PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

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

  1. crobato
    Offline

    crobato Colonel
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    4

    Also I forgot to add. Missile range is effectively limited to slant range. Even if the missile can fly much farther, its true effective range is limited to the firing control radar or illuminator beam's slant range. In other words, you're only as far as the fire control radars or illuminators can shine the target strong enough for the seeker to pick up as a legitimate homing signal.
     
  2. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    The sheer height of idiocy and hypocrisy is when the pot calls the kettle black.

    I'm afraid you have dumbed it down too much, though I seriously doubt this was on purpose. If you are stating that ANY claim of similar shape = similar performance is wrong, then you are drinking special Kool-Aid. Two missiles can look close enough alike that it would become inevitable and REASONABLE to hypothesize that they are copies and have either identical or similar performances. And no, nobody will stupidly claim that any missile looks like any other missile. Well, actually you do. lol Given enough "deviation". I guess to you, given enough deviation, an HQ-9 looks like a PL-8. I guess if you want to close your eyes and click your heels together and keep whispering "enough deviation" to yourself enough times, those two missiles may start to look like each other. Be sure to drink your special punch to help you along with deviating.

    Who said the HQ-9 is the same technology "level" as the SA-11? And are you seriously that naive to think that "level" is a serious factor in missile design? Each missile is complex in its own way, and lessons learned from one missile design do NOT necessarily have immediate application to another missile design. Cost is another factor in missile design. Who the hell cares what the "level" of the HQ-9 is if the Chinese military wanted a tried and true SA-11 design they already had in their possession that could be copied on the cheap and turned into the HQ-16? This has been the historic pattern of the Chinese military for decades. If I have to list examples for you then you are not worth your salt in this discussion.

    Did I miss something? Are you actually agreeing with me that they have similar levels of performance? Did you finally see the light and reverse your foaming at the mouth denunciations of my opinion that they have similiar capabilities? Because I know someone like you is not going to claim the HQ-16 has LESS range than the SA-11. There are only three possibilities: 1) the HQ-16 has significantly inferior performance to the SA-11, 2) the HQ-16 has similar performance to the SA-11, and 3) the HQ-16 has significantly greater performance than the SA-11. Given your hyperbolic and senseless vitriolic attack on my original post, it is not by any means unclear what your personal view is, so don't try to stupidly play coy and talk about alternative realities here.

    Ah yes, great sensei of missile technology, I see. But one question master, how did you use "common sense" when you don't have any to begin with? Many aspects of missile design are proprietary, and despite the Chinese military being autocratic, business interests do play a part. Many aspects of missile design depend on non-military factors like cost, quality of manufacturer, and politics. Propellant technologies are not necessarily applied across the board to all missile types. The propellant design will reflect the missile design. A highly energetic but fast-burning propellant is not likely to be used on missiles intended for long range interceptions rather than point blank interceptions which require speed and high G turns. Flight algorithms are also not necessarily directly transferrable and depend on speed of the attacking missile, presumed speed of target, and type and quality of onboard sensors. These all vary across different missile designs. But hey, from a genius who gave us the epiphany that different missiles all look alike given enough deviation, I guess different flight algorithms, propellants and motivations for missile design are all alike if given enough deviation. No argument there, son.

    Ah yes, the hidden software, an argument which you can use to deviate the performance into any unknown nebulous entity that you see fit. But I was only being hyperbolic to expose the idiocy of this argument, namely that you can fantasize your little black box to contain anything you want in it, anything except the most obvious answer, that the box that looks EXACTLY like an Orekh copy actually IS an Orekh copy.

    Again, hyperbole being used to illustrate the other side's idiocy. And I still don't know what the hell you mean by "design", except for the definition gleaned from your own Disneyland dictionary. The lack of an ASROC and its associated fire control systems was a DESIGN consideration, not a lalaland haphazard slap-an-ASROC-on-a-ship nonsensity of a point. Similarly, the lack of AESA FCR's with multi-target engagement was a DESIGN consideration, specifically cost and complexity. All these can be added later, but all of these are still design considerations. If you still don't have the first damn clue what design means, go ahead and bang your head against the wall for a few hours to see if it will come to you.

