054/A FFG Thread II

[ZTZ99]

Does the hq16, like the shtil missiles, rides on a narrow radar beam, like the sm-1 missiles? That would explain the range difference. I would also suggest a newer guidance method would solve the range issue without changing the size/shape/motor of the missile.

I agree that newer guidance methods would improve the range dramatically. For example the Standard missile series achieved a large range increase by having their guidance method modified by first flying their missiles ballistically into a target basket area without the initial fuel-wasting maneuvering that comes with immediate initiation of semi-active homing. The other problem is of course the range of the HQ-16's emitter, which is not as good as that of the SM-2, and the fuel, which is also not as good.

 

[yehe]

The original LM2500's built for the AB's were already 20MW. The latest LM2500+ are around 23MW. So unless the PLAN can make the QC185 deliver something along these lines, they will have to settle for either a future destroyer that is either a slower or a smaller ship compared to the AB.

Errh, 23MW? what is MW anyway? The UGT25000/DA80 has power rating of 25-27 kW depending on configuration.
The original LM2500 was first used in US Navy warships in the Spruance class and was rated to 16,000 kW only. Upgraded version are the 19,800 kW one for the Arleigh Burke class.
While newest current generation of LM2500 are at 22,000 kW.

Seems to me the DA80 are even more powerful than the LM2500? And I might be wrong, but arent China license producing them already?
So I really dont see any problem China have to go on build a larger vessal.

 

[tphuang]

No doubt the 054A is a giant step up for the PLAN. Much more capable than Luda destroyers overall. It's just too bad the HQ-16 or whatever is in those VLS tubes supposedly is almost as large as an SM-2 but has less than a third of the range. That's the 054A's major drawback IMO.

You know what HQ-16's range/dimension/weight are? Maybe you can enlighten us.

The original LM2500's built for the AB's were already 20MW. The latest LM2500+ are around 23MW. So unless the PLAN can make the QC185 deliver something along these lines, they will have to settle for either a future destroyer that is either a slower or a smaller ship compared to the AB.

They are using QC-280 on future destroyers which are the domestic copy of DA-80. They got the rights to license produce DA-80 a while ago. QC-280 indicates 28 MW of power. QC-280 should be enough for the near future.

 

[ZTZ99]

You know what HQ-16's range/dimension/weight are? Maybe you can enlighten us.

The "smoke" from the HQ-16 is that it is a Shtil copy or near-copy. It is therefore not unreasonable to speculate that range, dimension, and weight are similar to that missile. In which case it is a poor comparison to the SM-2MR.

 

[tphuang]

The "smoke" from the HQ-16 is that it is a Shtil copy or near-copy. It is therefore not unreasonable to speculate that range, dimension, and weight are similar to that missile. In which case it is a poor comparison to the SM-2MR.

Actually HQ-16 looks a lot more like SM-1 than shtil. Have you seen the photos? We don't know what the range of it is except that it does have the limitation of the FCRs (which are probably similar to Orekh, but are newer). Everyone was claiming HQ-9 was a S-300 clone too and it turned out to be 1 meter shorter.

There is really nothing wrong with what's on 054A right now. Compared to something in the same class like Formidable. It has the same 32 cell VLS located forward of the bridge and HQ-16 should have much longer range than Aster 15.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Regarding HQ-16? Well it looks like cross between a SM-1 & SA-11. It does NOT look like the VL-SHTIL and SM-2

 

[EDIATH]

Errh, 23MW? what is MW anyway? The UGT25000/DA80 has power rating of 25-27 kW depending on configuration.
The original LM2500 was first used in US Navy warships in the Spruance class and was rated to 16,000 kW only. Upgraded version are the 19,800 kW one for the Arleigh Burke class.
While newest current generation of LM2500 are at 22,000 kW.

Seems to me the DA80 are even more powerful than the LM2500? And I might be wrong, but arent China license producing them already?
So I really dont see any problem China have to go on build a larger vessal.

Arleigh Burke is loaded with four LM2500 while 052C only fits two DA80, does it ring a bell? 4 DA80s would be feasible for a Class Slava equivalent if that's the plan.

I'm actually awfully taken by HHQ-16 (& 730 CIWS, except for their positioning) on 054A. Though I must admit I know very little about it, the question is, does it provide the vital medium to low air defence coverage per. the role 054A assumes in a surface combat fleet? Shitl on 052B more or less possesses anti cruise missile capacity, can we say the same thing about HHQ-16?

Chance is they might develop an extra stage to boost the range of HHQ-16, or better still, grab PL-12 from the air force & navalise it, which may have a better chance fitting into the existing VLS.

 

[ZTZ99]

Actually HQ-16 looks a lot more like SM-1 than shtil. Have you seen the photos? We don't know what the range of it is except that it does have the limitation of the FCRs (which are probably similar to Orekh, but are newer). Everyone was claiming HQ-9 was a S-300 clone too and it turned out to be 1 meter shorter.

