054/A FFG Thread II

[Tam]

That design again. Is this a leak or suggestive to access of information to the real plans? If so, then the so called Type 057 design like the above may not have been accepted in the first place, which is why its slated for export.

If the integrated mast has this faceted golf ball thing, its likely to be a new S-band search radar, maybe AESA or PESA, but in a revolving base. The fixed face X-band AESA --- the same one from the Type 055 --- can be situated right beneath it. This is probably more sound than the Type 057 design which leaves me with questions. Putting the two CIWS fore and aft has better coverage than putting the CIWS amidships. There is a point in having two helicopters which means widening the stern. Probably looking for at least a 5000 ton displacement. The Type 052 Harbin has two helos for a 4800 to 5000 ton displacement. You can also put a 100mm or a 130mm gun as well, as that never stopped smaller ships from carrying such caliber, such as the Russian Project 20380 corvette.

I don't see the point of using U-VLS if the frigate doesn't have a shoot a land cruise missile requirement or use YJ-18. If it were to shoot YJ-18, maybe instead of using slanted canisters, I would dedicate an 8 cel U-VLS module, separately from a 32 cel H/AJK-16 VLS arrangement for the HQ-16. Why by the way, the HQ-16 requires X-band target illumination, which is unlike the HQ-9 that requires C-band. Hence an X-band AESA is a must, and in so doing, replaces the Orekhs and the Type 366 or Mineral ME like radar.

 

[Iron Man]

If the integrated mast has this faceted golf ball thing, its likely to be a new S-band search radar, maybe AESA or PESA, but in a revolving base. The fixed face X-band AESA --- the same one from the Type 055 --- can be situated right beneath it. This is probably more sound than the Type 057 design which leaves me with questions. Putting the two CIWS fore and aft has better coverage than putting the CIWS amidships. There is a point in having two helicopters which means widening the stern. Probably looking for at least a 5000 ton displacement. The Type 052 Harbin has two helos for a 4800 to 5000 ton displacement. You can also put a 100mm or a 130mm gun as well, as that never stopped smaller ships from carrying such caliber, such as the Russian Project 20380 corvette.

Not necessarily. A rotating dual-faced X-band AESA (e.g. Sampson MFR) could easily be put inside the "golf ball" mast, especially if the PLAN wants to save some money on this design.

I think the likely CIWS configuration for the 054B will be one 1130 and one 8-cell HHQ-10 launcher located fore and aft, i.e. not the configuration seen in this export model.

Two helicopters would make this ship a potent ASW platform, which is what basically everybody except this class to be, along with possibly local area defense of neighboring ships. I would actually be surprised if the new frigate class did NOT come with 2 hangars.

As for the 130mm gun, that monster of a gun looks out of place even on a 052D. I can't imagine that they would stick such a monstrosity on a 4-5,000t ship. I think it's far more likely that the 054B ends up with a standard 76mm main gun.

I don't see the point of using U-VLS if the frigate doesn't have a shoot a land cruise missile requirement or use YJ-18. If it were to shoot YJ-18, maybe instead of using slanted canisters, I would dedicate an 8 cel U-VLS module, separately from a 32 cel H/AJK-16 VLS arrangement for the HQ-16. Why by the way, the HQ-16 requires X-band target illumination, which is unlike the HQ-9 that requires C-band. Hence an X-band AESA is a must, and in so doing, replaces the Orekhs and the Type 366 or Mineral ME like radar.

A 054B that ends up with a 32-cell H/AJK-16 would be an absolute travesty. We already know that the 054A is packing some "Yu-8" VLA-type missiles, which means that each cell that holds a Yu-8 results in one less HHQ-16 for air defense. So at best we are talking about a 054A that holds 28 HHQ-16s, and maybe a worst-case scenario of 24 HHQ-16s. Which is a fairly shabby AAW loadout for a 4,000t ship IMO, to speak nothing of an updated frigate design. By comparison a single 8-cell Mk-41 module on a modified OHP already holds 32 quad-packed ESSMs. That's just one module. It is almost certain that the HHQ-16 cannot be quad-packed into an H/AJK-16 cell, which means that for a 054B to truly express its potential it will not only need UVLS, it will need a quad-packable MRSAM. And of course an X-band AESA that can control multiple MRSAM engagements in multiple quadrants. A 32-cell UVLS could pack (e.g.) 48 MRSAMs, 12 Yu-8s, and 8 YJ-18s (or 64/8/8, or whatever), with no need for slant launchers. Though I think we would need to see a stepped foredeck in order for the 054B to accommodate the 9m length UVLS tubes needed to house the YJ-18 in the B position. That or a UVLS bank located amidships. In my estimation a 054B that uses 48 H/AJK-16 cells would probably take up more volume that one that uses 32 UVLS cells, so this option seems less than optimal as well. I've been playing around with the UVLS some more, and I think it might be possible to quad-pack the HHQ-16 into a UVLS cell, though admittedly I do not know with any certainty either the diameter of the HHQ-16 or the size of the four strakes along the length of the missile body. If not, it is at least much more likely to be able to tri-pack into a UVLS cell. That or quad-pack but cold-launch.

