Do the new 054AGs also lack the illuminator/is there any indication they're receiving the F too?
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
They have a flat panel, likely AESA illuminator. These however are not seen on the 054B. This suggests the 054A+ has another HHQ-16 variant meant to work with these illuminators, but not the same as those with the 054A.
Yes it could mean the HQ-16F can be compatible with the AESA illuminators using the SARH mode. At the same time, the AESA illuminators might, emphasis on might, have a compatibility mode for older HHQ-16s. But that's only theoritical. SARH systems are meant to be very picky on the waveforms they use. Case in point. Older Standard SM-2s and ESSM didn't work on the APAR when it first came out on the Sachsens, until a new batch of Standards were introduced with the SARH guidance systems that are compatible with the APAR.
Somebody on Weibo said HHQ-16F is too expensive to PLAN.
I think these are bigger. These dual arrays showed up first on the 075 which doesn't use HHQ-16s. I think they are more comparable to the fixed four X band arrays in the 055's top mast, they may even be the same arrays but converted to a rotating dual array configuration as a way of cutting cost.
I don't think it's a handicap at all. The ARH missiles are given target tracks by the bigger array. The arrays might potentially even 'glare' at the target with one side of the array. Or they can contrarotate the beams to keep them tracking the target. The smaller arrays are meant to scan the surface for incoming antiship missiles, just like they are on the 075, last batch of 052D, and on the 055, being on the same position as the Type 364. It's meant to queue the HHQ-10s and Type 1130s. If the smaller arrays are meant to illuminate targets, while the bigger arrays are tracking the targets and scanning air volume, that will leave the ship blind against incoming sea skimmers. The bigger S-band arrays will face sea clutter when scanning down low at the water surface which is why they place these small arrays in the first place.
If the target is within range of the smaller arrays, there's also the potential the tracks of both the big and small radar can even be combined on the back end computing side. On top of that, the CEC of the 054B can track combine with that of other 054B, 055, and other ships including the carriers. That will even give you not just even better tracking, but the ability to track targets beyond and below your radar horizon, which you can pop down with an ARH missile. The small panel on the 054B's main radar is likely a CEC link, it's shape and size is similar to the fixed ones on the top masts of the 055, the Fujian and the carriers. Even in the event you don't have enough data points, which by now has the potential to go overkill, the fire control computer can still use track prediction algorithms, then using datalinks, to place the ARH missiles in anticipation of the target.
The aerials at each corner of the radar look just like the ones used on the British Type 45 destroyer so perhaps they are used to send commands to inflight missiles before the active radar homers on the missiles themselves take over guidance duties?
We'll have to agree to disagree until there's more information. My personal opinion is that they will not be basing any F-35s in the Philippines, especially F-35Bs, without an actual US military-controlled base in the Philippines stacked with heavy defensive measures, and last I checked, they don't have any active bases there anymore, only some agreements for forward pre-positioning of materials and equipment.
Please cite an article where USN SSNs have antiship Tomahawks as their "standard payload", i.e. that they are carrying block V Tomahawks, say as opposed to surface ships where it would make more sense to have them.
LOL there is no triangle if it's just a line with both torpedo and target heading in the same direction. Besides torpedo "triangles" are so WW2. Modern torpedoes aim at their targets directly by acoustics or by wake. BTW, I don't know of any US (or Japanese) torpedoes that could make up 50 miles distance against an uncooperative target.
You made the distinction between hot and cold launch, not me. Cold launch absolutely has more of a delay than hot launch because the missile leaves the premises of the ship much faster on hot launch than cold launch, which means the "duty cycle" for a cold launched missile is much slower. Also, not pointing the nose at the target during launch costs almost no time unless you launch in a semi-ballistic trajectory like SM-2. I've seen alot of videos where a vertically-launched missile tilts towards the target almost immediately after launch. HHQ-10 points at the target because its onboard seeker in most cases acquires the target prior to launch. The HHQ-16 is SARH which means its onboard seeker does not have to acquire the target before launch.
America LHAs carry up to two squadrons of F-35Bs. Even the ones with smaller hangars can carry more than one squadron. And while they don't need this many to kill insurgents in the ME or intimidate small nations like Syria or Yemen, against the Chinese military they will certainly be far more useful as light carriers than as amphibious assault ships.
I agree that the 054B is far more useful in the 2IC, but note that large parts of the 2IC are also within range of tactical fighter aircraft (probably more than half), so the operating environment won't be that much more hostile unless you actually travel outside land-based fighter ranges.
There is no reason the HHQ-16F cannot be backward compatible with earlier 054As. Since it is ARH it doesn't even the 054A's illuminators, and regardless it could also be programmed to fly in SARH mode as well. The only caveat would be for longer ranges where the HHQ-16F has a greater chance of not being to pick up the target with its own sensors soon after launch and the illuminator happens to have less range than the HHQ-16F. In this case the HHQ-16F may not be able to be used to its full potential by earlier 054As.
Last edited: