052C/052D Class Destroyers

FORBIN said:

Not agree ​

Diameter for canister and fins in general are not retractable

Look very good missile for S-400 48N6M range 200 - 240 km as last HQ-9 or HHQ-9B diameter 52 cm do the canister but he do 7.5 m long and the HQ-9 only 6.8 m ( - 10 % ) and for volume so logicaly can be only more big ( + 10 % do 57 cm ) and Almaz Antey build the best SAMs since 50 years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Warhead can be more small for do room for fuel not for SAMs and can dépends speed for supersonic missiles can be different of subsonic which consumes much more less and are clearly less big in general.

Click to expand...

I means retractable in the canister ofc.
And also confirm the weight of the HQ-9 to at less 1.8 t and not 1.3 t as it is possible to see sometimes and then logicaly a diameter " enough big " but it is very difficult in more the diameter with or without fins is not precised in general for VLS and canisters again more difficult to have dimensions.

FORBIN said:

Not agree ​

Diameter for canister and fins in general are not retractable

Look very good missile for S-400 48N6M range 200 - 240 km as last HQ-9 or HHQ-9B diameter 52 cm do the canister but he do 7.5 m long and the HQ-9 only 6.8 m ( - 10 % ) and for volume so logicaly can be only more big ( + 10 % do 57 cm ) and Almaz Antey build the best SAMs since 50 years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Warhead can be more small for do room for fuel not for SAMs and can dépends speed for supersonic missiles can be different of subsonic which consumes much more less and are clearly less big in general.

Click to expand...

Range can increase if the missile has more advance fuel

FORBIN said:

Not agree ​

Diameter for canister and fins in general are not retractable

Look very good missile for S-400 48N6M range 200 - 240 km as last HQ-9 or HHQ-9B diameter 52 cm do the canister but he do 7.5 m long and the HQ-9 only 6.8 m ( - 10 % ) and for volume so logicaly can be only more big ( + 10 % do 57 cm ) and Almaz Antey build the best SAMs since 50 years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Your source says the "case diameter" is "519mm", which is the newer 48N6 version. The previous 5V55K/R versions were smaller than the 48N6, and the HHQ-9 is even smaller than the 5V55K/R. Also, the ranges of the HHQ-9 have consistently been quoted as being LESSER than the S-300, not equivalent, and certainly not greater. The US Annual Report to Congress about the Chinese military has consistently drawn range circles around PLAN ships indicating that they think the range is 100-120km for the HHQ-9 and 150km for the S-300. In addition, subsequent improvements to a baseline missile version's range do not have to come from increasing the size. Improvements in fuel, engines, aerodynamics, and guidance can all be leveraged to significantly increase missile range without increasing missile size. It is likely that the PLAN has pursued all of these strategies in subsequent iterations of the HHQ-9 baseline design.

Also here is another source that agrees with me:

BTW, I also said multiple times that a new HHQ-9 version would have to be developed that can fold its fins in order for a dual-packed HHQ-9 to become a reality. The point is that the missile body of the HHQ-9 is not an obstruction to developing such a setup.

Iron Man said:

Your source says the "case diameter" is "519mm", which is the newer 48N6 version. The previous 5V55K/R versions were smaller than the 48N6, and the HHQ-9 is even smaller than the 5V55K/R. Also, the ranges of the HHQ-9 have consistently been quoted as being LESSER than the S-300, not equivalent, and certainly not greater. The US Annual Report to Congress about the Chinese military has consistently drawn range circles around PLAN ships indicating that they think the range is 100-120km for the HHQ-9 and 150km for the S-300. In addition, subsequent improvements to a baseline missile version's range do not have to come from increasing the size. Improvements in fuel, engines, aerodynamics, and guidance can all be leveraged to significantly increase missile range without increasing missile size. It is likely that the PLAN has pursued all of these strategies in subsequent iterations of the HHQ-9 baseline design.

Also here is another source that agrees with me:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BTW, I also said multiple times that a new HHQ-9 version would have to be developed that can fold its fins in order for a dual-packed HHQ-9 to become a reality. The point is that the missile body of the HHQ-9 is not an obstruction to developing such a setup.

Click to expand...

Large discussion but 1st it is the diameter for the missile without canister so for HQ-9 1 by cellule ...
5V55K/R is not samller do same size 52 cm and the range is to 75 - 90 Km a difference

Also here is another source that agrees with me:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Your source is correct but old dated of 2000 and the Russian blog is excellent better.