Yes I have the photos, and no it doesn't look like either SM-1 or SM-2. It looks more like Buk/Shtil, especially the earlier versions. The tail fins are a near match to the SA-11, and certainly MUCH more similar to the SA-11 than the SM-1/2. The shape of the strakes are also nearly identical to those of the SA-11. This design similarity should come as no surprise given the fact that the PLAN has had the SA-11 system on hand for years to study and copy. The fact that HQ-16 isn't EXACTLY identical to the SA-11 and the fact that HQ-9 is 1m shorter than S-300 doesn't make them any less of a close descendant of both of these systems. If we are therefore going to guess range, we don't start fantasizing that they can somehow even approach the ranges that SM-2's can achieve when it is far more likely they have ranges similar to what the SA-11 achieves.

There is really nothing wrong with what's on 054A right now. Compared to something in the same class like Formidable. It has the same 32 cell VLS located forward of the bridge and HQ-16 should have much longer range than Aster 15.

Nobody said there's anything "wrong" with the 054A. We are merely comparing relative capabilities. Another area the 054A compares poorly with other modern ships is its lack of phased array radar-controlled missile engagements, the kind that allows a dozen or more simultaneous or near-simultaneous attacks. The Orekh is technically a phased array, but it can illuminate only one target at a time. Compare that to SPY-1, APAR, SAMPSON, EMPAR, etc.

In addition, the 054A's ASW capabilities also seem to be deficient. It's defenses against enemy subs consists of two point-blank weapons, the pair of triple ASW torpedo tubes and the pair of relatively short-ranged ASW depth charge rocket launchers at the bow which are probably almost totaly ineffective against the USN's fast-moving fast-diving subs. There is nothing like the standoff VLA that can reach out and touch enemy subs with a homing torpedo splashed into the water over its target 20 or more km out to sea.

 

[flyzies]

^ Why must everyone compare China's weapons with those in US's arsenal? Who saids 054A is going to go up against USN's SSNs? And even if in some hypothetical situation, PLAN were up against USN, do you think the PLAN admirals are moronic enough to send 054A out alone against USN's SSNs while leaving all China's SSKs docked in a harbour?

Bottom line is 054A is more than capable of holding her when compared to naval platforms of China's neighbours.

 

[plawolf]

Yes I have the photos, and no it doesn't look like either SM-1 or SM-2. It looks more like Buk/Shtil, especially the earlier versions. The tail fins are a near match to the SA-11, and certainly MUCH more similar to the SA-11 than the SM-1/2. The shape of the strakes are also nearly identical to those of the SA-11. This design similarity should come as no surprise given the fact that the PLAN has had the SA-11 system on hand for years to study and copy. The fact that HQ-16 isn't EXACTLY identical to the SA-11 and the fact that HQ-9 is 1m shorter than S-300 doesn't make them any less of a close descendant of both of these systems. If we are therefore going to guess range, we don't start fantasizing that they can somehow even approach the ranges that SM-2's can achieve when it is far more likely they have ranges similar to what the SA-11 achieves.

Thats just plain silly. All missiles look pretty much like each other if you allow enough deviation. If being a meter shorter does not count as a major variation, then I struggle to think of what does.

What more, missiles that look pretty similar externally could be worlds apart in performance on account of the difference internally. SM1 v SM2 would be a good example.

China has already developed the HQ9 long before the HQ16 came out. What makes you think China would need to copy the Shtil when they already mastered the far newer HQ9/S300 tech?

Nobody said there's anything "wrong" with the 054A. We are merely comparing relative capabilities. Another area the 054A compares poorly with other modern ships is its lack of phased array radar-controlled missile engagements, the kind that allows a dozen or more simultaneous or near-simultaneous attacks. The Orekh is technically a phased array, but it can illuminate only one target at a time. Compare that to SPY-1, APAR, SAMPSON, EMPAR, etc.

And what is this based on?

The illuminators on 054As might look like Orekhs, but they are not direct copies. What more, USN AB DDGs also use illuminators for missile terminal guidance and they can engage multiple targets using time-share tracking, which is essentially a software. There is nothing stopping the 054A's illuminators doing the same thing if they have cracked the software element. But that is not something you can judge by just looking at pictures of the illuminators. So your entire assessment is only skin deep.

In addition, the 054A's ASW capabilities also seem to be deficient. It's defenses against enemy subs consists of two point-blank weapons, the pair of triple ASW torpedo tubes and the pair of relatively short-ranged ASW depth charge rocket launchers at the bow which are probably almost totaly ineffective against the USN's fast-moving fast-diving subs. There is nothing like the standoff VLA that can reach out and touch enemy subs with a homing torpedo splashed into the water over its target 20 or more km out to sea.

And thats not something that could be added later?

None of the issues you raised have got much to do with the DESIGN of the 054A at all. A lot are baseless assumptions and the rest are gripes about weapons systems that could be upgraded later with minimal changes needed to the ship.