PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

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

  1. optionsss
    Offline

    optionsss Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    All the AIM-120 looks pretty similar, but their performance can be world apart. I don't think you can assess a missile's exact performance base of what it looks like.

    Helicopter carrying torpedo can reach a far greater range. VL-ASROC type system just provide a faster response time, but many vessels does not carry such weapon system, such as FREMM, horizon, Formidable and type 45. I wouldn't say they are all "deficient" in ASW, just because they don't have VL-ASROC.
     
  2. crobato
    Offline

    crobato Colonel
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    4
    No. The HQ-16 and the ship board radars are not beam riders nor is there any indication it is.

    Lower range is more of an indication, or should I say, sacrifice for a high initial acceleration profile that increases intercept % at closer ranges.
     
  3. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    No they don't. That's the most laughable generalization I've heard yet. They all look similar to you because you don't have the ability to distinguish between them. Yeah I'm sure an HQ-9 looks "pretty much like" a HQ-61, which looks just like a TY-90. An elephant looks pretty much like a human if you allow enough deviation. What a joke.

    This is true in some cases, though in the absence of evidence that China somehow leapfrogged the technology of the SA-11, even later iterations of this missile, I'm not going to assume that they did. China has a history of copying missile technology, and that fact stands without question. The fact that the HQ-16 very strongly resembles the SA-11 (and not even remotely like the SM-1/2) that the PLAN has had in its inventory for years makes the hypothesis that the HQ-16 was developed from the SA-11 much more credible than any you can provide. Not only that, your hypothesis that some how some way in some dreamland the HQ-16 has a much longer range than the SA-11 is much less credible than the hypothesis that these two missiles have similar ranges and capabilities.

    Wow, what an incredibly naive statement. I see, so based on your logic, the fact that China has "mastered" the HQ9 "technology" means it now has the expertise to independently develop any and all missile technologies. Because they are now masters. And because all missiles look pretty much like each other if you allow enough deviation. Okay.

    That's a pretty funny statement. So if you see an exposed bolt a few cm lower on the Orekh than on the 054A illuminator, or maybe a paintjob that's slightly different colored, that must mean that the one on the 054A can achieve maybe double or triple the range of the Orekh. By the way, would you like to share the differences that you see between the Orekhs and the ones found on the 054A's?

    I see, so an illuminator that looks just like the Orekh and is almost certainly copied from it, may in fact have a multi-targeting performance that the Orekh itself does not have. Yes maybe, but how do you know that the 054A illuminator cannot also fire photon torpedoes? You're making a skin deep assessment. You need to think bigger.

    Of course it can be added later. Death ray blasters could also be added later, but we are talking about what it has NOW. The very fact that many Chinese military netizens have been clamoring for a "054B" (probably even YOU have clamored for it) is an implicit recognition by these people of the fact that while the 054A is leaps and bounds above the capabilities of both the Jianghu and Luda classes, there is still something, perhaps much, to be desired compared to other modern navies' frontline ships.

    I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. You must have skipped my post and even your own or didn't drink your coffee this morning.

    There are several deficiencies with helicopter ASW compared with VLA-type weapons. First, as you noted, response time is MUCH slower than with VLA-type missiles, minutes compared to seconds. Second, the patrol time of a helicopter, and the 054A only carries one, is very limited, a few hours at most, after which it has to spend downtime for refueling and maintenance. It certainly does not have the ability to give the 054A anywhere near 24/7 ASW coverage. You would have to be part of a quite large task force of maybe 8 more ships each carrying helo's all contributing to a rotation just to have a single helo in the air at all times. Third, helos can be shot down by subs that can launch SAM's, and many sub types these days have already either deployed or are developing such weapons. Fourth, helicopter ops depend strongly on the ambient weather. If you have a high sea state and/or a strong storm, you're not going to deploy your helo. While helicopter ASW is standard on all navies' ships, a VLA or even just ASROC-type weapon is something the PLAN thus far lacks AFAIK.

    I heard reports of China developing ASROC-type weapons like those of the CY-series, but there has been a dearth of information on whether the CY-1 or even of its descendents ever made it to series production. If it has it's probably not on the 054A given that it still uses the much more clumsy ASW depth charge rocket launchers as well as the fact that it would reduce the payload of HQ-16's the 054A could deploy. This actually brings up yet another issue with the HQ-16. It is too fat to be quad-packed into the 054A's launch tubes like the ESSM with Mk 41. If a missile like the ESSM were developed for the PLAN, this would allow far greater versatility of payload and greater firepower, effectively giving the 054A a significant force multiplier and enhancing its abilities dramatically.
     
