054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
The equivalent of the S-band portion, which is the lower array, of Zaslon on the 055 and 052D would be the main Type 346A/B itself in terms of function. That will be your main air volume search radar. The difference is the scale. Type 346A/B is so big they require a deckhouse to house them, probably at least 11 tons in collective weight. Zaslon (S-band) is small enough it can be housed within an integrated mast. This is being this is a corvette-frigate scale radar.
The X-band portion of Zaslon, which is the slightly smaller upper radar, is the equivalent of the X-band four faced set on the integrated mast of the 055. No direct equivalent to the 052C/D, other than the collective use of the Type 344 and Type 366 fire control radars. However, the Zaslon X-band may also be used to help track targets at a finer fidelity than the S-band, which the 052C/D doesn't have an equivalent, but is likely done by the X-band set on the 055. This is more akin to the tracking functions or performance of Thales APAR. This does not include missile illumination however, since the Redut SAMs the corvette fires are all already actively as in autonomously self guided at terminal stage. The Zaslon X-band is feeding the datalink to these missiles.
So Zaslon consists of both this S and X-band components, and work as a dual band radar. The mast is topped with the Furke-1, an S-band radar which is used to scan the surface radar horizon for sea skimmers, which is akin to the Type 364 on the 052C/D. On the 055, surface scanning of the radar horizon is done on the X-band radar and possibly by a smaller radar on top of it, assuming that smaller panel is a radar at all (it may be ESM). On the 055, the ship uses its highest position, which is that kebob looking stick sticking out of the integrated mast pyramid, as ESM, meaning it detects threats by the threat radar, like the active radar guidance of the antiship missile as it tries to sneak up from the edge of the radar horizon. There are also ESM components on the integrated mast of the Project 20385 ship.
So the mast in the Project 20385 corvette is a fully integrated one; the integrated mast on the 055 is only partially integrated since the main air volume search radars are on the deckhouse, and not all the secondary radars and IFF on the 055 ship are consolidated in the mast.
I probably should have explained better. The VLS for the ASMs are separate and not counted with the 32 VLS for the SAMs. So it should be 32 VLS for SAMs + 8 or 16 VLS for ASMs.
But is 32 VLS of HQ-9s too meaty for a frigate? The Gorshkov uses two sets of VLS. One set of VLS, which is a different and smaller design, is used exclusively for the Redut missiles, and then a set of bigger UKSK VLS is for the Kalibrs. If you really want to do this, its possible to use different kinds of VLS in one ship. The Admiral Grigorovich class also uses a dedicated VLS for the Shtil missiles, which are cousins to the HQ-16, and then a separate VLS for the UKSK. LIke wise the ships of Project 20385 which uses 16 cells specially for Redut, and 8 VLS cells of UKSK for the Kalibr missiles. This goes back to the Slavas and the Kirov cruisers, where they have VLS for the S-300 missiles, but they also have a separate VLS for short range and point defense missiles.
If you want to go with this method, you can have a 32 VLS of AJK-16 for HQ-16 missiles, and behind it, a set of 8 U-VLS for YJ-18.
At this point, its not about predicting technical possibilities, all of them are possible, its trying to predict the mindset of the ship designers and PLAN admirals as to what they may prefer. I am trying to think the PLAN is trying to standardize or homogenize on a single VLS like the USN, based on the U-VLS, and that's why the U stands for Universal, and not go with multiple different VLS designs as the Russians did.
I would like to think I would prefer to use the HQ-9 even on frigates as it allows a long range hand off of the missile to 055s and 052Ds in a cooperative fashion.
So I am thinking, 32 U-VLS at 7 meters deep for the HQ-9, and another 8 to 16 U-VLS at 9 meters deep for the YJ-18. Another configuation is the 32 VLS of U-VLS for the HQ-9 and 8 slanted canister launchers for YJ-12. However I think the PLAN in my opinion might want to consolidate on the YJ-18, and it would be easier to standardize later on a future VLS launched antiship missile. Using YJ-18, its also easier to allow hand off of YJ-18 to 055 and 052D.
So 054B (or 057 if it uses gas turbine) should be built around supporting, standardizing, and integrating with 055 and 052D.
