054B/new generation frigate

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
I think which lrsam a potential 054b would use would depend on what it's role is within the PLAN

Whether they intend to use it like a european style large frigate which has true long range air defense roles or continue the 054a style of mostly ASW with a little area air defense. I personally think it's going to be the latter so HQ-16F makes sense
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Whether they intend to use it like a european style large frigate which has true long range air defense roles or continue the 054a style of mostly ASW with a little area air defense. I personally think it's going to be the latter so HQ-16F makes sense
To be fair, HQ-16F gives it as much range as even the best European AD frigates(or "destroyers", since type 45s aren't terribly different) have.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think which lrsam a potential 054b would use would depend on what it's role is within the PLAN

Whether they intend to use it like a european style large frigate which has true long range air defense roles or continue the 054a style of mostly ASW with a little area air defense. I personally think it's going to be the latter so HQ-16F makes sense
Simply put, the operational doctrines of frigates in European navies are different from frigates in the PLAN.

For the European navies, frigates play the role of destroyers because they often do not build seperate destroyer classes due to budgetary and/or manpower constrains. This requires European frigates to be multi-purpose, which is why they have long range air defense capabilities.

Meanwhile, China can afford to build both destroyers and frigates at the same time and in large numbers, therefore Chinese frigates like the 054As can be relegated to more specific roles i.e. ASW and air defense (which would be self-defense instead of area-defense), while escorting larger warships in the PLAN i.e. destroyers and aircraft carriers.
 

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think which lrsam a potential 054b would use would depend on what it's role is within the PLAN

Whether they intend to use it like a european style large frigate which has true long range air defense roles or continue the 054a style of mostly ASW with a little area air defense. I personally think it's going to be the latter so HQ-16F makes sense
I agree.
Besides the PLA-navy already has a very good AAW ship. It's the Type 055.
I really do not understand the "fascination" some people have with possibility of the Type 054B getting an upgrade to its VLC system. I could care less whether it does or does not. If the goal is to increase the number of UVLS cells then the solution is simple, just build more Type 055's. With 112 cells per ship, measured in terms of cost per unit cell the Type 055 is the cheapest option.

What the PLA-navy needs is a serious upgrade to its ASW capability.
I find the prospect of the Type 054B getting an IEP - propulsion very "interesting".
If a submarine fleet and an ASW fleet were to both have a confrontation then which side wins?

If the ASW fleet has IEP - propulsion then I'd put my money on the ASW fleet.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
I agree.
Besides the PLA-navy already has a very good AAW ship. It's the Type 055.
I really do not understand the "fascination" some people have with possibility of the Type 054B getting an upgrade to its VLC system. I could care less whether it does or does not. If the goal is to increase the number of UVLS cells then the solution is simple, just build more Type 055's. With 112 cells per ship, measured in terms of cost per unit cell the Type 055 is the cheapest option.

What the PLA-navy needs is a serious upgrade to its ASW capability.
I find the prospect of the Type 054B getting an IEP - propulsion very "interesting".
If a submarine fleet and an ASW fleet were to both have a confrontation then which side wins?

If the ASW fleet has IEP - propulsion then I'd put my money on the ASW fleet.
...... "If the ASW fleet has IEP - propulsion then I'd put my money on the ASW fleet" ... Why is that ?

I don't understand the correlation between IEP and ASW strength? to me two different things
 

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
...... "If the ASW fleet has IEP - propulsion then I'd put my money on the ASW fleet" ... Why is that ?

