054B/new generation frigate

T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Zichan said:
What do you mean by "portable"? Placing the refrigeration unit between the panels would add too much weight and where would the heat go?

I don't see any justification to rule out air cooling. The arrangement of the panels looks rather similar to the Sampson AESA, which is air cooled by airflow between the array faces:
View attachment 95307
Liquid cooling is also possible and might further reduce weight (because the radiators can be placed below the arrays at a lower height), at the cost of a more complex implementation.

Since the two arrays have quite different shape, I assume when you say size you mean area? 3/4 the area of 052D would be almost the size of SPY-1. Each of the SAMPSON arrays have 2560 T/R elements, which is less than half that of Type 052D. If the new radar indeed ends up 2/3 the size of Type 052D, the technological advances of the last 15 years (GaN) will almost certainly make it more capable than the Sampson AESA.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that the Dual Sided array is tested on that mast on test ship 892. 892 has tested other radars before, one being the Type 382 Sea Eagle and an unknown single faced AESA used with the LY80 (export HHQ-16). There is no inner hollow shaft on these radars or on the mast that can be used as an vent tunnel. You also need a curved surface dome for the airflow, as in see the Type 052C vs. The very flat panel all liquid cooled Type 052D. It's much better to compare this new radar to the Thales NS100 or NS200 in its physical architecture even if these are single sided. See the Type 31 frigate as one of the customers of the radars. The compact liquid cooling needs to be mounted between the panels.

Also remember that this is the bigger brother of another dual sided AESA that already went into service on the Type 075. They should be physically and mechanically similar, except for the size and frequency of the modules. I expect both radars to be on the 054B, the same way the 054A has the Type 382 and Type 364 pairing.
 
Z

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
You have to remember that the Dual Sided array is tested on that mast on test ship 892. 892 has tested other radars before, one being the Type 382 Sea Eagle and an unknown single faced AESA used with the LY80 (export HHQ-16). There is no inner hollow shaft on these radars or on the mast that can be used as an vent tunnel. You also need a curved surface dome for the airflow, as in see the Type 052C vs. The very flat panel all liquid cooled Type 052D. It's much better to compare this new radar to the Thales NS100 or NS200 in its physical architecture even if these are single sided. See the Type 31 frigate as one of the customers of the radars. The compact liquid cooling needs to be mounted between the panels.

Also remember that this is the bigger brother of another dual sided AESA that already went into service on the Type 075. They should be physically and mechanically similar, except for the size and frequency of the modules. I expect both radars to be on the 054B, the same way the 054A has the Type 382 and Type 364 pairing.
Click to expand...
Even if the new arrays use liquid cooling, they still need to radiate the heat away somewhere. The advantage of liquid cooling is that it makes it possible to relocate the heat away from the generation source and towards a potentially larger heatsink than would otherwise be possible. Liquid cooling does not need hollow shafts as large as air cooling, because the liquid solution is a much better heat conductor.

It seems logical to me that the heat would transported down the mast to a radiator. If they were able to rout the waveguides for the Type 382 radar, they should be able to rout the liquid tubes. Unless you have a strong piece of evidence contradicting this, of course.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I don't get the reluctance to use HQ-9 on a future 054B. I think of things as just platforms, sensors and shooters.

You need to have platforms to carry sensors and shooters. Your platforms can have different characteristic. I would 054B to stand out due to being a next generation stealth design with high automation, the latest combat system, CeC with rest of the fleet/Air Force. It might stand out by having IEPS propulsion and is really quiet. It might stand out by being able to sustain high speed for long durations. It could stand out by being able to carry the additional S/X-Band radars, ESM, latest sonar array. It might be able to carry a Z20 and/or drone(s) for ASW purposes. It could come with 32 or 40 UVLS. I don't see the point of having more AShM launchers.

I think of PLA as a system. So you have a system of sensors and missiles on different platforms and they are continuously calculating and determining the best engagement strategy depending on where the missiles are and such. Having a system means that you could have 054B launch HQ9 against a target that it's own search radar hasn't tracked, but a KJ500/600 has. And through CEC, it can guide that HQ9 to close enough to its target.

Let's put it this way, I would rather have 2 ships carrying 16 HQ-9 each rather than 1 ship carrying 32 HQ-9, because my fleet have more engagement options against target. Also, if my ship carrying 32 HQ-9 sinks, I'm out of HQ-9. But if my ship carrying 16 HQ-9 sinks, I still have another ship with 16 HQ-9.

Most navies are not gifted with this type of scale. Only USN and PLAN are. Maybe PLAN is not at this level yet, but this is a target that makes sense to approach.
 
S

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
tphuang said:
I don't get the reluctance to use HQ-9 on a future 054B. I think of things as just platforms, sensors and shooters.

You need to have platforms to carry sensors and shooters. Your platforms can have different characteristic. I would 054B to stand out due to being a next generation stealth design with high automation, the latest combat system, CeC with rest of the fleet/Air Force. It might stand out by having IEPS propulsion and is really quiet. It might stand out by being able to sustain high speed for long durations. It could stand out by being able to carry the additional S/X-Band radars, ESM, latest sonar array. It might be able to carry a Z20 and/or drone(s) for ASW purposes. It could come with 32 or 40 UVLS. I don't see the point of having more AShM launchers.

