Jura The idiot
General
here's the most recent ... development:
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc. Yesterday at 8:26 PM
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc. Yesterday at 8:26 PM
Blackstone
Brigadier
It seems Russia isn't looking to build ships larger then 6,000-7,000 tons, as a Jamestown article claims. It also lists problems causing delays in their FFG production. Which gets back to my original question, what came of Russia's supposed interest in the 054A to supplement their own frigate production?
Lethe
Captain
I doubt there was ever any serious prospect of Russia ordering 054As given the impending availability of domestically comparable platforms. The far more precarious state of Russian domestic suppliers means that Russia cannot afford the luxury of importing foreign equipment for less than highly compelling reasons. If domestic industry can do it, then domestic industry must do it.
That does not mean that there is zero opportunity for Russia to buy platforms or subsystems from China in future. I think Russia should keep an open mind about this and evaluate each proposal on its merits. But we must acknowledge that for strategic-industrial reasons it is much more difficult for Russia, as the smaller nation, to buy from China than it is for China to buy from Russia, and that opportunities for win-win cooperation in this direction will therefore be limited.
That does not mean that there is zero opportunity for Russia to buy platforms or subsystems from China in future. I think Russia should keep an open mind about this and evaluate each proposal on its merits. But we must acknowledge that for strategic-industrial reasons it is much more difficult for Russia, as the smaller nation, to buy from China than it is for China to buy from Russia, and that opportunities for win-win cooperation in this direction will therefore be limited.
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
What is known about HHQ-16 as fitted to 054A?
Most sources indicate that it is a variant of either the Russian 9M38 or 9M317 missiles and place its weight in the range of 600-700kg.
The only variation on this that I have encountered is GlobalSecurity.org which claims that HHQ-16 weighs only 165kg.
The former seems far more likely, yet one is then left with the question of why a missile that bears far more resemblance to SM-2 (750kg) than it does ESSM (280kg) apparently has performance characteristics that more closely resemble the latter, i.e. range of 40-50km.
Most sources indicate that it is a variant of either the Russian 9M38 or 9M317 missiles and place its weight in the range of 600-700kg.
The only variation on this that I have encountered is GlobalSecurity.org which claims that HHQ-16 weighs only 165kg.
The former seems far more likely, yet one is then left with the question of why a missile that bears far more resemblance to SM-2 (750kg) than it does ESSM (280kg) apparently has performance characteristics that more closely resemble the latter, i.e. range of 40-50km.
Last edited:
I believe the missile's weight is similar if not identical to the export LY-80 which is listed as 690kg
As for its range, well range (assuming they are against a common type of target) is a function of many things, not only size. The quality of its propellant, the flight profile/control it uses, the sort of seeker and capability of the seeker it has are all big factors.
I wouldn't be surprised if the HHQ-16 missile itself is substantially cheaper than SM-2 and maybe even ESSM and that it was a conscious decision to develop a missile using subsystems that were probably relatively inexpensive but which resulted in a larger missile. In the end you get what you pay for.
Of course, the relatively large size of HHQ-16 means it has a lot of room for growth in the airframe itself. A newer variant of HQ-16 sometimes called HQ-16B seems to be adopted on land said to have a longer range of 70km, so I wouldn't be surprised if 054As are fielding a naval variant of it as well.
Factors like specific impulse of the rocket motor and payload weight (warhead + seeker) have a huge impact on missile weight. If we look at the SA-2 it weights a whopping 2300 kg and still performs probably worse than an ESSM.
Lethe
Captain
I could understand the discrepancy being a function of significant technological inferiority, as the best that Russia (and therefore China) could do at the time, but the notion of such inferiority being a deliberate choice in order to reduce the cost of the weapon is one I find rather implausible.
Even if it were actually cheaper to produce a large missile with X range than a smaller one (which I have doubts about in the first place), I expect any such benefits would be overwhelmed by logistical considerations. Both land vehicles and warships have weight and volume constraints. If capabilities are the same, a smaller missile would allow for a given launch vehicle or ship to carry more of them, both directly increasing the effectiveness of the platform and reducing the need for supply vehicles carrying reloads.
If the figures given for HHQ-16 are correct (and they seem reasonable in light of specifications for Russian Buk system and 054A's VLS compatibility with Yu-8) then it weighs 50% more than Aster 30 yet is credited with less than half the range. Either the technology gap between HHQ-16 and its western contemporaries is enormous, or there is something else going on here.
The 9M38 missile is said to have a 70kg warhead which is significantly larger than the 40kg warhead on ESSM, but I find it difficult to imagine that this could account for even half of the discrepancy between the two weapons.
Last edited: