054B/new generation frigate

Cloud_Nine_

Junior Member
Registered Member
My personal view:

It should be a blue water capable surface combatant that is modern and more capable than 054A, more affordable and more future proof (including possibly in propulsion/power system) than 052D, perhaps better able to keep up with higher speed task forces than 054A, overall more capable in ASW and AAW than 054A with correspondingly more advanced in those subsystems.

It should be able to operate independently in medium threat environments if needed, and be able to credibly contribute to task forces or distributed warfare in a high threat environment.
Might I add a bit of my guessing, perhaps very simply, to gradually replace 054A's role in destroyer flotillas.

PLAN destroyer flotillas are really beginning to bloat in terms of staff establishment. For the two flotillas 1 and 9 that have received 4 055s each, each 055 is rumored to be a full-sized brigade level (正旅) or a "half/semi-division level"(副师) unit, while a flotilla itself is only a full-sized division level unit. Plus consider that each 055 also has at least 1 senior colonel as CO/XO.

It makes sense to gradually sift out frigates from destroyer flotillas as PLAN starts to build up a healthy number of DDGs, keeping only the more capable new frigates. On a side note, the new 054As from no.31 on seems to have entered service with frigate flotillas as well.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Might I add a bit of my guessing, perhaps very simply, to gradually replace 054A's role in destroyer flotillas.

PLAN destroyer flotillas are really beginning to bloat in terms of staff establishment. For the two flotillas 1 and 9 that have received 4 055s each, each 055 is rumored to be a full-sized brigade level (正旅) or a "half/semi-division level"(副师) unit, while a flotilla itself is only a full-sized division level unit. Plus consider that each 055 also has at least 1 senior colonel as CO/XO.

It makes sense to gradually sift out frigates from destroyer flotillas as PLAN starts to build up a healthy number of DDGs, keeping only the more capable new frigates. On a side note, the new 054As from no.31 on seems to have entered service with frigate flotillas as well.

It's possible, though I would caution as to just what the future DESFLOT organization would look like.
(The following is a bit off topic, and I'll discuss it in passing as it has been brought up just to demonstrate how little we know on the topic in the coming future, but if the discussion continues I'll move it to a different thread later):

Up until recently, it was possible that the PLAN could have DESFLOTs each made up of 4 destroyers and 4 frigates each, and for six DESFLOTs that meant 24 destroyers and 24 frigates scattered among them.

But right now, (if we don't include the current under construction destroyers at JN and DL, which will further add to the following number) they have some 8x 055s, 25x 052Ds, 6 052Cs as modern AAW destroyers that are in service or on the cusp of entering service as well as the 11 older non-"aegis" type destroyers (2x 051Cs, 2x 052Bs, 4x Sovs, 1x 051B, 2x 052s) -- that's a total of 50 destroyers, and the number if likely to grow marginally as new 052Ds and 055s are produced in coming years (which we can already see in the case for 052Ds and which we expect but have yet to definitively confirm in the form of 055s) and even as some of the older non-"aegis" type destroyers are retired.

It's possible that by 2030, they will reach a "steady state" of having some 60-70 "destroyer" category ships, which would be 2.5-3 times the original slots for the "four destroyers per one of the six DESFLOTs".


We don't know what kind of rough ratio they will keep for the DESFLOTs.
A brief off the cuff summation of the possibilities, they could:
- buy frigates (blue water capable, ocean going types) and destroyers on a one to one basis, meaning we should expect some 60-70 modern blue water frigate billets as well (where 054Bs and 054As would be, and as 054As get older they could be moved to frigate units), OR buy frigates and destroyers at a non-one to one ratio.
- in addition to both of the above possible options, they could keep the same number of DESFLOTs (i.e.: six) but essentially continue to expand them, so each DESFLOT has 10-12 destroyers and 10-12 frigates each.... OR they could expand the number of DESFLOTs while continuing to have 4-6 destroyers and 4-6 frigates each.

Etc. So really, I have no idea how they're gonna approach it.
 

Cloud_Nine_

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's possible, though I would caution as to just what the future DESFLOT organization would look like.
(The following is a bit off topic, and I'll discuss it in passing as it has been brought up just to demonstrate how little we know on the topic in the coming future, but if the discussion continues I'll move it to a different thread later):

Up until recently, it was possible that the PLAN could have DESFLOTs each made up of 4 destroyers and 4 frigates each, and for six DESFLOTs that meant 24 destroyers and 24 frigates scattered among them.

But right now, (if we don't include the current under construction destroyers at JN and DL, which will further add to the following number) they have some 8x 055s, 25x 052Ds, 6 052Cs as modern AAW destroyers that are in service or on the cusp of entering service as well as the 11 older non-"aegis" type destroyers (2x 051Cs, 2x 052Bs, 4x Sovs, 1x 051B, 2x 052s) -- that's a total of 50 destroyers, and the number if likely to grow marginally as new 052Ds and 055s are produced in coming years (which we can already see in the case for 052Ds and which we expect but have yet to definitively confirm in the form of 055s) and even as some of the older non-"aegis" type destroyers are retired.

It's possible that by 2030, they will reach a "steady state" of having some 60-70 "destroyer" category ships, which would be 2.5-3 times the original slots for the "four destroyers per one of the six DESFLOTs".


We don't know what kind of rough ratio they will keep for the DESFLOTs.
A brief off the cuff summation of the possibilities, they could:
- buy frigates (blue water capable, ocean going types) and destroyers on a one to one basis, meaning we should expect some 60-70 modern blue water frigate billets as well (where 054Bs and 054As would be, and as 054As get older they could be moved to frigate units), OR buy frigates and destroyers at a non-one to one ratio.
- in addition to both of the above possible options, they could keep the same number of DESFLOTs (i.e.: six) but essentially continue to expand them, so each DESFLOT has 10-12 destroyers and 10-12 frigates each.... OR they could expand the number of DESFLOTs while continuing to have 4-6 destroyers and 4-6 frigates each.

Etc. So really, I have no idea how they're gonna approach it.
Yeah I def agree with you on this one. Different Flotillas are different enough to begin with, let alone the fact that PLAN is constantly changing and replacing legacy platforms.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
More from 大包

Others have already commented about the weapons fit displayed and what could be changed or may be different on the real thing -- so I won't comment on that.


I will say that I think his depiction of the main rotating mast mounted radar is a bit lower than what I personally expect the real thing to be.
I would expect 054B's main radar to be mounted at a similar height to Sea Eagle on 054A.

View attachment 106133View attachment 106134View attachment 106135View attachment 106136


Yes the new AESA dual side has to be at least the same height as the Sea Eagle.

In addition, the artist failed to include a secondary high frequency high rotation rate radar that is specifically used to spot and track low flying sea skimming anti-ship missiles, like the Type 364 that's used on the 054, 054A, 052C/D, and just about every ship. Given the prevalence of this type of radar, not as common in other navies, but totally ubiquitous with the PLAN, we have to safely assume this type of radar is part of their requirement doctrine.

Hence why I prefer the design in the coin or by that other famous CG artist in the previous page that depicts a second mast with a secondary smaller AESA dual side radar, which is already factual and deployed on the Type 075.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Personally, after I see the HJ-18 hot launch close up picture, I'm kinda underwhelmed by the usable volume in UVLS. So I don't particularly care if it's UVLS or H/AJK16.

IMO it might even be better if 054B use both VLS since UVLS hot launch is so space inefficient.


The Russians typically use dual VLS designs. For example, a separate and dedicated VLS for the 9M96 (Adm. Gorshkov class, Pr. 20382/85), or the Shtil-M (Adm. Grigorovich class), and have the UKSK-M VLS separate, for the Oniks and Klub or Kaliber. The Indians also follow the same architecture by inheritance.

The RN Type 26 also uses a dual architecture with a separate VLS for the CAMM, and Mk. 41 for the cruise missiles.

The Koreans also have a dual architecture using Mk. 41 for SAMs and the K-VLS for their indigenous cruise missiles.

So logically, having an AJK-16 VLS with a U-VLS for the antiship missiles could make sense. The problem however, is whether PLAN ship architectures would embrace this concept since its never been done before within the PLAN. So the issue isn't really technical, but a clash among the prevailing beliefs and opinions among PLAN officials and CSSC ship engineers that this would be optimal or the best way to do things vs. a mono-type approach to VLS.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
The Russians typically use dual VLS designs. For example, a separate and dedicated VLS for the 9M96 (Adm. Gorshkov class, Pr. 20382/85), or the Shtil-M (Adm. Grigorovich class), and have the UKSK-M VLS separate, for the Oniks and Klub or Kaliber. The Indians also follow the same architecture by inheritance.

