054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
The Tor is the only missile at 2.9m that could fit into a 3.3m UVLS cell, and I couldn't imagine it not being quad-packed into such a cell. I suppose the HHQ-10 could fit in as well, with even more multi-packing. The 7m UVLS cell could easily fit HHQ-9, HHQ-16, DK-10A, and Yu-8. Incidentally I feel uncomfortable every time I use the designation "Yu-8" as this designation likely references the torpedo payload of the ASW missile and not the ASW missile itself; maybe Yu-8 is the payload for one of the CY-series of ASW missiles. In any case the 3.3m version is probably geared towards export (assuming this version even exists outside of a company brochure). The 7m version may be intended for export and for future frigates like the 054B, though as I mentioned before it may be possible for a 9m length UVLS to fit onto a 054B under the right circumstances, i.e. a stepped B position or amidships where there is more depth.
they'd be crazy not to be developing a brand new missile for the 3.3 m long variant. actually, it would be crazy if development of UVLS system was separated from development of new generation missiles. Ideally, PLAN would say: we want missiles with this kind of performance. Then the makers would say they have designs with specific dimensions. Then PLAN would pay for development of UVLS that can use missiles with those dimensions. So the very idea that there is a 3,3 m long UVLS variant should, in a normal world, suggest there is a very specific missile in the development pipeline which will be fully using that cell. So I'm expecting to see something akin to CAMM/Sea ceptor in the coming years.
All that being said, UVLS is still lacking a medium length module, one that's 5 or 5,5 m long. To house both the yu8 rocket assisted torpedo and a possible new (a bit shorter?) hq16 variant or a new missile in that class. Or just DK10.
All that being said, UVLS is still lacking a medium length module, one that's 5 or 5,5 m long. To house both the yu8 rocket assisted torpedo and a possible new (a bit shorter?) hq16 variant or a new missile in that class. Or just DK10.
There is no evidence that this UVLS variant exists in real life, nor is there any PLAN requirement for such a length as far as anyone knows. The PLAN seems wholly committed to the HHQ-10, and in the form of a revolving launcher rather than a VLS. Any missile that would fit into a 3.3m length cell is a missile that would have an overlapping range and role with the HHQ-10. And I don't think the PLAN would accept a missile in a VLS with a range that's actually less than an HHQ-16 at this point. As for a hypothetical 5m version, frigate-sized vessels could almost certainly already fit the 7m version, so there doesn't seem to be any place for that variant either, at least within the PLAN.
HHQ10 is a close in weapon system with reach of, at best, 10 km. A speedier and wider missile, one that fully utilizes the alleged 3.3 meter long VLS, could very well reach up to 25 km, just like CAMM does. While some overlap exists, it really is a different class weapon.
Current H/AJK16 vls seems to have cells just over 5 meters in length. That's an assumption based on HQ16 length. missile carrying Yu8 is probably a bit shorter or of similar length (again, based on 4.5 meter long VL ASROC) So, both for modernization of all ships using H/AJK16 and for some notional 054b that is to be devised with minimal changes to 054a design, a 5-ish meter UVLS variant would be a prudent choice. And I can't possibly imagine it'd be expensive to develop it, considering most work has already been done. Furthermore, DK10, also being 5 meters long, could be quadpacked without issue in such a VLS. So those ships that have it, could really have quite an universal system.
Only hiccup would be possible need to cram an antiship missile into VLS, for 054b. Right now one needs the 9m long variant for that. Though if a smaller weapon is also devised, 7m variant should suffice. LRSAM kind of missile wouldn't be a bad addition to YJ18... It could also be carried by planes. JH7 especially is increasingly in need of a more modern antiship missile, and YJ12 is too big for it.
Current H/AJK16 vls seems to have cells just over 5 meters in length. That's an assumption based on HQ16 length. missile carrying Yu8 is probably a bit shorter or of similar length (again, based on 4.5 meter long VL ASROC) So, both for modernization of all ships using H/AJK16 and for some notional 054b that is to be devised with minimal changes to 054a design, a 5-ish meter UVLS variant would be a prudent choice. And I can't possibly imagine it'd be expensive to develop it, considering most work has already been done. Furthermore, DK10, also being 5 meters long, could be quadpacked without issue in such a VLS. So those ships that have it, could really have quite an universal system.
