052C/052D Class Destroyers

Bltizo said:

That was once true in the past, when 054A used one type of VLS and 052C used another type.

But the Navy has now standardized to a new universal VLS that we see on the 052D, and which we will see on the 055 and which we will probably see on a future frigate as well.

That means all of those ships have the potential to carry long range or medium range SAMs, and the VLS loadout will depend on the most effective use of their onboard sensors, networking, and also on the mission that they are expected to fulfill.

In other words, the role of the new universal VLS is that no ship type is going to be only "restricted" to a single mission based on limitations of their physical VLS, but all ship types equipped with the VLS have multirole capability and can potentially field a mix of long range SAMs, medium range SAMs, as well as AShMs, LACMs, VL ASW missiles, and so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

The capabilties brought by universal cells is understood, its the priories of which missile system the PLAN needs that just puzzled me. How much of a priority is passed between a quad packed mid range SAM to a longer range one?

Given long range stand-off AShM threat (air & surface luanched) is going to be the future norm. Plus the fact 052ds and 055 will always operate with 054As, which has numerous Hq-16 cells?

Edit: Not arguing quad packed should be neglected, but a long range SAM should be given more priority.

longer range SAM is a must.

India just given Vietnam 500 mil line of credit to purchase brahmos.

Vietnamese SU30 can fire a 290km range brahmos at 052C/D without coming within the range of current HQ9.

This is not good.

Tyloe said:

The capabilties brought by unverical cells is understood, its the priories of which missile system the PLAN needs that just puzzled me. How much of a priority is passed between a quad packed mid range SAM to a longer range one?

Given long range stand-off AShM threat (air & surface luanched) is going to be the norm, plus the fact 052ds and 055 will always operate with 054As, which has numerous Hq-16 cells?

Click to expand...

The question you raise is a very good one -- i.e. the issue of priority between long range vs medium range SAMs.

There has been quite a bit of debate that we know of even from the USN's think tanks and related institutes about whether it is better to arm a ship with a greater number of medium range SAMs to intercept an AShM during the closer to terminal phase, or whether it is better to arm a ship with a smaller number of long range SAMs which have the potential to intercept an AShM in the cruise phase or possibly even against an aircraft that has yet to launch the AShM at standoff range.


So you have to look at the cost of LR vs MR SAMs, the probability of kill of each type of SAM against a given type of target (terminal AShM, cruise phase AShM, vs strike fighter stand off range AShM), as well as the probability of realistically encountering each type of target, before making a decision about how many SAMs of each type to load onto a ship with universal cells.

I personally believe that the role of air and missile defence in future will place a great emphasis on quad packed MR SAMs to destroy AShMs in the terminal phase, as MR SAMs are smaller and cheaper and more can be armed aboard a ship.
LR SAMs will obviously still have a major role in air defence, but their higher cost and larger size, as well as likely lower pK against very long range targets (especially targets like fighters at stand off range, which will be capable of actively evading the kinematics of an inbound LR SAM), but that a given ship will probably carry a significantly greater number of quad packed MR SAMs than single cell LR SAMs, however the total VLS cell allocation for MR SAMs aboard a ship will likely be lower than that for LR SAMs.


As for 054As; they will obviously still have a meaningful role in air defence in the foreseeable future, but the HHQ-16 and the variants are not the most optimal MR SAM. Their range is capable for a MR SAM but not quad-packable, but not big enough to be a true LR SAM without significant modification (like a booster).

So even in task groups in the foreseeable future, I expect if there are an escort force of 055, 052D and 054A, I think the 055 and 052D will still do well to carry a number of MR SAMs, despite 054As also having HHQ-16, to supplement the very important total MR SAM firepower for the task force.

Bltizo said:

But the Navy has now standardized to a new universal VLS that we see on the 052D, and which we will see on the 055 and which we will probably see on a future frigate as well.

That means all of those ships have the potential to carry long range or medium range SAMs, and the VLS loadout will depend on the most effective use of their onboard sensors, networking, and also on the mission that they are expected to fulfill.

Click to expand...

The HHQ-16-style VLS will be part of the PLAN for a good few decades more, and not just in the form of the 054A. I expect both the Sovs and the 052Bs when they come up for midlife overhaul to be converted to the HHQ-16 VLS rather than the CCL VLS.

