SinoSoldier
Colonel
I think it would be reasonable for the PLAN to go for the FM-3000 instead. There has been no indication that the DK-10A/Sky Dragon has been upgraded since its conception.
SAM Sky Dragon 50
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
I think it would be reasonable for the PLAN to go for the FM-3000 instead. There has been no indication that the DK-10A/Sky Dragon has been upgraded since its conception.
antiterror13
Brigadier
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I fully expect all the 054As to have their VLS upgraded to the new UVLS during their mid-life upgrades.
As such, the PLAN probably isn’t prioritising development or procurement of weapons that are primarily optimised for the 054A VLS.
Choosing something like the SD10/50 would allow the PLAN to field it in both 054As and the rest of the fleet standardised on the UVLS, but the problem is they will be wasting a lot of the potential of the UVLS settling for such a small missiles when the UVLS could quad pack much bigger and longer range missiles.
The PLAN is probably putting its money into your development of brand new SAMs designed specifically for the UVLS and is content for the 054As to have limited VLS munitions options until they also get upgrade to the UVLS.
As such, the PLAN probably isn’t prioritising development or procurement of weapons that are primarily optimised for the 054A VLS.
Choosing something like the SD10/50 would allow the PLAN to field it in both 054As and the rest of the fleet standardised on the UVLS, but the problem is they will be wasting a lot of the potential of the UVLS settling for such a small missiles when the UVLS could quad pack much bigger and longer range missiles.
The PLAN is probably putting its money into your development of brand new SAMs designed specifically for the UVLS and is content for the 054As to have limited VLS munitions options until they also get upgrade to the UVLS.
That's not a problem. You can extend the SD 50 with a longer, thicker booster. The current one can push the missile over a range of 50km. That's nearly as much as the HQ-16 already.
One problem I have is that I cannot find the total length of the SD 50. I would expect the second stage or main missile length of the SD-50 to be around 3.85m, which is the length of the SD-10/PL-12. The problem is the length of the booster on top of that for the missile's total length. I wonder if it will fit the 054A's H/AJK-16 VLS, which I also don't know its length. But presuming how the VLS manages to fit into the Sovremenny's missile magazines, and the Shtil is about 5.4 to 5.5 meters in length, which is stored standing up, the VLS, should presumably, just long enough to fit into those magazines. I believe this VLS may have been designed with the possibility of installing Shtils in consideration. as well as in anticipation for future HQ-16s with greater length than 5m to achieve greater range. So the question is whether the current form of the SD-50 able to to fit the length of the H/AJK-16 VLS? Or does it require a longer VLS?
The booster should start where the end of the mid body fins are, and extend to the tail fins. The second stage is from the tip of the mid wings to the top of the missile.
A longer VLS, up to 7m long with the U-VLS, will definitely allow for a much longer booster, which can extend the range even further. The U-VLS can also allow a thicker booster, and that will further add more propellant. The SD-10's diameter is said to be around .2m in diameter, with booster the SD-50 takes it to a still slim .26m.
A naval version of the SD-50 is such an obvious idea I wonder why its not in service with the PLAN or PLA other than possible internal politics (different design institutes competing with each other, with backers on each group.) I understand it that NORINCO competes against the company that is doing the LY-80 (export HQ-16).
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It’s not just length that will be wasted, far more importantly, it’s the diameter of the missile.
Adding a big thick booster to a thin missiles somewhat misses the point and wastes the potential inherent with the UVLS to add a much thicker missile with more fuel, bigger warhead and seeker etc.
Given the sheer size of the UVLS, quad packing HQ9 and HQ16s are distinct possibilities.
So the PLAN may well be working on next gen quad packed missiles in that size class rather than messing around with an AAM sized missile.
Also, not all range measurements are the same. The 50km range of the SD50 is most likely achieved with a lofted near ballistic trajectory, while the HQ16’s is more like a direct line approach.
The overall speeds of the missiles are also likely to be significantly different, with the SD50 taking much longer to get out to 50km compared to the HQ16.
That’s one of the more obvious benefits of having a missile with several times the internal volume.
Figures for Chinese export missiles use the same standard (slant range) as the figures for the domestic versions and that's been shown (LY-80 to HQ-16, FM-90 to HQ-7 and FD-2000 to HQ-9). If anything, the export numbers tend to be shorter. The export quote for the LY-80's range is 42 km.
I don't see quad packing HQ-9 missiles on U-VLS possible, given the missile's diameter if its like the S-300 missiles, around .5m with a wingspan of .76m.
The HQ-16, while having a .34m diameter, if its wingspan is like the Buk's, it would be .82m.
What the Russians were quad packing into the S-300 missile canisters were 9M96 missiles, of which there are two main versions. Both have a diameter of .24m, but the lengths differ, one at 4.75m, and the other at 5.65m. The first one, depending on source, quotes a range of 40km or 60km. The second one, is quoted at a range of up to 120km. That's one hell of a range increase brought about by nearly one meter increase in booster length. The Russians are still looking to increase the range of the missile up to 200km, likely by increasing the length further and still fit within the same canister or VLS.
Any increase in diameter can also be offset by increased drag due to the increase of cross section (sectional drag), and the increased surface of the missile (surface drag).
plawolf
Lieutenant General
First off, the HQ9 is smaller than the S300.
As for fins, well could they not fold or be shortened or removed entirely? Surely you are smart enough to not need me to point this out?
The only critical factor is diameter. And it does not even necessarily have to be HQ16s or HQ9 missiles themselves that are quad packed, but it is certainly possible for missiles of those weight and size classes to be quad packed in the new UVLS, especially if they were designed form the offset for that.
That is where the PLAN SAM R&D budget has most likely gone to.
The PLAN made considerable sacrifices on VLS cell numbers making the UVLS as big as they have. It would be unwise to think they do not intend to take full advantage of all the carriage potential that gives them.
That’s just not true at all. Please name a single example where for missiles of the same generation and from the same country, a smaller missile outranges a larger one.
Yes of course a bigger missile will mean more drag, but the increase in range from all the extra fuel the bigger volume allows cannot even come close to being offset but that small amount of extra drag that comes from making the missile bigger.