054/A FFG Thread II

[W20]

Maybe against a subsonic target, 0.7-0.9 Mach ... "navy red flag" (HHQ) 16 could launch two volleys of two missiles that would be 4 in total, and then 1130 CIWS (30 mm x 11 (Wooow)) could fire four 1-second volleys

I was playing to imagine a new version, but the last ones (sometimes called 054A+) is already a good Beast, and if for example we add YJ-12 to it ...

Anyway, it seems to me that we fans fly with our imaginations towards the latest futuristic inventions or we think of solutions without having much idea of the problem, for example, I can think of a large VHF radar and four flat antennas of a X-radar located high up, to replace the four target illumination radars and the 364 radar

 

[W20]

HHQ-16 C

"Not much else is known about this new system, but there are reports stating that it can intercept very low-flying targets"

 

[Tam]

I am in love with this rational-functional frigate, for example: the ship's funnel/chimney (heat source): Radar 364 at the top, and on both sides, port and starboard, 1130 CIWS

Wow, rational, functional, It seems to me that it is a set of pieces well fitted:

A good balance between (1) Price (2) anti-submarine warfare (3) superior in surface warfare against equivalent and even higher tonnage ships of medium-sized naval forces and (4) good or reasonable good defense against the hegemon

now my curiosity is ... if the "navy red flag" (HHQ) 16 system ... has an IR homing version for short range, in addition to SARH

IR version is not likely to happen. IR systems isn't perfect for SAMs or naval SAMs because they can get fooled by the sun if the sun is low on the horizon. SARH itself is pretty good for short to mid range work, does very well against intense cluttered environment. Buk/HQ-16 users seem to like the way the missile as it is, as in its current form, the missile is very effective. It may not have a long range, but it is reliable, has a very high speed for interception, and appears to have a high chance of killing its target. Much of its evolution is towards refinement, rather than trying to fix something that ain't broken.

The 054A is very well designed, more than most people think the way it is, once you identify each of the parts, the sensors, the weaponry, how it each works and how everything is positioned.

If I were to put an IR missile on the ship, I would go with trying to see if I can put an HQ-10 launcher on top of the hanger. If the hanger is extended to let's say, put a Z-20, you can move the two missile illuminators from the top of the hanger door, and leave that space for an HQ-10 launcher.

 

[Tam]

You will have to choose one.
By modern standards, full-sized HHQ-16 isn't all that long ranged to begin with. Packing 4 area defense missiles into the same cell will be a challenge.

HHQ-16 is similar in size with the SM-2, and the missile is kept and launched without folding the fins. The VLS is also used with an ASROC, which is basically a torpedo with a rocket booster. So the VLS itself isn't one of those dedicated to one missile alone like the mushroom ones the Brits use on their older ships, or the Russians use in their Redut and Shtil-1. In fact, my impression of the VLS is that it's a knockoff of the Mk. 41 and may even be similar in dimensions. The HHQ-16 alone is like 700kg, and that's about the weight of a YJ-83.

It could handle a quad pack if the quad packing missile was specifically designed for this VLS, but the PLAN has to choose making the quad pack either for this VLS or the U-VLS used with the destroyers. The larger VLS would mean larger missiles that goes with the quadpack, which means a greater potential ceiling for performance and complexity with the missile. You can potentially make a small SAM to quadpack on both VLS, but it won't be as ideal for the destroyers compared to a missile that could optimally quad pack on the U-VLS. If I have to choose, I would go with designing a missile that is optimal for the U-VLS, given that the destroyers are more valuable assets.

 

[Tam]

I am in love with this rational-functional frigate, for example: the ship's funnel/chimney (heat source): Radar 364 at the top, and on both sides, port and starboard, 1130 CIWS

IMO, I would reverse the positions of the Type 364 Sea Gull C radar with the Type 382 Sea Eagle, much like the way on the 051C, the Sea Gull is on the front and the Top Plate radar is on the rear. Notice that in all the 052C and D, the Type 364 is also in front.

 

[Gloire_bb]

HHQ-16 is similar in size with the SM-2, and the missile is kept and launched without folding the fins.

Yep, in a launch container, as far as we see on HQ-16. There is no indication that storage/launch is possible w/o this container. If anything, unfolding fins suggest the opposite. Thus, the effective volume of Mk.41 cell is likely to be larger.

