When China and India commission the first of a new generation of frigates at almost the same time, whose design is superior? Whose combat power can really carry the ocean heavy responsibility?

中國和印度幾乎在同一時(shí)間啟用新一代護(hù)衛(wèi)艦的首艦，究竟誰的設(shè)計(jì)更勝一籌？誰的作戰(zhàn)能力真正能夠肩負(fù)起遠(yuǎn)洋的重任？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


In January 2025, China’s 054B frigate “Luohe” and India’s P17A frigate “Nilgiri” were officially commissioned. This "sea race" across the Himalayas instantly attracted global attention. These two types of frigates not only represent the latest achievements of naval modernization in China and India, but also reflect very different military industrial systems and strategic thinking.

2025年1月，中國的054B型護(hù)衛(wèi)艦“漯河”與印度的P17A型護(hù)衛(wèi)艦“尼爾吉里”正式服役，這場穿越喜馬拉雅山的“海上競賽”瞬間吸引全球關(guān)注。這兩種護(hù)衛(wèi)艦不僅代表了中印兩國海軍現(xiàn)代化的最新成果，還體現(xiàn)出截然不同的軍事工業(yè)體系和戰(zhàn)略思維。

China’s 054B focuses on precise positioning and mature technology to achieve rapid iterative development, while India’s P17A attempts to build a “super warship” through a universal assembly approach.

中國的054B注重精準(zhǔn)定位和成熟技術(shù)，以實(shí)現(xiàn)“小步快跑”快速迭代發(fā)展，而印度的P17A則試圖通過通用組裝方式打造一艘“超級軍艦”。

In this silent competition, does the larger tonnage of the Indian ship offer an advantage, or is the Chinese frigate’s cost-effective philosophy more effective?

在這場無聲的較量中，印度艦艇的較大噸位是否能帶來優(yōu)勢，還是中國護(hù)衛(wèi)艦更具成本效益的設(shè)計(jì)理念更為有效？

From a design standpoint, the 054B has a full load displacement of about 5,500 to 5,700 tons. It continues the modular design concept of the 054A, but with comprehensive upgrades in power systems, radar detection, stealth performance, and more. Its core mission is to serve as the “underwater shield” of carrier formations, focusing on anti-submarine warfare and medium-range air defense, while also handling ocean patrol and escort missions.

從設(shè)計(jì)角度來看，054B型護(hù)衛(wèi)艦的滿載排水量約為5500至5700噸，它延續(xù)了054A型的模塊化設(shè)計(jì)理念，但在動力系統(tǒng)、雷達(dá)探測能力、隱身性能等方面進(jìn)行了全面升級，其核心任務(wù)是作為航母編隊(duì)的“水下盾牌”，專注于反潛作戰(zhàn)和中程防空，同時(shí)兼顧海上巡邏和護(hù)航任務(wù)。

The Indian P17A, although labeled as a frigate, has a massive displacement of 6,700 tons—exceeding the destroyer standards of many countries. It aims to take on air defense command functions similar to India’s P15A/B destroyers.

盡管被稱為護(hù)衛(wèi)艦，印度的P17A擁有高達(dá)6,700噸的巨大排水量，超出了許多國家對驅(qū)逐艦的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，它旨在承擔(dān)類似于印度P15A/B驅(qū)逐艦的防空指揮功能。

This difference in positioning is reflected in onboard systems. The 054B uses an S-band dual-side rotating phased array radar with a detection range of 400 km and is equipped with Red Flag-16FE missiles with a 160 km range, forming a layered air defense network. In contrast, the P17A uses Israeli EL/M-2248 four-face phased array radar with only 250 km detection range and Barak-8 missiles with a maximum range of 70 km, making it less capable against modern anti-ship missile threats.

