054B/new generation frigate

optionsss said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Gloire_bb said:

Are frigates needed for carrier ops in the first place?
PLAN has a crazy ratio of oceangoing escorts to carriers - well over 20:1 if we only count HQ-9/S-300 units (and just counting in turbine-driven HQ-16 ones will readily add another ~10) - and is happily printing more.
Realistically CBG needs 4-5 units.
You're asking a frigate to do something that destroyer shall do - and China has an extreme oversupply of destroyers in the first place.

The only task I personally can understand for PLAN to bother with big and powerful frigate is fulfilling the current sorta "frigate leader" job older(pre-051C) destroyers found themselves in - assuming PLAN loves the niche and wants to replace those units essentially on 2:1 basis (1 destroyer and 1 "heavy frigate").
Then UVLS and maybe HQ-9 will make sense...and even then, justifying such a unit over simply another 052DL could come difficult.
Sure, it's possible to fit a newly-designed frigate with a higher number of strike-length VLS (perhaps once again at the cost of smaller secondary VLS), but is it really worth a separate class?

Click to expand...

optionsss said:

That depends, I see 054B in carrier ops because 052D can only carry one ASW helicopter, which limits its ASW capabilities, which is alread a weakness in PLAN. US CBG has 4-5 units of 10000 destroyers. That's more VSL count, helicopters, than 2 055+3 052D. I think PLAN CBG might want 2 055, 3-4 052D and 2-3 054B. For the foreseeable future, PLAN will have fewer carriers than USN(that might always be true), which makes each carrier more valuable and worth protecting.

I don't see 054B replacing 054a, but a much cheaper and multi-purpose 055. I think carrying 2 helos, and multiple unmanned platforms is vital for the new generation of the frigate. This means they can't be too small.

Click to expand...

optionsss said:

That depends, I see 054B in carrier ops because 052D can only carry one ASW helicopter, which limits its ASW capabilities, which is alread a weakness in PLAN.

Click to expand...

Gloire_bb said:

Erm. You have a carrier with you - use it(add a bunch of heavy ASW helicopters).

Click to expand...

Tam said:

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.

Click to expand...

ashnole said:

ASW helos on Carriers will come at the expense of fixed-wing tactical aviation and other fixed-wing supporting aircrafts like jammers, tankers etc. Fujian & its future follow-on Carriers shouldn't bother with rotary-wing ASW but should have fixed-wing ASW instead.

PLA has Liaoning and Shandong, which aren't suitable for power projection but can be used as first-class ASW Carriers similar to how the USN used their WWII surplus Essex-class Carriers during the height of the Cold War.

Click to expand...

Gloire_bb said:

For example like this, yes.
Point is, that there are lots of solutions to the problem, and fleet frigate appears to me to be the worst. Not technically, simply because it's inefficient - and on the eve of a true arms race brewing in the region - fleets shall aim for the most efficient solutions, generating the largest and most capable force compositions (per given amount of money) possible.

Ocean-going battlefleet units - carriers(steam/nuclear) - 055s(turbines) - 052C/Ds(turbines/diesels mix) - 051C(steam)
Non-fleet units - LHA/LSD(diesels) - older destroyers - frigates(diesels)
Coastal units - light frigates/corvettes - mine warfare vessels

There are no obvious empty boxes in the first line - 055/052D mix is optimal, if anything is suboptimal with it - it's problem with your main combatants. They have to be able to deal with submarines themselves.
Best place here for 054B for me is the second line - either potential replacement of the "older destroyers" box(052, 052B, 956E(M)), or simply continuing 054A line with a new, better ship. 054A is objectively becoming outdated and can't be used for some crucial purposes.

Click to expand...

Gloire_bb said:

Erm. You have a carrier with you - use it(add a bunch of heavy ASW helicopters). Or simply adjust your destroyers(increase ratio of 055s, for example - China has more than enough - or simply add way more 052Ds per CSG - their entire point is that you can build more true destroyers per given amount of shipbuilding capacity bandwith).
Fleet-capable frigate will be a turbine/IEPS unit - it alone screws it as a "cheap" combatant, basically making it a lesser fleet unit.
I oppose a lesser fleet unit, because China already has one(052D) - and its quite great. If money are to be spent on fleet combatants - they should be spent there. Frigate money are money that normally work away from fleet.

Basically, overly strong individual combatants - while they may seem more prestigious - is the way of smaller/weaker fleets.
PLAN has no such problems.

p.s. big frigate it may be. I have no problems with big frigates per se. I have problems with spending a single more RMB for their combat capability than is absolutely necessary. Planning for fleet usage brings a lot of such expenditure.

Click to expand...