Ideal PLAN DDG

planeman · Oct 21, 2006

The VLS is a valid point, I guess they'll just have to do without the cinema. I guess the general trend towards a reduction of crew is somewhat counterbalanced by the crew's expectations for ever more spacious toiletes, lol.

I guess the answer is that the VLS' should be as big as possible, but if that means only 16 SS-N-27 tubes and 44 S-300s, I guess it'd still be a cool design.

EDIT: Actually we know from the army TEL that you can fit four S-400's missiles into the space occupied by a single S-300 missile. So using this logic you could fit 138 S-400s into the space occupied by the Type 051C's 48 S-300s - even more if you used more compact VLS rather than the large revolver launchers.

So a 44 cell S-400 complex would take up a similar volume to just two 6 round S-300 revolvers(!).

I use microsoft Paint to draw and a photo-editing tool that came free with a scanner to render it.

planeman · Oct 21, 2006

Here's a scale comparison with an ARLEIGH BURKE class.

Length would be about and 155m and displacement 7500t

tphuang · Oct 21, 2006

planeman said:
The VLS is a valid point, I guess they'll just have to do without the cinema. I guess the general trend towards a reduction of crew is somewhat counterbalanced by the crew's expectations for ever more spacious toiletes, lol.

I guess the answer is that the VLS' should be as big as possible, but if that means only 16 SS-N-27 tubes and 44 S-300s, I guess it'd still be a cool design.

EDIT: Actually we know from the army TEL that you can fit four S-400's missiles into the space occupied by a single S-300 missile. So using this logic you could fit 138 S-400s into the space occupied by the Type 051C's 48 S-300s - even more if you used more compact VLS rather than the large revolver launchers.
[qimg]http://img.rian.ru/images/5251/17/52511789.jpg[/qimg]
So a 44 cell S-400 complex would take up a similar volume to just two 6 round S-300 revolvers(!).

I use microsoft Paint to draw and a photo-editing tool that came free with a scanner to render it.

That really depends on which missile you are talking about, certainly not the long range one. If you are talking about 48N6 vs 9M96, yes, the 1:4 ratio does exist. In fact, the Rif-M that is on 051C can even carry 9M96. Not sure if PLAN bought any though.

adeptitus · Oct 22, 2006

Here's some info that I found:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition to the new long-range missile, the Russians revealed that the S-400 would be armed with lightweight 9M96 missiles to counter low-flying targets. Each 9M96 interceptor would have a range of approximately 120 kilometers and feature a gas-dynamic control system that would allow it to perform intricate low-altitude maneuvers. The Russians claimed that, in order to hasten the S-400’s deployment, the 9M96 interceptors would be made compatible with the existing S-300P launchers. Thus, a standard S-300P launcher originally designed to carry four 5V55 or 48N6 missiles would now be used to transport up to 16 9M96 missiles. In addition, the S-400 would use the S-300P control complex and multifunctional radar, thus allowing for a smooth, cost-efficient transition between the two systems.(9)

I'm a little iffy on the 16 missile claim. The Russians was able to lighten the missile weight with 9M82/83 SAMs, but the launch vehicles still carried 2 or 4 missiles usually, the most being 6:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For comparison purposes, the 5V55 series SAM weights ~1,450 kg each, and the 48N6 SAM weights 1,780 - 1,800 kg each. The 9M83 (100 km range) weights 420 kg, 9M96E1 (40 km range) weights 330 kg, and the 9M96E2 (120 km range) weights 420 kg.

It's interesting to note that these missiles are lighter than the SA-N-12. The 9M317M missile weights 581 kg, or 1,040 kg in shipping/launch container.

The S-400 (S-300-PMU3) system provides multi-layer defense with 9M96E1/2, 48N6E1/2/48N6DM, and 40N6 SAMs. This is definately a system that the PLAN should look into for naval deployement.

tphuang · Oct 22, 2006

adeptitus said:
Here's some info that I found:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition to the new long-range missile, the Russians revealed that the S-400 would be armed with lightweight 9M96 missiles to counter low-flying targets. Each 9M96 interceptor would have a range of approximately 120 kilometers and feature a gas-dynamic control system that would allow it to perform intricate low-altitude maneuvers. The Russians claimed that, in order to hasten the S-400’s deployment, the 9M96 interceptors would be made compatible with the existing S-300P launchers. Thus, a standard S-300P launcher originally designed to carry four 5V55 or 48N6 missiles would now be used to transport up to 16 9M96 missiles. In addition, the S-400 would use the S-300P control complex and multifunctional radar, thus allowing for a smooth, cost-efficient transition between the two systems.(9)