I precise except for give examples i don't talk for HQ-9 but for HHQ-9B 200 km range used by 052D and later 055.
But i have say seems exist 2 - 3 versions of each 125 - 200 km but with China to know...

In Sean O ' Connor PDF ( S-300/350/400 ) Files one or the more big specialists fro SAMs i have all 5V55.. family and 48N6 to 1.6 t and 1.8t thatconfirm as i have say for volume HQ-9 less long but more big...

i have one artivle of 14 pages here
on the 055 they say as you no DK-10 but one missile by cellule completely logic don't even need mentionned !

For me HHQ-9B do 70 cm diameter according i have see eventualy minimum 50 - 55 cm + canister so rather 55 cm and one by cellule.

Don't do mind but i think it is not a good idea mentionned hypothesis conceived with China yet some dream i has see one not surprising in more he knows nothing about it and with this country it is yet difficult so let's stay with existing things.

For joke ofc i am sure you have success with "fanboys" but i am not one for these matters

For DK-10 i have check confirm you say 052D is not armed with him so it's a small handicap this missiles type 4 / cell's is disponible in big qty interesting vs salvoes attacks a Burke/Ticonderoga can have surely 32 in 8 cellules by example. " CSBA " reports say 10 % of the total in average.

But the 055 will surely have a higher proportion of CJ-10 more oriented vs land targets.

FORBIN said:

5V55K/R is not samller do same size 52 cm and the range is to 75 - 90 Km a difference

Click to expand...

Your own source fails to mention the diameter of the 5V55K/R version, while my source specifically states the diameter is 45cm. Do you have any source that states the 5V55K/R is the same diameter as the later versions???

FORBIN said:

For me HHQ-9B do 70 cm diameter according i have see eventualy minimum 50 - 55 cm + canister so rather 55 cm and one by cellule.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're saying here, but I think it's quite obvious by now that "70cm" does NOT refer to the diameter of the missile body, as you were claiming before.

Here
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-483

My last answers ...

Ofc only S-400 in this blog in Russian Wiki you have size 51 cm.
And i have see this diameter on severals sites/blogs and can be or not with fins ?

And as it it possible to see all S-300 are more long than HQ-9 so make sense for same range HQ-9 or HHQ-9B is more big.
For opposite necessary proofs normal.

Better let's move on and we have thread for missiles also.

DL

Has 3 x Type 052D in the water

Modules for 2 more next to the 2 x Type 055

That's 5 units

JNCX

Has 4 x Type 052D in water

1 under construction in the hallway

Modules for 2 more next to the 2 x Type 055


That's 7 units

Add to that 6 commissioned

5+7+6 = 18 identified units

We believe the original order was 18 units anymore that appear will be massive news

Iron Man said:

No, your quoted diameter includes the fins. It is not the diameter of the missile body. The missile body determines whether a missile can be dual- or quad-packed, not the fins, which can be designed to fold.

Click to expand...

Yes...but we have seen no evidence of the Chinese doing this...and I might add, even folded, you are gong to add to the overall outside diameter becuase the fin itself has a thickness, and the folding mechanism will also take up some room...equal to, or perhaps even slightly larger than the thickness of the fin itself.

SO be sure and add some thickness to the fins to account for that.

I understand wht you are saying and it is a possible good innovation...but one we have not seen the Chinese attempt or test...or heard of them doing so.

Though my guess is that because it has been discussed here...fanbois will believe that it has already happened and are probably speakign of it as such

Jeff Head said:

Yes...but we have seen no evidence of the Chinese doing this...and I might add, even folded, you are gong to add to the overall outside diameter becuase the fin itself has a thickness, and the folding mechanism will also take up some room...equal to, or perhaps even slightly larger than the thickness of the fin itself.

SO be sure and add some thickness to the fins to account for that.

I understand wht you are saying and it is a possible good innovation...but one we have not seen the Chinese attempt or test...or heard of them doing so.

Though my guess is that because it has been discussed here...fanbois will believe that it has already happened and are probably speakign of it as such

Click to expand...

All of my depictions are speculative, and I have stated this clearly multiple times. Also, I make room for both the increase size of the missile due to the folded fins as well as extra space on top of that for tube spacers that line the inside of the VL cell for missile storage and launch purposes.