    #603 ZTZ99, Mar 19, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2010
  4. optionsss
    Offline

    optionsss Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is hardly relevant in real life combat, as most combat vessel would need its on-board helicopters to detect submarines anyways. If the submarine is detected, it has already lost 90% of the battle, I don't think a 20km weapon is going to make a significant difference, and apparently most of the world's navy would agree. Many of the newer European vessels don't carry such weapon system.

    Really? I think it is the other way around, many submarines do not carry SAMs, that's for a very good reason. Stealth is a submarine's best weapon, if it had to surface to attempt to attack an over flight aircraft, 90% of battle is lost. After that, it will have to focus entirely on survival, which is not an easy thing to do. It is the last resort for the submarine. I really don't think your claim, that submarine launched SAMs would make asw helo obsolete, is correct.
     
  5. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is hardly irrelevant in "real life" combat. Helicopters are only one way to detect enemy subs, and not necessarily even the best way. SOSUS-type nets, which China is deploying around its seas, TACTAS-type towed arrays which China already has, fixed wing aircraft-deployed expendable sonobuoys, which China is developing, and even bow-mounted sonars can detect subs. Most of these systems could detect enemy subs tens of km out to sea and allow a near-instant interception attempt by a ASW torpedo rocket.

    So what are you saying here? That submarines can't be detected because otherwise they would lose?

    Who said anything about surfacing? You should read up on sub-launched SAM's. And regardless, if it means the difference between giving away your location but getting to survive an initial ASW helo attack (by blowing it out of the sky) so that you can then dive deep and run fast, OR, having an ASW torpedo splashed into the water and then up your ass, I'd take the first choice any day. Sub-launched SAM's isn't an easy technology to master so the fact that many subs don't have it is not an indication of its usefulness.

    Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I indicate that sub-launched SAM's make helo ASW obselete? I was comparing the benefits of VLA-type weapons over ASW helos. That you inferred something else from this comparison is a conclusion of your own imagination.
     
    #605 ZTZ99, Mar 19, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2010
  6. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    VIP Professional Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    i'm going to keep HQ-9/S-300 out of this, since this is 054A thread.
    HQ-16
    http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/att...74-054-series-frigate-thread-2-hh-16-sep7.jpg
    9M38M1 vs 9M317
    File:9M38M1 9M317.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    SM-2
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm2-dvic458.jpg
    SM-1
    http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ocuments/content/rtn_rms_ps_sm1_datasheet.pdf

    9M317 and HQ-16 look quite different if we go by the tailfins and location and length of the 4 fins. You could say that things are closer when it comes 9M38M1, but it doesn't have the slight leading edge and the fins location/length are still different. If you compare it to SM-1, the leading edge is thinner on HQ-16 and tail fins are similar. But obviously depending on which argument you are trying to go for, you will reach different conclusions. Now, just because things look similar, does that mean China copied them? I would argue no, because the VLS on 054A is clearly inspired by MK-41, but China doesn't have any access to MK-41. Just because it looks similar on the outside, that doesn't say much about the inside.

    Either way, I would think for both shtil and HQ-16, the limiting factor to their range is the illuminator, not the actual missile itself.
    There is a difference between MFR and a search radar. FCR is needed because HQ-16 is not using active seeker. AB uses SPY-1D, but it also needs the 3 illuminators. If you are trying to argue that semi-active is archaic compared to active seeker, that's a different argument. But 054A uses the combination of the sea eagle volume search radar + SR-64 + various other sensors to track targets and provide mid course update to HQ-16. FCRs, similar to the ones on AB, do not need to provide continuous illumination of the target, just the terminal illumination. Especially up close, 054A's many active and passive sensors (i'm referring to the EO trackers + IRST here) are required to work together to track multiple sea-skimming supersonic targets to be engaged by Type 730. You can check the test performance of goalkeeper to get an idea of the concurrent engagement capabilities of Type 730.
    actually, this is one of the area that has actually surprised us. It does have bow mounted sonar + Towed Array sonar. We have also heard from TV interviews with commander of one of the Sov ships (or maybe 054, can't remember now) that 054A can fire ASROC type of missiles. Although, we don't have picture to proof it yet. But even if it doesn't have it, ASW effort is a joint effort conducted by the ships, submarines + helicopters. A ship maybe used to detect a submarine, but it will have to depend on its own submarine or helicopter to actually fire against the enemy submarine. Remember, in the current PLAN doctrine, they believe mostly in submarine vs submarine.

