054/A FFG Thread II

[Lethe]

I don't think there is any need for HQ-9 on a frigate, bearing in mind that said frigate would also require an expensive radar system able to take advantage of the long range of that missile. At that point you might as well buy an 052D/E.

If a new quad-pack medium-range SAM is developed for UVLS then I expect that 32 cells would suffice for a frigate: 8xAShMs, 8xASROC, 48xMRSAM, 4 "flex" cells.

If HQ-16/AJK-16 is retained, then I think one would want at least 32 cells plus 8 AShMs in box launchers, preferably 40+8.

 

[antiterror13]

Where did you get this?

see this by Asif
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-054-ffg-thread-ii.t4149/page-432#post-558423

 

[Blitzo]

VLS itself are but glorified tubes, thay are not expensive at all.
Expensive parts are their contents and interfaces.


052c, v.2

If 054b is a prospective GP combatant, it requires much richer mission spaces, equipment and interfaces, for manned and unmanned distributed platforms. Larger hanger with more fuel and storage is welcome, of course, but it isn't enough.
And it is much more important than tubes this and that.

For its size I think an 054B will be more lightly armed for its size than an 052C.
I expect it to be a bit larger than an 054A but with similar armament and sensor suite except a generation ahead. The additional volume would obviously be used for CMS, network centric warfare etc, as well as likely aviation facilities.

 

[Tam]

@Tam

I think we should be confident that HHQ-9 can fit in the 7m VLS because we know 052D is said to only have 16 9m VLS whereas we know it can carry more than 16 HHQ-9.

As for the fan CGI, obviously there are inaccuracies with it, but the overall configuration I think is sensible.

I really have grave doubts on this. You can check around for sources and the HQ-9, base version, comes already to around 6.8 meters (some say 7 meters.) This does not leave you much room for a cold launched system, but we are absolutely sure these missiles are launched via cold launched method and there are plenty of photographs of this already. The difference of 6.8 meters to 7 meters is just too small for a gas bottle to deal with the weight of an HQ-9, which is around 1300kg.

For a cold launch, you would need a large compressed gas bottle underneath the missile, which is used to pop the missile out of the tube. On a dedicated cold launch system ala RIF-M or the revolver style on the 052C, the gas bottle can be underneath the VLS tube.

But on a CCL, this cold launched system has to be packed within and below the canister itself. Remember the tube has the option for hot launched missile and in which case, the hot launched missile would not have a gas battle within the canister and would be left open on the bottom to channel the exhaust gases out.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't think there is any need for HQ-9 on a frigate, bearing in mind that said frigate would also require an expensive radar system able to take advantage of the long range of that missile. At that point you might as well buy an 052D/E.

If a new quad-pack medium-range SAM is developed for UVLS then I expect that 32 cells would suffice for a frigate: 8xAShMs, 8xASROC, 48xMRSAM, 4 "flex" cells.

If HQ-16/AJK-16 is retained, then I think one would want at least 32 cells plus 8 AShMs in box launchers, preferably 40+8.

I agree HHQ-9 would not be standard fit for a frigate, but I think accommodation would not be unwise.

For example the FFGx is being developed with the ability to fire SM2/6 in mind from what I recall

 

[Tam]

@Tam

As for the fan CGI, obviously there are inaccuracies with it, but the overall configuration I think is sensible.

If the artist can modify his design again, without the bridge top arrays, and the integrated mast looking like the early 055 concept, that would about get it right. Or at least, make sense. He can go further and redraw his ESM bulbs to be a bit more taller and capsule like.

 

[Blitzo]

If the artist can modify his design again, without the bridge top arrays, and the integrated mast looking like the early 055 concept, that would about get it right. Or at least, make sense. He can go further and redraw his ESM bulbs to be a bit more taller and capsule like.

Those details would certainly be interesting but at this stage of our speculation I think it is a bit much to reasonably expect that.

I consider the overall configuration and the evolution of the hull and various sensors and weapons placements from 054A to be the most useful thing to takeaway

 

[Tam]

I don't think there is any need for HQ-9 on a frigate, bearing in mind that said frigate would also require an expensive radar system able to take advantage of the long range of that missile. At that point you might as well buy an 052D/E.

If a new quad-pack medium-range SAM is developed for UVLS then I expect that 32 cells would suffice for a frigate: 8xAShMs, 8xASROC, 48xMRSAM, 4 "flex" cells.

If HQ-16/AJK-16 is retained, then I think one would want at least 32 cells plus 8 AShMs in box launchers, preferably 40+8.

I think AJK-16 and U-VLS are not mutually exclusive. Both Russian frigates classes, Admiral Grigorovich and the Admiral Gorshkov class, feature a separate VLS system --- the cold launched Shtil VLS and the Redut system (Vityaz, S-350, 9M96) on the other --- and then you have the UKSK VLS to launch Kalibr missiles. The UKSK is about the equivalent to the U-VLS in terms of volume size and the kind of missiles you put in, the Kalibr or Klub missiles it uses are the YJ-18's mama.

For example the Grigorovich has 24 VLS for the Shtils, which are cousins to the HQ-16, and an 8 cell UKSK for Kalibr. The Gorshkov has 32 cells for the Redut missiles, and 16 UKSK cells. A modified version of the Gorshkov that has been laid down extends the UKSK from 16 to 24 cells.

