The Type-052C/D hull design is now over 20 years old. That means there are elements which are outdated or cost more to support than the latest equipment.
So the Type-052/D hull is about due for replacement.
054B/next generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
The Type-052C/D hull design is now over 20 years old. That means there are elements which are outdated or cost more to support than the latest equipment.
So the Type-052/D hull is about due for replacement.
Firstly, it's neither up to me nor you (or anyone else) on how to define warship of any certain size in the PLAN. It's the PLAN's job to decide on how to define warship of any certain size in the PLAN.
As a matter of fact, the first 052D DDG started construction in the early 2010s, meaning that the 052D's designs were finalized no later than 2010. The threat environment faced and capabilities demanded in the 2000s (and the early-2010s) are vastly different than what we are having today. Sooner or later, the PLAN will have no choice but to develop a follow-up/successor class to the 052D/DGs that will be better than their predecessors (of which the PLAN is doing, right now).
The same applies for the 054A FFG, of which the first ship started construction way back in the mid-2000s. That's why the PLAN is building the 054Bs right now - Either as a "test/verification" platform (like the 054s), or as the first batch of a series of mass-produced next-gen FFGs (like the 054As).
Besides, and arguably more importantly - Unlike what the Europeans have in mind for their FFGs (which are essentially their 1st-line surface combatants), China sees FFGs as strictly "do-your-job-as told", 2nd-line, general-purpose warships, with particular focus on fleet-wide ASW missions. This presents a huge contrast to the DDGs, which I've already explained in my previous post.
The roles and responsibilities of the 054As and 054Bs mean that they have to be built in greater numbers, with cheaper procurement and operational costs, and be better at dealing with attrition due to the nature of their assigned tasks. All the factors which I've underlined above are worse for DDGs due to their inherent nature, responsibilities and importance in the overall warfighting doctrines of the PLAN.
Moreover, unlike the European countries - China today is lacking neither money nor manpower. And having a larger fleet of warships means that warfighting capabilities can be more spread out across the fleet, which significantly reduces the chances of enemy attacks crippling a significant portion of the fleet's warfighting capability in one go.
Last edited:
Quotes for reference:
Size of ships is the consequence of planned mission profile, not the initial consideration. PLAN doesn't define ships by size, only by mission.
Military enthusiasts are enthusiasts so they think in terms of what generates their enthusiasm which is design results, and considering how superficial most military enthusiasts are it is usually how things look on images and paper (techical data). Military professionals are professionals so they think in terms of what tools best enable them to execute their mission which is design requirements which is how well something works in worst possible conditions.
Always remember the "three F's" that inform any design process: form follows function. This principle emerges from the dynamics of natural selection. If you want to understand the constraints of any weapon system you have to approach it like an etiologist - you have to think about when and where the concept (any weapon is a concept first) was meant to be used and not where it is being used now.
Similarly when talking about "destroyers" and "frigates" you have to go back to when those concepts were last revised and defined - and that is interestingly the Royal Navy in the period from post-WW1 interwar years to 1970s. When the USN re-classified their ships in the 1970s they did so following logic of the Royal Navy. This is why they have the hierarchy of cruiser, destroyer, frigate and corvette rather than cruiser, destroyer leader/frigate, destroyer and destroyer escort.
It's not natural to think about it in those terms but British Empire was the dominant entity on Earth for much longer than American Empire. British Empire held that position roughly from 1840s to 1940s which is almost a century, while American Empire really exists only since 1990s - we just have a warped perception of history due to the propaganda that the imperial regime produces. It's a spacetime distortion in our minds affecting our mental maps of the world, like a Mercator projection. During the "British century" Royal Navy was the most capable and innovative navy in the world, establishing almost all of the contemporary naval standards. Arguably the British then were more capable and innovative than American now. Again, we are confused by the accident of history which left USN as the only major navy due to economic reasons while Royal Navy competed with other navies and stayed ahead. Americans have been playing on Easy mode because of the British. British imperial elites thought they could use Americans to prop up their empire after WW2. Bretton Woods began in 1944 with a 50/50 split between USD and GBP. Instead due to multitude of factors US simply took over the British Empire.
Returning to the subject: I'm quoting from memory the classification used by ship insurers beacuse I don't know where those documents are on my disk.
This is why you can have a ship with 8-10 thousand tonnes and still classify it as "frigate". The ability to retain high autonomy and operate globally as well as other requirements (silencing, higher crew comfort) determines size while the singular mission like "general patrol" or "anti-submarine" makes it a frigate.
Ships which are capable of two missions are usually classified as destroyers. In the past destroyers (originally as "torpedo boat destroyers") were capable of anti-surface warfare using torpedoes as well as anti-submarine warfare with depth charges. Main guns were general purpose. At the same time corvettes and frigates would have no torpedoes, and often only carried one/two 4-inch guns since their primary mission was ASW.