The other point is that while it is a good bet that a "054B" will use the newer universal VLS, it does not mean they will be able to launch LRSAMs like the HHQ-9. First is that they probably won't have the radar to guide such a missile and would have to rely on offboard sensors such as on a 052C/D or 055 (or an AEW/C aircraft) to take over control of the missile during both the midcourse and terminal phase. But these ships may already have their hands full guiding their own outbound missiles. Second is that they may not have enough draft to mount a 'strike-length' version of the VLS that could load a long range SAM, especially if we are talking about a set of modules at the usual B position. I think a more likely scenario is that the majority of their cells will be taken up by quad-packed MRSAMs, a missile they would definitely have the radar to guide all the way to impact. The rest of the cells would be taken up by VLA-type missiles. In order to pack ASCMs, LACMs, and LRSAMs they would probably have to have an amidships VLS bank that could give them enough draft to load a full length set of VLS modules. Even then it doesn't make much sense for them to pack LRSAMs just to serve as missile trucks for bigger ships, when they won't be starting with very many VLS cells in the first place. These ships would better serve both as guards for the bigger ships for protection against saturation attacks, and as ASW frigates.

Bltizo said:

There has been quite a bit of debate that we know of even from the USN's think tanks and related institutes about whether it is better to arm a ship with a greater number of medium range SAMs to intercept an AShM during the closer to terminal phase, or whether it is better to arm a ship with a smaller number of long range SAMs which have the potential to intercept an AShM in the cruise phase or possibly even against an aircraft that has yet to launch the AShM at standoff range.

Click to expand...

I have read before that the USN considers the ESSM to be equivalent to a point defense missile in role (even though it is medium ranged) and treats it as such in terms of deployment on a ship, namely that something on the order of 4 or 8 cells worth is probably as much as they care to devote to this missile. This is the same reason many initial Flight IIA Burkes had all their CIWS removed. This decision was subsequently deemed to be too hasty, of course. In 'peacetime' it is almost certainly the case that a large proportion of cells are devoted to Tomahawks, while in wartime against an advanced adversary like China the overwhelming vast majority of cells would hold SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, with only a smattering of the rest.

Iron Man said:

The HHQ-16-style VLS will be part of the PLAN for a good few decades more, and not just in the form of the 054A. I expect both the Sovs and the 052Bs when they come up for midlife overhaul to be converted to the HHQ-16 VLS rather than the CCL VLS.

The other point is that while it is a good bet that a "054B" will use the newer universal VLS, it does not mean they will be able to launch LRSAMs like the HHQ-9. First is that they probably won't have the radar to guide such a missile and would have to rely on offboard sensors such as on a 052C/D or 055 (or an AEW/C aircraft) to take over control of the missile during both the midcourse and terminal phase. But these ships may already have their hands full guiding their own outbound missiles. Second is that they may not have enough draft to mount a 'strike-length' version of the VLS that could load a long range SAM, especially if we are talking about a set of modules at the usual B position. I think a more likely scenario is that the majority of their cells will be taken up by quad-packed MRSAMs, a missile they would definitely have the radar to guide all the way to impact. The rest of the cells would be taken up by VLA-type missiles. In order to pack ASCMs, LACMs, and LRSAMs they would probably have to have an amidships VLS bank that could give them enough draft to load a full length set of VLS modules. Even then it doesn't make much sense for them to pack LRSAMs just to serve as missile trucks for bigger ships, when they won't be starting with very many VLS cells in the first place. These ships would better serve both as guards for the bigger ships for protection against saturation attacks, and as ASW frigates.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure that the HHQ-16 will remain in service, and I do expect existing stocks of HHQ-16 will be modified so that they can be mounted within the CCL VLS. However I also think production of new HHQ-16 variants will cease once a new quad packable MR SAM is developed, assuming it can achieve the 50+ km range.

As for 054B/next generation frigate; I do not expect LR SAM would be a significant part of its standard weapons outfit. I do expect it will probably have the capability to guide LR SAMs (whether it's HHQ-9 or an evolution of it) because I expect it will feature quite an advanced radar suite, but as part of a task group and during most of its service life, I agree the majority of their SAM capability would be MR SAMs.

I have read before that the USN considers the ESSM to be equivalent to a point defense missile in role (even though it is medium ranged) and treats it as such in terms of deployment on a ship, namely that something on the order of 4 or 8 cells worth is probably as much as they care to devote to this missile. This is the same reason many initial Flight IIA Burkes had all their CIWS removed. This decision was subsequently deemed to be too hasty, of course. In 'peacetime' it is almost certainly the case that a large proportion of cells are devoted to Tomahawks, while in wartime against an advanced adversary like China the overwhelming vast majority of cells would hold SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, with only a smattering of the rest.

