antiterror13
Brigadier
but HQ-16 has almost 2x bigger warhead than ESSM ... the question is why HQ-16 has such massive warhead
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
but HQ-16 has almost 2x bigger warhead than ESSM ... the question is why HQ-16 has such massive warhead
I think it was Tam or someone else who explained it as the then Soviet SAMs requiring a larger fragmentation radius. It was speculated to be due to lower accuracies but who knows. Could also just be what the Soviet military then preferred. This carries over to the more modern Russian and Chinese lines that are based off those Soviet SAMs. I'm sure the modern ones will have far better accuracy since the seekers and frames themselves would have been upgraded many, many times since the 80s.
HQ-16 itself has much more room for a larger warhead anyway so since the rest of the missile is proportionally larger, the warhead is about twice the weight of ESSM. Also most SAMs also have the capability of being used for anti-surface roles. A bigger warhead sure helps.
You can read about the Mineral ME radar here.
You are confusing CEC with hand over. CEC has broader meaning, but it includes networking radar information into sensor fusion so a ship can fire at a target based on obtained network information from other sources. Handover is better done with aircraft, so lets say a ship fires an antiship missile, and a spotting aircraft takes over that missile and updates the missile from the aircraft so it can used to target an enemy ship over the horizon.
No, the Type 055 does not have the Type 366 active radar and its passive set. I don't know about the datalink set.
Active radar and passive set. Passive set Type 054A version and Passive set Type 052C/D version.
Its possible that the equivalent functionality will be subsumed into the X-band AESA radar set for the active radar, while the passive targeting will be subsumed into a pair of directional finding ESM. There are two large ones near the base of the mast that could be the culprits for this. The datalink-network targeting can be replaced the ship's own CEC.
There are other ships that don't use the Type 366 system but is equipped with antiship missiles. They include the Type 051B, before and after refit; the Type 052 before and after refit; all the Type 056 and the Type 022. Other systems replaced the Type 366 instead, or at least some of its functionality. The Russians differ from the West as they have an entirely dedicated active/passive/network antiship targeting system on its own, and that is why they have separate antiship radars and gunnery fire control radars. On Western ships, they have an integrated multirole fire control radar system that includes gunnery fire control, antiship targeting and even SARH illumination.
Chinese Navy has both cases, one an integrated fire control radar with both gunnery and antiship, and the other, separate gunnery and antiship fire control radars. The first case comes the Westernization of the Chinese Navy that started during Deng era when China opened up to the West. They have fire control radars that handle both gunnery and antiship. Then came the Russian revival when the PLAN bought the Sovremennys. That returned Russian design concepts back into the PLAN.
The Type 344 gunnery radar provides line of sight antiship targeting for the Type 051B, Type 052 and Type 056 ships. But on the 054A, 052C/D it is a gunnery radar only with the Type 366 taking over antiship. You can see duality of Western vs. Russian approaches being implemented at the same time. One more note. Unlike the Type 366 radar which is from a Russian design, the Type 344 is based on an Italian-French design and is similar to the Thales STIR.
With the Type 055, you have gone full circle again back to the West with fully multipurpose radars and sensors, as opposed to sets of specific mission dedicated radars and sensors.
To admit, I've only heard that name from unreliable sources and stupid posts - similar stupid to some early suggestions, the 002 carrier would be called Taiwan. But as usual... you can nearly find anything in the WWW, the question only is, how reliable these reports are!?
ok i didnt know that
You mean cruisers no carriers ? Were talking about the Type 055 destroyer here
ECM concern is probably one factor. Also big warheads are be better at intercepting tricky missiles like sea skimmers and semi stealthy ones.
IIRC HQ-16s can also be fired against surface targets. With just slightly smaller payload than a Brahmos missile, 70km range at mach 3, it lets even small ships like 054A present a serious threat if they can overcome the relatively short range limitation (which is not much of an issue when radar horizon is accounted for)
Does anyone have a cost estimate for the HQ-16?
- Status