A saturation attack with nonstealthy, slow, and large cruise missiles? That doesn't sound like a particularly challenging scenario even for the Type 54A's admittedly dated systems. Cruise missiles are within spec for the main gun IIRC.
it is challenging enough for combatants with just 4 illumination channels (0.7-.8 pK) and single dated 3D S-band radar.
11356s with comparable capabilities defeated small neptune attacks by hair margin (splinter damage from close misses).
6-9 bandits, even if larger tomahawks, are likely to produce a leak. When frigate(s) try to defeat attack on defended vessels, leaks are very probable.
C-HGB are slated for 2028 on the same boats. Otherwise should enter service with Zumwalts this year.
We've seen no evidence that HHQ-16F exists to my knowledge.
It was assumption that PLAN introduced or is introducing those missiles.
If this is not the case, speaking bluntly, whole 054 family is in a very tough spot, as illumination, instead of fast way to ensure right lock, turns into a locked channel.
How close are you assuming the incoming missiles are going to be before being detected?
They pop over the horizon at ca. 24-25 km. 382 will likely detect them soon enough, but tracks, ID and engagement (especially in the rear with FF procedures) will take time. After some time they'll go low enough for S band radar to start encounter interference from clutter.
Overall, you may consider they're being engaged from 15-20km out, and from around 4 km HHQ-16 no longer be effective.
Notez that proper light ASCMs can be detected and engaged even later(plus they like very nasty high G maneuvers), perhaps from 12-15 km mark. Stealthy ASCMs with esm and nasty engagement algorithms, such as LRASM and JSM, can be detected and prosecuted even later still.
Why are you comparing a short range missile meant exclusively for terminal defense to a full size air defense missile?
In our conversation terminal defense matters a whole lot.
HHQ-10 is very swift fire and forget system(especially against ARH bandits such as TLAM, because passive secondary channel hugely amplifies rof and target discrimination), working to the last moment.
No actually I do think its fairly straightforward considering magazine size, the size and weight of the arm launchers and the many horrible accidents, often caught on film, related to the reload process of said arm launchers.
But even guaranteed Rmin is whole km less. And there is famous footage in Ukrainian war with buks (remote elder system in law of hq-16 family) engaging air targets within 2 km(4-6 sec flight time) from launch point.
If HQ-16F is not a thing, this difference may very well mean one additional engagement.
That is not what I am arguing here, though I do agree.
My position here is that while type 054a is relevant enough to produce last units(and they in their current form will be useful enough until their MLU), overall threat situation very much calls for 054B.
054A is a dated design.
