AEGIS (SPY-1) is US radar system, and is not used by chinese for obvious reasons. The chinese system, altought outwardly similar is completely different set and mainly unknow of it's specification...
Ideal Cruiser thread
- Thread starter planeman
- Start date
That would be an intresting design. Did you know that the USN had an LPD the USS Coronado that it converted into a command ship? The ship is now decomissioned.Hi Popeye,
I based some of the design ideas on the FS Jeanne d'Arc:
It's an older design concept (extended aft aviation deck) used by several navies. For example the Japanese ASW DDH Haruna class & Shriane class, and the USN Coronado that you mentioned.
While this design is being replaced by "flat top" DDH's like the Japanese 13,500 ton "16DDH" and the Korean LPX, I haven't see the PLAN shipyards build any flat tops, so I opted to go with the 071 design.
Functionally, I think a 071 CGH conversion would be slightly inferior to the Japanese 16DDH. It'd have smaller helicopter deck space, and its Club-N VLS is not as flexible or mature as the Mk 41 VLS. But it'd still be a big leap for PLAN capability.
I've also kept all the systems as realistic as possible. i.e. the 071 shows PLAN shipyard is capable of design and construction of such a ship, mature/affordable weapon systems already in use on the 052B, and few other systems currently avail from Russian exports. Such a ship could also serve in the command role of a fleet, dedicated ASW ship, or center of a rapid-reaction group.
Where on earth do you get these strange ideas from??? You are very knowledgable but you keep making unfounded assumptions which persistantly fly in the face of simple photo evaluation. If the HQ-9 is significantly shorter than the S-300 then why are the tubes on the ground launched TEL almost identical in size to those of the S-300???
And here's the S-400 (4 smaller tubes):
The Type-052C versus Type051C comparison reflects the inferior design of the the latter, rather than it being a bigger missile.
I really think you've hit on a strong concept here, although I'm sure we can play with the exact weapons fit and dimensions. As well as the Jeanne d'Arc, the Italian Vittorio Veneto and Russian Moskva, though the latter is generally regarded as unseaworthy.
Vittorio Veneto:
Am I right in thinking that it wouldn't be an exact derivative of the Type-071, rather just use a similar layout?
Both Vittorio Veneto and Jeanne d'Arc are much less than 30m beam, being 24m and 19m respectively. Both displace about 9~10,000t.
My previous length/beam/draft-v-displacement estimates suggest that in order to get a 13,000t cruiser with 6m draft and 28m beam, it's be about 170m long (about that of the Type-071). 28m is plenty wide enough IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
you are assuming that HHQ-9 is the same as land based HQ-9. On top of that, even if the missiles are similar in height, the VLS using them might not be.
I don't have the specs on how many deck levels HHQ-9 VLS takes up and how many rif VLS takes up, but let's look at both
on 052C, you can fit 6 of those 6-revolving launchers in the forward section. Whereas on 051C, you can only fit 2 of those 8-revolving launchers in the front and they couldn't even put them on the same row, had to put one in front of the other. And the other 4 had to be put on the raised section ahead of the helicopter platform.
Also notice that even just comparing the cells in the forward section, 052C had them on the same level as the main gun whereas 051C cells were raised.
They don't have a VLS system developed just for 9M96. It will have to fit 4 of them per rif cell. As I've always said, China should work on a common VLS that can hold 1 YJ-83, KD-88, HHQ-9 or 4 HH-16 or 4 HH-7.
Well, Kirov is about 3.5 times as large, only carries twice as many rif cells as 051C. Slava is almost twice as large as 051C and carries only 1/3 more in terms of rif cells. I think 051C fits about as many rif cells as it could.
also, that large Tombstone radar + top plate radar do not offer the capability of the 4 AESA radars on 052C while weighing a whole lot more.
So you are saying that the SAMs on the Type-052C are not essentially the same missile as in the HQ-9????? you are just speculating in order to patch your leaky logic. You consitantly make assumptions that fit your viewpoint without objectively assessing the information available. For example, how do you support the idea that the Type-052C's 4 radars are lighter than the single radar on the Type-051C, which afterall is normally mounted on a single truck in the ground based system. Your whole idea that the HQ-9 is somehow compact and lightweight compared to the S-300 just isn't supported by a common sense evaluation of the evidence. And you talk about the HHQ-16 like you actually know what it is, when in fact we are all waiting to find out.
For what it's worth, HQ-9 and S-300 Rif launch drums appear to be somewhere between 4 and 4.5m in diameter. I'd guess that the HQ-9 is slightly smaller in diameter, but not by a lot at all.
