PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Discussion in 'Navy' started by tphuang, Sep 14, 2008.

  1. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    2,778
    First, what is the reference for the HVP round? What exactly is the speed?

    National Interest describes it a Mach 7.3 round which I seriously doubt, as it makes it as fast as a railgun round.
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...-navy-tested-hypervelocity-cannon-round-41022

    The majority of periodicals only describe it as a Mach 3 round.
    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...per-velocity-projectiles-during-2018-exercise
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25804867/us-navy-hvp-heavy-gun-shells-rimpac/
    https://news.usni.org/2016/07/18/pe...uns-change-paradigm-missile-defense-navy-army

    Mach 3 is 1029 meters per second at sea level. There are rounds reaching 1000 meters per second dating back to World War 2.

    IJN's 100mm gun used in the Akizuki class destroyers.
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_39-65_t98.php

    Shortly after the war, the Soviets use this 100mm round and cannon as AA defense for their cruisers.
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-70_cm5.php

    This is more of an interest since this 130mm round already reached 950 mps.
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-58_m1957.php

    This should be familiar as this gun from Russian destroyers are passed on to the PRC as the guns on the Luda class destroyer.

    Now lets go back the 76mm gun on the Type 054A, whose design is inherited or copied from the Russians, and originally as the AK-176.
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_3-60_ak176.php

    The shells on this gun are already 980 meters per second. Won't take a lot to bump it over 1030 meters per second or more. Do note for a shell to attain a higher speed, without changing the propellant or the entire shell weight, this means you increase the amount of propellant and decreasing the shell weight at the same amount.

    But we need to go back to history, why the USN guns do not have high velocity shells like the Russians, Germans, Italians and Japanese. The USN once did have high velocity shells, then prioritized something else. That is barrel and gun life. Shooting high velocity shells at a rapid rate will wear and warp out the gun barrels, requiring frequent changes in the barrels. The USN warships need to stay out in longer periods in the sea, so gun life is prioritized. The Russians stay much closer to their coasts and can afford to frequently change their barrels easily. Another factor for a lower muzzle shell velocity is shell dispersion. The violence and stress of higher velocity rounds would rock the gun resulting in greater shell dispersion.

    So after decades, the USN turned full circle again back to high velocity shells again. The question is how they will manage barrel life, and wear and tear on the guns. I don't assume the guns will be fired a lot with these shells without some modifications. The increased violence from the rounds means some changes on the gun, but the techniques for doing that goes all the way back even before the Second World War.

    Going back to the 76mm on the 054A, even if it reaches over Mach 3, I seriously doubt it can see ranges like you do with a 5" gun. That is because the shells are much lighter on the 76mm. With less mass, they store less kinetic energy to keep them on a straight flight compared to a heavier shell. The shells would be less accurate and you have a larger circle of dispersion. You are not going to see the accuracy and range compared to using heavier shells. The difference between the Russian 76mm shell and the 130mm shell is about 12kg vs. 33kg. If you sacrificed shell weight to reach a higher velocity, then you will be lower than 12kg. Due to the potential increased inaccuracy, this is where guided rounds need to come in. The question is how much guidance systems you can put on a small 76mm round compared to a 130mm round.
     
  2. hkbc
    Offline

    hkbc Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    379
    HVP is short hand for BAE System's 'Hypervelocity Projectile' marketing bullsh*t for a guided sabot round https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp "buy my expensive round, lets dream up some usage scenarios"

    As you've pointed out in glorious detail there are lots of pros and cons with increasing MV, should also be noted that using this round drops the MK45's rpm down from 20+ to just 15.
     
    Anlsvrthng and Tam like this.
  3. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,664
    Likes Received:
    2,515
    The 15-20rpm is for the American Mark 45 gun. As I've pointed out, the Italians and Russians have a significantly higher rate of fire for the same calibre of gun from a single barrel.
    Plus we've seen double barrelled turrets with the AK-130, which would double the rpm.

    I have doubts about whether the current Type-54 76mm Gun could match a much larger 127mm Gun. And I expect the Chinese Navy is exploring the options here.

    But it looks like there will be a huge cost advantage for guided artillery anti-air rounds over current medium-range (BUK/ESSM) SAM systems.
    Even accounting for increased barrel replacement and other costs.

    So is the future of medium range air defence in 127mm/130mm guided artillery anti-air rounds?
    If so, a new Frigate design would presumably need to be larger. Plus the VLS would only be needed for Anti-sub and Anti-surface warfare.

