054/A FFG Thread II

[Mysterre]

Well HQ-16 was cited from a credible magazine (naval shipborne weapons or something of the sort), so that's proof of a sort.

I'm not inclined to take any website's claims as definitive. The only public information source I'm willing to take at face value is the Naval Institute Guide, and even that source is not 100% accurate as far as the PLAN is concerned. Slightly less authoritative are well known online figures like Bill Sweetman, Carlo Kopp, etc. Below that are the 'respectable' websites, at the bottom of which is Strategypage, the National Enquirer of online military forums. Everything else is somewhere in between, and many of them tend to poach each other's information and propagate or inflate each other's misinformation or outright lies, ala HQ-9.

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.

I think most range quotes are maximum slange range vs subsonic fighter-sized aircraft. Of course that still doesn't make "70km" any more real than before. I will take that number with a grain of salt for now.

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.

Initial claims of 90km were derived from export information for the FT-2000, the early passive anti-radiation variant. 150km and 200km have been claimed many times on internet forums. IMO 120km is most likely the correct range. In addition to being quoted in export brochures, it is also the number the US military seems to be using.

 

[tphuang]

I'm not inclined to take any website's claims as definitive. The only public information source I'm willing to take at face value is the Naval Institute Guide, and even that source is not 100% accurate as far as the PLAN is concerned. Slightly less authoritative are well known online figures like Bill Sweetman, Carlo Kopp, etc. Below that are the 'respectable' websites, at the bottom of which is Strategypage, the National Enquirer of online military forums. Everything else is somewhere in between, and many of them tend to poach each other's information and propagate or inflate each other's misinformation or outright lies, ala HQ-9.

That's bs, The best source we get are pictures. It goes something like this.

Pictures > Official PLA news > Interviews with CMC/PLA members > export shows > Research papers from Chinese institutes > Official Western sources > Knowledgeable insiders on Chinese bbs (< 5 such people exist) > Military professionals on English forums (engineers from Boeing, Submariners and so on) > people like Sweetman/Fisher > Strategypage

Just to give you an idea, I was asked to write an article for USNI last week when J-15 made its first flight.

I think most range quotes are maximum slange range vs subsonic fighter-sized aircraft. Of course that still doesn't make "70km" any more real than before. I will take that number with a grain of salt for now.

Initial claims of 90km were derived from export information for the FT-2000, the early passive anti-radiation variant. 150km and 200km have been claimed many times on internet forums. IMO 120km is most likely the correct range. In addition to being quoted in export brochures, it is also the number the US military seems to be using.

It's well known that export versions of Chinese systems are of inferior specs to the domestic versions, so you have to use that as a baseline performance. I don't think anyone here knows the real range of HQ-9 or the naval version HHQ-9. They have been out for a few years and been upgraded. It's quite likely the original version of HQ-9 did have range of close to 90 km back in 2000. But that was really never accepted into service with PLA. They did a lot of upgrades in the recent year and HQ-9 basically only started to go into service in mass numbers in the recent years. I'm not talking about the system as a whole, but they upgrade each part of it continuously.

Anyways, this is way of topic from 054A. If you want to continue debating this, at least go back to talking about HQ-16.

 

[Totoro]

Friedman's world's naval systems says this:

Rim66A - range 32 km. entered service in 1967.
Rim67A - range 74 km due to a booster. (tested to 129 km range, though guidance was inefficient at such distances) entered service around 1968.?
Rim66B - range 46 km due to new, bigger engine (whole missile was longer than 66A) entered service probably around 1970.
Rim66C - range 74 km due to new guidance, engine the same as in 66B. entered service around 1978.
Rim67B - range unclear. possibly around 130 km, due to booster and new guidance. entered service in 1980.
Rim66G - range (almost) doubled, due to new engine. Could be then around 130-140 km. Entered service maybe around 1983.?
Rim67C - range (almost) doubled compared to 67B. due to new booster. 240 km?

All current versions of missiles supposedly have these ranges, even if their other components are newer. So unboosted SM-2 has range 130-140 km, while a boosted SM-2 has range of 240 km. The same figure applies for SM-6.

Only exception is SM-3 which has longer range still.

So... what all this is trying to prove is that, given all the technological advances we know of, which is likelier? That the hq16 missiles are stuck in 1970? Or that they are closer to where US was in 1978? Or are they closer to where US was in mid 80s?

Without any other proof (and 50 km range on a brochure is not really proof. It is something the manufacturer writes for the general public. It is the same as raytheon publicly saying amraam has range of 55 km while the real customers get briefed on actual capabilities that may be better. and yes, the same may be said for russian hardware too.)

I don't think it is unrealistic hq16 is at 1970. or even 1980. tech level when it comes to guidance techniques and rocket motors. And if so, is it more unrealistic to think its range is 50 km or 70 km or even 90 km?

 

[adeptitus]

I've seen the HQ-16/A cited at 32, 40, 42, 50, and 70 km range. However, I'd note that if the 70 km range is for an improved land-based variant, that does not indicate the ship based version use the improved range missile. As for HQ-10, it has been cited at 9km-10km range and ~6 km for intercepting fast-moving targets (incoming anti-ship missiles).

I think the original question was if the 054A or improved variants can accommodate 2 x HQ-10 systems. IMO an improved variant can be design-built to accommodate a HQ-10 launcher on top of the hanger structure (like the 052D), but it doesn't make sense to mount them to the side (limiting the firing arc) or front (taking valuable space from VLS).

Regardless, the HQ-16 and HQ-10 are defensive weapons vs. longer-ranged anti-ship missiles (except perhaps Exocet block 1's or similar). Adding more missiles will increase munitions but not intercept range capability. But the frigate is not an AAW ship so, we shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. IMO rather than improved AAW, I'd think it makes more sense to improve ASW capabilities for the 054A or its successor.

 

[escobar]

Search and rescue drills in W Pacific

 

[Engineer]

Rare glimpse inside a 054A frigate. (Part 1)

 

[Engineer]

Rare glimpse inside a 054A frigate. (Part 2)

Tags: China; 054A frigate; 054A interior; 054A inside; 054A machine room; 054A weapon control rooms;

 

[hmmwv]

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 was reported that the H/PJ12s installed on 052B costed RMB 100M (~USD 16M) I highly doubt HQ10 is that cheap.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Rare glimpse inside a 054A frigate. (Part 2)

Tags: China; 054A frigate; 054A interior; 054A inside; 054A machine room; 054A weapon control rooms;

I didn't know there are wooden doors on frigates! the only 'wooden' doors I've seen on naval ships are those in a captain or admiral's quarters. Those room don;t look like them to me! Isn;t it a major fire hazard? Those doors are more at home (no pun intended) in someone's house than it in in a warship.

 

[no_name]

Could be just steel door with wood looking finish, like this one here: