessary potential (where it just won't be realized), another location (which also needs a presence of a frigate) doesn't get a warship at all (money and shipbuilding capacity went elsewhere).

Blitzo said:

There's little to no cost in including a LR SAM capability for 054B, if it uses UVLS and given the size and likely performance of its AESA, having this capability as needed seems like a no brainer to me, especially for a frigate that may be asked to operate in moderate threat environments without support from a larger task group.

Click to expand...

As far as I currently see - it actually costs quite a lot, there is a whole bunch of Mk.41 ships with instrumental capability to support longer range engagement, but which intentionally avoided it. European AA frigates and JMSDF destroyers are particularly notable - they basically form a distinct subclass.

Blitzo said:

To me, it seems that you are viewing certain sensor or weapons types as if they are a dividing line between a frigate or destroyer and that the mere presence of a certain sensor or weapons type as being the prime driver of cost and capability difference.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right.
It's kinda "battlecruiser problem" - if a ship can do a higher-level mission - it should do it. Even if it actually can't(battlecruiser armor), but appears that it can - it will be forced into that role by situation regardless.
Additional problem is that we're paying for much of that mission.

In a way, heavy SAM/full sensor-suite armed frigate may indeed be viewed as a relative "battlecruiser" indeed(relative to a full-sized destroyer, which will be "battleship"). And IMHO it's a wrong type of a ship - a cheaper destroyer(052D)/cheaper frigate (054 series) offer more combat capability to the missile age fleet overall.
But then again, I always like the cheapest possible things when we're talking military. ;p

Blitzo said:

but rather as "how many targets can they simultaneously defend against in a volume of airspace and over how many repeated raids".
The major differentiating factor (when fitted with weapons of similar characteristics and sensor of similar technology) being basically the scale of their sensor suite and their magazine size.

Click to expand...

That, unlike sensor range, isn't a qualitative(tactical/theater) metric, it's a function of individual capability.
Ship that can effectively reach with its main armament (SAMs in sufficient numbers, not ASCMs - i.e. sorta Lanchesterian unit) to theater-level ranges is a destroyer.
A ship that can't (even if it has a massive capability in the theater salvo combat model) - isn't.

Magazine size without relation to the whole battleforce degradation equation is of particularly small relevance IMHO - it's the single cheapest metric to change(esp. now when you soon will just be able to add a few unmanned VLS carriers), it mainly affects numbers game (no qualitative changes for the enemy) - and reasonable magazine depths for a known combat role are long since established anyways.

Gloire_bb said:

That's a destroyer capability. If you can effectively support and sustain engagement to such ranges - you're paying for a destroyer anyways. But on frigate missions, it probably won't get the chance to make use of such range ... I think it isn't worth the sacrifice.

Click to expand...

If the Type-054B already has a rotating 2-face version of a common AESA system with AEGIS, the cost of integrating an existing longer-range SAM should be minimal.

The AEGIS software has already been developed with the Type-055/52D in mind, so the less strenuous Type-054B use cases are already there.
The AEGIS hardware should be COTS technology, so the hardware cost should barely register.
The UVLS has already been developed as well. So buying extra UVLS cells should be relatively cheap.

So you might as well put some existing long-range SAMs onto a Type-054B. But whereas a Type-052D has enough AESA modules to track and engage hundreds or thousands of targets at long-range, a Frigate single AESA face would manage many fewer targets at lower range.

I don't see integrating long-range SAMs on a Type-054B Frigate as much extra cost, apart from some testing and the cost of the SAMs themselves, and possibly some more space used on the Frigate.

---
Just a side thought.

Future AEGIS datalinks and the resulting battlefield network would incorporate AI/machine learning algorithms trained on millions of simulated scenarios.

When faced with incoming antiship missiles for example, the algorithms on each ship decide between themselves on the optimal defensive SAM fire plan, CEC capability, offboard targeting etc

And when we look at the Type-054B, we can expect it to be used in high-threat environments, either as part of large battlegroups, in small SAGs or even operating singly.