    It would be retarded to base design procurement on the wet dreams of netizens, I agree. Good thing that's not the case, nor is anyone stating it is. But you want to know what? It is even more retarded (if such a thing were possible) to stupidly claim that the statement of a 'mass recognition of the relative performance of the 054A compared to other modern ships' is somehow equivalent to a statement that 'a PLAN ship designer has an intention to turn internet recognition into action'. Now that would be REALLY retarded. I wonder who would claim something so stupid. On the other hand, if a ship designer sees the same things that netizens are seeing, that's a whole nother ballgame.....
     
    #612 ZTZ99, Mar 22, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2010
  3. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    VIP Professional Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    copying is not the right word in this case. I think inspired by is more adequate. In HQ-16, they seemed to have taken inspiration from the aerodynamics of shtil and SM-1, but a lot of people assumes that it is copied from shtil just because they have shtil already. They have a bunch of look-a-likes to Western weapons too, but no one would think they actually got an hand on to copy those.
    well, 054A is not an area-defense ship and it's not meant to be one. It's in the same class as the likes of LCS, La Fayette variants, krivaks, project 17s, KDX-2, Takanami and OHPs. And it's far cheaper than them. As mentioned, it's multiple engagement is not bad, because it only needs terminal illumination.
    You are beating on a dead horse. Saying that PLAN is not as technologically advanced as USN, everyone knows that.
    For what it has, 054A is actually comparable in ASW to other ships of its class.
    9M317 with Orekh on 052B and second batch of Sovs already had terminal illumination capability. And don't tell me to look this up. I posted the source for this a while ago and don't want to search through this forum and all of my kanwa articles to see where it came from. On top of that, the 2 Type 730s offer very good close in multi-target engagement should incoming missiles get past the first layer of defense.
     
  4. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Inspired by" and "copied" vary merely by degree of inspiration. Even "copied" doesn't necessarily have to mean "carbon (identical) copy". The J-11B can either be inspired by or copied from the Su-27 depending on your bias. The Russians certainly seem to believe "copied from" is closer to the truth. The HQ-16 as far as I can tell differs from its parent 9M38 only in the addition of thin extensions of the strakes toward the nose and the addition of thin rods to the tail fins. The shape of both the strakes and tail fins are otherwise the same. The overall sizes appear to be identical or nearly identical. This is not a case of trying to make an elephant look like a human using enough "deviation" no matter what plawolf blabbers on about. These missiles are similar enough so that we are debating whether HQ-16 is "inspired by" or "copied from" the Buk/Shtil.

    While it's true that 054A is more of a general purpose frigate, it also means that it is not great at any single role. I'm not saying it has to be, and I have already mentioned that I don't believe there is anything "wrong" with the 054A, but I can (and do) point out its lesser capability in ASW compared to, say, an OHP, or its lesser capability in AAW compared to a de Zeven Provincien. Not being great at any single role means any serious threat posed from the air or under the sea may not be met adequately by this class. If we want to talk about cost, then yes, the 054A is certainly much cheaper than any of those European hyperfrigates. I have already mentioned that fact. But then again you get what you pay for.

    My point was NOT actually that the PLAN is not as advanced as the USN, which is an obvious given, but rather the usefulness of an ASROC-type weapon in ASW warfare vis-a-vis submarine ASW or helo ASW.

    I don't know where you got the impression that I don't believe Orekh's have "terminal illumination capability". As SA-11's and HQ-16's are both SARH, they MUST have FCR's with terminal illumination capability. That's actually the sole job of most FCR's. As for Type 730's, I have made no mention of their multi-target engagement capability. As far as I remember, the discussion so far has been regarding the capability of the SA-11/HQ-16/Orekh system.
     
  5. yehe
    Offline

    yehe Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually there is a world of difference between inspired by and copy, every airplane flying today are inspired by the first plane made by the wright brothers, but hardly copies, while the J11B clearly COPIED the aerodynamic, landing gear of the Su27, and the IRST, but nothing else, everything from the engine, radar, avionics, software, firecontrol, to even the internal structure strength, radar cross section reducing etc. were all changed and replaced with entirely different ones, thus not a copy in these field. Look at the HQ16, it clearly have enough surface difference already from the 9M38 that it would require a full range of independent aerodynamic testing and the need to pretty much go through the full development stages required to develope an entirely new missile, this as well as a new software, in this sense, then calling it a copy is simply incorrect, vaguely inspired maybe.

