054/A FFG Thread II

[Biscuits]

Afaik the HQ-9X are designed to not just favor traditional positive missile traits but also payload.

Since the AAM can fly close to the surface, the chances of intercepting a sea slimmer further goes up if the missile has a large payload.

There is a merit to bringing a few HQ-9s since the could make the difference between successful intercept and destruction

 

[Jura The idiot]

I am using dynamite in a broad sense. Maybe the most appropriate word for which is "explosive".

Interstellar
you're posting baloney about "dynamite" in a VLS?!

But no matter what it is called, it shouldn't be compressed air.



...

you should perhaps tell the Russians:

the third paragraph in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the second paragraph in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Tam]

I am using dynamite in a broad sense. Maybe the most appropriate word for which is "explosive". But no matter what it is called, it shouldn't be compressed air.

What about compressed nitrogen bottle?

S-400's 40N6E missiles and 9M96E missiles in between.

 

[Tam]

Regarding "hot vs cold" launch,

What happens if the missile fails to fire its rockets in time during cold launch? In the 052C the VLS is angled and the missile would likely just fall into the ocean. But what about the VLS in the 052D and 055 (as well as several Russian systems)? The missile would fall back onto the ship. In hot launch, any missile ignition failure would mean the missile just sits in the VLS.

Like to know your thoughts on this.

The Russians stopped angling their cold launched VLS when they figured the probabilities of failure happening is too low to bother, based on historical record. The Chinese may also have arrived to the same conclusion. These also include land based examples.

 

[Tam]

I think this becomes more of a question about HHQ-16 then.

Either way I believe 054B should be designed with the ability to carry and launch LRSAMs of a certain number. Whether it is HHQ-9 or some kind of future advanced HHQ-16 variant is largely immaterial to me.

The reason I would prefer HHQ-9 is because I believe the HHQ-16s do not have a future beyond the 054As and ships upgraded with 054A's weapon and sensor suites. If they end up developing a much improved variant of HHQ-16 and integrating it on the U VLS then it could be an option.

But in that case the PLAN would basically have four tiers of naval VLS SAMs that can be fired from its UVLS, from smallest to largest:
- Future quad packed MR SAMs
- HHQ-16 family SAMs (MR to LR)
- HHQ-9 family SAMs (LR)
- HHQ-X family SAMs (VLR, SM-6+ class)

It's far from unreasonable, but I think it would be neater to take out the HHQ-16 category that straddles the MR and LR category.

The thing is, a missile the size and weight of the HHQ-16 --- 700kg class --- has the potential to serve a range from 40km to 160km. Assuming the missile length to be 5.2m to 5.5 meters, the VLS depth can be under 6m. This can allow you to put the VLS on smaller, tighter ships.

I don't think the radars on the 054B --- assuming the ones I previously discussed, a rotating single or dual faced S-band radar small enough to be put on top of the mast but the face much smaller than the Type 346's, then a set of small four faced X-band radars below it , analogous to SAMPSON on top and Thales APAR beneath --- are able to support SAM missile engagement in excess of 160km, and a range from 120 to 150km would be more like it. That won't be able to exercise HHQ-9B and beyond with excess of 200+ km range engagement. This however, still fits what a 700kg medium sized SAM can potentially do.

That is why for the high range stuff, you need the full Type 346X set which won't fit on a 054B.

 

[Blitzo]

The thing is, a missile the size and weight of the HHQ-16 --- 700kg class --- has the potential to serve a range from 40km to 160km. Assuming the missile length to be 5.2m to 5.5 meters, the VLS depth can be under 6m. This can allow you to put the VLS on smaller, tighter ships.

I don't think the radars on the 054B --- assuming the ones I previously discussed, a rotating single or dual faced S-band radar small enough to be put on top of the mast but the face much smaller than the Type 346's, then a set of small four faced X-band radars below it , analogous to SAMPSON on top and Thales APAR beneath --- are able to support SAM missile engagement in excess of 160km, and a range from 120 to 150km would be more like it. That won't be able to exercise HHQ-9B and beyond with excess of 200+ km range engagement. This however, still fits what a 700kg medium sized SAM can potentially do.

