FFG 054/054A Thread

[planeman]

The CDF picture above trying to show how there are in fact 32 hatches doesn't convince me because the line dividing the front eight hatches from the rear eight is parallel to a base-line contecting the opposite hand supports:

I really hope I'm wrong because 16 missiles is too few IMO and places the Type-054A as somewhat more towards middling among the current crop of GP frigates, and almost certainly some way behind the latest Indian Project 17s.

 

[planeman]

hmm, MK-41 only has one hatch. I'm pretty sure it holds more missiles than 1 per complex. I don't see why PLAN would put only one HH-16 in a HH-9 sized launcher. 4 ESSM or 1 SM-2. 2 is the minimum at this point in my opinion.

You might be forgetting that the 'old' Sea Sparrow SAMs only fitted one per tube on the Mk 41 VLS so the completely revamped Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) has a signficantly smaller wingspan so that four can be fitted in.

Wing span comparisons:
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow: 0.8m
PL-12: 0.64m
HQ-7: 0.55m
SA-11/SA-N-7 & SA-17/SA-N-12: 1.1m
Standard: 1.08m

 

[sumdud]

Doesn't look parallel to me, but if you look at the photo with the VLS roof installation, it was roof-shaped....just very shallowly......
-----
If there are 32 hatches, then I don't think the missile would be very tall, however, since those in the middle, if long, would run their tails into each other.

 

[planeman]

If it is a very shallow roof shape then I'd expect to see the furthest 16 hatches just shorter in perspective.

Anyway, here's a quick analysis of missile options based on the approximate hatch size which we know to be less than 1m from front to back:

I think that the SA-N-12 is still an option because the hatch only needs to be about 0.85m diameter if a square launch tube is used (wing span 1.1m).

I think that 4 x PL-12 is out of the question unless they get folding wings or completely new wing form (as happened to the ESSM).

 

[tphuang]

You might be forgetting that the 'old' Sea Sparrow SAMs only fitted one per tube on the Mk 41 VLS so the completely revamped Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) has a signficantly smaller wingspan so that four can be fitted in.

Wing span comparisons:
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow: 0.8m
PL-12: 0.64m
HQ-7: 0.55m
SA-11/SA-N-7 & SA-17/SA-N-12: 1.1m
Standard: 1.08m

That's a really good point. Haven't thought of that. I guess we will see with more pictures coming out. I can't see PLAN building a ship of this weight class, dedicate so much real estate on the ship for the VLS complex and only equipping it with 16 missiles, but that's just me.

 

[planeman]

I can't see PLAN building a ship of this weight class, dedicate so much real estate on the ship for the VLS complex and only equipping it with 16 missiles, but that's just me.

Sadly I can. This VLS is a bit of a disapointment really, we were expecting 48 missiles and we get either 16 or 32 depending on who's guessing. Given the PLANs previous indiginous SAM complexes, notably HQ-9 and HQ-7, they really don't have a good track record for space efficiency.

 

[swimmerXC]

Sadly I can. This VLS is a bit of a disapointment really, we were expecting 48 missiles and we get either 16 or 32 depending on who's guessing. Given the PLANs previous indiginous SAM complexes, notably HQ-9 and HQ-7, they really don't have a good track record for space efficiency.

It funny because you know if you look at this 891

Which the 52C testbed you can see the the box shaped launchers and the round ones used on the 052C. They probably could've gone with the boxed shaped VLS but chose instead the revolver one...

 

[tphuang]

It funny because you know if you look at this 891
[qimg]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2616/891121906alw7.jpg[/qimg]
Which the 52C testbed you can see the the box shaped launchers and the round ones used on the 052C. They probably could've gone with the boxed shaped VLS but chose instead the revolver one...

I believe the box ones are actually the launching system for HH-16. At least, that's what people on Chinese forums and that other picture you posted is saying.

 

[PeoplesPoster]

Well Pics speaks more....
[qimg]http://i11.tinypic.com/2w4a35w.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i1.tinypic.com/2a6sdjs.jpg[/qimg]
(from CDF)
It could be 32 after all, I kinda forgot how beamy the ship actually is...
Thougth (even if the russian system also would had have 32 missiles) it sounds awfully lot for the missile of its size. (i have seen one in live and those are really big!!)

....well atleast we now know why such a small gun, noway would have 100mm fit to that

This post pretty much prooves the 32 launchers. It's a view from both sides, where you can plainly see the 16 launchers on each side.

 

[snake65]

If it is a very shallow roof shape then I'd expect to see the furthest 16 hatches just shorter in perspective.

Anyway, here's a quick analysis of missile options based on the approximate hatch size which we know to be less than 1m from front to back:
[qimg]http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7070/missilediametersjg9.gif[/qimg]
I think that the SA-N-12 is still an option because the hatch only needs to be about 0.85m diameter if a square launch tube is used (wing span 1.1m).

I think that 4 x PL-12 is out of the question unless they get folding wings or completely new wing form (as happened to the ESSM).

I don't have the exact wingspan of Shtil-1ME, but I guess it's significantly less than 1.1m, keeping in mind that the missile itself is 0.36m in diameter.