    And this is in addition to the technologies that are in development.
    ASW examples include surface ship drones, airborne drones, underwater drones, underwater LIDAR detectors, SQUID magnetometers
     
  4. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    2,778
    Rate of fire is critical for AA. Going down from 20 to 15 rpm is huge as that is 1/4th of your firepower, and 20 rpm is never big to begin with.

    The Russian AK-130 gun, like on the Sov, is capable of up to 40 rounds per minute per gun. Each turret has two guns.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-130
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-70_ak130.php

    For destroyers that have two turrets, for four of these guns, that's like a total of 160 rounds per minute.

    As for whether a frigate the displacement of the 054A can mount a gun bigger than a 76mm, the 2200 ton displacement Project 20380 corvettes mount a 130mm gun.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steregushchiy-class_corvette

    http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/armat-puma/

    The AK-192 gun is capable of up to 30 rounds per minute.

    Later ships have the 100mm AK-190 gun. The change of gun is likely due to the increased rate of fire of the 100mm gun.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-100_(naval_gun)

    That's up to 80 rounds per minute.

    The A-192 gun is also the gun used for the Admiral Grigorovich class frigates. This class of frigate has close similarities to the Type 054A, ranging from appearance, use of a Buk missile system, the Top Plate radar, and to the displacement.

    The 76mm gun on the Type 054A, which is referred to as H/PJ-26, if its like its Russian counterpart, is capable of 30, 60 and burst 120 rounds per minute. The main difference of the Chinese gun is the stealth turret and having double the rounds in the turret.

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_3-60_ak176.php

    http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/ak-176m/

    My opinion is that the 76mm on the Type 054A is fine as it is.

    Is it possible to put the 130mm H/PJ-38 from the 052D into a Type 054A size hull. There have been smaller ships that carry bigger guns. The other question is it worth it? Note the H/PJ-38 may have been derived from the AK-130mm just like the A-192, and this potentially can mean it might have an rpm of 30 to 40 rounds, a far cry from the 76mm's rate of fire. Is it worth trading for the bigger punch and range of the 130mm gun in exchange for the 76mm's higher rate of fire?
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  5. hkbc
    Offline

    hkbc Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    379
    Granted a guided shell is a lot cheaper than a ESSM (also orders of magnitude more expensive than a conventional one!) but how many of them will need to be expended to kill the target? if it's more than one what's the actual net cost? If you need to fire several RoF and barrel wear become real issues as are jams (yes guns jam!)

    Will it end up cheaper than a MANPAD type missile?

    Comparing a 5in shell with a ESSM is ridiculous, the engagement range of a 5in shell is more akin to a SeaRam or FL-3000N. i.e. This HVP marketing is a solution hunting a problem, a hype cycle, because solutions to the cost issue already exist!

    Finally, A Type 054A has HQ16 VLS for area defence and a pair of Type 730/1130 for close in defence, more than adequate for a vessel of it's tonnage and mission, this whole HVP hype thing doesn't belong in this thread!
     
    Red Moon likes this.
  6. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,664
    Likes Received:
    2,515
    Your assertion that a 5inch shell is comparable in engagement range to a MANPADS/SeaRam/FL-3000N is not correct.
    Barrel wear isn't an issue either.
    And we still see a huge cost advantage for a guided anti-air HVP projectile over both HQ-16 and SeaRAM.

    So there is definitely a place for a 5inch naval guns to field guided anti-air shells for medium-range area air defence.
    And potentially to replace medium-ranged SAMs if the advantages are great enough.
    Hence my comment that this may be contributing to the delay of a Type-54 successor, because everyone is still trying to figure the actual capabilities/sizes and how best to deploy.

    The reasoning is outlined below.

    Range
    Regular 127mm shell = 30km with a parabolic trajectory
    HVP projectile = 80km supposedly, but let's say it is only half at 40km
    HQ16 VLS SAM = 30km+ range (based on the Russian BUK missile)
    SeaRAM = 9km.
    Stinger MANPADS = 5km

    So we can see that an HVP projectile is comparable to the HQ-16 area defence SAM in range.

    Barrel Wear
    The Italian 127mm has a barrel life of 7000 firings.
    Even accounting for higher barrel wear with an HVP projectile, can you ever imagine a Type-54 Frigate even doing 1000 VLS SAM launches?
    A Type-54 Frigate only has 32 VLS cells in total.

