PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

great points all round. I haven't been very active on the net recently and have less time to draw, but here's my thoughts on the "ideal" PLAN carrier escort put onto paper (based on a drawing of 054A by MConrads)


My first thought is that the carrier will probably have poor air defenses (will HQ-9 really be fitted???) so air defense escorts are needed. 052 and 054A fit the bill but neither has an ABM capability and HQ-9 could be evolved along the general lines of S-400/Standard with multiple SAM versions integrated as a multi-tier system from ABM right down to MR-AM.

Although it'd be quite easy to build super-destroyers to carry this system, you could maybe lengthen the 054 much as the Royal Navy did to the Type-42.

Modifications:
a) Significantly longer forward of bridge, with large HQ-2 complex (guess 4-6 drums
b) stealthier AK-176 mount, with Chinese developed "Davide" style smart anti-missile rounds
c) Stealthier superstructure
d) multiple Phased array radars including for FC
e) helipad retained but hanger replaced by second HQ-9 complex, 4-6 drums
f) new European-trend comms mast
g) removal of YJ-83
h) digital cammo(?)

The new evolved HQ-9 would have the following missiles:
1) the regular HQ-9 (phased out by below)
2) active radar seeker HQ-9
3) two-stage IIR-seeker HQ-9 for boost-phase ABM intercept, and long range missile intercept
4) three stage exoatmospheric interceptor (al a SM-3) for ABM/ASAT

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

HQ-12 should be the KS-1A, but the system on the 054A is the HQ-16. I don't think that HQ-12 has any performance benefit over the HQ-16.

In any case, why not start with the HQ-9 used on the 052C with squared type hot launchers to increase the missile density and reduce the size of the VLS. Although I am more inclined that the cold launched revolver VLS might actually be safer for missiles about the size of the S-300. As I mentioned before, the missiles should be actively guided due to the lack of illuminators; it would be a great feat of engineering to do a four face 360 degree fire control fusion of TVM guidance when active guidance is much simpler to implement and offer more perks. You can put an ABM and ASAT version in there too. The HQ-9 with its size, should deal with these roles better than the HQ-16 or HQ-12.

We need to improve the radar horizon search down of the 052C by raising the radar higher, either by a higher main superstructure, or putting the arrays in a castle on top of a redesigned mast. A much smaller surface search radar can be put right on top, and the SR-64 moved to the second mast. If we go with a higher main superstructure, the displacement of the ship may have to be increased in length and draught, in order to counter the top heavy superstructure. In any case, I think the displacement of the 052C is on the light side, the next generation of PLAN destroyers must think along the lines of 9000mt.

For an improved 054A, I like to redesign the mast so that the Orekh like illuminators are set in a castle underneath the Sea Eagle radar. Perhaps down the path we may need to look at something like adding active guidance for the HQ-16, like using the PL-12's seeker head.

I think the 054A's VLS system should be made to have the option to use a four pack PL-12 SAM version. Another idea is to add a rocket stage on a Yu-7 torpedo to produce a new ASROC that can used on the VLS.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

In my personal view,052C with cold launch HQ-9, the reasons for China in this regard is the lack of technology, that is to say, because of technical reasons and lead to a lack of confidence, with the Chinese Navy's carrier-based vertical launch technology gradual step mature , HQ-9 vertical launching systems using hot launch are inevitable.
And the vertical hot launch system should be universal - should be able to simultaneously launched air-defense missiles and anti-ship missiles.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

I do not believe 052C only carry 48 HQ-9 is because the cold launcher takes too much space, because the British Type 45 destroyer, which is bigger than 052C, also only carries 48 Aster missiles, and Aster is hot launched and is only half the weight of HQ-9.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Cold launch does not represent an inferior form of technology. What it is, is an alternative form of technology to hot launch. Cold launch can be more complicated than hot launch, because in cold launch, it is the launcher that has to provide a motivating force to push the missile out of the tube, but whereas in hot launch the missile leaves out of the tube on its own power. Technically, the larger the missile is, the better it is to be cold launched than to be hot launched. The reason for this is that the bigger the missile, the deeper the cannister has to be, and the more powerful you expect the missile boost to be. This means safey concerns because things are going to be darn hot in the bottom of the VLS, and when you have a deep VLS, that's also deep into the system's internals. The deeper the cannister is, the greater problem of venting the hot gases. There is also the risk of the missile exploding right inside the cannister. So hot launch raises more safety issues and the system itself will have a shorter life.

Cold launch is safer except on the issue if the missile is popped out of the tube and turns out to be a dud. Here the dud missile risks falling down the deck. But you can tilt the launcher---the HQ-9 and the RIM-F launchers are all tilted---so the missile can fall into the sea instead.

You're right about space not being the real issue. I think the 052C has the space for one or two more rotaries, or have the rotary changed from a six cel to an 8 cel, and likewise for the 051C can probably hold one more. I think the issue is more on weight, and the PLAN has some requirements for sea keeping. They don't seem to be the kind that likes to overspec and overload their vessels.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

I agree with the preference for cold launch for HQ-9 but I don't get why it has to be in huge rotary launchers which are inherently space-inefficient. Why not quads as per the land version?

Re the Type-45 only having 48 missiles - that has been criticised and is seen by many as a cost cutting measure by the MOD in UK. It is credibly reported that the Type-45 is designed to accommodate the US Mk41 VLS instead of SYLVER. Also that although it only has 48 tubes fitted, a third row of 24 can be fitted in between the existing two.


PS. Me talkng about HQ-12 was a mistake, I was thinking of HQ-9 as I wrote that.

I'm working on a "planemanised" Type-052....

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

My gut feeling that using quad launchers like on the HQ-9 TEL would be more space-efficient proves wrong. Clearly the six round HQ-9 launchers are more efficient than the 8 round Rif-M launchers though:



Correction: I think I under-estimated the diameter of the S-300/HQ-9 launch tube so measurements are off, but relatively speaking the comparison stands.

Also, can someone pls confirm whether HQ-9 is single stage or 2 stage, and what the actual missile looks like.

I'm picturing a possible evolution being a PL-12 (length 3.85m) with a long but thin booster (could be 5m long) to give it an overall length of about 9m (as per HQ-9). This missile would equate to the Aster-15/30 and because it is much smaller diameter (with folding wings?) you could carry more.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

For close-range defense, I'd like to see the PLAN follow German navy's model of 2 x CIWS guns + 2 x RAM launchers. A further improvement to the FLS-1 and its SAM is one possible method (toward RAM like capability). This is in addition to the VL-SAM system, which provides a combined 3 levels of hard-kill defense vs. AShM's.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

I don't think the FLS-1 is fast enough for anti-missile use. Something like the "Davide" system fired from a 76mm gun might work though. the OTO-Melara Davide is a smart round a bit like a missile without the rocket. Davide has a range of about 5km but you could add a rocket and IIR guidance and maybe get 10km range.

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

I wonder if an airship AWACS will work for the navy? Any idea...?