Only hiccup would be possible need to cram an antiship missile into VLS, for 054b. Right now one needs the 9m long variant for that. Though if a smaller weapon is also devised, 7m variant should suffice. LRSAM kind of missile wouldn't be a bad addition to YJ18... It could also be carried by planes. JH7 especially is increasingly in need of a more modern antiship missile, and YJ12 is too big for it.
I fail to see where in the PLAN fleet structure such a new missile would be useful. Unless you're also advocating some kind of super-corvette like Victor Jav, which would be similarly useless in the PLAN ORBAT.
There is no ship that can fit the H/AJK-16 that could also fit the UVLS on a 1:1 basis. You would certainly have to downgrade the number of VL cells by half when transitioning from H/AJK-16 to UVLS, such as in a 054A. Also, I'm going to guess that the cost of such a replacement is not worth the gains, what little there would be. Far better would be to upgrade the missiles themselves, either with a longer-range HHQ-16 or a quad-packable missile like the DK-10A. Even if this missile could not quad-pack inside an H/AJK-16 cell it would still represent a significant upgrade to the HHQ-16 with its presumed active terminal seeker.
Right, I expect the 054B to use the 7m variant of the UVLS, not a hypothetical 5.5m variant.
The 3.3m length came from this document.
I was thinking if there ever was a possibility of a mistype on the 3300mm length, that it might be 5300mm in length. The shortest version of the MK. 41 happens to be 5300mm in length. Just speculating on a possibility, since 5300mm length sounds not just more sense, it matches the Mk. 41, whose other lengths are 6800mm and 7700mm.
Mechanically I am wondering if there is any advantage of shifting over to U-VLS from H/AJK-16. The potential advantages of U-VLS is that it removes need for a central venting system, so the space above where you have between the VLS for venting can be eliminated. The construction of the VLS can be simpler, that it could even reduce space and weight on the bottom, and the use of cold launches and disposable concentric canisters can reduce the wear on the VLS. The potential disadvantage is that the missile may have less acceleration as it leaves off the tube, but that doesn't seem to stop the Russians using VLS even on point blank short ranged SAMs. This video of the HHQ-9 doesn't point to any impediment of using cold launch against closer targets.
Whereas the Chinese made the HQ-16 a hot launch, the Russians made their VLS launched Shtil-1 (9M-317) as cold launched, and both are derived from the same Buk missile system. I am not saying that the Chinese need to make future HHQ-16 versions cold launched, just pointing out that its entirely in the realm of technical possibility. The U-VLS should still be able to hot launch HHQ-16 using a concentric canister for the missile.
I won't disagree that 9m length VLS can be fitted on corvettes and frigates. The UKSK VLS needs to be of that length in order to hold Kalibr and Onyx missiles, and that's what fitted on this frigate above as well as Russian corvettes. If you truly need to save space on the bottom, one can set up the 7 meter U-VLS in the 32 cel configuration in the front for use with SAMs and Yu-8, then 8 cels with 9 meter lengths at the middle of the ship for YJ-18. Should note that the Russians hot launch the Kalibr missiles off the UKSK, just as the YJ-18 is hot launched off the U-VLS.
I was thinking if there ever was a possibility of a mistype on the 3300mm length, that it might be 5300mm in length. The shortest version of the MK. 41 happens to be 5300mm in length. Just speculating on a possibility, since 5300mm length sounds not just more sense, it matches the Mk. 41, whose other lengths are 6800mm and 7700mm.
Mechanically I am wondering if there is any advantage of shifting over to U-VLS from H/AJK-16. The potential advantages of U-VLS is that it removes need for a central venting system, so the space above where you have between the VLS for venting can be eliminated. The construction of the VLS can be simpler, that it could even reduce space and weight on the bottom, and the use of cold launches and disposable concentric canisters can reduce the wear on the VLS. The potential disadvantage is that the missile may have less acceleration as it leaves off the tube, but that doesn't seem to stop the Russians using VLS even on point blank short ranged SAMs. This video of the HHQ-9 doesn't point to any impediment of using cold launch against closer targets.