That is why for the high range stuff, you need the full Type 346X set which won't fit on a 054B.

I think an array half the size of Type 346A or similar in size to SAMPSON should be able to support SAM engagement in excess of 200km, after all it's not like Aster 30's engagement range is limited by SAMPSON rather than the missile itself.

Additionally, I don't think it is reasonable to come up with a whole new length of the UVLS to make the idea of further developing the HHQ-16 seem more attractive. I think if they had been planning such a length of the UVLS it would've been described as such from the outset and would've heard about it by now.


The way I see it, there are three engagement categories:
10-50 km: which in the future should be the domain of the quad pack MR SAM
50-200 km: which would be the domain of HHQ-9 variants
200-400+ km: the domain of the new VLRSAM


I believe frigates should have the ability to engage aerial targets of 200+km if required, though obviously the bulk of the aerial targets they engage would be with MR SAMs
I do not expect frigates to have the capability or requirement to engage targets greatly in excess of 200km, as that would come down to the large destroyers and destroyers.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I believe frigates should have the ability to engage aerial targets of 200+km if required

True area defence mostly is a destroyer domain.
If not by name, then by functionality and bill.

Imho, but GP/ASW combatant can and shall settle on more modest levels.

 

[Tam]

This was taken three years ago. Environmental activist ship the Steve Irwin encounters Chinese Navy Warship 571. You can hear 571 asks a question to the Steve Irwin in a female voice as the Steve Irwin tracks a Chinese vessel that was using drift nets and turns them in. The video errs in saying there are two Chinese warships, the silhouette on the video appears that of a US Navy LPD of the San Antonio class, and Chinese Navy Warship 571 might have been shadowing the LPD.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

This was taken three years ago. Environmental activist ship the Steve Irwin encounters Chinese Navy Warship 571. You can hear 571 asks a question to the Steve Irwin in a female voice as the Steve Irwin tracks a Chinese vessel that was using drift nets and turns them in. The video errs in saying there are two Chinese warships, the silhouette on the video appears that of a US Navy LPD of the San Antonio class, and Chinese Navy Warship 571 might have been shadowing the LPD.

To be frank, I did be betting 10 bucks that this is one sea altercation of which Japan is definitely rooting for China.LOL

 

[Deleted member 13312]

I think this becomes more of a question about HHQ-16 then.

Either way I believe 054B should be designed with the ability to carry and launch LRSAMs of a certain number. Whether it is HHQ-9 or some kind of future advanced HHQ-16 variant is largely immaterial to me.

The reason I would prefer HHQ-9 is because I believe the HHQ-16s do not have a future beyond the 054As and ships upgraded with 054A's weapon and sensor suites. If they end up developing a much improved variant of HHQ-16 and integrating it on the U VLS then it could be an option.

But in that case the PLAN would basically have four tiers of naval VLS SAMs that can be fired from its UVLS, from smallest to largest:
- Future quad packed MR SAMs
- HHQ-16 family SAMs (MR to LR)
- HHQ-9 family SAMs (LR)
- HHQ-X family SAMs (VLR, SM-6+ class)

It's far from unreasonable, but I think it would be neater to take out the HHQ-16 category that straddles the MR and LR category.

It is not impossible. There is good reason to believe that China will install the U VLS on damn near every ship that can take it. The main issue that I see with the HQ-16 is not the range but rather the number of missiles each ship can carry, it being a Cold War design. With newer missiles like the 9M96 which can be quad packed the only real advantage the HQ-16 will have would be its warhead weight.
Must the 054B have LR to VLR SAMs ? Certainly that did be an advantage but I did rate it as a plus rather than an absolute necessity given the role it is supposed to play. A more advance radar with the same search range as the Sea Eagle would make it a very effective AA ship already.