I don't understand the correlation between IEP and ASW strength? to me two different things
short answer:
IEP - propulsion produces less noise. An ASW frigate with IEP can "Listen" for submarines better.

longer answer:
If we look at military history there are plenty of examples where an advancement in technology makes certain weapon systems or tactics obsolete. For example: guns made plate armor obsolete, the machine gun made calvary charges ridiculous, the mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles made trench warfare a thing of the past, the aircraft carrier defeated the battle ship and the list goes on. This may seem obvious when viewed in hindsight but for the soldiers who had to experience this in real time, it sure was a shock. The French were convinced the Germans cannot penetrate the Maginot Line. The French were right, the Germans went around it. The French were planning for WW1 not WW2. Perhaps this is a bad example but imagine playing a video game and you get a software upgrade. The rules of the game changes a bit. There will be character abilities that will be downgraded while other abilities are upgraded. You have to change your strategy to account for these ability changes.

A lot of people are stuck in a WW2 mindset. Using WW2 strategy to fight WW3 will surely end in disaster. Most of the technological advances for the past 75+ years have been in the domain of information technology. I believe these tech advances have "downgraded" the submarine because it has favored the ASW platform more so than the submarine platform. Computers and sensors today are orders of magnitude cheaper and more powerful than previous generations. With computer AI and drones today the cost of putting a hydrophone in the ocean to search for a submarine is probably 10 times cheaper, (who knows I'm just making up a number).
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's not as simple as that... electric propulsion *can* be taken advantage of to lower noise, but that isn't necessarily the aim, nor is such a powertrain inevitably quieter. Take the Royal Navy for example, in the Type 23 ASW frigate and its replacement, the Type 26, electric propulsion (though not in the form of IFEP) is a key component in silencing. OTOH, the Type 45 AAW destroyer with IFEP is notoriously noisy, to the point that it affects its own sonar performance. This isn't a big deal for a what is essentially a single role ship (it was never intended to be especially quiet or have more than a self-defence ASW capability) but it shows that the benefit isn't automatic. Even an electric propulsion system still needs to be purpose-built for low noise, it isn't inherently quiet just by being electric.

That said, given the general purpose role of the Type 054B (with a large part of the PLAN blue-water ASW role resting on its shoulders) we can assume attention will be paid to silencing. If not to go beyond the level achievable with a conventional powertrain (which, after all, can be made very quiet indeed with the right configuration), then at least to attain the required level at lower cost than otherwise possible.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
In addition to what was said, ASW ships make certain compromises like fixed pitch propellers which give them superior acoustic performance at ASW mission speeds. IFEP propulsion allows for great liberty in engine placement and separation from the propeller shafts reducing the vibration leakage from the ship. I wonder if some future ASW platform would adopt electrical energy storage for a true quiet mode when sub hunting.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I agree.
Besides the PLA-navy already has a very good AAW ship. It's the Type 055.
I really do not understand the "fascination" some people have with possibility of the Type 054B getting an upgrade to its VLC system. I could care less whether it does or does not. If the goal is to increase the number of UVLS cells then the solution is simple, just build more Type 055's. With 112 cells per ship, measured in terms of cost per unit cell the Type 055 is the cheapest option.

What the PLA-navy needs is a serious upgrade to its ASW capability.
I find the prospect of the Type 054B getting an IEP - propulsion very "interesting".
If a submarine fleet and an ASW fleet were to both have a confrontation then which side wins?

If the ASW fleet has IEP - propulsion then I'd put my money on the ASW fleet.

The reason why the VLS it uses is of interest is because the ASW focus and IEPS presence on 054B is already essentially confirmed as being expected.

In other words, those things aren't really a matter of much debate.

The VLS that 054B uses OTOH, is one of the things which we still don't know about it, and if it uses UVLS or H/AJK-16 will have significant implications for its overall independent multirole capability including potentially ASW, not to mention longevity and standardisation with the rest of the modern surface combatant fleet.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
based on the recent Weibo rumor mills, it sounds like 054B will use H/AJK-16 and also carry 8 YJ-12s. Keep in mind that you can also do things like rafting to make your propulsion system/engine area to be quieter. In general though, it's just a good to have a ship that can be focused on ASW and be used for blue water missions. I'm just a little annoyed by the prospect of keeping 2 different VLS. Although I guess with such a large fleet, it's not end of the world.
 
Top