Ignore anyone poopooing your idea, it's more an issue of how its done. One solution is to have an a-frame type structure which reclines to adjust height.
Ideal PLAN missile boat
- Thread starter planeman
- Start date
The Swedish Visby class Corvette is 600-650 tons, and can prolly be classified as a missile boat:
I'm not going to cut and paste the article, but I highly recommend reading the naval-technology.com link for its specs.
If you take this ship and replace its 57mm gun with ADGMS sysgtem, then replace the 400mm torpedos with light ASROC rockets, it'd come pretty close to what I'd consider to be an ideal, or at least very good missile boat.
I also like the fact that it has the ability to carry a light helicopter, for ASW or SSM targetting datalink. With its ASW and mine-hunting capabilities, it's a very good multi-mission platform.
I'm not going to cut and paste the article, but I highly recommend reading the naval-technology.com link for its specs.
If you take this ship and replace its 57mm gun with ADGMS sysgtem, then replace the 400mm torpedos with light ASROC rockets, it'd come pretty close to what I'd consider to be an ideal, or at least very good missile boat.
I also like the fact that it has the ability to carry a light helicopter, for ASW or SSM targetting datalink. With its ASW and mine-hunting capabilities, it's a very good multi-mission platform.
OK, based on Sino-defence figures for the dimensions of the YJ-62 and YJ-7, and manufacturer's figures for the TL-10, I've estimated that you could fit four of the smaller missiles into the space taken up by just one YJ-62(!). So here is my modular missile silo design, capable of accomodating 4 x YJ-62s or up to 16 x YJ-7/TL-10s. A more sensible weapons mix would be 3 x YJ-62s and 4 x YJ-7s. The box would have to be made longer to house YJ-83s because of their long booster.
You made good points but still there is important factors that needs to be considered.
First of all the possiple enemy doesen't have to be USN, it only needs to be Helicopter with ASMs and the Type 22 is facing trouple.
Seccondly the overall concept of these boats. As been said they are small and cheap and not fitted with anyway impressive electronics for selfdefence, attack or communication. Their effiency is practically the same as with the older Heku and Hoku with new missiles. Yeas they bit faster and perhaps not so easily spotted, but othervice they are just continioum of the tradditional missile/torpedo FAC thinking that have been precence at PLAN since the early days and dates back to the WWII era.
Thirdly the hull design of these ships are made only SSMs in mind. You cannot fit any larger gun nor CIWS to the bow and fitting SAM system is practically impossiple becouse you cannot fit any effective airsearch radar in the hull.
So the Type 22 is IMO not very flexiple design in the light of different system layouts. It's good replacement for older FACs and in the tradditional FAC tacticks it's one hell of a boat...
...But my point have been from the begining that the tradditional FAC thinking is outdated and china should not follow it any more. It's really very similar if J-10 is still mainly ground controlled like the J-7 and not fitted for independent actions made by the pilots. Type 22 needs ground based controll and is limited to work in "pacs". It's flexibility is practically nil.
But there's clearly evidences that chinese are awere of the changes and innovations ofboard and even adopting them, so I whis that very soon we see changing in the coastal warfare doctrines.
First of all the possiple enemy doesen't have to be USN, it only needs to be Helicopter with ASMs and the Type 22 is facing trouple.
Seccondly the overall concept of these boats. As been said they are small and cheap and not fitted with anyway impressive electronics for selfdefence, attack or communication. Their effiency is practically the same as with the older Heku and Hoku with new missiles. Yeas they bit faster and perhaps not so easily spotted, but othervice they are just continioum of the tradditional missile/torpedo FAC thinking that have been precence at PLAN since the early days and dates back to the WWII era.
Thirdly the hull design of these ships are made only SSMs in mind. You cannot fit any larger gun nor CIWS to the bow and fitting SAM system is practically impossiple becouse you cannot fit any effective airsearch radar in the hull.
So the Type 22 is IMO not very flexiple design in the light of different system layouts. It's good replacement for older FACs and in the tradditional FAC tacticks it's one hell of a boat...
...But my point have been from the begining that the tradditional FAC thinking is outdated and china should not follow it any more. It's really very similar if J-10 is still mainly ground controlled like the J-7 and not fitted for independent actions made by the pilots. Type 22 needs ground based controll and is limited to work in "pacs". It's flexibility is practically nil.
But there's clearly evidences that chinese are awere of the changes and innovations ofboard and even adopting them, so I whis that very soon we see changing in the coastal warfare doctrines.