Click to expand...

Yes, well the discussion over quad packed MR SAM vs LR SAM was first seriously raised a few years ago, about what the most effective distribution of a ship's VLS cells would be, when considering the cost of MR SAMs vs LR SAMs as well.
A good summary of the relevant section can be found here:

I personally do not believe Bryan Clark's argument 100%, but I do think that smaller, cheaper and shorter range quad packed MR SAMs can make up a large component of an escort's SAM composition, and offer good bang for buck to complement the role of larger, more expensive and longer range single cell LR SAMs -- which would obviously still be aboard an escort as well, but may not make up a majority or even half of the total number of VLS launched SAMs aboard the ship.

Bltizo said:

Oh, I'm sure that the HHQ-16 will remain in service, and I do expect existing stocks of HHQ-16 will be modified so that they can be mounted within the CCL VLS. However I also think production of new HHQ-16 variants will cease once a new quad packable MR SAM is developed, assuming it can achieve the 50+ km range.

Click to expand...

This would of course depend on the cost of this missile, especially if we are looking at a missile like the DK-10A or something like it with an active seeker. If it is cheaper to continue manufacturing HHQ-16 misiles to fill the HHQ-16-style VLS cells, then I think they would just do that.

Bltizo said:

As for 054B/next generation frigate; I do not expect LR SAM would be a significant part of its standard weapons outfit. I do expect it will probably have the capability to guide LR SAMs (whether it's HHQ-9 or an evolution of it) because I expect it will feature quite an advanced radar suite, but as part of a task group and during most of its service life, I agree the majority of their SAM capability would be MR SAMs.

Click to expand...

Even a modern AESA like Thales Nederland's APAR cannot guide SM-2s to the fullest extent of their range. China would have to do much better than the APAR because the HHQ-9A (200?km) is even longer-ranged than the SM-2IIIA (170?km) used on the Dutch "frigates".

Bltizo said:

Yes, well the discussion over quad packed MR SAM vs LR SAM was first seriously raised a few years ago, about what the most effective distribution of a ship's VLS cells would be, when considering the cost of MR SAMs vs LR SAMs as well.
A good summary of the relevant section can be found here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I personally do not believe Bryan Clark's argument 100%, but I do think that smaller, cheaper and shorter range quad packed MR SAMs can make up a large component of an escort's SAM composition, and offer good bang for buck to complement the role of larger, more expensive and longer range single cell LR SAMs -- which would obviously still be aboard an escort as well, but may not make up a majority or even half of the total number of VLS launched SAMs aboard the ship.

Click to expand...

I'm not really convinced by this guy's arguments. Giving up long range firepower for more defense decreases that much more the primary purpose of an air defense destroyer, and that is fleetwide air defense and denial of enemy airspace. There is obviously some kind of happy medium, but I don't think the USN agrees at least right now that it lies in the way of more MRSAMs and less LRSAMs.

Iron Man said:

This would of course depend on the cost of this missile, especially if we are looking at a missile like the DK-10A or something like it with an active seeker. If it is cheaper to continue manufacturing HHQ-16 misiles to fill the HHQ-16-style VLS cells, then I think they would just do that.

Click to expand...

I do not expect 054As with their HHQ-16 VLS to necessarily fire new quad packed MR SAMs.
I do expect HHQ-16s will be produced in sufficient numbers to fill the arsenals of 054As, and then as 054As begin to be retired in the long term, I expect those HHQ-16s to be adapted for launch from the CCL VLS as a cost saving measure.

But I also believe it makes sense for all the new ships with CCL VLS to standardize to two types of SAMs; the cheaper, quad packed MR SAM, and a more expensive, LR SAM. The HHQ-16 will remain relevant so long as the 054As are in service, and once they retire the remaining HHQ-16s might be retained and adapted for use in the CCL VLS as reserves if necessary.

Even a modern AESA like Thales Nederland's APAR cannot guide SM-2s to the fullest extent of their range. China would have to do much better than the APAR because the HHQ-9A (200?km) is even longer-ranged than the SM-2IIIA (170?km) used on the Dutch "frigates".

Click to expand...

