054/A FFG Thread II

[Blitzo]

I could understand the discrepancy being a function of significant technological inferiority, as the best that Russia (and therefore China) could do at the time, but the notion of such inferiority being a deliberate choice in order to reduce the cost of the weapon is one I find rather implausible.

Even if it were actually cheaper to produce a large missile with X range than a smaller one (which I have doubts about in the first place), I expect any such benefits would be overwhelmed by logistical considerations. Both land vehicles and warships have weight and volume constraints. If capabilities are the same, a smaller missile would allow for a given launch vehicle or ship to carry more of them, both directly increasing the effectiveness of the platform and reducing the need for supply vehicles carrying reloads.

If the figures given for HHQ-16 are correct (and they seem reasonable in light of specifications for Russian Buk system and 054A's VLS compatibility with Yu-8) then it weighs 50% more than Aster 30 yet is credited with less than half the range. Either the technology gap between HHQ-16 and its western contemporaries is enormous, or there is something else going on here.

Actually I don't think it is that ridiculous to think the HHQ-16's capability to size relationship is a reflection of affordability.

For example, the HQ-12 is a missile that was procured in fairly significant numbers alongside the HQ-9 for land forces, and its missile itself is larger than the HQ-9 yet is substantially less capable, yet it was also deliberately procured despite being less capable than the HQ-9, likely because it was substantially cheaper. Compared to other new air defence missiles that were being produced at the time HQ-12 was being procured, it is obviously substantially less capable and larger, yet the PLA still bought them.

The only conclusion I can lead to is that the Chinese military is not shy about buying missile systems which may be larger or less capable for its size than other similar systems in the world, and such purchases are often made with a more capable "higher end" capability in service to complement it, and that this is likely a reflection of a combination of funds + more legacy limitations in R&D which have yet to reach levels of advancement where smaller missiles with similar capability are yet to be affordable to producein large numbers.


And yes, a smaller missile that is as capable than a larger one (but more expensive) means you would be able to store more of the missiles and lighten the logistics burden... but that assumes you have the money to buy more of the smaller missile to begin with.

 

[antiterror13]

@Lethe ... good analysis.

I don't think there is any significant/major gap of between Chinese and US/EU missile technology, even in some aspects the Chinese are better.

the latest HQ-16 (16B) has 70 km range which is more than sufficient as a medium range SAM. HQ-16 maybe heavier and bigger than Aster 30, I believe mainly due to larger warhead and different type of seekers. The bigger size of HQ-16 is a major advantageous as there is an ample room for future improvement (range, warhead, new solid fuel, motor, etc) ... and also the possibility to quad-packed existing VLS for HQ-16 with let's say 30-50 km range in the future (or already developed?).
Overtime HQ-16 will be better and better ... and at the moment is good enough to meet the objectives

and like @Bltizo mentioned .. money is a big factor too, you don't need to waste your fund to just field only super expensive high performance SAM ... mix of hi-med-lo is the best approach

@Bltizo ... I don't think HQ-12 is larger than HQ-9

 

[Blitzo]

@Bltizo ... I don't think HQ-12 is larger than HQ-9

yes, you're correct, HQ-12 missile is over 800 kg while HQ-9 is 1.3 tons, I misremembered.

That said the overall thrust of my argument is still there, considering HQ-12 at over 800kg still only has a range of like 40km

 

[Iron Man]

@Lethe ... good analysis.

I don't think there is any significant/major gap of between Chinese and US/EU missile technology, even in some aspects the Chinese are better.

the latest HQ-16 (16B) has 70 km range which is more than sufficient as a medium range SAM. HQ-16 maybe heavier and bigger than Aster 30, I believe mainly due to larger warhead and different type of seekers. The bigger size of HQ-16 is a major advantageous as there is an ample room for future improvement (range, warhead, new solid fuel, motor, etc) ... and also the possibility to quad-packed existing VLS for HQ-16 with let's say 30-50 km range in the future (or already developed?).
Overtime HQ-16 will be better and better ... and at the moment is good enough to meet the objectives

and like @Bltizo mentioned .. money is a big factor too, you don't need to waste your fund to just field only super expensive high performance SAM ... mix of hi-med-lo is the best approach

@Bltizo ... I don't think HQ-12 is larger than HQ-9

Aster 30 and HHQ-16 probably also have different flight profiles, yet another potential limitation to range. Aster 30 probably follows a semi-ballistic trajectory to a target basket with intermittent course updates (similar to the SM-2MR and later iterations), a very efficient flight profile, while HHQ-16 probably flies straight into the target, requiring frequent updates and probably losing a lot of energy during its flight due to the updates. The tradeoff is that a semi-ballistic profile is good for long range engagements but may not be usable for short range engagements especially against a highly maneuverable target. The size of the HHQ-16 is probably mostly a technological limitation (fuel, motor) as its role is essentially identical to that of the ESSM but has more than twice the mass. Again, the FCR may also play a limiting role. So it's unclear whether the HHQ-16B's increased range is due to improvements in the missile or the FCR, or both.