The RN Type 26 also uses a dual architecture with a separate VLS for the CAMM, and Mk. 41 for the cruise missiles.

The Koreans also have a dual architecture using Mk. 41 for SAMs and the K-VLS for their indigenous cruise missiles.

So logically, having an AJK-16 VLS with a U-VLS for the antiship missiles could make sense. The problem however, is whether PLAN ship architectures would embrace this concept since its never been done before within the PLAN. So the issue isn't really technical, but a clash among the prevailing beliefs and opinions among PLAN officials and CSSC ship engineers that this would be optimal or the best way to do things vs. a mono-type approach to VLS.
What are the advantages of the AJK-16 VLS over the UVLS, in the context of the 054B? Having 18 meters of beam (which is the same as the 052Ds, by the way) should have enough space to fit ULVS, which can offer much larger available munition volume than the AJK-16.

Honestly speaking, with the 054B's hull being considerably larger than than that of 054A, I don't see how sticking with AJK-16 would be better for the 054B than completely switching over to UVLS at this point.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
What are the advantages of the AJK-16 VLS over the UVLS, in the context of the 054B? Having 18 meters of beam (which is the same as the 052Ds, by the way) should have enough space to fit ULVS, which can offer much larger available munition volume than the AJK-16.

Honestly speaking, with the 054B's hull being considerably larger than than that of 054A, I don't see how sticking with AJK-16 would be better for the 054B than completely switching over to UVLS at this point.

It can use the same VLS canisters for the 054A. If the 054B will use U-VLS but with the high possibility that it will use the longer ranged HHQ-16F, the HHQ-16 will have to use a new canister for the U-VLS, which can either be cold or hot launched. The land systems HHQ-16 are all cold launched by the way. For this reason it can also use the YU-8 canisters for the 054A for ASW work.

If the PLAN is willing to change the canisters for the HHQ-16 and YU-8, which in other words, have the HHQ-16 or YU-8 prepacked in U-VLS and AJK-16 canisters, they can forego this issue. But this is logistics. Having the same missile offered in two versions of two canisters sounds messy. While much of the 054A fleet will still use the older HHQ-16, the latest and last batch with the AESA illumination radars is likely to be using a new HHQ-16 version, and this is probably the same one that is going to be used on the 054B.

I think its likely the 054B will use the new HHQ-16, as I don't think you are going to develop a new version of the HHQ-16 that's good only for a handful of ships. The new AESA illuminators have also been spotted on the same test ship as the new dual sided AESA is, so this is a good pointer that the illuminators are meant to work with this new radar. If the new HHQ-16 has ARH option, a U-VLS canister also creates an option that it can be used on the 052D and 055. If the new missile has the range as what its land based variant has, which is 160km, that makes it a serious option.

The problem is whether the AJK-16 can use quad pack SAMs. If you do not have a quad pack SAM specifically developed for it, the VLS would be without one. There's a quad pack SAM being developed for the U-VLS. I also think there is a potential candidate for a quad pack on the AJK-16 based on the land based LY-70. But I get the feeling that quad pack SAMs are not a high priority for the PLAN, nor do they think highly of it, or think that its that effective, otherwise they would already have one deployed many years ago. So the idea that the 054B may use U-VLS to use the same quad pack SAM as the 055 and 052D may not be a strong one especially if the ship is already topped off with HHQ-10. Simply said, the issue of quad pack SAM may not be as high a priority with PLAN planners as they do with internet forumites.

The issue of using U-VLS on the 054B comes with standardizing the use of YJ-18 as the preferred antiship missile of choice by the PLAN. As we have seen posters of YJ-83 with U-VLS on Zhuhai, it maybe possible there maybe a YJ-83 option for the U-VLS instead of using slant mounts. The use of YJ-83B with the optical or thermal seeker would be for littoral water anti-shipping, as the littorals are a problem for radar seekers, and it can be used against land targets, such as antiship missile TELs located on rocky islands like what Japan is planning to do.

