source?
AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
"The RN and British industry is already building from a position of experience and knowledge with the Type 23 frigates that set a new benchmark for warship stealth when they were introduced in the early 1990s."
"The output power of the MT30 has been conservatively limited to 36MW but it has the potential to uprated by a further 10% which could be used to offset future displacement increases with the addition of new equipment. Built from proven components, incorporating the latest blade cooling technologies the turbine core is protectively coated to prevent corrosion from the salt-laden air of the marine environment. MT30 is a robust, four-stage power turbine based on the Trent 800 and meets all current emissions legislation without modification. It has been tested rigorously for 1,500 hours continuously in high (38°C) ambient air temperature."
"The investigation into the cause of the starboard propellor shaft fault found that there was an installation error. More specifically, Wallace added that based on “initial reports” the shaft was misaligned by as much as 0.8mm to 1mm. “A tiny amount that, of course, can make a huge difference at sea,” he explained."
In the CCTV documentary on 054A, installation tolerance for the propeller shafts was stated as 2mm.
link?
umm.. I am sorry but I can speak from experience that this is completely false lol.
These ship yards are used to structural tolerances of a couple mm in the 50m sized modules and manages the stacking tolerances just fine. They can build modules ~10,000 tons, with hundreds of interface points (single weld hook up) that has tolerance requirements of sub 3mm, consistently, and do many of them concurrently. In the last 5-10 years, I can confidently say that they build better quality modules than any other in the world in shorter time frame and cost. The Brits are umm... not fit to tie their laces...
End of the day, we all use the same procedures, follow pretty much similar specs, use the same equipment. They just have alot more of trained people that has more experience doing the same thing, being together as a team longer, work harder, and more newer tools to do their job than any other yards in the world, only SK comes close.
We shouldn't make fun of the British. They don't get to build many ships these days. Just 100 years ago, they had a navy.
The Type 45's IEP is widely ridiculed. The supposed direct energy weapon that could take advantage of the electricity generation never came to fruition while the lacks of any anti-submarine capability on the Type 45 wastes the other main advantage of IEP as well. Without any meaningful benefits, the IEP is unreliable, adds cost, and take away space that could be used for useful equipments.
As for tolerance, there is no evidence of higher precision in UK shipbuilding at all.
UK's "wealth of experience" comes in the form of the PLAN launching more ships in one year than the RN in two decades.
This is actually true.
To my knowledge, no European vessel in service or under construction is equipped with liquid-cooled GaN S-band AESA as their main sensor, and no European vessel is capable of cooperative engagement capability that would allow it to launch long range SAM solely relying on datalink from offboard sensors.
These two capabilities are reasonably expected on the Type 054B. Additionally, the Type 054B's point defense system with both 1130 and HQ-10 is superior to all existing European point defenses, and this may be further enhanced if the 100mm main gun can fire specialized anti-air rounds.
These advantages became more stark when you consider the modern threat faced by warships and their best counters:
VLO fighters with advanced EW -> GaN AESA
ASBM and HGV -> GaN AESA
VLO sea skimming cruise missiles -> CEC
Saturation attack from multiple directions -> turreted rolling airframe missile launcher with significant magazine depth and ability to reload
Low cost drones -> rapid fire main and secondary guns
Last edited:
I agree with some of these, but I also think that there are other factors that some of the European frigates have in different classes which give them their own advantages like greater VLS magazine size, or the addition of a powerful volume search radar (SMART-L) in addition to an X band APAR or S band APAR, which means that calling 054B "substantially superior in anti-air warfare compared to the Type 45, and indeed all warships from Europe" is a bit far.
I think it would be reasonable to say that 054B could overall rival anti-air warfare compared to Type 45 and all warships from Europe, and perhaps (or definitely) exceed them in some domains/subsystems, and I think that's a sensibly more defensible position.
I actually agree that UK shipbuilding has been very inefficient in the recent 2 or 3 decades, but I would bet the house that the Type 26 is quieter than a Type 054B. If Type 054B comes close to FREMM/FFG(X), that would be quite an accomplishment.
The ship with the best point defences depends, because Sea Ceptor is both a point defence and short-range sam. One of the biggest selling points of Sea Ceptor is the very small minimum engagement range and fast launch. So in terms of point defences:
Type 054B - HQ-10, 1130 maybe 100mm main gun
Type 26 - 48 CAMM, 2x Phalanx, Mk45 127mm main gun.
No threat has a "best counter". The best counter is multiple counters.
Soft-launch VLS missiles can fire instantly in all directions instead of needing to turn the turret.
Yes, CEC is a fantastic capability but it's not a silver bullet. In most situations, combatants will be without AWACS support. In these cases, the most important thing is radar height to see the missile earlier.
I would say other VLO fighters. I would also argue that the antenna's size matters much more than whether it's GaN or GaAs.