I think there are 2 topics that we can look at:
1) What is an "ideal" PLAN FAC
2) What can be done to the 022 FAC to make it better
#1 has been extensively discussed in this thread. For #2, I think due to the 022's limited space, there's only so much you can do. If I were to suggest just 1 change, I'd replace the AK-630 with a system similiar to the RIM-116 RAM, Israeli Barak, or VLS HQ-7.
Let's look at space/weight costs
The AK-630 CIWS gun system weights 4,226 lbs, or 20,093 lbs with mount and 2,000 rounds of ammo in below-deck magazine. Since we don't know how many rounds are carried on the 022, or if it's using a "lightweight mount", we can only assume that the weight should be under 10,000 kg (1 kg = 2.2 lbs).
The RIM-116's Mk. 49 launcher weights 5,777 kg and stores 21 missiles. Each missile weights 73.5 kg (21 missiles = 1,543.5 kg). The Sea RAM, which is a smaller unit designed to be a plug-in replacement for Phalanx, is lighter but only stores 11 missiles.
Both AK-630 and RIM-116 depend on external sensors for guidance.
The AK-630's effective engagement range is 500 to 4,000 meters, up to 3,000 meter altitude. A single AK-630 can prolly only engage 1-2 targets at a time in similiar direction. The 022 is not likely to have sufficient space and weight allowance for the Kashtan ADGMS system.
The RIM-116 use a hybrid AIM-9 missile + Stinger guidance with 7.5km range, with ability to intercept multiple targets, and multiple target types (aircraft, helicopter, missile).
Another possibility is the Israeli Barak SAM:
This is a lightweight 8-cel VLS SAM system that only requires a small EL/M-2221 radar:
Each missile only weights ~100 kg, plus the weight of the VLS TLC. The missile has 10 kmg range and can intercept a variety of targets.
If the Barak system cannot be acquired, then a VLS HQ-7 system might fit in its place. Or, if the PLAN want to follow US/NATO example, perhaps make their own RIM-116 version with PL-9C's?
The 022 FAC armed with both SSM's and SAM's would be a threat to surface ships and low-flying aircraft. The FAC prolly doesn't have the space for ADGMS, so the SAM system would have to perform multiple roles, such as defending against AShM's and guided munitions. The boat prolly can't carry more than 8 missiles, but I think it's still better than a single AK-630.
But if they decide to enlarge the ship or rebuild it to allocate more weight/space for CIWS, I'd definately go with ADGMS system. Always good to have a stream of hot lead as the last line of defense.
1) What is an "ideal" PLAN FAC
2) What can be done to the 022 FAC to make it better
#1 has been extensively discussed in this thread. For #2, I think due to the 022's limited space, there's only so much you can do. If I were to suggest just 1 change, I'd replace the AK-630 with a system similiar to the RIM-116 RAM, Israeli Barak, or VLS HQ-7.
Let's look at space/weight costs
The AK-630 CIWS gun system weights 4,226 lbs, or 20,093 lbs with mount and 2,000 rounds of ammo in below-deck magazine. Since we don't know how many rounds are carried on the 022, or if it's using a "lightweight mount", we can only assume that the weight should be under 10,000 kg (1 kg = 2.2 lbs).
The RIM-116's Mk. 49 launcher weights 5,777 kg and stores 21 missiles. Each missile weights 73.5 kg (21 missiles = 1,543.5 kg). The Sea RAM, which is a smaller unit designed to be a plug-in replacement for Phalanx, is lighter but only stores 11 missiles.
Both AK-630 and RIM-116 depend on external sensors for guidance.
The AK-630's effective engagement range is 500 to 4,000 meters, up to 3,000 meter altitude. A single AK-630 can prolly only engage 1-2 targets at a time in similiar direction. The 022 is not likely to have sufficient space and weight allowance for the Kashtan ADGMS system.
The RIM-116 use a hybrid AIM-9 missile + Stinger guidance with 7.5km range, with ability to intercept multiple targets, and multiple target types (aircraft, helicopter, missile).
Another possibility is the Israeli Barak SAM:
This is a lightweight 8-cel VLS SAM system that only requires a small EL/M-2221 radar:
Each missile only weights ~100 kg, plus the weight of the VLS TLC. The missile has 10 kmg range and can intercept a variety of targets.
If the Barak system cannot be acquired, then a VLS HQ-7 system might fit in its place. Or, if the PLAN want to follow US/NATO example, perhaps make their own RIM-116 version with PL-9C's?
The 022 FAC armed with both SSM's and SAM's would be a threat to surface ships and low-flying aircraft. The FAC prolly doesn't have the space for ADGMS, so the SAM system would have to perform multiple roles, such as defending against AShM's and guided munitions. The boat prolly can't carry more than 8 missiles, but I think it's still better than a single AK-630.