You prefer that your saturation antiship missile attacks must be the same as the rest of the fleet, 052D and 055, so they all arrive at the same time at the enemy fleet to overwhelm its defenses. For that reason, its much easier to coordinate a mass of antiship missiles with the same speed and flight pattern, versus lets say a mix of subsonic (YJ-83, YJ-62) and supersonic missiles (YJ-12, Sunburn). The result of mixing is that the supersonic missiles will reach the enemy fleet first, and will get shot down piecemeal. Then the subsonics will arrive many minutes later, and they won't be as dense compared to say, if the entire mass is entirely subsonic. With a mixed supersonic and subsonic mass, you have to time both wave of launches so they both arrive at the target at the same time.

So I think this is a good reason for the 054B to have the YJ-18 and by extension, the U-VLS.

Then there is the question of using the HHQ-9B on the 054B. I don't think the dual sided rotating radar will have the same performance as the fixed Type 346A and 346B radars used on the destroyers but having something is better than nothing, and it can still give the ship the option to engage something beyond the range of even the extended HHQ-16, this being the zone from 160km to 300km. The use of CEC panels, which is very likely to me, since the CEC panels also appeared in the lantern dome test radar in Wuhan, means it can share the sensory data from another ship equipped with such, like the 055, or the three carriers. If the target is not visible on the 054B's radar but is visible on the Fujian 003's radar because of the radar horizon, using CEC, the 054B is reading the Fujian's radar input and launches missile towards that target. Having the HHQ-9B option on the 054B means using the U-VLS.

So there's two big reasons for using U-VLS on the 054B versus the logistical inconvenience of putting HHQ-16 and YU-8 on U-VLS in addition to AJK-16. But at the same time, there is another plus in putting HHQ-16 and YU-8 on U-VLS and that it opens the use of both missiles on the 052D and 055, providing only the HHQ-16 version with the ARH seeker. The use of U-VLS on the HHQ-16 new variant and the YU-8 sounds wasteful considering the empty space left, but this seems to be a small price to pay for a tremendous opportunity. After all, the war in Ukraine has highlighted the risk of running out missile stocks. Having stocks of HHQ-16 ARH as a backup in case of the HHQ-9B running out during a hot war.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
How can you be so sure that is will be 48, not 32?

32 is just too short if the VLS will be using anti-ship missiles. The 32 will be SAM, plus you need either 8 or 16 for AshM. I don't see the point of having eight, since the array is arranged as 2 rows of 4 cells. A single 2x4 array will leave you too much of an empty space, so you have to use 2 sets of 2x4 arrays. So 16 is the logical number for AshM. So 16 AshM + 32 SAMs = 48. You also have to consider the ship will be using some cells for ASW work.
 

Lethe

Captain
What are the advantages of the AJK-16 VLS over the UVLS, in the context of the 054B? Having 18 meters of beam (which is the same as the 052Ds, by the way) should have enough space to fit ULVS, which can offer much larger available munition volume than the AJK-16.

Honestly speaking, with the 054B's hull being considerably larger than than that of 054A, I don't see how sticking with AJK-16 would be better for the 054B than completely switching over to UVLS at this point.

To a certain extent I think these questions go beyond 054B itself to the future of the AJK-16 VLS. Is it going to be deprecated over time in favour of UVLS, or will it rather continue to serve and have munitions developed for it in parallel with UVLS?

On a per-missile basis, current and future evolutions of HQ-16 will almost certainly have a considerably greater performance envelope compared to the 5-5-5 missile, and it should be possible and desirable for 054B to exploit that greater envelope. It's also possible, even likely, that packaging HQ-16 in UVLS is less space-efficient than packing it in AJK-16.

It should also be recognised that vertically launched anti-ship or land-attack missiles are a mixed blessing. Having such missiles be VLS launched reduces top weight, but from a total ship packaging perspective it may well be easier to accommodate a limited number of such munitions (and with 054B I think we can assume that the number required is indeed limited) in quad-packs above deck.

With AJK-16 supporting credible munitions such as HQ-16 and especially CY-5 ASROC, and the mixed blessing of VLS-launched ASuW munitions, I think the most compelling argument in favour of UVLS is the 5-5-5 missile (as a complement to HQ-16). The questions therefore arise, is the 5-5-5 missile compatible with the AJK-16 VLS and can it be at least double or triple-packed in that system?

The possibility space is quite large, including mixed VLS configurations as Tam notes. Fortunately we will soon have many of the answers.
 
Last edited:
Top