Cruisers would have the same mission profile as destroyers (anti-surface, anti-submarine or anti-air and anti-submarine) but they also had flag facilities and better armament as the task force capital ship. This is why they have bigger guns and armour - to protect the flag facilities and be capable of providing support. Cruisers were like the division headquarters with division artillery sending regiments (destroyers) to fight on their own. The word "cruiser" is older than that era of naval operations so pre-WW1 cruisers are not consistent with that typology.
If you look at Ticonderoga/Burke/Perry you see the WW2 light/heavy cruisers with 8-12 6-8 inch guns, the destroyers armed with torpedoes and 4-5inch guns and the frigate/destroyer escort armed with depthcharges and 4-inch guns. Only this time with missiles.
Another thing that needs to be remembered is when anti-ship missiles became standard weapon on blue-water warships and how SAM capabilities evolved. The first AShM are Soviet and huge. Very difficult to install on warships designed for western navies. Kashin-class carried only 4 Termits. Harpoon enters service only in 1977. SAMs also range limited to ~40-50km until SM-2MR came in with Aegis in 1983. Until then the primary role of all NATO surface ships other than submarines and aircraft carriers was defensive. Offensive operations were done by carrier air wings and submarines. Then it came to guns which is why Soviets successfully exploited the gap despite primitive AShMs.
This is also why Soviet navy used its own nomenclature with Udaloy "destroyers" and half of Kara "cruisers" were classified as large anti-submarine ships. Their navy was designed differently because it had different missions. Form follows function.
NATO ships are currently part of the "Second British Empire" so they follow "Second Royal Navy" classification. If China is following that classification - and that is a good question for users with knowledge of Mandarin - it is because that classification is actually very reasonable and practical. Britannia ruled the waves not because of accident of birth and geography like USN, but because Royal Navy was a very effective organisation in relative terms compared to its rivals.
The reason why size changed over time is due to production methods. Ships came out in 20-40 year generations similar to aircraft or tanks. WW2 destroyers served until 1970s and were replaced by post-WW2 designs built with the same methods. Only then ship design methods changed.
In the 1940s ships were built with primitive techniques of in-situ assembly. In the 1970 that primitive technique was only improved by better more precise mechanical tools. Modern modular design was developed in 1980s expressly to resolve those limitations but it didn't produce results until early 2000s when computers became commonplace and every step of the production process could be coordinated with necessary precision. That's the moment when size of the ships stops being a limiting factor because you no longer need to coordinate all elements in the same place which imposes rigid cost.
Architecture of type 052D is derived from 052C which was commissioned in 2004 (170) and 2005 (171) and ordered in 2001-02. The next four 052C are built 2009-2014 and are followed by large series of 052D. Similarly the first two 054 were built 1999-2005 and are followed by large series of 054A.
These ships are designed in the 1990s when the western design which China copied was based on most modern classes - LaFayette, MEKO200 frigates and Arleigh Burke destroyers. The difference is that once you decide to build them in large numbers to expand and develop naval capabilities which means enduring presence and force projection at sea you can't innovate as quickly as navies which need to build few ships to replace existing vessels in static fleet composition like in Europe or Japan.
It's the same reason why USN has outdated ship designs - because they kept building the design that was available to keep it cheap. But that's because the gamewhich US and China play is different from that played by EU. EU views its fleets as marketing tools for industry. US and China view their fleets as military tools for political influence.
Contrary to what many think it is extremely rarely that older technology loses against newer technology in war. Those wars usually are not "real wars".
----
OK, this was a short naval history lesson that I thought was helpful. Let's not derail the thread by extending it beyond its intended use.
Size of ships is the consequence of planned mission profile, not the initial consideration. PLAN doesn't define ships by size, only by mission.
Military enthusiasts are enthusiasts so they think in terms of what generates their enthusiasm which is design results, and considering how superficial most military enthusiasts are it is usually how things look on images and paper (techical data). Military professionals are professionals so they think in terms of what tools best enable them to execute their mission which is design requirements which is how well something works in worst possible conditions.
Always remember the "three F's" that inform any design process: form follows function. This principle emerges from the dynamics of natural selection. If you want to understand the constraints of any weapon system you have to approach it like an etiologist - you have to think about when and where the concept (any weapon is a concept first) was meant to be used and not where it is being used now.
Similarly when talking about "destroyers" and "frigates" you have to go back to when those concepts were last revised and defined - and that is interestingly the Royal Navy in the period from post-WW1 interwar years to 1970s. When the USN re-classified their ships in the 1970s they did so following logic of the Royal Navy. This is why they have the hierarchy of cruiser, destroyer, frigate and corvette rather than cruiser, destroyer leader/frigate, destroyer and destroyer escort.
It's not natural to think about it in those terms but British Empire was the dominant entity on Earth for much longer than American Empire. British Empire held that position roughly from 1840s to 1940s which is almost a century, while American Empire really exists only since 1990s - we just have a warped perception of history due to the propaganda that the imperial regime produces. It's a spacetime distortion in our minds affecting our mental maps of the world, like a Mercator projection. During the "British century" Royal Navy was the most capable and innovative navy in the world, establishing almost all of the contemporary naval standards. Arguably the British then were more capable and innovative than American now. Again, we are confused by the accident of history which left USN as the only major navy due to economic reasons while Royal Navy competed with other navies and stayed ahead. Americans have been playing on Easy mode because of the British. British imperial elites thought they could use Americans to prop up their empire after WW2. Bretton Woods began in 1944 with a 50/50 split between USD and GBP. Instead due to multitude of factors US simply took over the British Empire.
