Ideal PLAN Frigate

tphuang said:

Every so called source are using the export statistics of YJ-62 on the missile on 052C. I personally think that if C-802 series is the export version of YJ-8 turbojet series, then YJ-62 has to be the export version of some domestic series too. Now, the domestic version may also be YJ-62, but I would expect there to be some differences. For example, YJ-83 is terminally supersonic, but C-802 is entirely subsonic.

Click to expand...

The C-803 is simply an incremental improvement of the C-801, C-802 etc. The difference in speed and range is due to the new powerplant. The C-802 was developed BEFORE the YJ-83, not as an export version. In the case of the YJ-62 all versions are almost certainly microjet powered.

Export satistics? Whilst guidence etc will invariably differ, the general dimensions of the missile are unlikely to change.

tphuang said:

The given length for YJ-62 is around 7 m, so it should be slightly longer than C-802A and its diameter is 54 cm (so around that of Klub). To me, that means YJ-62 should be able to fit into a similar width tube but shorter tube than klub.

Click to expand...

Sinodefence estimates the length of the YJ-62 as just over 6 meters, 7 meters with booster. The popularly quoted length of the YJ-83 seems to ignore the booster, because at about 6 meters it is approximately the same length as the Exocet (5.8m) from which it was developed. If the 6m length INCLUDES the booster then how would it fit in the 165kg warhead (same as Exocet), plus seeker and sufficient fuel etc. Just looking a photographs it is obvious that the YJ-83 is significantly longer than 6m with its booster.

Re diameter. Please do read my above post. The Klub's diameter is given as 0.533m - 21"; the diameter of a conventional torpedo tube on a sub. The Klub maximises it's diameter by having all its fins retract into the body. The smaller diameter sub-launched version of the YJ-83 can fit within the 21" tube because it has folding fins.

Another factor is the air intake, It does not appear that the YJ-62's intake retracts which would be a vital feature if it was to fit into a snug fitting tube.

My revised CFX(ASW)

The external apperance of the CFX(ASW) resembles an enlarged 054A with extended aft deck and elevated center super-structure. The exteded aft deck is used for ASW equipment, while the elevated center super-structure is used to house 2 x 4-cel Kalibr-NKE VLS system (they make both 4-cel and 8-cel versions of Club-N VLS).

Since this is an ASW ship, its primary mission will be ASW, built with mostly imported Russian systems. The core of the ASW detection capability will come from the Zarya-ME sonar system with underkeel array, towed array, and dipping array sonar. The "Purga" integrated fire control system will be used to control ASW weapons, including missiles, rockets, and decoys.

The ship's secondary mission will be anti-surface and anti-air. For anti-surface, the Kalibr-NKE system will offer the option of SSM or LACM loads. For anti-air, the ship will be equipped with SA-N-12 SAM and Type 730 CIWS.

The ship will be equipped with a varity of rockets. The RKPTZ-1E is UDAV-1E replacement, with ASW, torpedo barriage, and acoustic decoy rockets. The PK-10 decoy system will dispense chaff/flares decoys.

Weapon systems:
2 x 4-cel Kalibr-NKE VLS system, for 91RTE2 ASROC or 3M-54TE/TE1 SSM
RKPTZ-1E ASW system with 2 x KT-153E 10-barrel RL w/auto-reloader
PK-10 decoy system with 2 x KT-216 RL (or 2 x 18 barrel Chinese RL)
1 x 4-cel Paknet-E/NK anti-torpedo system
1 x 4-cel MPT-34E light ASW torpedos (or 2 x 3 tube Chinese Yu-7)
Pallada dipping sonar w/2 x DT-65 anti-diver grenade launcher
Shtil-1 or SA-N-12 VLS SAM with 24 missiles
2 x Type 730 CIWS guns (or Kashtan w/2 combat modules)
1 x 76mm gun
1 x Ka-28 ASW Helicopter + hanger


"Triple layer" capability:

ASW detection
ASW Helicopter with dipping sonar
Hull-mounted sonar
Towed sonar

ASW combat
91RTE2 ASROC
ASW Torpedo (from ship MPT-34E & helicopter dropped APR-3E)
ASW Rocket

ASW defense
Paknet-E/NK anti-torpedo rocket
Torpedo barriage rocket
Acoustic decoy rocket

Anti-air defense
Shtil-1 / SA-N-12 SAM
Type 730 CIWS
Chaff/flare decoy rocket


The air-defense capability can be improved by installing Kashtan system. However the PLAN doesn't currently operate such a system, and with HQ-7 and Type 730 CIWS avail, they might not see the necessity of importing it. If there's room left on the ship, we could install a HQ-7 SAM system.