I still think a DK-10A maybe with the option of a booster is the way forward for the PLAN, though due to its active seeker will be quite a bit more expensive. Quad-packing is such an obvious force-multiplier I'm surprised the PLAN hasn't already introduced a missile that can do this.

 

[Blitzo]

I still think a DK-10A maybe with the option of a booster is the way forward for the PLAN, though due to its active seeker will be quite a bit more expensive. Quad-packing is such an obvious force-multiplier I'm surprised the PLAN hasn't already introduced a missile that can do this.

I would be very surprised if such a missile was not at least in advanced stages of development/testing right now.

 

[Lethe]

I am no rocket engineer (or any other kind of engineer) but the reason I doubt that a larger missile using less advanced propellant would be cheaper than (let alone actively preferred to) a smaller missile using more advanced propellant is because a rocket also has to propel its own mass (i.e. its own propellants) such that there is a greater-than-linear relationship between the mass of the payload and the launch mass required to get it to a given destination. We are familiar with this in the context of space launch rockets, where the push is constantly towards using more advanced propellants in order to minimise launch weight and therefore cost.

the latest HQ-16 (16B) has 70 km range which is more than sufficient as a medium range SAM.

The question is not the range, but rather the opportunity cost of such large missiles taking up VLS cells that could be used for something else, whether other missiles, crew quarters, etc. This line of investigation was prompted by Iron Man's suggestion in another thread that a mere 8-cell Mk. 41 system could deliver the same capability as 054A's 32-cell VLS.

 

[antiterror13]

I am no rocket engineer (or any other kind of engineer) but the reason I doubt that a larger missile using less advanced propellant would be cheaper than (let alone actively preferred to) a smaller missile using more advanced propellant is because a rocket also has to propel its own mass (i.e. its own propellants) such that there is a greater-than-linear relationship between the mass of the payload and the launch mass required to get it to a given destination. We are familiar with this in the context of space launch rockets, where the push is constantly towards using more advanced propellants in order to minimise launch weight and therefore cost. If it were really cheaper to use less advanced propellants/motors, China would've fielded a Saturn V-class rocket long ago.

The question is not the range, but rather the opportunity cost of such large missiles taking up VLS cells that could be used for something else, whether other missiles, crew quarters, etc. This line of investigation was prompted by Iron Man's suggestion in another thread that a mere 8-cell Mk. 41 system could deliver the same capability as 054A's 32-cell VLS.

But ESSM is very expensive, almost US$1.5M ... you could get 4 YJ-83 ASM for that money

 

[FORBIN]

But ESSM is very expensive, almost US$1.5M ... you could get 4 YJ-83 ASM for that money

No less $0.9M but yes not cheaper...

Price/Unit Cost:
The RIM-162 ESSM has a unit cost of $840,000 to $970,000 depending on configuration (in FY 2014). Missiles compatible with the Mk 29 GMLS cost $841,900 per All-Up Round, while missiles compatible with the Mk 41 VLS cost 967,800 per All-Up Round.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Hyperwarp]

Regarding the HQ-12 Vs HQ-9 size comparison:

 

[nugroho]

I am no rocket engineer (or any other kind of engineer) but the reason I doubt that a larger missile using less advanced propellant would be cheaper than (let alone actively preferred to) a smaller missile using more advanced propellant is because a rocket also has to propel its own mass (i.e. its own propellants) such that there is a greater-than-linear relationship between the mass of the payload and the launch mass required to get it to a given destination. We are familiar with this in the context of space launch rockets, where the push is constantly towards using more advanced propellants in order to minimise launch weight and therefore cost.



The question is not the range, but rather the opportunity cost of such large missiles taking up VLS cells that could be used for something else, whether other missiles, crew quarters, etc. This line of investigation was prompted by Iron Man's suggestion in another thread that a mere 8-cell Mk. 41 system could deliver the same capability as 054A's 32-cell VLS.

So, by armament , 1 arleigh burke =96/8 =12 054a?