Whereas the Chinese made the HQ-16 a hot launch, the Russians made their VLS launched Shtil-1 (9M-317) as cold launched, and both are derived from the same Buk missile system. I am not saying that the Chinese need to make future HHQ-16 versions cold launched, just pointing out that its entirely in the realm of technical possibility. The U-VLS should still be able to hot launch HHQ-16 using a concentric canister for the missile.
I won't disagree that 9m length VLS can be fitted on corvettes and frigates. The UKSK VLS needs to be of that length in order to hold Kalibr and Onyx missiles, and that's what fitted on this frigate above as well as Russian corvettes. If you truly need to save space on the bottom, one can set up the 7 meter U-VLS in the 32 cel configuration in the front for use with SAMs and Yu-8, then 8 cels with 9 meter lengths at the middle of the ship for YJ-18. Should note that the Russians hot launch the Kalibr missiles off the UKSK, just as the YJ-18 is hot launched off the U-VLS.
Front VLS well of 054a as measured on Google earth, seems enough to house 3 UVLS 8-cell modules, give or take a few inches. *IF* doable, that'd be a drop from 32 cells to 24, but potentially an increase of short/medium range anti air and ASW rockets by a factor of 2-3. (arrangement would have to be 2 modules longitudinally and one module perpendicular)
Peculiarly, width of two UVLS complete with supporting construction around them seems to be more or less equal to width of two H/AJK16 with the same. I guess that common exhaust on HAJK16 does take quite a bit of space after all.
Peculiarly, width of two UVLS complete with supporting construction around them seems to be more or less equal to width of two H/AJK16 with the same. I guess that common exhaust on HAJK16 does take quite a bit of space after all.
I am looking what a hypothetical 054A refit would be in the future.
The first obstacle or the first thing that must be done is to access the power requirements of the upgrades versus the power supply generated by the ship. The reservoir of electricity can determine the extent possible of the upgrade, and the lack of it can even kill the idea unless the power generation is also upgraded as well.
I think the VLS will be retained as well as much of the ship. The upgraded will be centered replacing the current mast with an integrated mast. The integrated mast will have four fixed panels of X band AESA, necessary for tracking and target illumination for the HHQ-16. The X band will also replace the following current radars on the Type 054A: the Type 347G radar for the gunnery; the Type 366 radar for surface search, track and ASM fire control, and the Orekhs used for target illumination and which appears to have some tracking purposes as well. The Orekhs are the biggest bottleneck to the previous system; each appears to have two channels for missile control and can track two targets within the same hemisphere, and with two at each side, will only allow for four targets engaged with one missile each or two targets engaged with two missiles each. Furthermore, the illuminators appear to have a slant range of around 70 to 74 km, which means that anymore ballistic improvement on the HHQ-16's flight performance is totally useless when the illuminating beam can't reach any further.
After that, there is the question of an S or C band radar that can be utilized as a supplementary for air and sea search with track. There hasn't been a new design revealed that will be SAMPSON or Kronos like, or if the PLAN may cheap out instead and use a Type 360 family radar (Type 363 or 364), or even the Type 382 Top plate. The C or S band can have two possible locations, one on the top of the main mast, and if not, on top of the second mast near the funnel. More on the new generation S band later.
Then depending where the S or C band is located, the ECM/ECCM tower can either be located on top of the mast or on the second mast near the funnel.
The new rack frames on the Type 051B upgrade gives us a clue how the ASM fit on the Type 054A refit might appear. However, due to the increased size and weight of the YJ-18s, the complement of ASMs will be down from 8 to 4. I do think these racks will still allow the option of installing YJ-83s and Yu-8s in their original number.
On the new generation frigate scaled AESA S-band, I was thinking of using the face of the Type 346 SAPAR, with either single faced, ala Kronos, or dual faced, ala SAMPSON. The unit rotates, and is enclosed inside a spherical radome. One other alternative is a naval version of the Type 305A acquisition radar. If this might be a bit big to put on top of the primary mast, then maybe on the secondary mast, in a layout similar to the APAR/SMART-L relationship on the Sachsen class frigates.
