Type 022 Missile Boat

nlalyst said:

Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?

Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.

As to how effective an SM-6 really is:

So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.

Source;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmm ..... "

Recent SINKEX, eg Both RIMPAC and the LSE ones feature target ships that survive multiple AShM (Harpoon, Exocet, NSM) each and had to be endex with a Mk48. (Survive is a loosely used term here - survive as in remain floating)

In most SINKEX case, the target ships are stripped of flammables and all hatches and compartments are sealed. As mentioned by posters, one hole ain't gonna sink a ship if damage control mitigates the flooding to just that one compartment.

The SM-6 single handedly sinking a FFG? In this case, I'd argue that all hatches were open on the FFG targeted by the SM-6 ... Brings to mind those for-visual-effect ATGM demos where they fill the target AFV with flammables and HiEx.

I'm not arguing that a SM-6 cannot be used as an AShM. It has been demonstrated that the capability exists and works. Just the David v Goliath image of a 64kg warhead doing what it claims to have done. As to the arguments of value of a $5m missile being used in this role. Hey, in war, you throw whatever you have at the OPFOR. If a salvo of SM-6 can mission kill a combatant it's good value.

nlalyst said:

I don't think we have enough information to conclude that SM-6 is not efficient at anti-shipping. If you read carefully what I quoted:

you could interpret that as meaning that the ASuW variant includes more than just software changes, no?

Currently, the USN is funding the design of the Block IB variant, which uses a significantly larger 21 inch rocket motor. They did the same for SM-3, and in turn more than doubled its kinetic energy. There is speculation that this might be a dedicated anti-ship ballistic missile (based on the reports that they plan to drastically reduce the size of the fins).

Click to expand...

So, do you expect that variant still keeps the same performance for AAW? If not, they basically designed a dedicated anti-ship missile that looks a lot like the original SM-6? How much sense does that make, logistically?
The only way it makes sense is to make the same SM-6 multirole: still a dedicated SAM, but having the capability to attack ships in case you really have no other option.

nlalyst said:

I think the point is that these ships are an easy target for anti-ship missiles like SM-6 that attack in a high altitude, high angle trajectory. The SAR radar is probably X-band, possibly C-band, similar to the missile seeker.

Click to expand...

Same point why HHQ-9 or any ARH missile can attack the LRASM from the side or above.

For its worth, the Type 022 has ESM and a decoy system. Both things are visible in any close up picture of the 022.

nlalyst said:

Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?

Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.

As to how effective an SM-6 really is:

So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.

Source;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

It says ASuW variant. This means you can't use the AAW variant for this.

AAW variant would use HE-FRAG with a proximity and altimeter fuse. It explodes in close proximity. An antiship missile would use a semi-AP warhead with an inertia fuse located at the bottom.

This is also what the TBM ability on the HQ-9 is designed to intercept.

Self-explanatory.

Type 022 missiles boats out to sea for training on 22nd February 2022. The first boats was launched in 2004 and the last unit in 2009. These boats have been in service from 13 to 17 years. It is unlikely PLAN has plan to replace them with new design types of same displacement class when they reach estimated service life of 20-25 years.

lcloo said:

Type 022 missiles boats out to sea for training on 22nd February 2022. The first boats was launched in 2004 and the last unit in 2009. These boats have been in service from 13 to 17 years. It is unlikely PLAN has plan to replace them with new design types of same displacement class when they reach estimated service life of 20-25 years.

View attachment 84165View attachment 84166

Click to expand...

Might be a little far fetched but unmanned version controlled by say 055, pressing forward to launch YJ12 at carrier group tracked by satellite could be a thing too.

An aluminum hull can last a very long time...if...if...and if...it was properly maintained. But then again, you can get to the point that selling the ships for scrap due to rising prices of aluminum can be worth more than keeping and spending for the maintenance of these ships.

More interior shots of both the bridge and the CIC.