這種定位上的差異也體現(xiàn)在艦載系統(tǒng)上。其中，054B使用了S波段雙面旋轉(zhuǎn)的相控陣?yán)走_(dá)，探測范圍達(dá)400公里，并配備射程160公里的紅旗-16FE導(dǎo)彈，形成了分層防空網(wǎng)絡(luò)；而相比之下，P17A則采用了以色列EL/M-2248四面相控陣?yán)走_(dá)，最大探測范圍僅為250公里，搭載的Barak-8導(dǎo)彈射程只有70公里，在應(yīng)對現(xiàn)代反艦導(dǎo)彈威脅方面顯得能力不足。

In anti-submarine warfare, the 054B shows significant advantages. It carries the D-20F anti-submarine helicopter with a combat radius over 200 km, along with bow sonar, towed array sonar, and rocket-assisted torpedoes, forming a triad anti-submarine system. Its all-electric propulsion reduces mechanical noise by 60%, enhancing stealth.

在反潛作戰(zhàn)中，054B展現(xiàn)出顯著優(yōu)勢，配備了作戰(zhàn)半徑超過200公里的D-20F反潛直升機(jī)，同時(shí)擁有首部聲吶、拖曳陣列聲吶以及火箭助推魚雷，形成了三位一體的反潛系統(tǒng)，而其全電力推進(jìn)系統(tǒng)將機(jī)械噪音降低了60%，顯著提升了隱身性能。

On the other hand, the P17A, despite its larger size, lacks a dedicated anti-submarine helicopter and relies on shipborne sonar and Russian anti-submarine rockets. Its anti-submarine capabilities remain at the early 054A level, and integration issues in the power system result in poor noise control.

另一方面，盡管P17A體型更大但缺乏專門的反潛直升機(jī)，只能依靠艦載聲吶和俄制反潛火箭，其反潛能力依然停留在早期054A的水平，同時(shí)動力系統(tǒng)的整合問題導(dǎo)致噪音控制表現(xiàn)較差。

This gap stems from differing battlefield understandings—China sees anti-submarine warfare as key to carrier group survival, while India remains influenced by the “big ship equals strength” mindset.

這種差距源于雙方對戰(zhàn)場理解的不同——中國認(rèn)為反潛作戰(zhàn)是航母編隊(duì)生存的關(guān)鍵，而印度仍然受“大艦即力量”思維的影響。

In terms of firepower, the 054B features a 32-cell vertical launch system. Through missile upgrades, it achieves asymmetric advantages: Red Flag-16FE can intercept hypersonic targets, Eagle-83A anti-ship missiles skim the sea at just 5 meters, and its 100mm main gun has a firing rate of 90 rounds/minute with land precision strike capability.

在火力方面，054B 配備了32單元垂直發(fā)射系統(tǒng)，通過導(dǎo)彈升級實(shí)現(xiàn)了不對稱優(yōu)勢，其中紅旗-16FE可攔截高超音速目標(biāo)，鷹擊-83A反艦導(dǎo)彈能夠以僅5米的超低高度掠海飛行，而其100毫米主炮具備每分鐘90發(fā)的射速并具有對地精確打擊能力。

The P17A also has a 32-cell VLS, but can only launch Barak-8 missiles (70 km range). Its anti-ship capability relies on BrahMos missiles co-developed with Russia, with a 300 km range and Mach 3.5 speed, which lags behind modern air defense interception capabilities.

P17A還配備了32單元的垂直發(fā)射系統(tǒng)，但只能發(fā)射射程70公里的Barak-8導(dǎo)彈，其反艦?zāi)芰σ蕾嚺c俄羅斯聯(lián)合研發(fā)的射程300公里、速度達(dá)到3.5馬赫的布拉莫斯導(dǎo)彈，與現(xiàn)代化的防空攔截能力相比仍顯落后。

Crucially, 054B’s VLS is designed for future compatibility with electromagnetic railguns and laser weapon systems, while P17A’s universal equipment faces compatibility limitations, making future upgrades difficult.

關(guān)鍵是，054B的垂直發(fā)射系統(tǒng)專為未來兼容電磁軌道炮和激光武器系統(tǒng)而設(shè)計(jì)，而P17A的通用設(shè)備在兼容性方面存在限制，導(dǎo)致未來升級變得困難。

The two countries’ shipbuilding efficiency and cost control also contrast sharply. China builds 054Bs using a dual-factory model in the north and south, reducing construction cycles to 18 months while keeping costs reasonable. At least 40 ships are planned to form a scale advantage. In contrast, India’s first P17A ship took 10 years to build, costing $1.07 billion, and suffered structural issues due to a gantry crane collapse. The timeline for the remaining seven ships remains uncertain.

兩國在造船效率和成本控制方面形成了鮮明對比，中國采取南北雙廠模式建造054B型護(hù)衛(wèi)艦，將建造周期縮短至18個月，同時(shí)成本保持在合理范圍內(nèi)，計(jì)劃至少建造40艘以形成規(guī)模優(yōu)勢。相較之下，印度的首艘P17A護(hù)衛(wèi)艦耗時(shí)10年建成，造價(jià)高達(dá)10.7億美元，還因門式起重機(jī)倒塌事件導(dǎo)致結(jié)構(gòu)性問題，其余7艘艦艇的建造時(shí)間表仍不確定。

Behind this is a fundamental difference in military industrial systems. China has achieved full autonomy across the radar, power, and weapon system supply chains. India’s P17A relies on Israeli radar, Russian and Israeli missiles, and U.S./German power systems, with an assembly-based development model that limits combat capability.

這背后體現(xiàn)了中印兩國軍事工業(yè)體系的根本差異，中國在雷達(dá)、動力和武器系統(tǒng)供應(yīng)鏈方面實(shí)現(xiàn)了全面自主，而印度的P17A驅(qū)逐艦則依賴以色列的雷達(dá)、俄以聯(lián)合研發(fā)的導(dǎo)彈以及美德提供的動力系統(tǒng)，其以組裝為主的開發(fā)模式在很大程度上限制了作戰(zhàn)能力。

Looking ahead to future battlefields, the 054B’s “systematic thinking” is more forward-looking. Its integrated stealth mast and AI-assisted decision-making system enable real-time data sharing with 055 destroyers and aircraft carriers, playing a key role in anti-access/area denial strategies.

展望未來戰(zhàn)場，054B的“系統(tǒng)化思維”更具前瞻性，其集成隱身桅桿和人工智能輔助決策系統(tǒng)能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)與055型驅(qū)逐艦和航空母艦的實(shí)時(shí)數(shù)據(jù)共享，在反介入/區(qū)域拒止戰(zhàn)略中發(fā)揮關(guān)鍵作用。

Although the P17A attempts to create a “high-end” image with larger tonnage and more radars, the lack of subsystem synergy means actual performance may not reach half of its design specifications.

雖然P17A試圖通過更大的噸位和更多的雷達(dá)來營造一種“高端”形象，但由于子系統(tǒng)之間缺乏協(xié)同作用，其實(shí)際性能可能連設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)格的一半都難以達(dá)到。

As the U.S. Navy reflected during the development of the Constellation-class frigates, a ship’s sophistication isn’t about individual parameters, but about maximizing performance through system integration. From this perspective, the 054B may not have the “visual deterrence” of the P17A, but its path of precise positioning and technological iteration reflects the Chinese Navy’s pragmatic philosophy of “not seeking absolute superiority, but practical efficiency.”

在研制星座級護(hù)衛(wèi)艦過程中，美國海軍意識到，艦艇的先進(jìn)性并非單純體現(xiàn)在各項(xiàng)參數(shù)上，而是通過系統(tǒng)整合來最大化性能。從這一角度看，054B或許沒有P17A那樣顯眼的“視覺威懾力”，但其在精準(zhǔn)定位與技術(shù)迭代上的發(fā)展路徑體現(xiàn)了中國海軍務(wù)實(shí)的理念，即“不追求絕對優(yōu)勢，而追求實(shí)際效能”。

The choice of shipborne weapons also reflects different strategic thinking. India replaced the Italian OTO 76mm gun with the “Dart” guided shell to enhance anti-missile capabilities, compensating for a lack of close-in defense. China returned to the 100mm gun with higher rate of fire and heavier shells to strengthen land strike capabilities, supported by a complete defense system including the 1130 CIWS and Red Flag-10 missiles—eliminating the need for medium-caliber naval guns to fill in defense gaps.

