franco-russe
Senior Member
575 hd, 531 hp, 532 hd.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Great piece of work! It's probably the most comprehensive list of Type 054A compiled, does anyone have Wikipedia account someone should update it with this info and lock the page so everyone has access to this
But HP and HD have really done the number on number on the Type 054A, in almost span of 7-8 years launching 18 modern surface combatants, barring Areligh Burke it's probably the longest production run for naval Vessal in modern times, this has given these shipyards the experience and talent which will remain embedded with them for future production runs and will be very beneficial
But HP and HD have really done the number on number on the Type 054A, in almost span of 7-8 years launching 18 modern surface combatants, barring Areligh Burke it's probably the longest production run for naval Vessal in modern times, this has given these shipyards the experience and talent which will remain embedded with them for future production runs and will be very beneficial
Ok, got it...and updating with these two lists. One by pennant number, and one by date:
Type 054A launches by pennant number:
# - Pennant - Name - Launch date - Yard
01 - FFG 529 Zhoushan,2006-1221, HD
02 - FFG 530 Xuzhou, 2006-0930, HP
03 - FFG 538 Yantai, 2010-0824, HP
04 - FFG 546 Yancheng, 2011-0428, HP
05 - FFG 547 Linyi, 2011-1210, HD
06 - FFG 548 Yiyang, 2009-1115, HP
07 - FFG 549 Changzhou,2010-0520, HD
08 - FFG 550 Siping, 2011-0528, HP
09 - FFG 568 Hengyang, 2007-0523, HP
10 - FFG 569 Yulin, 2009-0428, HP
11 - FFG 570 Huangshan, 2007-0318,HD
12 - FFG 571 Yuncheng, 2009-0208, HP
13 - FFG 572 Yueyang, 2011-1214 HP
15 - FFG 573 Liuzhou, 2012-07nn, HD
14 - FFG 574 Shaoyang, 2012-0509, HP
--------- Building ---------
16 - FFG 575 Qinzhou, 2013-nnnn HD
17 - FFG 531 Unnamed, 2013-nnn HP
18 - FFG 532 Unnamed, 2013-nnnn HD
TYPE 054A launches by date:
# - Pennant - Name - Launch date - Yard
01 - FFG 530 Xuzhou, 2006-0930, HP
02 - FFG 529 Zhoushan,2006-1221, HD
06 - FFG 570 Huangshan, 2007-0318,HD
04 - FFG 568 Hengyang, 2007-0523, HP
05 - FFG 571 Yuncheng, 2009-0208, HP
06 - FFG 569 Yulin, 2009-0428, HD
07 - FFG 548 Yiyang, 2009-1115, HP
08 - FFG 549 Changzhou,2010-0520, HD
09 - FFG 538 Yantai, 2010-0824, HP
10 - FFG 546 Yancheng, 2011-0428, HD
11 - FFG 550 Siping, 2011-0528, HP
12 - FFG 547 Linyi, 2011-1210, HD
13 - FFG 572 Yueyang, 2011-1214 HP
14 - FFG 574 Shaoyang, 2012-0509, HP
15 - FFG 573 Liuzhou, 2012-07nn, HD
--------- Building ---------
16 - FFG 575 Qinzhou, 2013-nnnn HD
17 - FFG 531 Unnamed, 2013-nnn HP
18 - FFG 532 Unnamed, 2013-nnnn HD.
In 8 years they will have produced the 18 Type 054As, and there was one year when they didn't launch any...so in 7 years they did 18, or over 2.5 per year on average. Pretty impressive numbers.
Last edited:
timepass
Brigadier
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Comment deleted.
In case you did not know it is a violation of forum rules to compare Indian and Chinese militarizes.. READ the forum rules!
FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!
bd popeye super moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
antiterror13
Brigadier
18 054A is an impressive number and still counting, perhaps to 21 or 24. It seems the China Navy is fully satisfied with the design, performance, cost and role. Wondering whether it is modular design, so the system and weapons (VLS SAM and others) can be upgraded in the future, not sure about the engine, is it upgrade-able ?
Talking about HQ-16A, how this VLS SAM compared to let's say Aster 30 ?. It seems the range of HQ-16A (up to 70 km) is significantly less than Aster 30 (120 km ?) and the size seems quite similar. I suggest due to solid fuel technology (?)