The first obstacle or the first thing that must be done is to access the power requirements of the upgrades versus the power supply generated by the ship. The reservoir of electricity can determine the extent possible of the upgrade, and the lack of it can even kill the idea unless the power generation is also upgraded as well.
I think the VLS will be retained as well as much of the ship. The upgraded will be centered replacing the current mast with an integrated mast. The integrated mast will have four fixed panels of X band AESA, necessary for tracking and target illumination for the HHQ-16. The X band will also replace the following current radars on the Type 054A: the Type 347G radar for the gunnery; the Type 366 radar for surface search, track and ASM fire control, and the Orekhs used for target illumination and which appears to have some tracking purposes as well. The Orekhs are the biggest bottleneck to the previous system; each appears to have two channels for missile control and can track two targets within the same hemisphere, and with two at each side, will only allow for four targets engaged with one missile each or two targets engaged with two missiles each. Furthermore, the illuminators appear to have a slant range of around 70 to 74 km, which means that anymore ballistic improvement on the HHQ-16's flight performance is totally useless when the illuminating beam can't reach any further.
After that, there is the question of an S or C band radar that can be utilized as a supplementary for air and sea search with track. There hasn't been a new design revealed that will be SAMPSON or Kronos like, or if the PLAN may cheap out instead and use a Type 360 family radar (Type 363 or 364), or even the Type 382 Top plate. The C or S band can have two possible locations, one on the top of the main mast, and if not, on top of the second mast near the funnel. More on the new generation S band later.
Then depending where the S or C band is located, the ECM/ECCM tower can either be located on top of the mast or on the second mast near the funnel.
The new rack frames on the Type 051B upgrade gives us a clue how the ASM fit on the Type 054A refit might appear. However, due to the increased size and weight of the YJ-18s, the complement of ASMs will be down from 8 to 4. I do think these racks will still allow the option of installing YJ-83s and Yu-8s in their original number.
On the new generation frigate scaled AESA S-band, I was thinking of using the face of the Type 346 SAPAR, with either single faced, ala Kronos, or dual faced, ala SAMPSON. The unit rotates, and is enclosed inside a spherical radome. One other alternative is a naval version of the Type 305A acquisition radar. If this might be a bit big to put on top of the primary mast, then maybe on the secondary mast, in a layout similar to the APAR/SMART-L relationship on the Sachsen class frigates.
On wondering if the HQ-9 can integrate with a 054A Refit or 054B with hypothetical U-VLS, each HQ-9 missile has a diameter of around .45m and a length of 6.8m. This could fit on the shortened 7m version of the U-VLS though the actual VLS should be longer than its 7m cel to fit the compressed gas underneath the cel. Of if we assume that the canister needs to contain the compressed gas at the bottom, the canister would have to be longer than 7m and would fit in the 9m cel.
To support the HQ-9's terminal guidance, C band support would be needed and that can only take place as small, fixed faced panels on the integrated mast. This can be arranged like:
Single or Dual faced S band, likely octagon shaped, a downscaled version of the Type 346, set on a rotating mount, with a protective radome. (Long Range Search and Track).
Below it, on the integrated mast,
Four fixed faced C band array (Search, Track, HQ-9 terminal guidance) then
Four fixed faced X band array (Low surface sea skimmer and ship Search, Track, HQ-16 terminal guidance, gunnery support, ASM support).
Not coincidentally, this layout supports that 3D CG design posted previously.
To support the HQ-9's terminal guidance, C band support would be needed and that can only take place as small, fixed faced panels on the integrated mast. This can be arranged like:
Single or Dual faced S band, likely octagon shaped, a downscaled version of the Type 346, set on a rotating mount, with a protective radome. (Long Range Search and Track).
Below it, on the integrated mast,
Four fixed faced C band array (Search, Track, HQ-9 terminal guidance) then
Four fixed faced X band array (Low surface sea skimmer and ship Search, Track, HQ-16 terminal guidance, gunnery support, ASM support).
Not coincidentally, this layout supports that 3D CG design posted previously.