Sure, but there's no reason an 054B will need the onboard sensor capability to engage targets at the max range of the LR SAM to begin with. After all, we both agree that the bulk of the next generation frigate's SAM composition would be MR SAMs. So, any small number of LR SAMs they are armed with will merely be to reach out against rare, high priority stand-off range aerial targets, that their MR SAMs cannot engage.
Assuming the quad pack MR SAMs have a maximum range of 50km and an LR SAM has a maximum range of 200km, even if the ship's onboard sensors are only able to guide the LR SAM to 75% of its maximum range that is still significantly more than the reach of the MR SAM.

I also expect any LR SAM on the next gen frigate would be active radar guided, so the range factor will not be limited by something like the Thales APAR range which operates in X band, which is necessary for guiding SM-2s which depend on SARH and require terminal illumination.

I'm not really convinced by this guy's arguments. Giving up long range firepower for more defense decreases that much more the primary purpose of an air defense destroyer, and that is fleetwide air defense and denial of enemy airspace. There is obviously some kind of happy medium, but I don't think the USN agrees at least right now that it lies in the way of more MRSAMs and less LRSAMs.

Click to expand...

Yes, like I said I don't fully agree with his argument either, but I think he raises a good point in regards to the role of quad packed MR SAMs in air defence.

As for what a healthy middle ground is; none of us know what the USN's SAM distribution between MR SAMs and LR SAMs really are so we can't really say either way.

Bltizo said:

.
Assuming the quad pack MR SAMs have a maximum range of 50km and an LR SAM has a maximum range of 200km, even if the ship's onboard sensors are only able to guide the LR SAM to 75% of its maximum range that is still significantly more than the reach of the MR SAM.

I also expect any LR SAM on the next gen frigate would be active radar guided, so the range factor will not be limited by something like the Thales APAR range which operates in X band, which is necessary for guiding SM-2s which depend on SARH and require terminal illumination.

Click to expand...

Interesting... you think 052C/D can engage or fired up to 150 km with their versatile AESA radars* ,
Both missiles types especialy last variants if HHQ-9B is in service... get using active radar seeker as SM-6 ?

Edit : *Type 346 Radar is also a fire control radar or what use for it 052C and D please.

Bltizo said:

Sure, but there's no reason an 054B will need the onboard sensor capability to engage targets at the max range of the LR SAM to begin with. After all, we both agree that the bulk of the next generation frigate's SAM composition would be MR SAMs. So, any small number of LR SAMs they are armed with will merely be to reach out against rare, high priority stand-off range aerial targets, that their MR SAMs cannot engage.

Click to expand...

We will just have to see. As I said, if the '054B' is a design with an amidships VLS bank, then this may be a possibility.

FORBIN said:

Interesting... you think 052C/D can engage or fired up to 150 km with their versatile AESA radars* ,
Both missiles types especialy last variants if HHQ-9B is in service... get using active radar seeker as SM-6 ?

Edit : *Type 346 Radar is also a fire control radar or what use for it 052C and D please.

Click to expand...

The 'HHQ-9B' is the hypothetical SARH+IR version of the HHQ-9, which would correspond to the SM-2 Block IIIB iteration of the Standard series. The 'HHQ-9C' is the hypothetical version with an active seeker, which would correspond to the SM-6.

The Type 346 apparently is a dual band radar with an S portion for search and track and a C portion for terminal illumination. I had no idea this was the case until I popped into the Type 346 Wikipedia page (of all places) and found an extensive writeup on it. It does make perfect sense though, since everybody thought 346 was S-band which is unsuitable for terminal illumination, but everybody also thought HHQ-9A was SARH, which needs a terminal illuminator. But no other suitable radar exists on the 052C/D, which was very confusing to me for quite a long time.

In any case, I'm interested to find out whether on the 055 this dual band radar is finally physically separated into 2 radars with the terminal illuminator moved into the X-band that most other navies use. I'm not totally convinced yet that one of the holes in the main mast of the 055 is going to be used for this alleged X-band AESA. After all, there is still plenty of hardware that still needs to be placed on the 055, including ECM, ESM and IFF, and if the goal is to semi-stealthify the 055, some or all of these might make it into the mast.

Hyperwarp said:

Thanks for that. That is a quite low level interception.

Click to expand...

Very impressive. Tho' it would be interesting to know more about the Conditions under which the test was performed. Type of target, speed, how the target was manoeuvring and so on.