Talking about HQ-16A, how this VLS SAM compared to let's say Aster 30 ?. It seems the range of HQ-16A (up to 70 km) is significantly less than Aster 30 (120 km ?) and the size seems quite similar. I suggest due to solid fuel technology (?)
Last edited:
The Aster 30 is an active guidance missile with telemetry uplink midcourse correction so it can utilize a much more efficient flight path than HQ16, that's also how Standard Missile's range grew over the years (of course improving solid propellant is another factor), so in time with more upgrades HQ16 should be able to achieve 100km range.
Well, it's range is still limited by the range of the illuminators.
Do you know how exactly the guidance works on HQ-16? I was always under the impression that it was launched with targeting data from 054A's combat system and then can receive mid course correction from a data uplink on the ship itself. I'm assuming that it currently cannot receive updates from helicopter, aircraft or other ships. And that it would only need target illumination for a few seconds in the terminal phase of the interception. It would seem like there is no reason why it couldn't already have the more efficient flight path.
I think the electronics are the easiest to change, but the missile body is not, for example there is only so much fuel you can fit in a medium range SAM, so I doubt you can make HQ-16 to go 100km.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
The energy of the fuel can be improved as well.
i dont know about hhq16 on ships, but the land version, hq16, is refered to having composite guidance: inertial guidance coupled with intermittent SARH guidance up until SARH lock for terminal engagement. I never found any good sources saying it had telemetry datalink. Now, that seems very queer, as it shouldnt be too hard to implement it, but it could very well explain the relatively short ranges of hq16.
The way i see it, missile gets programmed before launch. It gets launched, it knows where to turn after launch. Its inertial guidance keeps it more or less in the direction it needs to go, inside the illuminator cone. The illuminator then paints the target, missile corrects itself if needed. Illuminator is then redirected, perhaps busy painting another target for another missile. First missile, again using its INS, flies towards target. Illuminator, if needed, again periodically paints the target, all up until the last few seconds of flight, when it stays on target so the missile could do its interception.
This sort of guidance isnt new, as far as i know, USN used intermittent guidance on (some?) SM-1 missiles.
With it, one gets ability to do concurrent engagements, or relatively decent antisaturation abilities, but the missile still has to fly the straight path and there are no parabollic trajectories and ranges suffer. That is of course not a problem for antimissile tasks nor engagement of low flying planes, but it does offer the enemy the chance to go high up and still stay relatively close to the ship.
Now, why on earth would one choose such a system in this day and age - i have no idea. Sure, it must be a bit cheaper. But can it really be that much cheaper to justify the loss of potential capability? Only reason I can think of so far is the doctrine. Perhaps PLAN absolutely does not intend to use 054a on their own. Maybe they intend to use them either as part of larger task force where other ships would carry hhq9, or they intend to use them relatively close to china's shores so the ships would enjoy PLAAF's protection or they intend to use them in low intensity missions, antipiracy missions etc.
The way i see it, missile gets programmed before launch. It gets launched, it knows where to turn after launch. Its inertial guidance keeps it more or less in the direction it needs to go, inside the illuminator cone. The illuminator then paints the target, missile corrects itself if needed. Illuminator is then redirected, perhaps busy painting another target for another missile. First missile, again using its INS, flies towards target. Illuminator, if needed, again periodically paints the target, all up until the last few seconds of flight, when it stays on target so the missile could do its interception.
This sort of guidance isnt new, as far as i know, USN used intermittent guidance on (some?) SM-1 missiles.
With it, one gets ability to do concurrent engagements, or relatively decent antisaturation abilities, but the missile still has to fly the straight path and there are no parabollic trajectories and ranges suffer. That is of course not a problem for antimissile tasks nor engagement of low flying planes, but it does offer the enemy the chance to go high up and still stay relatively close to the ship.
Now, why on earth would one choose such a system in this day and age - i have no idea. Sure, it must be a bit cheaper. But can it really be that much cheaper to justify the loss of potential capability? Only reason I can think of so far is the doctrine. Perhaps PLAN absolutely does not intend to use 054a on their own. Maybe they intend to use them either as part of larger task force where other ships would carry hhq9, or they intend to use them relatively close to china's shores so the ships would enjoy PLAAF's protection or they intend to use them in low intensity missions, antipiracy missions etc.