Returning to the subject: I'm quoting from memory the classification used by ship insurers beacuse I don't know where those documents are on my disk.
| ship type | equipped mission systems (patrol, anti-surface, anti-submarine etc.) | limitations (autonomy, sea state, speed, range) |
| corvette | 1 | coastal operations, low speed (<15kn) |
| frigate | 1 | none |
| destroyer | 2 | none |
| cruiser | 3 (destroyer + flag facilities) | none |
| battleship/battlecruiser | 3 (destroyer + flag facilities) | none |
This is why you can have a ship with 8-10 thousand tonnes and still classify it as "frigate". The ability to retain high autonomy and operate globally as well as other requirements (silencing, higher crew comfort) determines size while the singular mission like "general patrol" or "anti-submarine" makes it a frigate.
Ships which are capable of two missions are usually classified as destroyers. In the past destroyers (originally as "torpedo boat destroyers") were capable of anti-surface warfare using torpedoes as well as anti-submarine warfare with depth charges. Main guns were general purpose. At the same time corvettes and frigates would have no torpedoes, and often only carried one/two 4-inch guns since their primary mission was ASW.
Cruisers would have the same mission profile as destroyers (anti-surface, anti-submarine or anti-air and anti-submarine) but they also had flag facilities and better armament as the task force capital ship. This is why they have bigger guns and armour - to protect the flag facilities and be capable of providing support. Cruisers were like the division headquarters with division artillery sending regiments (destroyers) to fight on their own. The word "cruiser" is older than that era of naval operations so pre-WW1 cruisers are not consistent with that typology.
If you look at Ticonderoga/Burke/Perry you see the WW2 light/heavy cruisers with 8-12 6-8 inch guns, the destroyers armed with torpedoes and 4-5inch guns and the frigate/destroyer escort armed with depthcharges and 4-inch guns. Only this time with missiles.
Another thing that needs to be remembered is when anti-ship missiles became standard weapon on blue-water warships and how SAM capabilities evolved. The first AShM are Soviet and huge. Very difficult to install on warships designed for western navies. Kashin-class carried only 4 Termits. Harpoon enters service only in 1977. SAMs also range limited to ~40-50km until SM-2MR came in with Aegis in 1983. Until then the primary role of all NATO surface ships other than submarines and aircraft carriers was defensive. Offensive operations were done by carrier air wings and submarines. Then it came to guns which is why Soviets successfully exploited the gap despite primitive AShMs.
This is also why Soviet navy used its own nomenclature with Udaloy "destroyers" and half of Kara "cruisers" were classified as large anti-submarine ships. Their navy was designed differently because it had different missions. Form follows function.
NATO ships are currently part of the "Second British Empire" so they follow "Second Royal Navy" classification. If China is following that classification - and that is a good question for users with knowledge of Mandarin - it is because that classification is actually very reasonable and practical. Britannia ruled the waves not because of accident of birth and geography like USN, but because Royal Navy was a very effective organisation in relative terms compared to its rivals.
The reason why size changed over time is due to production methods. Ships came out in 20-40 year generations similar to aircraft or tanks. WW2 destroyers served until 1970s and were replaced by post-WW2 designs built with the same methods. Only then ship design methods changed.
In the 1940s ships were built with primitive techniques of in-situ assembly. In the 1970 that primitive technique was only improved by better more precise mechanical tools. Modern modular design was developed in 1980s expressly to resolve those limitations but it didn't produce results until early 2000s when computers became commonplace and every step of the production process could be coordinated with necessary precision. That's the moment when size of the ships stops being a limiting factor because you no longer need to coordinate all elements in the same place which imposes rigid cost.
Architecture of type 052D is derived from 052C which was commissioned in 2004 (170) and 2005 (171) and ordered in 2001-02. The next four 052C are built 2009-2014 and are followed by large series of 052D. Similarly the first two 054 were built 1999-2005 and are followed by large series of 054A.
These ships are designed in the 1990s when the western design which China copied was based on most modern classes - LaFayette, MEKO200 frigates and Arleigh Burke destroyers. The difference is that once you decide to build them in large numbers to expand and develop naval capabilities which means enduring presence and force projection at sea you can't innovate as quickly as navies which need to build few ships to replace existing vessels in static fleet composition like in Europe or Japan.
It's the same reason why USN has outdated ship designs - because they kept building the design that was available to keep it cheap. But that's because the gamewhich US and China play is different from that played by EU. EU views its fleets as marketing tools for industry. US and China view their fleets as military tools for political influence.
Contrary to what many think it is extremely rarely that older technology loses against newer technology in war. Those wars usually are not "real wars".
----
OK, this was a short naval history lesson that I thought was helpful. Let's not derail the thread by extending it beyond its intended use.