    Cost
    Regular unguided artillery round = $1K
    HVP projectile = Currently $90K (but they're targeting $35K once developed)
    HQ16 SAM = ? (But an ESSM costs $900K, and a grounded-launched AMRAAM is $400K)
    SeaRAM = $450K
    Stinger MANPADS = $38K
     
  7. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    2,778
    AK-176 took around an average of 25 rounds to take down a missile. The HVP test was about 20 rounds, and I think they took that number as the assumption as the minimum number of shells to take down a missile. So if you took 25 rounds at $35,000 each that would be $875,000 to take down a missile. That's still going to be expensive. You can try to reduce the number of rounds used by having greater accuracy. But if these rounds are purely kinetic, they would be solid rounds. They would removing the shell explosive to allow for more propellant per round and make the shell lighter, with the only thing inside the shell the guidance system. So if the shells are more accurate they also have no splash radius, a direct impact is needed.

    If you are down to 15 rounds per minute, this means it takes a minute and 20 seconds to fire 20 rounds. and a minute and 40 seconds for 25 rounds. If a sea skimming Mach 3 supersonic antiship missile pops up at the radar horizon at 30km, you only have 30 seconds of engagement. A Mach 0.9 subsonic ASM sea skimmer would give you a 100 seconds to engage. With guns lower at the deck than radar situated on the mast or above the bridge, the lower the sea skimmer is flying, the later the missile comes in view of the gun's target horizon and LOS as the missile is concealed by the horizon's curvature until it rises past the horizon. Even if your guns is capable of 40 to 48km range, the missile won't be in line of sight of the gun till it rises above the horizon line even if the FC radar has picked up the target. For reference, the AK-176 or H/PJ-26 or the Oto Mellara will take only 5 seconds to send 25 rounds using their 120 rpm burst mode.

    Fire control radars for guns are more sensitive to precision and range than fire control for missiles, requiring the shortest spectrum range of X-band and ideally, Ku-band. These bands attenuate quickly in the atmosphere resulting in shorter ranges than most radars. You also need high PRF for precision, and the higher the PRF, the shorter the range as pulse repetitive frequency and range has a direct relationship. All this brings into question about your gun FCR's range and accuracy at the ranges of MRSAMs, in particular, referring to the Type 054A's Type 344 radar also known as MR34. Not saying the gun FCR cannot do it or cannot be modified to do it, but its something that will be brought to attention and needs to be studied. Gun fire control systems also use IR and EO, but at MRSAM ranges, you may have to be radar only.

    U28P27T1D289731F3DT20050518232510 (1).jpg

    Main guns are already used as anti-air weapons but they are not being viewed as replacements for MRSAMs or SRSAMs but as a supplement for them, and as an element in layered air defense. Guns are even more important for small ships like corvettes, which cannot hold many SAMs or can only use short range or close in SAMs, like the Type 056.
     
    #4217 Tam, Jan 10, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    D_Guns and PanAsian like this.
  8. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    21,126
    Likes Received:
    26,613
    LOL!
    I see

    they were "targeting" AGS, too
    Nov 7, 2016
     
  9. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    21,126
    Likes Received:
    26,613
    this one is even better:
    a future frigate, lacking AAMs in her VLS, and providing "medium range air defence" by shooting guns at missiles ... just by
    AndrewS
    LOL
     
  10. hkbc
    Offline

    hkbc Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    379
    You are comparing apples and oranges using parabolic trajectory values to derive range does not give an effective range for AA engagements. Curvature of the earth comes into play, target height comes into play and as the HVP is not powered in flight it's ability to be guided drops with loss of kinetic energy,

    A Rheinmetall Rh-120 smooth bore tank gun has a MV of 1,700m/s (~Mach 5 at sea level) and an EFFECTIVE range of 8,000m so your super duper HVP will perform in a similar ballistic manner assuming it can reach the same MV given the underlying gun is rifled

    Barrel wear is an issue otherwise there's no reason for the rate of fire to drop using HVP munitions, the gun's mechanism is the same so the only reason for rate of fire drop is to preserve the barrel, As a barrel wears the gun's ability to fire accurately and consistently diminishes, using differing munitions changes the wear rate so I am sure the lovely arms sales man will suggest a full load out of 'superior' shells at 35x the unit cost just so that the poor sailor doesn't have to worry.

    Once the 8 SSMs on a Type 54A is expended (8 is a lot less than 32) the 76mm becomes it's only means of anti-surface self defence.

    Your premise is that the Type 54A doesn't have enough VLS cells and CWIS backup for AA defence so it needs to mess around with a perfectly good medium calibre gun so it can fire shells that cost 2 orders of magnitude more to augment it, and that's a good thing!
     
Loading...

Share This Page