Adeptitus , the need for a large beam will make the helicopter cruiser rather fat looking, but the weapons potential is great. For instance, it would be feasible to accomodate the large YJ-62 anti-ship missiles in back-back fashion firing directly out of the side of the ship if you position them at the back where the hot gasses from firing can be vented. It would also be viable to have two Ak-176s side-by-side as per the Horizon class frigates.
For what it's worth, HQ-9 and S-300 Rif launch drums appear to be somewhere between 4 and 4.5m in diameter. I'd guess that the HQ-9 is slightly smaller in diameter, but not by a lot at all.
Adeptitus , the need for a large beam will make the helicopter cruiser rather fat looking, but the weapons potential is great. For instance, it would be feasible to accomodate the large YJ-62 anti-ship missiles in back-back fashion firing directly out of the side of the ship if you position them at the back where the hot gasses from firing can be vented. It would also be viable to have two Ak-176s side-by-side as per the Horizon class frigates.
Last edited:
I'm not the one who started this idea actually. I got lectured by Xinhui of CDF for thinking that they were the same missile. And also, this has been stated by numerous big shrimps on Chinese forums. We see that HH-16 has no land based equivalence, so that shows they have separate projects developing SAMs just for naval platform.
From the pictures, I would say tombstone + top plate is much bigger than the 4 radars on 052C and also take up more space and is limited in that it can only illuminate targets in one direction.
My idea on HHQ-9 being lighter than RIF is explained in the last post. Compare the VLS in the forward section. RIF had to be place on a higher platform and still had to be placed one in front of the other.
Here's an HQ-9 being loaded onto a Type-052C:
More compact than S-300????? Lol. Not by a lot if at all, they look pretty much the same size. The tube is constistant with the HQ-9 land based system, where the missile is again about the same size as the S-300, ie somewhere in the region of 7m, ie about 2 deck levels. Therefore there is no logical reason to assume that the below decks volume of the HQ-9 is significantly different to that of the S-300. We know that the S-300 rotary launcher on the Slava (and by extension other S-300 equipped ships) is about 9m in total depth, about 8.5m of which is below decks and includes the rotation element. Any difference in depth is therefore likely to be much less than one deck level.
More compact than S-300????? Lol. Not by a lot if at all, they look pretty much the same size. The tube is constistant with the HQ-9 land based system, where the missile is again about the same size as the S-300, ie somewhere in the region of 7m, ie about 2 deck levels. Therefore there is no logical reason to assume that the below decks volume of the HQ-9 is significantly different to that of the S-300. We know that the S-300 rotary launcher on the Slava (and by extension other S-300 equipped ships) is about 9m in total depth, about 8.5m of which is below decks and includes the rotation element. Any difference in depth is therefore likely to be much less than one deck level.
Last edited:
Hello,
The reason why I picked the 071 is realism. The PLAN already has one under construction, and I don't think it'd be too difficult to convert the design into a DDH/CGH. Instead of landing craft in cargo hold, it'd simply have a hanger + elevator.
In my fantasy "armchair admiral" design, I'd like to see the PLAN build a couple of these 071 CGH variant and assign them to rapid reaction groups. These ships are ASW platforms at heart, but will be referred to as "multi-use vessels" and sent overseas for various missions. i.e. disaster relief, hospital ship providing free medical procedures during goodwill visits, etc.
Afterwards, you build couple next-generation LHA/LHD with flat-top design that looks like the Korean LPX, except you announce that it'd not have catapults or any equipment relating to fixed-wing aircraft operation. The follow-up class will be a dedicated helicopter carrier like what the Japanese and Koreans are building.
And after that, you build your first light aircraft carrier, except you'd call it "multi-purpose aviation ship" with a mix of few helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. And after that, you build larger, medium-sized AC and call it an aircraft carrier, except by now nobody is really surprised anymore.
This is like the Japanese incrementalist approach. It has a few benefits. You gradually up-tonnage your ships as a learning experience, and your neighbors are given time to gradually accept the fact that you're going to be operating full-sized AC's. Or perhaps by then they'd be operating their own light AC's, so you could say you didn't start the arms race, only in response to others.
Last edited:
the tube is about 5 times that of the guy's upper buddy. I used a ruler, got a ratio of 1.8 cm: 9 cm on my monitor. I would say the guy is probably 1.2 m from butt to head. I've been generous here, since the guy is sitting a little bent and Chinese people aren't that tall in general. That would make the missile around 6m. (compare to 7.5 m of 48N6Ye used on 051C and who knows how long 40N6 will be?) That's a 1.5 meter difference already. Note, 051C uses Rif-M instead of Rif on Slava. And we don't know how deep is the launching system, exactly. But what we do know is what I already stated.
Hq-9 is 47cm in diameter and 6,8 meters in length were as S-300 (48N-6E) is 45 cm and 7m respectevly.....According to pretty realible Weyers book...