054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
Yesterday at 7:55 PM
: from 3 to whatever km operational range
so? so an SM-2 should be able to engage within ten (?) km, I guess
later I realized it could make sense to look up
: from 3 to whatever km operational range
so? so an SM-2 should be able to engage within ten (?) km, I guess
So now I am thinking, hypothetically, what if the next generation 054 frigate uses U-VLS instead? Of course the HHQ-16 can more than fit in, but the system of which how it will fit, is going to be based on the CCL (Concentric Canister Launcher) concept. The HHQ-16 canister would have to fit into a larger canister. Due to the hemispherical end cap, both canisters appear preferably cylindrical, which would be convenient for the current HHQ-16, this being the most simple CCL design. Do note that by going CCL, the VLS does need to be bigger in diameter than if it were hot launched, which is where the U-VLS steps in. Note that this does not mean that other CCL designs have to be cylindrical designs, or cylinder in cylinder, you have to be creative in designing the end cap so it would route the gas flow to any space between the missile inner canisters.
Nope. Terminal phase anti-ship missile interception is one of its jobs. Terminal phase of an anti-ship missile begins as early as the missile pops up from the horizon, and the seeker has line of sight with the target ship. Depending on height, could be within 30 to 50km of the target, which is also the range you can detect a target with a small radar cross section like a cruise missile, which is generally from 0.5m2 RCS and lower. Your CIWS comes to work from 9km and under, like RAM missiles etc,. Of course, you can also have ESSM as an option.
In size they are similar, but in range they are vastly different. The SM-2 is probably >3 times the range of the HHQ-16.
Highest figure for booster-less (600 kg weight) variant of sm-2 i found was 118 km of range. HQ16 is usually credited with 40-50 ranges. We know new russian buk-3 missiles are credited with 70 km range.
We also have this recent image of peculiar missile, possibly hq16c. Weight wise, there is no reason for it or some future variant of hq16 not to at least match highest sm-2 range. If electronics can be made smaller than in sm-2, which they very well could be since the said range was claimed for 1980s variant of the missile, there is no reason same or better autopilot using same or better trajectory and rocket motor being same size or larger could not achieve AT LEAST the same range.
But, as said, sm-2 was not the only self defense missile. sea sparrow was used for close defense, against incoming sea skimmers. If it wasn't more effective at those ranges, USN would not have put it in its VLS alongside sm-2.
Since we've no evidence of a smaller missile serving alongside hq16, it is plausible hq16 is designed to be as effective at intercepting missiles as it can be. But perhaps at a cost of other roles, possibly medium range anti aircraft role.
We also have this recent image of peculiar missile, possibly hq16c. Weight wise, there is no reason for it or some future variant of hq16 not to at least match highest sm-2 range. If electronics can be made smaller than in sm-2, which they very well could be since the said range was claimed for 1980s variant of the missile, there is no reason same or better autopilot using same or better trajectory and rocket motor being same size or larger could not achieve AT LEAST the same range.
But, as said, sm-2 was not the only self defense missile. sea sparrow was used for close defense, against incoming sea skimmers. If it wasn't more effective at those ranges, USN would not have put it in its VLS alongside sm-2.
Since we've no evidence of a smaller missile serving alongside hq16, it is plausible hq16 is designed to be as effective at intercepting missiles as it can be. But perhaps at a cost of other roles, possibly medium range anti aircraft role.
The SM-2MRIIIB is still boosterless and is credited with a range of ~170km.
As for the HHQ-16, it is certainly plausible that it has a lesser range due to far more mundane reasons, such as limitation of the FCR, less energetic fuel, less efficient motor, different flight profiles, or a combination of these.
As for the HHQ-16, it is certainly plausible that it has a lesser range due to far more mundane reasons, such as limitation of the FCR, less energetic fuel, less efficient motor, different flight profiles, or a combination of these.
DK-10A aka SD-50 has 50km range in its spec sheet. It weighs about 350kg, or half the HQ-16. The use of the expanded booster which also increased the diameter from .20m to .26m, also raised the weight of the SD-10A missile from 200kg to 350kg.
In any case, even if the HQ-16 missile itself can fly well over 100km in ballistic test flight mode, the MR90 Orekh radars only have a maximum range of 74km.
They cannot light targets further.
Another issue is that they don't seem to have some kind of data link (or at least the Russian Buk doesn't have it; who knows what the Chinese version has) to can guide the missile for mid phase guidance control from the surface. Rather, it relies on the FCR to intermittently shine the target, as it homes on the target rather directly, then the illumination becomes continuous when the missile is at terminal stage. As so it does not take the most optimally fuel efficient flight trajectory, but homes in on its target on the straightest way possible.
To eliminate these, the missile needs to develop mid phase command guidance + terminal active guidance.