Having some long-range SAMs on the Type-054B would be very useful, because opposing ISR aircraft won't be able to tell what type of ship is operating the AESA (as they use the same AESA modules, frequencies and AEGIS) and they have to assume a long-range SAM system is available.

Gloire_bb said:

If there is a 7m UVLS - well, depends on the price of integration(relative to 5-5-5).
But if there is a 7m UVLS, as I wrote before, I doubt there is much point in the simultaneous existence of 052D and such an expensive 054B. Two destroyers, when frigate's reason d'etre is in not being a destroyer. It's not a sign of a bad design, quite on the contrary - and it aligns very well with the basics of naval warfare.

There is no requirement on how radar setup determines class - bringing in fixed modern aegis-type frigates will take less than a few seconds of search.
The point, again, is capability - you're intent on making your engagement work to twice the range, meaning that massive shadow cast by Earth curvature(but not only that - inland AA is also a mission!). That costs a lot, not just additional arrays with their power supply. And it won't be realized there where frigates are often expected to operate. If they don't operate there - again, they probably just aren't frigates.

If a ship can fully support this type of engagement - then it's a fleet action-capable destroyer. And if you put such a ship into a situation where it physically can't realize its potential due to physical restrictions of Earth - it's a triple mistake - ship isn't fighting where it should be fighting, location where it currently is, gets a lot of unnecessary potential (where it just won't be realized), another location (which also needs a presence of a frigate) doesn't get a warship at all (money and shipbuilding capacity went elsewhere).


As far as I currently see - it actually costs quite a lot, there is a whole bunch of Mk.41 ships with instrumental capability to support longer range engagement, but which intentionally avoided it. European AA frigates and JMSDF destroyers are particularly notable - they basically form a distinct subclass.


Yes, you're right.
It's kinda "battlecruiser problem" - if a ship can do a higher-level mission - it should do it. Even if it actually can't(battlecruiser armor), but appears that it can - it will be forced into that role by situation regardless.
Additional problem is that we're paying for much of that mission.

In a way, heavy SAM/full sensor-suite armed frigate may indeed be viewed as a relative "battlecruiser" indeed(relative to a full-sized destroyer, which will be "battleship"). And IMHO it's a wrong type of a ship - a cheaper destroyer(052D)/cheaper frigate (054 series) offer more combat capability to the missile age fleet overall.
But then again, I always like the cheapest possible things when we're talking military. ;p

That, unlike sensor range, isn't a qualitative(tactical/theater) metric, it's a function of individual capability.
Ship that can effectively reach with its main armament (SAMs in sufficient numbers, not ASCMs - i.e. sorta Lanchesterian unit) to theater-level ranges is a destroyer.
A ship that can't (even if it has a massive capability in the theater salvo combat model) - isn't.

Magazine size without relation to the whole battleforce degradation equation is of particularly small relevance IMHO - it's the single cheapest metric to change(esp. now when you soon will just be able to add a few unmanned VLS carriers), it mainly affects numbers game (no qualitative changes for the enemy) - and reasonable magazine depths for a known combat role are long since established anyways.

Click to expand...

I for one don’t expect the new frigate to focus on air defense, but rather on ASW. Ideally, with two organic Z-20 helicopters onboard and electric drive for superior ASW patrol acoustics.

Type 052D and Type 055 are more than sufficient for long range fleet air defense.

W20 said:

Question: What is a "Corvette"
Answer: This

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Okay, mine was a dumb question given the complexity of this thread.

I guess it's always been hard to pin down classes, since types and roles are always changing.

I just wondered what are the common "functions" expected from each type.


Going by the PLAN, corvettes would seem to be greenwater ships for patrol and anti-sub. But I don't know if that's the case in all European navies, for example.

Frigates seem to escort larger ships, and are a minimal blue-water combatant. Destroyers have the sensors and armaments to hunt down other surface ships / targets. Powerful destroyers are cruisers.

This largely applies to PLAN, I suppose.


I guess where it gets confusing for me is when frigates get larger, like 054B maybe. Why is a large frigate still a frigate? Because of role?

Sorry to take up space on the thread with this line of questioning. It just seems like there was an informal discussion already occurring as to what some of these new types actually are.