    Of course, it'd be better if we know for sure that they have something like ASROC, but you have to do with what you have.

    btw, the later iterations of shtil like 9M317 on 052B and improved sovs do have the terminal illumination capability (rather than having to illuminate the whole way).

    lol, that's what the Russians thought about the Sea Eagle VSR (being a clone of top plate) too, but they totally missed out on the fact that it's just a double faced version of the existing sea eagle series that's been in service since the 167 was launched. And then we looked at the posters and realized they don't even operate on the same band. So, can we say that the FCRs on 054A look like bandstand and orekh? Yes, but we also know that they are developed by domestic companies. And what's inside of them, we don't know. We do know that it's certainly different with the volume search radar.
     
  7. optionsss
    Offline

    optionsss Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    If submarines are detected, I think very likely it will to lose. As to where did you get the part about they can't be detected is beyond me.

    You are just throwing bunch of words around, but not saying anything new, and I don't like to argue for the sake of arguing.
    Ok, so after a combat ship detects a submarine, it can either chase down the sub and destroy it with torpedo or use the 20 km weapon to try to attack the sub. As long as the submarines is detected , i don't think it makes any difference, so does many navies, but if you insist it does, that's fine with me.

    You want me to summarize this part for you? Last resort weapon system, something I already stated.

    As far as I know, current sub launched SAMs require submarine to surface or near surface.

    But you just said that many subs do have the SAM system and on what grounds, are you saying that a developing, not really mature, and never tested in combat system will be effective or even useful? If you can't find any, then you are just saying that an unproven weapon type will make helos an relatively inferior weapon to VLA, I don't think that is true.
     
    #607 optionsss, Mar 19, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2010
  8. plawolf
    Offline

    plawolf Brigadier

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes Received:
    12,887
    Well, obviously the meaning of my post went straight over your head. Guess the petulant tone should have been a clue.

    To dumb my point down as much as I can, what I said was that it is ridiculous to claim one missile is a copy or is based on another simply because they look similar on the outside, because all missiles are just a cylinder with a pointed tip and control fins.

    Going by the 'logic' that a missile is a copy of another just because they look alike on the outside and you can claim any missile is a clone of any other missile. Which is the road your line of 'reasoning' leads to, which is clearly nonsense. Is that simply enough for you?

    So the HQ9 is in the same technology level as the SA11?

    All you got is circular reasoning based on out of date info and old wives tales that is spun to fit the theory you already settled on instead of trying to see what is really is the case.

    When was the last time China copied a foreign missile design? And what makes the Shtil so special that China would need to copy it now?

    You have either been at the magic mushrooms and have been hallucinating, or that is the most pathetic example of trying to put words in someone's mouth I have come across in a very long time.

    In which alternative reality did I present this hypothesis?

    Its statements like this that makes me seriously wonder if you are old enough to be allowed to use the internet without parental supervision. If you are not, speak up now so we can all stop wasting our time with you.

    For the clueless, here's a quick heads up. Many of the core technologies in missile design such as the engines, propellant mix, flight algorithms etc are all transferable to other similar missiles. And an improvement in any one of those fields could yield significant improvements in performance of the same missile airframe. Cases of these are everywhere, ranging from all the AMRAAM iterations to the example of the SM1 v SM2.

    The fact that China has developed the HQ9 proves that they have mastered missile technology that is significantly more advanced then that use in the Shtil versions they had in stock. Thus there is very little point in trying to copy something when you already have much more modern tech at your disposal. Its plain common sense. The world might make a lot more sense if you tried using it.

    Yet more quoting from imaginary alternative realities I see. And once again I seemed to have pitched my point far too high for you to comprehend.

    Maybe you would care to google 'sofware' and then try and understand what I meant in the section you just quoted. And then after you understood what I actually said, maybe you can read what you have just written and grasp how stupid it is to ask for me to point out the physical differences when I was talking about software programming.

    What kind of retarded reasoning is that?

    My point was your criticism of the 054A design based on the lack of an ASROC weapon is baseless because an ASROC can be added to the ship's weapons fit later with minimal changes when it becomes available. And you bring in death rays as a counter? The absurdity of this is truly staggering.