艦載武器的選擇同時(shí)體現(xiàn)了不同的戰(zhàn)略思維，印度以“飛鏢”制導(dǎo)炮彈取代意大利OTO 76毫米艦炮，以增強(qiáng)反導(dǎo)能力，彌補(bǔ)近程防御的空缺；而中國則回歸使用射速更高、彈藥更重的100毫米艦炮，以加強(qiáng)對陸打擊能力，同時(shí)配備完整的防御體系，包括1130近防炮和紅旗-10導(dǎo)彈，從而無需通過中口徑艦炮來填補(bǔ)防御空白。

This difference illustrates that equipment performance cannot be judged in isolation—it must be viewed within the full combat system.

這個差異表明，設(shè)備性能不能單獨(dú)評判，而是必須結(jié)合整個作戰(zhàn)系統(tǒng)來審視。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


From a geostrategic perspective, the deployment of the 054B is more profound. The first two ships were assigned to the North Sea and South Sea Fleets, enhancing regional anti-submarine networks for carrier groups and providing high-end platforms for patrols in disputed South China Sea waters.

從地緣戰(zhàn)略的角度來看，054B型護(hù)衛(wèi)艦的部署具有更深遠(yuǎn)的意義，前兩艘護(hù)衛(wèi)艦分別被分配給北海艦隊(duì)和南海艦隊(duì)，不僅加強(qiáng)了航母編隊(duì)的區(qū)域反潛網(wǎng)絡(luò)，還為在南海爭議海域開展巡邏行動提供了高端作戰(zhàn)平臺。

India’s P17A is deployed in the Arabian Sea, driven by concerns over Pakistan and China's presence in the Indian Ocean. While its large-ship cruising mode enhances presence, it struggles to form effective tactical deterrence.

印度的P17A護(hù)衛(wèi)艦部署在阿拉伯海域，主要是出于對巴基斯坦和中國在印度洋存在的擔(dān)憂，雖然其具備大型艦艇巡航模式以增強(qiáng)存在感，但在形成有效戰(zhàn)術(shù)威懾方面卻表現(xiàn)乏力。

This difference in deployment reflects a deeper contrast in maritime strategies. China emphasizes systematic and functional oceanic capability building, while India remains caught in a myth of “quantity race” and “symbolic politics.”

這種部署上的差異反映了海洋戰(zhàn)略上的深層對比，中國注重系統(tǒng)化和功能性的海洋能力建設(shè)，而印度仍然陷入“數(shù)量競賽”和“象征性政治”的迷思中。

This frigate “duel” is a microcosm of the modernization paths of two ancient civilizations. China, through a mode of “technological accumulation and iterative upgrading,” has achieved key breakthroughs in all-electric propulsion and intelligent command on the 054B. India, attempting to “buy modernization” to leapfrog its weak industrial base, finds itself trapped in a vicious cycle of “building is worse than buying, buying is worse than renting.”

這場護(hù)衛(wèi)艦“對決”折射出兩大古老文明的現(xiàn)代化路徑：中國通過“技術(shù)積累和迭代升級”的模式，在054B上實(shí)現(xiàn)了全電推進(jìn)和智能指揮的關(guān)鍵突破；印度則試圖通過“購買現(xiàn)代化”以彌補(bǔ)其薄弱的工業(yè)基礎(chǔ)，但卻陷入了“造不如買，買不如租”的惡性循環(huán)之中。

When the second 054B “Qinzhou” enters service within 18 months, India’s first P17A is still struggling with outfitting and sea trials. This is not just a gap in shipbuilding efficiency, but a reflection of the maturity of national industrial systems.

當(dāng)?shù)诙?54B型“欽州”號在18個月內(nèi)服役時(shí)，印度的第一艘P17A護(hù)衛(wèi)艦仍在艱難進(jìn)行舾裝與海試，這不僅僅是造艦效率的差距，更反映了國家工業(yè)體系成熟度的差異。