To improve the ship's ASW capability, we could also replace the torpedos with PMK-2 ASW Mine system. If the ship is required to have SSM capability, we could load a mix of 4 x ASROC and 4 x SSM's in the Club-N VLS system.

planeman said:

The C-803 is simply an incremental improvement of the C-801, C-802 etc. The difference in speed and range is due to the new powerplant. The C-802 was developed BEFORE the YJ-83, not as an export version. In the case of the YJ-62 all versions are almost certainly microjet powered.

Click to expand...

there is no such thing as C-803. C-802 is not YJ-82 and C-803 is not YJ-83. This is a very common misconception. C-802 is an export missile. That's what it is, for some reference:
YJ-82 is actually the submarine launched version of YJ-8. It's found on no PLAN ships, only in subs.
YJ-81 is airlaunched version of YJ-8.
YJ-8 series is comparable to C-801 series imo
YJ-83 series is comparable to C-802 series imo

Export satistics? Whilst guidence etc will invariably differ, the general dimensions of the missile are unlikely to change.

Click to expand...

as I said, C-802 series is most comparable to YJ-83 series, but they are not the same.

Sinodefence estimates the length of the YJ-62 as just over 6 meters, 7 meters with booster. The popularly quoted length of the YJ-83 seems to ignore the booster, because at about 6 meters it is approximately the same length as the Exocet (5.8m) from which it was developed. If the 6m length INCLUDES the booster then how would it fit in the 165kg warhead (same as Exocet), plus seeker and sufficient fuel etc. Just looking a photographs it is obvious that the YJ-83 is significantly longer than 6m with its booster.

Click to expand...

it would be appreciative if you can show which picture you are talking about. I'm always open to new ideas. I don't think China ever released the stats of YJ-83.

Re diameter. Please do read my above post. The Klub's diameter is given as 0.533m - 21"; the diameter of a conventional torpedo tube on a sub. The Klub maximises it's diameter by having all its fins retract into the body. The smaller diameter sub-launched version of the YJ-83 can fit within the 21" tube because it has folding fins.

Another factor is the air intake, It does not appear that the YJ-62's intake retracts which would be a vital feature if it was to fit into a snug fitting tube.

Click to expand...

YJ-62 weren't developed for 533 mm launcher, but if they really wanted to, I suppose they could possibly develop something for submarines based on it.

YJ-81 is the original series. 47km,

C-801 and FL series are export versions of the above.

YJ-81K should be YJ-81G, this is the one with the foldable wings, extended range to 90km and also used on planes..

YJ-82 is probably PLA designation for C-802. Ths is the first one with the turbojet. Range is up to 120km. Originally introduced for such ships like the Luhai, it is quickly phase out in favor of the YJ-83.

C-802 is export version of the above. C-802A is the same but range extended to 180km.

YJ-83 is based on the YJ-82 with a longer body for more fuel, more efficient and powerful turbojet, and the addition for datalink for OTH midphase guidance. Range is between 160-180km (likely for lo-lo-lo approach) to 250km (lo hi lo, hi hi lo).

Subs used YJ-82 because subs cannot do datalink midphase guidance.

Tphyuang, you are being pedantic and neatly tapdancing around the obvious. As is so often the case you are not basing your conclusion on sound observations.

What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the C-802 and YJ-83 do not share the same basic fuselage and wings? saying the C-802 and YJ-83 are destinct, is fair enough, but your line of reasoning seems akin to arguing that the Toyota RAV-4L is a completely different car to the Toyoto RAV-4. I can't believe I've wasted my time illustrating such a universally accepted notion, that the C-802 and YJ-83 share the same airframe:



. EDIT. Yep I agree with Crobato that the YJ-83 is longer than C-802, although not by a huge amount.

planeman said:

Tphyuang, you are being pedantic and neatly tapdancing around the obvious. As is so often the case you are not basing your conclusion on sound observations.

