054/A FFG Thread II

[Gloire_bb]

YJ-83 short ranged and sub sonic. HQ-16 are very short ranged compared to something like SM-2 Block 3C.

Somebody did mention that these could be cheaper vessels to handle enemy forces that are not nearly as capable as the US.

Neither is as huge of a disadvantage as is often perceived - and both come as trade-offs for other important specs.
That depends on the role, of course - if you want sort of strike frigate, you always may get one - but big missiles don't come free.

HQ-16 range is probably going up right now, how much - we don't know. But it's healthily in area defense range.

 

[Tam]

YJ-83 short ranged and sub sonic. HQ-16 are very short ranged compared to something like SM-2 Block 3C.

Somebody did mention that these could be cheaper vessels to handle enemy forces that are not nearly as capable as the US.

YJ-83 is up to 180km in the previous version, and the real range is probably in the 200s. Back in the mid 2000s I remember a JH-7 that test fired a YJ-83 and it was tracked by the US right up to 255km. Of course we have to assume that the surface launched variant would have a shorter distance but still. This is about the same range category I would also expect of the latest versions of the Harpoon and Exocet.

We don't know how far the latest versions can go as this can depend on the efficiency and the technology used for the engine and the quality of the fuel, things that can improve over time since the introduction of the YJ-82 decades ago.

While it remains arguable if the classic subsonic sea skimmer can still be competitive with all the defensive technologies now made available and matured, there is still the theoretical option of the 054A switching to the YJ-12 later. The 054A/P uses the CM-302 which is the export version of the YJ-12.

 

[antiterror13]

YJ-83 short ranged and sub sonic. HQ-16 are very short ranged compared to something like SM-2 Block 3C.

Somebody did mention that these could be cheaper vessels to handle enemy forces that are not nearly as capable as the US.

But both have a quite big warhead, thats why short ranged

Agreed that latest version YJ-83 and HQ-16 are quite capable against most navies around China, even US navy has to be careful of them

 

[nlalyst]

Do you have the report that says Flap Lid is pulse doppler with ICWI? That's different from what I read. This would be interesting to read and it would be to my pleasure.

Don't confuse monopulse with pulse and pulse doppler. Monopulse means something entirely and CWI can be monopulse. What your paper states is that there is a single X-band pulse transmitter, and that's servicing one of the antennas in the combined antenna pod, which should be the parabolic antenna below with the IFF dipoles. That acts as a surface search radar. The upper antenna --- and yes, it is licensed from the Dutch STIR if you read your own paper carefully right to the end --- is a monopulse, along with the other STIR. Monopulse however doesn't mean pulse radar, rather its a way to get angle and tracking information from a single emission. Missiles such as the Sparrow, switched from conical scan to monopulse as monopulse is much more difficult to jam. Do realize that a monopulse antenna needs a horn with four feeds, which is going to be difficult to have a pulse radar that has monopulse tracking, and a CWI illuminator that sends out a monopulse signal.

Why don’t you first provide the source that Flap Lid is FMCW?

You even claimed that AN/MPQ-53 is FMCW, which is clearly not true. That’s already two radars that I noticed you mistakenly identified.

 

[Tam]

Why don’t you first provide the source that Flap Lid is FMCW?

You even claimed that AN/MPQ-53 is FMCW, which is clearly not true. That’s already two radars that I noticed you mistakenly identified.

I see only a single monopulse space feed for both these radars. So you tell me how are they going to track and illuminate targets at the same time?

 

[Gloire_bb]

While it remains arguable if the classic subsonic sea skimmer can still be competitive with all the defensive technologies now made available and matured, there is still the theoretical option of the 054A switching to the YJ-12 later. The 054A/P uses the CM-302 which is the export version of the YJ-12.

An interesting point is that for most navies supersonic ASCM ironically don't make as much sense as commonly understood.

A similar (or better) increase of chance of getting through can be achieved through various combinations of signature management, ESSM/ECM and radical maneuvering. That's all the more important because neither of these requires dramatic changes to the size of the missile. For no useful benefit.

 

[nlalyst]

I see only a single monopulse space feed for both these radars. So you tell me how are they going to track and illuminate targets at the same time?

So you don’t have a source afterall.

There’s plenty of references that AN/MPQ-53 is a pulse doppler search and track radar. According to Raytheon, there is no discernible change when it switches to engagement, so the target cannot be confident that a missile is on its way. This tells me that illumination is also pulse doppler a.k.a ICWI.

 

[sndef888]

Does anyone know which anti-sub rockets the PLA uses? And how many are carried on each ship?

From what I've read, CY-5 and Yu-8 have appeared on 054As before, fired from the H/AJK16 VLS, while the 052D is also rumoured to carry the CY-5, fired from the UVLS

Is this accurate?

 

[Tam]

So you don’t have a source afterall.

There’s plenty of references that AN/MPQ-53 is a pulse doppler search and track radar. According to Raytheon, there is no discernible change when it switches to engagement, so the target cannot be confident that a missile is on its way. This tells me that illumination is also pulse doppler a.k.a ICWI.

Then why don't you post them? Actually post something official or authoritative. Both Flap Lid and MPQ-53 work on TVM , and TVM requires a continuous lock on beam. I have read from Russians posting in forums that Flap Lid has LPI or Low Probability of Intercept. LPI is one of the characteristics of FMCW, because FMCW uses low average power and can hide as noise. Pulse radar on the other hand, has sharp power peaks. Remember that's how pulse radar gets range and high S/N R? These peaks are easy to peak up with an ESM. As for MPQ-53, it uses C-band and that's not likely to trigger a RWR which expects an X-band to K-band illumination regardless of what waveform. If MPQ-53 is using FMCW with C-band, so much the better because for an ESM that might look like stray WiFi. A high PRF (Pulse Repetition Frequency) can also also trigger an RWR because gunnery fire control radars use that and some active guided radar seekers use that too. In any case, an X-band with PRF is enough to warn you that an FCR is already trained at you as opposed to a search radar.

 

[Tam]

An interesting point is that for most navies supersonic ASCM ironically don't make as much sense as commonly understood.

A similar (or better) increase of chance of getting through can be achieved through various combinations of signature management, ESSM/ECM and radical maneuvering. That's all the more important because neither of these requires dramatic changes to the size of the missile. For no useful benefit.

Let's not forget that Japan (ASM-3) and Taiwan (HF-III) both uses supersonic ASMs, though Japan's is only airborne. The US was developing their own before it was cancelled for budgetary reasons. This cancellation was done in the late '90s when the US was feeling victorious after the Cold War and saw little need to develop such further.