But if they decide to enlarge the ship or rebuild it to allocate more weight/space for CIWS, I'd definately go with ADGMS system. Always good to have a stream of hot lead as the last line of defense.
Last edited:
joshuatree
Captain
I like discussing #2, considering PLAN is putting this into serial production, there's bound to be improvements made on the platform.
I think the AK-630 was chosen as a compromise. If only a VLS was installed, what will this boat have for a gun? What if the boat wants to fire a warning shot? Or if working in a riverine environment and needs to return suppressive fire?
In the current form, I think the 022 FAC can carry both anti-ship and anti-air missiles. You definitely reduce your capacity for each but you can have one type of missile in one of the launchers and the other in the second launcher. Problem would be where to put the radar/sensor needed for anti-air? I see the space between the two launchers as a possible location. You can definitely have a second mast there, maybe the first one needs to be modified or lowered, but I think you can play around with that config. Also, I don't see why they can't make the launchers slightly taller to maybe accommodate 6 missiles instead of the current presumed 4?
On a side note, I wonder what is the standard crew size for the 022? I noticed on the older FACs like the 037, they have a rather large crew, like 75. I can't possibly see why the 022 would need more than 15 considering there's a lot more automation these days?
Putting air-defence missiles into SSM launchers gives you a very limited engagement envelope.
Re SAMs for PLAN miisile boats, the TY-90 is the obvious candidate although it has a very limited range (less than 6km!) and doubtable anti-missile capability. China has also shown another IR SAM on missle boats at trade shows, I think it is a varient of QW-4 laser guided SAM in an unmanned launcher. Although smaller than the TY-90, it probably has a greater range (est 8km):
The other contenders include the PL-8 although I don't think that has found favour with the PLAN.
Re SAMs for PLAN miisile boats, the TY-90 is the obvious candidate although it has a very limited range (less than 6km!) and doubtable anti-missile capability. China has also shown another IR SAM on missle boats at trade shows, I think it is a varient of QW-4 laser guided SAM in an unmanned launcher. Although smaller than the TY-90, it probably has a greater range (est 8km):
The other contenders include the PL-8 although I don't think that has found favour with the PLAN.
Last edited:
Here's a quick sketch of a "super-022" design:
Basically it's a stretched type-022 with:
* Enlarged/realigned SSM boxes for YJ-62s in place of YJ-83s
* Smalll helipad at rear with small hanger capable of housing a heli-UAV
* Type-730 CIWS in place of AK-630
* FL-2000 SAM system (each side of bridge, has QW-4 SAMs)
* Much higher stealthy mast with advanced radars, maybe very small phased arrays for surface search and a rotating phase array air-search/targeting radar. Also IIR/IRST etc sensors
* More crew and fuel space for greater endurance
Personally I prefer a smaller VSV design, but this answers most of the Type-022's criticisms.
Basically it's a stretched type-022 with:
* Enlarged/realigned SSM boxes for YJ-62s in place of YJ-83s
* Smalll helipad at rear with small hanger capable of housing a heli-UAV
* Type-730 CIWS in place of AK-630
* FL-2000 SAM system (each side of bridge, has QW-4 SAMs)
* Much higher stealthy mast with advanced radars, maybe very small phased arrays for surface search and a rotating phase array air-search/targeting radar. Also IIR/IRST etc sensors
* More crew and fuel space for greater endurance
Personally I prefer a smaller VSV design, but this answers most of the Type-022's criticisms.
joshuatree
Captain
Another thought would be, can the 630 be pushed out any further to the tip of the front deck? If you can, perhaps you can install a mini-VLS right behind it, maybe 2-4 missiles?
And after looking at some existing pictures, I honestly think the exhaust from the SSM launchers will just exit straight out back. If you look at any pictures of the boat from behind, there appears two large panels that slide open, one to the left, one to the right. The space revealed is exactly where the missiles would be. So I think when the boat is in operation out in the waters, I don't think the back would have any crew members. If you notice, there really isn't anything in the back to begin with. Probably just used during docking procedures.
And after looking at some existing pictures, I honestly think the exhaust from the SSM launchers will just exit straight out back. If you look at any pictures of the boat from behind, there appears two large panels that slide open, one to the left, one to the right. The space revealed is exactly where the missiles would be. So I think when the boat is in operation out in the waters, I don't think the back would have any crew members. If you notice, there really isn't anything in the back to begin with. Probably just used during docking procedures.