I don't think the PLAN is dead set on getting a universal VLS for all it's ship types. AJK-16 is not a bad VLS. In my opinion, I think the US simply do not have a dedicated large ASW/ASuW frigate as Russia or the UK in its arsenal because it does not fit the USN's doctrine and need. It is in NO way an indication that a dedicated large ASW/ASuW ship ought to have a universal ULS in order to be adequately effective. In fact, the Gorshkov as well as the Type 26 of the RN are both evidence that two different ULS system could work fine together on one ship.
I also think that the further development of the Gorshkov is not an indication that the current ship (5,000 ton, with 32 Redut and 16 UKSK) itself is inadequate. I think the Russians want a bigger ship with more missiles, because they don't currently have such kind of modern ships in their arsenal. And they chose to build an enlarged Gorshkov because they don't have other design ready to be built. The PLAN, on the other hand, has a lot of 052D/DLs and more is coming.
I think the PLAN should stick with an enlarged and modernized 054A, with 32 AJK-16 and 16 U-VLS, but have a double hanger for two Z-20's. This would be nice, because China would be able to build a lot of these very fast. The number game is much more important here for ASW. Although they could add another 8 U-VLS.
Last edited:
They named it universal and that might be their intention. Granted, its a waste of space if you are going to use a YU-8 in a U-VLS as the VLS is way oversized for it. But the U-VLS may allow for a larger and longer ranged ASROC in the future. Perhaps like the YU-11 modified for VLS launch. Similar to the Russian Klub or Kalibr family line, you can create an ASROC variant using the YJ-18 "carrier", which is the cruise missile part of the missile. But instead of putting a rocket powered antiship missile on the second stage, you use an airborne torpedo instead.
I think AJK-16 limits options for a future frigate. In terms of dimensions I think its very similar to the Mk. 41 but is much shorter, the length of the VLS is sufficiently only to clear the length of the HQ-16. I am guessing at the most 5.5 meters, which makes it like the self defense version of the Mk. 41 which is only at 5.3 meters. The Mk. 41 used to launch Tomahawks is 6.8 meters and the one for launching SM-3 is about 7.7 meters. I am guessing 5.5 meters plus for the AJK-16, because that is the height of the Shtil missile, and if you remember the midlike refit upgrade on the Sov 138 Hanzhou, they fit the AJK-16 module directly right into the Shtil missile hold of the Sov. In the Sov, the Shtil missiles are stored upright, tip facing the top, and the arm launcher pulls them out of the cache.
If China is developing a quad pack MRSAM fo the U-VLS, it would be double work to try to fit that into the AJK-16. Not saying that it cannot be done, but what may quadpack into the U-VLS may not quad pack into the AJK-16 if the AJK-16's tube diameter is close to that of the Mk. 41, assuming the AJK-16 is trying to clone off from the Mk. 41. If such a missile is introduced for the 052D and 055, you will get into a problem for the frigate that isn't U-VLS equipped. Same like if there is any future ASROC developed for the U-VLS on the 052D and 055, like a YJ-18 based ASROC like I described earlier, the frigate will be cut out from its potential use and its future usefulness for the fleet if you don't use the U-VLS.
If they want to keep the weight more or less the same, then they could do what they did with 052c to 052d, keeping the vls systems in fore section(albeit changing to UVLS) and replacing slant missile canisters with UVLS.
I think trying to replace those Ajk16 with equal number of uvls in fore section will be hard, the size difference is too great. So its either 32 of ajk or 16 of uvls.
To preserve some commonality, this would mean 32 Ajk16(fore) + 16 UVLS(aft replacing 2x4 yj83)
It may not be that big of a difference as A/JK-16 still has a middle plenum or channel that is used to vent the exhaust gases out. U-VLS doesn't need this channel which reduces its space requirements.
This tweet is so timely convenient to illustrate this.
It would be difficult and costly to develop missiles to fit different VLS systems. Its better to have a universal standard, and the missile designers will design their missiles around that standard. Having U-VLS on the frigate is an investment to their future. The A/JK-16 is already a straight jacket.
Last edited:
Well, if the U-VLS route goes forward like you say, it would mean that AJK-16 becomes obsolete, as there will certainly be a mid-range anti-air missile developed for the U-VLS platform. This is what I have problem with. Because there's nothing wrong with AJK-16. AJK-16 is a perfectly good system for an ASW frigate around the 3000-5000 ton size. Because we are dealing with a large navy like the PLAN, we can get away with the approach of building more specialized ships, instead of well-rounded ships. I still believe that 054A itself is an adequately effective platform. In my opinion, its shortcomings is not so much the VLS system, but the electronics, radars, command and control, propulsion system and helicopter facilities. I think retaining the AJK-16 is not undesirable given the huge improvement in range in the HQ-16B. Adding the UVLS would give it a stronger punch in anti-ship, land-attack and long range ASW, that's it.