I think of PLA as a system. So you have a system of sensors and missiles on different platforms and they are continuously calculating and determining the best engagement strategy depending on where the missiles are and such. Having a system means that you could have 054B launch HQ9 against a target that it's own search radar hasn't tracked, but a KJ500/600 has. And through CEC, it can guide that HQ9 to close enough to its target.

Let's put it this way, I would rather have 2 ships carrying 16 HQ-9 each rather than 1 ship carrying 32 HQ-9, because my fleet have more engagement options against target. Also, if my ship carrying 32 HQ-9 sinks, I'm out of HQ-9. But if my ship carrying 16 HQ-9 sinks, I still have another ship with 16 HQ-9.

Most navies are not gifted with this type of scale. Only USN and PLAN are. Maybe PLAN is not at this level yet, but this is a target that makes sense to approach.
Click to expand...
Concern about cost maybe.

If the price of 054B increases susbtantially over 054A then it makes more sense because the cost of supporting HQ9 (and the missiles itself) decreases relative to total cost

But if the PLA wants the 054 series to remain a cheap ASW platform then it makes sense to not include the HQ9
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
sndef888 said:
Concern about cost maybe.

If the price of 054B increases susbtantially over 054A then it makes more sense because the cost of supporting HQ9 (and the missiles itself) decreases relative to total cost

But if the PLA wants the 054 series to remain a cheap ASW platform then it makes sense to not include the HQ9
Click to expand...

The concerns about cost only really matter if the 054B would not already be equipped with the requisite sensors and launch system (VLS) to accommodate HQ-9.

If 054Bs twin face AESA has the performance to support HQ-9, and if it does use the UVLS 7m version, then there shouldn't be that much more work or cost that would be needed to integrate HQ-9 onto 054B short of integration with the combat management system and equipping the ship with the requisite datalinks.
 
W

W20

Junior Member
Registered Member
"I don't get the reluctance to use HQ-9 on a future 054B"

A frigate is a blue water corvette with self-defense and escort capabilities.

Of course there are other possible definitions.

I would like to see more short-range missiles for the 4-40 km zone.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Zichan said:
Even if the new arrays use liquid cooling, they still need to radiate the heat away somewhere. The advantage of liquid cooling is that it makes it possible to relocate the heat away from the generation source and towards a potentially larger heatsink than would otherwise be possible. Liquid cooling does not need hollow shafts as large as air cooling, because the liquid solution is a much better heat conductor.

It seems logical to me that the heat would transported down the mast to a radiator. If they were able to rout the waveguides for the Type 382 radar, they should be able to rout the liquid tubes. Unless you have a strong piece of evidence contradicting this, of course.
Click to expand...

The liquid refrigerant would have to flow through a rotor, and that's going to have sealing issues as one part of the rotor is rotating and the other part is stationary, and these two parts have to be sealed. The cooling unit would have to small and contained entirely behind the arrays. Small compact liquid cooling is already used with AESA for aircraft like jet fighters as well as AESAs used with land based vehicular units, like SAMs. The mast on ship 892 has been used for testing other radars before such as the Type 382 and it has not physically changed for the AESA, nor is there anything on the ship to suggest a radiator outside of the radar, or cooling tubes coming out underneath.
 
optionsss

optionsss

Junior Member
I think for PLAN, 054b should fill capability gaps/deficiencies of 054a. Right now 054a has several issues, itsa bit slow, lack crew comfort, and it does not have enough space for 2 helicopters and additional Unmanned platforms. Since carriers with be PLAN main operation focus in the near future, the current 054a can barely really keep up with current CBG, and definitely not when nuclear carrier come online. For frigates designed now, the ability to carry and maintain multiple types of unmanned platform is very important. With these capabilities in mind, I think a 7000-8000 ton large frigate with 32 UVSL might be necessary. They can argument the ASW capabilities of current Chinese CBG and EBG centered around 075. Additionally, depending on the unmanned vehicle they carry, they can perform anti mine, recon, and other missions. The large size will be more expensive and might step on the toes of 052D, but PLAN can recoup some of the cost by retiring some of its older smaller ships, such as the anti mine vessels. Also the size and extra power would be useful for future direct energy weapons.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
adeptitus said:
How to get frigate with HQ9? Recycle 052C/D hull and call it a frigate.
Click to expand...

They can go RN style and call ASW focused ships as frigates while AAW focused ships as destroyers, no matter what the size of the ships, as RN frigates and destroyers are pretty much the same size, and there are times the frigates are bigger. The Russian Navy has been going RN style as of late, and is turning around calling their ASW focused Udaloy class destroyers as frigates.

A proposal of mine would be to recycle the 052B hull. This provides a proven hull, with enough space for two helicopters if you are going to redesign the end, enough length for the naval Z-20 if you want to lengthen it a bit. Use the cheaper rotating AESAs instead of the large fixed ones, with the VLS count from 64 to 32. It would be cheaper, yet you have not just a proven hull, but a hull you already know how to maintain.

Currently after refit, the 052B is a gas turbine bigger version of a 054A anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top