054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Yes, the Type 052Bs use the short chorded missile, which would be the SA-N-12 corresponding to the 9M317E. In other words, the later variant of the Buks. I am not sure how the PLA or the PLAN was introduced to the earlier long chorded 9K37 or 9K317 missile, maybe because the PLA bought some Buk-M1 batteries or from the 956E Sovremenny (DDG 36 and 37). The 956EM (DDG 38 and 39) should be using the 9M317E.
HQ-16 and HHQ-16 uses the long chord but choose not to copy the later short chord. I am not sure if there is any aerodynamic benefits in going with a wider wingspan and short wing chord, but the Russians certainly dumped that later with the 9M317ME.
This one from the Type 052B. Definitely the short chord. Also known as the "Grizzly".
This is the 9M317ME, which is cold launched. You can see the small wings here, but the tail fins seems the same as the rest. You won't mistake this with the new missile, which I think there is a chance it might be entirely a new missile. All the Buk family seems to use the same set of tail fins regardless of the shape of the wings and the length of the wing chord. The new missile may not have this set of tail fins at all.
HQ-16 and HHQ-16 uses the long chord but choose not to copy the later short chord. I am not sure if there is any aerodynamic benefits in going with a wider wingspan and short wing chord, but the Russians certainly dumped that later with the 9M317ME.
This one from the Type 052B. Definitely the short chord. Also known as the "Grizzly".
This is the 9M317ME, which is cold launched. You can see the small wings here, but the tail fins seems the same as the rest. You won't mistake this with the new missile, which I think there is a chance it might be entirely a new missile. All the Buk family seems to use the same set of tail fins regardless of the shape of the wings and the length of the wing chord. The new missile may not have this set of tail fins at all.
Last edited:
I was browsing around looking for more information about Chinese SAM projects that may give a clue. Found nothing but did find this, which seemed cool.
That's like an ESSM with active guidance. It has a decent range of up to 50km. Basically a PL-12 used as a SAM. Its looking for customers and found one in Rwanda.
If assuming PL-12 dimensions, which is like .203m diameter and 3.85m in length, I would be inclined to think it would be quad pack capable on the H/AJK-16, which I am assuming a length of at least 5.4m if you can fit that on an SA-N-12 magazine, and the HHQ-16 with a diameter similar to the Standard, which is about .34m, I suspect the H/AJK-16 might have the same diameter as the Mk 41.
That's like an ESSM with active guidance. It has a decent range of up to 50km. Basically a PL-12 used as a SAM. Its looking for customers and found one in Rwanda.
If assuming PL-12 dimensions, which is like .203m diameter and 3.85m in length, I would be inclined to think it would be quad pack capable on the H/AJK-16, which I am assuming a length of at least 5.4m if you can fit that on an SA-N-12 magazine, and the HHQ-16 with a diameter similar to the Standard, which is about .34m, I suspect the H/AJK-16 might have the same diameter as the Mk 41.
dimensions of sd10a are already written in the above image. 260mm max body diameter. i'm not sure what 0.752 and 0.660 values are, though. one would *think* they're wing span or fin span but actually measuring the bits on the image, assuming 260mm max diameter, gives 370mm wing span and 545mm fin span. there's no way measure is that much off, as image is fairly hi res.
What is more important than the diameter of this missile is the total L/W including the strakes, and information on whether the tail fins can fold. That will be the real sign of whether such a missile could quad-pack into the H/AJK-16. The other thing to consider is that this missile would be much more expensive than your average SARH missile. Quad-packing into a frigate-sized ship would have to be based significantly on how much of the total value in missiles the PLAN is willing to invest per ship.
Yes, I just noticed. The missile is two staged and the booster is thicker than the main missile.
Also looks like the FCS behind it might be more advanced than what the 054A has, since it can engage up to 12 targets simultaneously with only one face, enabling the missiles to deal with a concentrated saturation attack. If the 054A's four Type 345 radars have the Orekh specs, each only has two channels to guide missiles in their inertial phase, so only up to 8 missiles in all directions. These indeed might seem better off on the Type 052D or 055, assuming they get a naval VLS version.
That would be interesting. Does the Makarov manage to include the AESA versions of the MR90 Orekh?
Not authoritative as a warning, Deagle.com has an entry for the HQ-16B, HHQ-16C for naval variant.
This one looks a lot more like the 9M317, although from this distance I am not sure about the wingspan.
Mentions that the improved version, the HHQ-16C, will appear for the Type 054B. Take that into consideration with a pinch of salt.
If HHQ-16C looks like an HQ-16 with the wings moved further to the middle its not likely our mystery missile.
The possibility that it might be two staged, hints to me its either a completely new missile we have never heard before, or it can be a variant of the Sky Dragon 50 aka DK-10A with different wings, perhaps maybe that can fit a tighter space? The SD-50 GAS2 happens to be a two staged SAM and the only I can think of that can fit within a cell made for the HQ-16's dimensions.
Looking back, I take back what I said about the FCS requirements with the Type 054A. The active guided SD-50 can employ the IBIS-150 and IBIS-200 radars, which are the search and engagement radar sets for the LY-80, which in turn, is the export version of the HQ-16. This may also open options for an active guided version of the HQ-16 using the same seeker head, which is adapted from the PL-12's. Maybe the mystery new missile is also active guided. Maybe it is possible that the combination of Type 364 and 382 radars can provide multiple quality tracks to simultaneously engage a saturation of multiple targets with active guided missiles, the data fed to the missiles via the HN-900 data link. Maybe this will require a software upgrade to the radars and combat management system, and finally bring all these to the test.
Not authoritative as a warning, Deagle.com has an entry for the HQ-16B, HHQ-16C for naval variant.
This one looks a lot more like the 9M317, although from this distance I am not sure about the wingspan.
Mentions that the improved version, the HHQ-16C, will appear for the Type 054B. Take that into consideration with a pinch of salt.
If HHQ-16C looks like an HQ-16 with the wings moved further to the middle its not likely our mystery missile.
The possibility that it might be two staged, hints to me its either a completely new missile we have never heard before, or it can be a variant of the Sky Dragon 50 aka DK-10A with different wings, perhaps maybe that can fit a tighter space? The SD-50 GAS2 happens to be a two staged SAM and the only I can think of that can fit within a cell made for the HQ-16's dimensions.
Looking back, I take back what I said about the FCS requirements with the Type 054A. The active guided SD-50 can employ the IBIS-150 and IBIS-200 radars, which are the search and engagement radar sets for the LY-80, which in turn, is the export version of the HQ-16. This may also open options for an active guided version of the HQ-16 using the same seeker head, which is adapted from the PL-12's. Maybe the mystery new missile is also active guided. Maybe it is possible that the combination of Type 364 and 382 radars can provide multiple quality tracks to simultaneously engage a saturation of multiple targets with active guided missiles, the data fed to the missiles via the HN-900 data link. Maybe this will require a software upgrade to the radars and combat management system, and finally bring all these to the test.
That should be correct for a land SAM which needs to clear buildings, hills and trees, and the radar to deal with the ground scatter to intercept low flying targets. For a naval SAM you need to rework the radar to compensate for the scatter caused by the water surface.