Therefore, I would think that the new 054B would:
1. It will retain its AJK-16, fitted for the improved HQ-16B and YU-8 ASROC.
2. It will have a better propulsion system, either COGOD or CODLAG/CODLOG.
3. It will have better electronics, radar, and command and control system.
4. It will have large helicopter handling facilities, capable of storing and handling two Z-20 ASW helicopters. And,
4. It will have some U-VLS module added to it to give it a better punch in ASuW and land attack capability, as well as longer ranged Yu-11 tipped YJ-18 ASROC.
In fact, I won't be surprised if the 054B only has points 1-4 above, and ditch the addition of U-VLS system. This is because the PLAN is a very large navy. I don't think it needs to have all its ship be that well-rounded. I think the 054B will prioritize in being a great ASW platform and being cheap and easy to build in large numbers. While land attack and high end ASuW will rest upon the shoulders of the 052D/DL class.
An evidence I see is the refit of 051B Shenzhen. This ship is quite large, yet it didn't go the U-VLS route, and instead went for the AJK-16. This make sense because the it's basically just a large ASW/ASuW ship. The helicopter handling capability and ASROC are more important than U-VLS. Non-vertically launched YJ-12 is powerful enough to have an edge over the great majority of the potential opponents of this ship.
Last edited:
Actually, there is something wrong with the A/JK-16 and that it is fairly short. I already told you it should measure around only 5.5 to 5.6 meters deep, given it manages to slip into the Shtil missile cache of the Sov destroyer. As an ASW destroyer, while it can fit the Yu-8, it may not fit a large and longer ranged ASROC like something based on the YJ-18 and corresponds to the ASW version of the Klub.
HQ-16B is only 70km in range compared to the 40 to 50km of the HQ-16. That's not a lot. The HQ-9 starts with 125km with its original version, and extends to 200 to 250km in its HQ-9B version. That's a huge difference.
The weight difference of 32 x HQ-16 vs. 32 x HQ-9 amounts to only about 19 tons. That's not a lot for a ship that may displace nearly 5000 tons.
That's because the A/JK-16 isn't very deep, so its easier to slip into where the cache for the HQ-7 missiles is. The internals of the 051B and the 051C might be different enough to accommodate for the VLS on the 051C which is likely just slightly longer than 7 meters, or around the same length as the S-300 canisters you see with the land based S-300 SAMs.
YJ-12 isn't as good as YJ-18. While it is a supersonic missile, YJ-12 flies from point A to point B entirely supersonic. This means, as a ramjet, it has to fly at a certain height and cannot skim that low. That makes the missile more detectable than the YJ-18, which for more of its flight, flies subsonic and sea skims at a very low altitude. This makes the YJ-18 more difficult to detect. When the YJ-18 begins its attack on the target as it flies past the radar horizon of the target, the second stage detaches and goes supersonic. This stage is rocket powered, and so it can accelerate tremendously while weaving towards its target. If you compare that to a YJ-12, Moskit or any air breathing supersonic missile, they have to fly at a higher altitude to get longer range, and if they have to fly lower, their range is shorter. The YJ-18 combines both the sneakiness of a subsonic sea skimmer, with the violent speed and energy of a supersonic missile.
The problem of having a mixed YJ-12 and YJ-18 attack is that it would not be easy to coordinate both these missiles. The YJ-12s would arrive first, and the YJ-18s later. Even if they are supersonic, advanced warning and fewer numbers gives the target ship's defenses some chances to deal with them. However if the missile swarm is all YJ-18, they can be coordinated into a simultaneous saturation attack swarm as they can all arrive at the same time.
A frigate armed with HQ-9B/YJ-18 gets off with greater fleet and coordination synergy with the 052D and 055 than a frigate with HQ-16B/YJ-12. Another thing is hand off, a 054B with HQ-9B and YJ-12 can launch their missiles, and have these missiles handed off to a 052D or 055 to provide mid range guidance.