    I really struggle to think of a word other then 'retarded' to describe the suggestion that design procurement should be based on the wet dreams of netizens.

    There are people out there with wet dreams about death rays. Guess everyone should just stop building anything until said death ray becomes available.

    This stuff would be comedy gold if it weren't meant as serious points.
     
  9. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference is in the end a matter of opinion. I think they look similar enough to conclude it is more likely they have similar flight characteristics than not. Especially in the light of the fact that the PLAN has the SA-11 in its possession for many years and in light of the fact that the Chinese military has a well-documented history of copying foreign technology, makes it IMO much more likely that the HQ-16 is copied from the SA-11 rather than the alternative hypothesis, that it is an independent development.

    No, I actually mispoke. I was thinking of the SPY-3, not SPY-1. All of the radars I mentioned, SPY-3, SAMPSON, APAR, EMPAR are used as FCR's in addition to tracking and limited volume and surface search. In comparison, the individual Orekh-copies on the 054A are much cheaper but lesser-performing FCR's in terms of simultaneous target engagement.

    That's my very point. The USN doesn't HAVE to depend on its own submarine or any helicopter to attack an enemy sub at standoff ranges. That's the beauty of ASROC and VLA. A near-instantaneous, long-range, weather-resistant, guided torpedo attack against a submarine that cannot be outright defeated by that defending sub. The long range of these weapons also opens up the possibility of using a multitude of offboard sensors to detect enemy subs as well as other friendly ships using your sensors to instantaneously engage using their own ASROC weapons. Submarine vs submarine may still be the prime doctrine, but having such a weapon provides an invaluable force multiplier for any fleet's ASW assets. And apparently the PLAN believes so as well, as they have been trying to develop multiple versions of these weapons, including CY-1,2 and 3 and the CJ-1, all with uncertain degrees of success, as there are no reports any of them have actually been deployed.

    I don't know about the Sea Eagle, but when I look at what's sitting on top of the 054A, I see an Orekh. Until you can prove to me that this illuminator is different, either much better or much worse, I believe my hypothesis that they have very similar or even identical performance characteristics is much more reasonable than the hypothesis that the 054A has better or expanded capability, like longer range or multi-target engagement.
     
  10. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently your own words are beyond you. You should go back and dissect your previous post.

    Please don't blame me for the fact that you are incapable of understanding military terminology. And it DOES make a huge difference for both the ship and sub how fast and in what manner a ship responds to the presence of a submarine. A ship that can utilize mutliple offboard sensors (such as SOSUS, TACTAS, listening sticks, look them up if you don't know what these acronyms mean) is at a much greater advantage than a ship that can rely only on its ASW helicopter. Similarly, a ship that can instantly respond and at long range against an enemy sub is at a much greater advantage than a ship that must send its one helo at what, 150km/hr?, to the last known ping to scout around and maybe drop a torpedo or maybe lose the track altogether. Or get shot down by the sub's SAM. Or maybe it never got airborne in the first place because of rough seas or bad weather. Or maybe the helo is unfortunately patrolling 20km astern of the ship when the enemy sub is detected at 20km in front of the ship. Would you personally rather wait for the helo to cover that distance or push a button and drop a torpedo over that location within a few seconds?

    That is a poor summary of this part, and is in fact irrelevant to YOUR original contention that a submarine SAM launch would give away the sub's position and is therefore useless, to which I replied it is not useless in light of the alternative scenario of imminent detection and destruction. A submarine SAM is clearly a weapon of last resort, but this discussion was in the context of comparing the pro's and con's of VLA's to helos as something that can happen to a helo but not to a VLA, which you twisted around to claim that I stated that submarine SAM's make ASW helos obselete, which is of course completely fallacious.

    You are now clearly backtracking, and it's not going to work. You said surface. You said NOTHING about "near surface", which is an ambiguous enough term for you to spin any subsequent claim that you want out of it. I won't lower myself to respond any further to this dishonesty.

    That is a ridiculous claim. I could list dozens of systems that have never been tested in combat and that the military owners of such a system stand by its effectiveness. You are also dishonestly twisting my words again. I never stated that submarine SAM's will make ASW helos obselete, either alone or in combination with other considerations. I was listing factors that ASW helos compare poorly against in relation to ASROC weapons, not listing reasons for the ASW helo's obselescence. Again, your own failure to understand something should not be mistaken as a weakness in my argument.
     
Loading...

Share This Page