Future PLAN orbat discussion

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
blindsight said:
It's not about what China aims. They just have to prepare for the worst scenario, the so called bottom-line thinking.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to suggest a naval construction plan, let's move over to

Future PLAN orbat discussion

Again you're nitpicking what I said and putting them out of context. What I said was consistent with what I said before: if China has the equal number of super carriers as what the USN assign and deployed to the Indo-Pacific region, it would be enough to deter any ASEAN countries from trying to...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
 
B

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Well, if you want to suggest a naval construction plan, let's move over to

Future PLAN orbat discussion

Again you're nitpicking what I said and putting them out of context. What I said was consistent with what I said before: if China has the equal number of super carriers as what the USN assign and deployed to the Indo-Pacific region, it would be enough to deter any ASEAN countries from trying to...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Click to expand...
No, forget about it. It doesn't really matters.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
If you fit a more powerful and longer-ranged radar onto a Type-054 to fire longer-ranged missiles, you're better off with a bigger hull.
So you actually end up with a Type-052D. And given the higher fixed cost of the radar, you want it to guide more missiles.
Hence the VLS count jumps to 64 for a Type-052D

You're looking at roughly twice the cost
Type-054A (1.8 Billion RMB)
Type-052D (3.5 Billion RMB)

Also remember that air defence is generally a losing proposition. It's better to be on the offensive
Click to expand...

I think in the case of the Type 052D and its Type 346A radars, they are overreaching. I suspect the HHQ-16B could attain ranges of 300km, and the radar could well track targets with engagement quality at those ranges. The original Type 346 radar on the Type 052C alone may be boasting over 4700 elements alone, in contrast to SAMPSON having each face around 2000+ elements, and the 346A on the 052D is even bigger still.

What I am thinking rather is a radar that is about the equivalent of the SAMPSON and the Elta MF-Star, and can support the target engagement for a missile between 100km to 150km. More range than the current HQ-16, not quite the reach of the HHQ-16B, somewhere in between. With the radar, you can reduce the element count from over 5000 to somewhere around 2000+. Instead of a radar with a 4m+ x 4m+ face, maybe around 3m x 3m face. Instead of four faces, lets use two and turn it around. When you get to that, that's something to what they are already testing in Test ship 892.

Lets say let's support it with a new MRSAM or improved HQ-16 with a range of around 100km to 150km.

Of course that won't mean the new ship will be cheap, especially when other radars on the ship are turned into AESAs. On the 052D, other the large panels, the rest of the secondary radars are mechanical. Having AESAs on the secondary radars will raise the front costs, but the long term costs with maintenance, it can end up lower than mechanical radars without wear and tear.

All this better fits a new generation frigate, but for the 054A, what are the options?

I think the real culprit the rations the range of the HQ-16s are the illuminators. They can only shine a target this far. So the missile, which is oversized for that range, burns itself faster so it can make the most of that range by sprinting directly from point A to point B in a direct slanted trajectory. For what its worth, the reaction time is short, and leads to a higher PK.

Longer ranged target illuminators, possibly like the ones we have seen starting on the 31st ship, could allow the HQ-16 to extend its engagement envelope. Not only is the seeker optimized for the AESA illuminators, we can also increase its sensitivity to allow for longer range engagement. This in turns means the missile's flight profile would also change, perhaps from a more direct slant to more of a ballistic one, with a slower burn cruise phase. This means like a dual pulse motor with differing rocket fuel compounds. So altogether means a new missile or new HQ-16 variant to match the new illuminators.

Or maybe we can go fully active radar seeking on the HQ-16. No more illuminators but we certainly need an improved search radar. Maybe something like we have seen on the 054A/P, like the SR2410C radar.

I would think the easiest and simplest direct path would be combining the 054AP's SR2410C radar with the new AESA illuminators we have seen on the 31st 054A. It won't replace the 052D but it will be better than the 054A now, with a convenient path to upgrade existing ships later on.
 
B

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
I think in the case of the Type 052D and its Type 346A radars, they are overreaching. I suspect the HHQ-16B could attain ranges of 300km, and the radar could well track targets with engagement quality at those ranges. The original Type 346 radar on the Type 052C alone may be boasting over 4700 elements alone, in contrast to SAMPSON having each face around 2000+ elements, and the 346A on the 052D is even bigger still.

What I am thinking rather is a radar that is about the equivalent of the SAMPSON and the Elta MF-Star, and can support the target engagement for a missile between 100km to 150km. More range than the current HQ-16, not quite the reach of the HHQ-16B, somewhere in between. With the radar, you can reduce the element count from over 5000 to somewhere around 2000+. Instead of a radar with a 4m+ x 4m+ face, maybe around 3m x 3m face. Instead of four faces, lets use two and turn it around. When you get to that, that's something to what they are already testing in Test ship 892.

Lets say let's support it with a new MRSAM or improved HQ-16 with a range of around 100km to 150km.

Of course that won't mean the new ship will be cheap, especially when other radars on the ship are turned into AESAs. On the 052D, other the large panels, the rest of the secondary radars are mechanical. Having AESAs on the secondary radars will raise the front costs, but the long term costs with maintenance, it can end up lower than mechanical radars without wear and tear.

All this better fits a new generation frigate, but for the 054A, what are the options?

I think the real culprit the rations the range of the HQ-16s are the illuminators. They can only shine a target this far. So the missile, which is oversized for that range, burns itself faster so it can make the most of that range by sprinting directly from point A to point B in a direct slanted trajectory. For what its worth, the reaction time is short, and leads to a higher PK.

Longer ranged target illuminators, possibly like the ones we have seen starting on the 31st ship, could allow the HQ-16 to extend its engagement envelope. Not only is the seeker optimized for the AESA illuminators, we can also increase its sensitivity to allow for longer range engagement. This in turns means the missile's flight profile would also change, perhaps from a more direct slant to more of a ballistic one, with a slower burn cruise phase. This means like a dual pulse motor with differing rocket fuel compounds. So altogether means a new missile or new HQ-16 variant to match the new illuminators.

Or maybe we can go fully active radar seeking on the HQ-16. No more illuminators but we certainly need an improved search radar. Maybe something like we have seen on the 054A/P, like the SR2410C radar.

I would think the easiest and simplest direct path would be combining the 054AP's SR2410C radar with the new AESA illuminators we have seen on the 31st 054A. It won't replace the 052D but it will be better than the 054A now, with a convenient path to upgrade existing ships later on.
Click to expand...
300km? I guess you mean "9B", not "16B", right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top