 

[Tam]

The HQ-16 might have a diameter around .35m which is about the same as the Standard's. We don't expect both to be quad packed into a Mk 41 sized cel (.65m). Though when you get to the U-VLS at .85m, it just might. For that reason I generally think the H/AJK-16 might be around roughly the same diameter as the Mk. 41. However the Buk might be around .4m, and if the HQ-16 is a near copy of that, it may share this diameter, and correspondingly the H/AJK-16 might have an equal to bigger diameter over the Mk. 41 to accommodate the wings.

The ESSM has a diameter around .25m, the other quad packing missile, the 9M96 family, is around .24m. The PLAN does not have short to midrange SAMs of this category, unless you can navalize the PL-12 (DK-18?). I cannot find diameters for that, but if the R-77 is used as a base comparison, the R-77 has a diameter around .20m. I would think that if a short to midrange SAM exists in this category for the PLAN, even the H/AJK-16 can be capable of quad packing it. One thought is that there is this VLRAAM being tested by the PLAAF, a naval version even fired from the surface can still generate some hefty range and still be potentially quad packable. This missile appears to be quite long so the limitation might be on the cel's depth or length.

 

[Iron Man]

The HQ-16 might have a diameter around .35m which is about the same as the Standard's. We don't expect both to be quad packed into a Mk 41 sized cel (.65m). Though when you get to the U-VLS at .85m, it just might. For that reason I generally think the H/AJK-16 might be around roughly the same diameter as the Mk. 41. However the Buk might be around .4m, and if the HQ-16 is a near copy of that, it may share this diameter, and correspondingly the H/AJK-16 might have an equal to bigger diameter over the Mk. 41 to accommodate the wings.

The ESSM has a diameter around .25m, the other quad packing missile, the 9M96 family, is around .24m. The PLAN does not have short to midrange SAMs of this category, unless you can navalize the PL-12 (DK-18?). I cannot find diameters for that, but if the R-77 is used as a base comparison, the R-77 has a diameter around .20m. I would think that if a short to midrange SAM exists in this category for the PLAN, even the H/AJK-16 can be capable of quad packing it. One thought is that there is this VLRAAM being tested by the PLAAF, a naval version even fired from the surface can still generate some hefty range and still be potentially quad packable. This missile appears to be quite long so the limitation might be on the cel's depth or length.

Unfortunately we have no information on the dimensions of the H/AJK-16 module. It looks roughly the same size as a Mk 41 module. But given that we also don't know the dimensions of the DK-10A or whether a navalized VL version of this missile even exists, it becomes speculation compounded upon speculation to guess whether a navalized DK-10A could be quad-packed into an H/AJK-16 VL cell. It would be very interesting if it could, though. Instant force-multiplier for 054As when they come in for a mid-life refit. A ship that comes into refit carrying 24 HHQ-16s and 8 Yu-8s would be able to leave drydock carrying 64 DK-10As and 16 Yu-8s.

 

[Klon]

so what improvements on new gen EW? ... and which one is the new one, left or right picture?

New one on the right.

 

[KIENCHIN]

delete

 

[Totoro]

I'd yu8 is anything like asroc in dimensions, it too could be theoretically multipacked in uvls. If hot launched, 3 might be able to fit per cell.

 

[Lethe]

It would be very interesting if it could, though. Instant force-multiplier for 054As when they come in for a mid-life refit. A ship that comes into refit carrying 24 HHQ-16s and 8 Yu-8s would be able to leave drydock carrying 64 DK-10As and 16 Yu-8s.

Or the technologies employed in the DK-10A could be applied to create a new HHQ-16 model with improved performance, and a mix of the two missiles employed.

 

[Iron Man]

Or the technologies employed in the DK-10A could be applied to create a new HHQ-16 model with improved performance, and a mix of the two missiles employed.

This could happen. OTOH a new HHQ-16 model would still not be able to quad-pack into an H/AJK-16 cell without dramatic physical changes, which would essentially turn it into a new missile. The point of my speculation is mainly about quad-packing and less about the actual capabilities of either missile.

 

[Tam]

One question about U-VLS is those things have a 9m depth, at least probably for the Type 052D and Type 055 they might. If H/AJK-16 is like Mk. 41 it probably only is about 7m in depth, which is good enough to hold a 5 meter missile like the HQ-16. I assume that's close to its length based on Buk dimensions. The 9m length can be an issue on a frigate, though they are able to fit a limited number of UKSK on Russian corvettes and frigates.

What I heard is that U-VLS is planned to be for 3.3m, 7m and 9m in length. The other two implies they might plan on using U-VLS in future smaller ships. 7m I can understand and that length might be intended for frigate use but I am not exactly sure what can fit within 3.3m.