The real question is not about asking HQ-9 on a frigate but YJ-18 and other offensive weapons on U-VLS. So far YJ-18 is not launched via slanted rack, so your choice of anti ship missile is between YJ-12 which calls for boxes in slanted racks, or YJ-18 which requires VLS.

I think its possible to do 16 cell AJK-16 for HQ-16 and YU-8, and then 16 cell U-VLS, 9 meter length for YJ-18 or whatever you want to put in there that isn't the HQ-9. You can do this all in front, which leaves you with a question mark what to do with the space in the waist, but that's not a problem if you don't want to put anything there either. Another configuration maybe to have 32 cells of AJK-16 at the front, with an 8 or 16 cell U-VLS in the middle.

The question is whether you want to choose between the YJ-12 or the YJ-18 as your primary ASM. You get to use boxed launchers on racks for the first and U-VLS on the latter. The launch method is not why you choose one missile or the other. The ultimate reason for choosing between the YJ-12 vs. the YJ-18 is whether which one you consider to be the deadlier antiship missile which is another discussion.

 

[Blitzo]

I really have grave doubts on this. You can check around for sources and the HQ-9, base version, comes already to around 6.8 meters (some say 7 meters.) This does not leave you much room for a cold launched system, but we are absolutely sure these missiles are launched via cold launched method and there are plenty of photographs of this already. The difference of 6.8 meters to 7 meters is just too small for a gas bottle to deal with the weight of an HQ-9, which is around 1300kg.

For a cold launch, you would need a large compressed gas bottle underneath the missile, which is used to pop the missile out of the tube. On a dedicated cold launch system ala RIF-M or the revolver style on the 052C, the gas bottle can be underneath the VLS tube.

But on a CCL, this cold launched system has to be packed within and below the canister itself. Remember the tube has the option for hot launched missile and in which case, the hot launched missile would not have a gas battle within the canister and would be left open on the bottom to channel the exhaust gases out.

IMO there are two most likely explanations for this:

1: the naval HHQ-9 is shorter than we imagine, or that somehow the naval HHQ-9 is able to be stored in 7m long tubes with its cold launch mechanism
2: all of the 052D's cells are 9m long to accommodate it

I personally think 1 is more likely, though 2 would obviously mean 052D is much more flexible in terms of armament than previously thought.



As for 054B, my overall argument is not dissimilar -- i.e.: it should have a number of cells that allow it to fire HHQ-9. If that means it needs some 9m cells, then that would work.

 

[Tam]

IMO there are two most likely explanations for this:

1: the naval HHQ-9 is shorter than we imagine, or that somehow the naval HHQ-9 is able to be stored in 7m long tubes with its cold launch mechanism
2: all of the 052D's cells are 9m long to accommodate it

I personally think 1 is more likely, though 2 would obviously mean 052D is much more flexible in terms of armament than previously thought.

I don't think #1 is likely, considering HHQ-9 isn't the baseline version of the HQ-9 which is already 6.8 meters. The most common way a missile extends its range is by increasing propellant, and you increase propellant by increasing its length. The Russian S-300 started with the 5V55 which is 7 meters in length. But the next version after that, the 48N6E missile, with a better range, has gone on to 7.5 meters in length.

If they had anticipated increased size of future AAMs, the VLS would have been allowed to have more growth in the future.

As for 054B, my overall argument is not dissimilar -- i.e.: it should have a number of cells that allow it to fire HHQ-9. If that means it needs some 9m cells, then that would work.

My own reasoning is that I don't see it firing the HHQ-9, unless for some reason you want a specific AAW variant of the frigate. The AAW job can be left for the 052D/E and the 055. The 054B should not be a mini, scaled down version of the 052D/E and 055 with the same purpose.

The trend in frigates is not to have large SAMs, but more compact SAMs but with longer and more powerful offensive missiles, cruise missiles or ASMs. The point, if the Type 054B would have 9 meter VLS, is not because of HHQ-9, but because of the YJ-18. An HHQ-9 weighs as much as 1300kg where as the HQ-16 weighs only at around the 700kg. The direction for the 054B should go for is for future ARH type HHQ-16B or a new missile that can be quad packed. The main focus of the 054B should be ASW and ASuW.

Cases in point.
1. The Russian Admiral Grigorovich uses Shtils for its SAMs, which are cousins to the HQ-16. Its use of the larger UKSK VLS is to Kalibr missiles, which has cruise missiles and its antiship missile version.
2. The Russian Admiral Gorshkov uses the Redut missiles for its SAMs, which are namely, short to medium ranged SAMs, and pack the UKSK VLS for the offensively minded Kalibr missiles.
No Russian frigate is armed with the S-300, which would correspond to the HHQ-9. The marine version of the S-300 is the RIF-M, which is fitted only on Kirov class battlecruisers, and on Chinese Type 051C.
3. The RN Type 26 frigates boasts VLS for short ranged SeaCeptor SAMs. Its longer MK. 41, the strike variant, is intended for Tomahawks, LRASMs and ASROCs, not to carry SM-2s, SM-3s or SM-6s. These frigates leave the job of air defense umbrella to the Type 45 destroyers.