054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Got this from Chinese bbs, apparently original posted on military newspaper.
HH-9, is tasked with area air defense duty for fleet. It's main target is different types of air planes, but it also has the capability of intercepting anti-ship missiles, uses advanced vertical launch technology, can intercept targets in all direction, uses a MFR, short reaction time, strong ECM, can engage multiple targets in all weather condition in all air space. Weapon system's reliability and maintainability is high.
HQ-16 is used for medium to close range air defense and ABM defense (yep, you read it closely), mainly tasked with intercepting anti-ship missile, plane targets, uses modular design, can have different number of fire channels (I guess it's talking about possibility of having systems with different numbers of FCRs + launch cells), has great loading adaptability, uses hot launch VLS technology, has all directional fast reacting multi-target interception capability, can intercept supersonic/subsonic missiles, is reliable, easy to maintain and use.
I also attached a photo of HH-16 test launching from test ship 891.
Attachments
-
891+HQ-16-Oct21.jpg
very intresting, one question though will the Chinese VLS be able to house some sort of ASROC?
It seems that the PLAN relies mainly on the Type 730 CIWS, AK-230 or AK-630, or variants of the older Type-76, 37 mm guns, as a last-ditch defense against terminal attack.
The Russian's long ago took the step of integrating their rapid-fire guns with short-range, point-defense, missiles as in the Kashtan, Tunguska and Pantsir systems, while the West in some cases has given up the rapid-fire or Gatling guns altogether and is now relying solely upon missiles for close-in defense.
The PLAN's CIWS doctrine seems stuck in the early 1980's, will they ever integrate a missile system (like the FN-3000) with the Type 730's for more comprehensive defense?
The Russian's long ago took the step of integrating their rapid-fire guns with short-range, point-defense, missiles as in the Kashtan, Tunguska and Pantsir systems, while the West in some cases has given up the rapid-fire or Gatling guns altogether and is now relying solely upon missiles for close-in defense.
The PLAN's CIWS doctrine seems stuck in the early 1980's, will they ever integrate a missile system (like the FN-3000) with the Type 730's for more comprehensive defense?
doesn't look like it, USN is now going back to the gun solution for CIWS with the 57 mm. A lot of navies are using the 76 mm. PLAN just prefers the combo of Type 730 + 76 mm gun.
LMAO where have you been for the past 2 years? LD-2000 is such system, if they can prove that such system works better than China would adopt it easily.
Ambivalent
Junior Member
The Russian system has serious shortcomings. Number one, the missiles are not fire and forget but command guidance, so the number of engagements is limited by the number of guidance channels, and the guidance channels will always be vulnerable to jamming. This would not be such a consideration unless the ship with the Russian system is confronting a navy with jamming aircraft or is defending against a combined arms attack from land where the enemy uses jamming aircraft to disrupt the data link.
By comparison, RAM needs no outside guidance once fired, so the ship may engage as many incoming missiles as it has RAM rounds with no need for any fire control radars.
Second, the gun may not engage an incoming missile when a defensive missile is in flight. The gun may not be brought to bear until any missiles have completed their flight. The fire control radar cannot perform both tasks at once. This is a rather serious limitation. Western ships put their missiles and guns on separate mounts allowing each to engage an incoming target similtaneously.
Skywatcher
Captain
I thought the LD-2000's TY-90 missiles were fire and forget?
that is the obvious solution to the problem mentioned above LOL.pretty sure the russians are smart enough to figure that out without western advisors' help