    If its really just a copy, and the performance all similer, I dont see why the chinese would want to make any kind of change on it in the first place, it was a proven missile, time and money can simply be saved and as well as any risk involved in the change, simply wouldnt be any need for it.
     
    #615 yehe, Mar 23, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2010
  6. yehe
    Offline

    yehe Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know, but Arleigh Burke are also much larger, the 052C are only a 6000ton ship, original hull which are the 052B are only around 5750ton, and AB are a 9000ton ship, Slava are around 11000 ton but with significiant more engine power than AB, DA80 are in similer size as LM2500, as well as in power output.
     
    #616 yehe, Mar 23, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2010
  7. optionsss
    Offline

    optionsss Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did I say subs can't be detected?

    Here you are just making insults and repeating arguments that I already made, which is VLA give ships a faster response time. Or throwing unrelated arguments that was never part of our discussion, as if that will make you look more knowledgeable.

    Where did I say submarine launched SAMs are useless, I clear said what it would be mostly used for, a last resort weapon.

    That was not backtracking, that was me being lazy, and did not want to explain the huge difference it makes whether the SAM are launched near surface at surface or much meter deeper. The current sub launched SAMs are largely just MANPADS. The sub will have to either surface, and launch it from sail, or come near surface, and missile are raised from the conning towers, but either way, these are very similar weapon systems. The newly developing systems of SAMs are launched from torpedo tubes using vehicles such as SM39. These can be launched from much deeper water.

    Of-course the owners would support their own weapon system, or else they wouldn't use it, but whether the weapon is effective or not is another story. Mind you, it not just that the sub launched SAM were never tested in combat, it is still very immature. How many major naval exercise featured submarine launched SAMs and compare that to the ASW helos?



    In your statement, you stated that subs carrying SAMs can shoot down helo, without mentioning any of the danger the sub would place itself after launching the SAM. So, if a sub can destroy helos without any backlash, then wouldn't it make ASW helo's obsolete?

    It was only later you accepted that subs would only launch a SAM, if it is facing immediate threat, and have to run for its life afterward. After you accepting the limitations of sub launched SAM, I never stated "submarine SAM's will make ASW helos obselete". So, it is you who are dishonestly twisting my words AGAIN!
     
  8. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    VIP Professional Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    J-11B is licensed production, so it's obviously a copy in that sense. We don't have the dimension of HQ-16, but it looks to be more compact than shtil VLU. And as I said before, I think HQ-16 looks more like SM-1 than Shtil. I would say it's inspired by both. Which is a common theme among a lot of Chinese development. That they try to develop something similar to Western based, but end up with a lot of Rusisan influence because they have access to the Russian equivalent.
    European frigates are really AAW destroyers. OHP would be better in ASW than 054A if it gets refitted with MK-41 and ASROC like the Australian ones. As it stands, they are about the same. OHP would be quieter and carry a better helicopter, but 054A has more modern sonar suite and have lower radar signature. I think 054A's current role in PLAN is to provide a medium level of air defense + being ASW assets. Obviously it could get better in ASW, but that would take having a better naval helicopter + switching to gas turbines + generally more experience by PLAN sailors in ASW. 054A already represents a huge jump from their previous ships. If they do even a bigger leap, it's doubtful that they'd be able to use most of the advances.
    I think that's over stated. Type 23, Krivak 3 and F123 are all good ASW ships and none of them use ASROC type weapon.
    if FCR does not have to illuminate the whole way but only terminally (like the ones on AB), then you can theoretically engage more targets with initial targeting location + mid-course update by something like the light bulb data link or the Sea Eagle. Now, I do believe that's the case for 054A but have seen no documentation of how engagement is done exactly. If that's the case, then that would give 054A greater concurrent engagement past CIWS than just 2 per direction (each FCR has two channels and could theoretically illuminate two targets that are close by).
     
  9. escobar
    Offline

    escobar Brigadier

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,714
    Likes Received:
    2,953
    another one
     
    #619 escobar, Mar 24, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
  10. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    VIP Professional Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    That's the 4th 054A from HP shipyard. I actually attached a few more photos of it.
     

    Attached Files:

Loading...

Share This Page