I'm a little iffy on the 16 missile claim. The Russians was able to lighten the missile weight with 9M82/83 SAMs, but the launch vehicles still carried 2 or 4 missiles usually, the most being 6:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For comparison purposes, the 5V55 series SAM weights ~1,450 kg each, and the 48N6 SAM weights 1,780 - 1,800 kg each. The 9M83 (100 km range) weights 420 kg, 9M96E1 (40 km range) weights 330 kg, and the 9M96E2 (120 km range) weights 420 kg.

It's interesting to note that these missiles are lighter than the SA-N-12. The 9M317M missile weights 581 kg, or 1,040 kg in shipping/launch container.

The S-400 (S-300-PMU3) system provides multi-layer defense with 9M96E1/2, 48N6E1/2/48N6DM, and 40N6 SAMs. This is definately a system that the PLAN should look into for naval deployement.

only if they are building more in the 051 series. Unless they want to abandon the more sophicated AESA radars and "Aegis-like" command system, they will continue to develop HQ-9. And who knows when 40N6 will even be ready. S-400 system was said to be ready ages ago, but it's 40N6 is still not ready.

And seeing the debacle also known as 051C where the more mature rif system took a while to pass PLAN tests, it will be interesting to see how much trust China has in these Russian naval SAM systems.

crobato · Oct 22, 2006

Can be worked.

HQ-9, under some theories including mine, might be FCS compatible with S-300, as meaning HQ-9 missiles can be guided by S-300 fire control systems and S-300 missiles guided by HQ-9 fire control systems. This way, a ground based SAM network of both could support each other. The suspicion that the HQ-9 and associative radar systems might have been derived by studying S-300 systems, copy, inspiration, likewise you get the idea, would support this theory.

tphuang · Oct 22, 2006

crobato said:
Can be worked.

HQ-9, under some theories including mine, might be FCS compatible with S-300, as meaning HQ-9 missiles can be guided by S-300 fire control systems and S-300 missiles guided by HQ-9 fire control systems. This way, a ground based SAM network of both could support each other. The suspicion that the HQ-9 and associative radar systems might have been derived by studying S-300 systems, copy, inspiration, likewise you get the idea, would support this theory.

Actually, I'm not too sure what you are proposing here.

Are you talking about S-300 VLS that can fire HH-9 missile or HH-9 VLS that can fire 9M96 and 48N6?

planeman · Oct 22, 2006

I'd say the optimum missiles for the S-400 equiped destroyer would be a mix of 9M96E1 (40 km range) and 9M96E2 (120 km range), with at least some if not all being the active seeker version*. Both have the same diameter, just the length and weight is different.

Maybe there ought to be two versions of the DDG, one with the extensive flight deck/hanger as depicted, and a second version with only a single helicopter on normal sized deck and the remaining space occupied by more S-400s (including the "big" missile) and maybe more Klub - or YJ-62s and no Klub? ...I'll get drawing

*Would it be cheaper to ripple fire active and command guided?

crobato · Oct 22, 2006

tphuang said:
Actually, I'm not too sure what you are proposing here.

Are you talking about S-300 VLS that can fire HH-9 missile or HH-9 VLS that can fire 9M96 and 48N6?

I am saying that the radar and fire control systems of one can be used to guide the other. So yes, theoritically its possible. Certainly won't be technically unfeasible.

tphuang · Oct 23, 2006

crobato said:
I am saying that the radar and fire control systems of one can be used to guide the other. So yes, theoritically its possible. Certainly won't be technically unfeasible.

actually, I was asking if you are suggesting the former or the latter. Consider that we were speculating HH-9 is actually ARH missile, it would be kind of hard to combine its fire control with 48N6.

Ideal PLAN DDG

planeman

Senior Member

planeman

Senior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

adeptitus

Captain

tphuang

Lieutenant General

crobato

Colonel

tphuang

Lieutenant General

planeman

Senior Member

crobato

Colonel

tphuang

Lieutenant General