But perhaps more importantly: HHQ-16 itself is a medium-range SAM by modern standards, not too long-ranged one at that. If you can design another medium-range missile for the same VLS in 1/4th the size - what's the point of the larger one?
It may be possible to develop a self-defense missile of this size(fleet of 054A is substantial), but the original post was about an area defense missile.

or the Russians use in their Redut and Shtil-1

That's...a curious choice of examples.
Shtil(VLS version) is a directly related system, so if it's an argument, it's an argument against such possibility. Using SARH(ARH) and IR missiles isn't the same, HHQ-16 electronic systems may be simply unsuitable/unfeasible for such use.

And redut has a well-known ability to pack small, self-defense quad packs(9m100) in their separate transport/launch containers.

 

[Tam]

Yep, in a launch container, as far as we see on HQ-16. There is no indication that storage/launch is possible w/o this container. If anything, unfolding fins suggest the opposite. Thus, the effective volume of Mk.41 cell is likely to be larger.

In a multipurpose VLS, missiles are packed in a canister with dedicated canisters for each type. What is strange about it?

But perhaps more importantly: HHQ-16 itself is a medium-range SAM by modern standards, not too long-ranged one at that. If you can design another medium-range missile for the same VLS in 1/4th the size - what's the point of the larger one?
It may be possible to develop a self-defense missile of this size(fleet of 054A is substantial), but the original post was about an area defense missile.

For a medium range missile the HHQ-16 is a large missile, about 700kg, which is also about the weight of an SM-2. For a missile to have a low range relative to its weight, it must have a fast burn, which means it accelerates extremely quick and reaches a very high top speed in a very short amount of time. The literature on the Buk missile shows it reaching Mach 4.

Such a quad pack missile will likely be a short ranged one if you prefer a fast burn profile. A slower burning profile would increase range but at the cost of interception chances.

That's...a curious choice of examples.
Shtil(VLS version) is a directly related system, so if it's an argument, it's an argument against such possibility. Using SARH(ARH) and IR missiles isn't the same, HHQ-16 electronic systems may be simply unsuitable/unfeasible for such use.

And redut has a well-known ability to pack small, self-defense quad packs(9m100) in their separate transport/launch containers.

I guess wrong example then.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/886599059519283201

to quadpack to these.



Means the missiles have to be in separate canisters and you can switch out the canisters to another.



So more or less you are trying to hypothetically do the same with the AJK-16. But no doubt the resulting missiles will be short ranged, likely below 20km in range at the most. For the trouble, you might as well consider being able to adapt an HQ-10 launcher instead.

 

[antiterror13]

how about quad pack with 2 bigger SAM and 2 smaller SAM ? or tri pack

Attached is UVLS packing that posted years ago in this forum, possibly by @Bltizo ?

 

[Tam]

Maybe against a subsonic target, 0.7-0.9 Mach ... "navy red flag" (HHQ) 16 could launch two volleys of two missiles that would be 4 in total, and then 1130 CIWS (30 mm x 11 (Wooow)) could fire four 1-second volleys

I was playing to imagine a new version, but the last ones (sometimes called 054A+) is already a good Beast, and if for example we add YJ-12 to it ...

Anyway, it seems to me that we fans fly with our imaginations towards the latest futuristic inventions or we think of solutions without having much idea of the problem, for example, I can think of a large VHF radar and four flat antennas of a X-radar located high up, to replace the four target illumination radars and the 364 radar

One thing I might say is to monitor further progress on the 054A/P. There is a pyramid pedestal on the back, similar to the original 054 but not found in the 054A, and this pedestal might be used for a VHF radar like the one the PN uses on the F22P. Its a smaller, appears to be a higher frequency, variant of the Type 517 meant for export. But there is no way of telling if they would do the same on the new batch of 054A.

Four flat X-band arrays high up are not going to happen, unless you chose to rebuild the entire mast into an integrated one, like what the Russians are doing to one of the Project 20380 corvettes. The problem of the integrated mast is the question where you plan to hang all that other stuff, like navigation radars, IFF, datalinks, ESM, the EO etc,. If you want an AESA on these ships, its better to replace the Type 382 and Type 364 radars directly with rotating AESAs, and there are already existing candidates for these.

I think it would be a much simpler solution to just replace all the illuminators one by one with pedestal mounted movable X-band arrays situated on the same spot like this CEAMOUNT illuminator.

 

[Tam]

how about quad pack with 2 bigger SAM and 2 smaller SAM ? or tri pack

Attached is UVLS packing that posted years ago in this forum, possibly by @Bltizo ?

Theoretically, dual might be an alternative.