054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
That is a look of fear.
OT
I see the Sov Ningbo taking part in this exercise. What reason is there to believe the Sov's have not yet been equipped with the standard PLAN communication systems and are therefore unable to control other PLAN ships?
antiterror13
Brigadier
Do you guys think it would be a good idea to put 2 x 24 cell HQ-10 on 054A/+, would it be possible ?
Imagine 32 HQ-16 (~70 km range) + 48 HQ-10 (~20 km range). Not sure about the cost, but I am sure 24 cell HQ-10 should cost less than $1M, so adding merely $2M for each 054A (and perhaps 052C and 054) would be well justified
Imagine 32 HQ-16 (~70 km range) + 48 HQ-10 (~20 km range). Not sure about the cost, but I am sure 24 cell HQ-10 should cost less than $1M, so adding merely $2M for each 054A (and perhaps 052C and 054) would be well justified
It's not lego, even if there's free deck space, you can't just keep piling top weight on a ship as it affects its stability and sea worthiness. I'd expect something will need to be deleted to add more weapons, other navies have usually sacrificed some of the ship's boats but that's not really doable on the 054A since they live behind shutters, so to fit more SAMs you are looking at removing the CIWS or the SSMs
antiterror13
Brigadier
who said it's a lego ? If there is free space .. I don't see why not, of course massive intensive computation and engineering studies are required, no doubt about that. I didn't say just put it there without any engineering analysis
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
A missile smaller than RAM but with double the range? Really? Where is the evidence for any of these ranges? This reminds of the HQ-9 saga, where its range was progressively pushed on internet forums from 90km to 120km to 150km to 200km as the years went by.
Nope you said to quote
So let's assume for the sake of argument there's the deck space, looking at the superstructure I can't see where it can go without removing something else but let's say you can, how much of that $2M is going to be used for redesigning the ship, installing and integrating the interfaces to the ship's existing power and fire control system, berthing while the system is installed, sea trials for the redesigned ship? and how much is left to actually procure the system?
It's not lego because you can't just buy it and plonk it any where on a ship and even if your "massive intensive computation and engineering studies" cost nothing you still need to fit and test which costs time and money and for what to give an extra layer of missiles because you don't trust your CIWS to take out the ones that get past the HQ-16s?
Idon't know where HQ-10's 20km came from...
Well HQ-16 was cited from a credible magazine (naval shipborne weapons or something of the sort), so that's proof of a sort.
And HQ-9's maximum cited slant range of 200 km was from sinodefence.com (one usually does not accuse that website of overstating claims), and the 120 km range was from export HQ-9 ranges from brochures. Not sure HQ-9 was ever claimed with 90 or 150 km range.
But we don't know what kind of targets any of these missiles (including western SAMs and AAMs) are measured against. Maneuvering, speed, size, altitude etc are all factors unknown. Maybe 70km is for a medium altitude non maneuvering subsonic target and 50 km is against supersonic. But at the very least 70km is definitely a number we should keep in mind.