What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the C-802 and YJ-83 do not share the same basic fuselage and wings? saying the C-802 and YJ-83 are destinct, is fair enough, but your line of reasoning seems akin to arguing that the Toyota RAV-4L is a completely different car to the Toyoto RAV-4. I can't believe I've wasted my time illustrating such a universally accepted notion, that the C-802 and YJ-83 share the same airframe:
[qimg]http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8839/c802jv9.jpg[/qimg]


. EDIT. Yep I agree with Crobato that the YJ-83 is longer than C-802, although not by a huge amount.

Click to expand...

please, spell my username correctly first. Or call me by my real name Feng. What ever.

What's my point, C-803 does not exist. C-802 series is most comparable to YJ-83 series. Which you seem to agree with. And the fact that they are not exactly the same should give YJ-83 better flight performance despite having the same appearance. YJ-83 could be using better burning material, better seeker + many different things. Which goes back to the original point, the export version is not exactly same as PLAN version. Now, if you see discrepancy in measurement between what is reported in export shows and what you see on PLAN ships, the discrepancy is probably because they are not exactly the same missile. If you can show that in the case of YJ-62, that's even better. In which case, I thank you for doing it, since that would give us more in sight on what 052C is equipping.

tphuang said:

Now, if you see discrepancy in measurement between what is reported in export shows and what you see on PLAN ships, the discrepancy is probably because they are not exactly the same missile.

Click to expand...

I think you are the only person who imagines any descrepency. The length quoted for most missiles is without booster, there's nothing unusual about that. It goes for the YJ-83, YJ-62, Harpoon, Exocet etc.

If you think that the YJ-62 are in any way "compact" you must be in cloud cookoo land, or as we call it around here, Planet Tphuang.

planeman said:

I think you are the only person who imagines any descrepency. The length quoted for most missiles is without booster, there's nothing unusual about that. It goes for the YJ-83, YJ-62, Harpoon, Exocet etc.

Click to expand...

Do you understand "Now, if you see discrepancy in measurement between what is reported in export shows and what you see on PLAN ships, the discrepancy is probably because they are not exactly the same missile."
notice, where I said "if you see discrepancy", not "I saw discrepancy". Did I put anywhere that I saw discrepancy. I said, if you think there is differences in measurement, then there might be something there. Go ahead, tell us what you think their measurements are.

If you think that the YJ-62 are in any way "compact" you must be in cloud cookoo land, or as we call it around here, Planet Tphuang.

Click to expand...

as we call it around here? Who are "we"? Since you have buried up your anger for so long, why don't you list things you are not so happy with me about? I'm ready for a little amusement before I sleep.

Calming things down and getting back on the subject of frigates, I would make the general conclusion that frigates can have two emphasises. They can be either primarily for ASW or for AAW. In a fleet action, not costal defence, frigates perform the role of point defence, often traveling somewhat ahead of the rest of the fleet acting as "eyes" spotting incoming missles, aircraft, etc. and "ears" providing an outer layer of ASW defence and trying to discover the enemies subs which are performing much the same scouting function. Thus, my ideal frigate would be loaded with high quality AAW sensors. Why? Because with sensor range comes survivability. It allows the sip and the entire fleet to dectet and deal with threats faster. Also, since the frigate serves as more of a scout, it can leave AShW to the DDGs. Therefore it doesn't need a whole lot of ASMs. Of course, it would be possible to have a frigate with no ASMs and a larger amount of SAMs, so it can be used to extend the fleets interception envelope out futher. That would be something an ideal frigate would do. It provides point defence to the rest of the fleet, thus it would be logical to get rid of ASMs and have alarger component of longer range SAMs.

Since we have reevaluated a frigate's true purpose in fleet warfare and seen that we can make changes to the missle arrangment because of it, we can now but more emphasis on a the ASW component of the frigate's armory. For me, this is the ideal frigate's primary purpose along with acting as eyes and extending the fleet's SAM interception range.

Thus, my ideal frigate would not even need to carry ASMs, but would have a good complement of torpedos, an ASW helicopter and towed array and bow sonar, along with two CIWS systems, a fancy radar suite and a long to medium range SAM. This reflects its purpose of scouting for airborne and undersea threats and proving point defence for both.

AAW is much better for destroyers and larger ships than it is for frigates, dues to the size of the systems involved. I would leave ASW and AsuW for the frigs, and perhaps point defense AAW. Its easier to develop a common missile family for both ASW and ASuW work, and use both missile variants on a common VLS launching system.