Doesn't look slim enough to be sea dragon 50. That one has almost same length as HQ16 but is visibly narrower. I'd say this is either a new variant of HQ16, a completely new finless rocket launched torpedo (unlikely) or a new antiair missile. I guess the first option seems most likely. I just wish i knew for sure why the redesign, compared to HQ16 A and B.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Doesn't look slim enough to be sea dragon 50. That one has almost same length as HQ16 but is visibly narrower. I'd say this is either a new variant of HQ16, a completely new finless rocket launched torpedo (unlikely) or a new antiair missile. I guess the first option seems most likely. I just wish i knew for sure why the redesign, compared to HQ16 A and B.
If its narrower then it has a new frame, and likely a new missile. It also hints of a two stage.
But lets entertain the notion that its a new member of the HQ-16 family. That its a new member past the HQ-16B. All the Buk family members, both Russo and Sino, may alter the mid wings, but the tail fins are always the same. This one doesn't have the tail fins, which also give the missile a wingspan of .82m. The main body diameter is only .4m. Reducing the span of the tail fins, to the point that it looks blended with the main wings, may give the impression that the wings and the fins are one long continuous fin. This can reduce drag further.
This is the old article about the HQ-16B. The article suggests that the new wing design (which looks like the old 9M38's anyway) along with a new motor and an increased of length to hold more propellant enabled the HQ-16B to have further range than the previous version. Article goes on the possibility of using a dual pulse rocket motor and an active guided seeker.
But what if the missile can still be aerodynamically refined even further. The Russians did greatly reduce the main wings here.
That still leaves the tail fins sticking out, giving a wingspan of .82m on a missile with a body diameter of only .4m. What if you can greatly narrow those tail fins along with the main body wings? Not only can you reduce drag, which can increase range, there is also the benefits of packing benefits (quad pack on U-VLS?). Making the missile diameter a bit more narrow also helps reduce drag and aids packing. The Standard missile is about only .34m in diameter.
To maintain the same amount of propellant on a thinner body, the missile will have to be longer. The HQ-16 appears to be around 5m. This seems shorter than the Buk missile which is about 5.4m, and why there is even this .4m deficit beats me. I do suspect that the H/AJK-16 can hold a 5.4m missile though, if they entertained the possibility of using a Buk there. I suspect HQ-16B may have extended its length past 5m, and maybe potentially up to 5.4m.
The missile can be dual or multiple pulse, internally divided the propellants into stages with different burn rates. That can further extend the range of the missile.
If the missile goes past 74km, which I think might be the max illumination range of the MR90 Orekhs (the true Chinese Type designation for their version I have yet to learn), an active guidance seeker will be needed for the purposes of a naval SAM. You only need to develop one, and apply that same seeker to all missiles whether its an HQ-9, HQ-16 or SD-50 future variant. This is one step that I feel inevitably will have to develop one way or another.
Last edited:
Missiles have fins because those fins provide control and stability, especially during maneuvers. The trade off is drag, but a missile that can’t be steered properly is not a usable missile. The only reason a missile might see a reduction or deletion of its fins is if they’ve refined the FCS and maybe the TVC to not need it.If its narrower then it has a new frame, and likely a new missile. It also hints of a two stage.
But lets entertain the notion that its a new member of the HQ-16 family. That its a new member past the HQ-16B. All the Buk family members, both Russo and Sino, may alter the mid wings, but the tail fins are always the same. This one doesn't have the tail fins, which also give the missile a wingspan of .82m. The main body diameter is only .4m. Reducing the span of the tail fins, to the point that it looks blended with the main wings, may give the impression that the wings and the fins are one long continuous fin. This can reduce drag further.
This is the old article about the HQ-16B. The article suggests that the new wing design (which looks like the old 9M38's anyway) along with a new motor and an increased of length to hold more propellant enabled the HQ-16B to have further range than the previous version. Article goes on the possibility of using a dual pulse rocket motor and an active guided seeker.
But what if the missile can still be aerodynamically refined even further. The Russians did greatly reduce the main wings here.
That still leaves the tail fins sticking out, giving a wingspan of .82m on a missile with a body diameter of only .4m. What if you can greatly narrow those tail fins along with the main body wings? Not only can you reduce drag, which can increase range, there is also the benefits of packing benefits (quad pack on U-VLS?). Making the missile diameter a bit more narrow also helps reduce drag and aids packing. The Standard missile is about only .34m in diameter.
To maintain the same amount of propellant on a thinner body, the missile will have to be longer. The HQ-16 appears to be around 5m. This seems shorter than the Buk missile which is about 5.4m, and why there is even this .4m deficit beats me. I do suspect that the H/AJK-16 can hold a 5.4m missile though, if they entertained the possibility of using a Buk there. I suspect HQ-16B may have extended its length past 5m, and maybe potentially up to 5.4m.
The missile can be dual or multiple pulse, internally divided the propellants into stages with different burn rates. That can further extend the range of the missile.
If the missile goes past 74km, which I think might be the max illumination range of the MR90 Orekhs (the true Chinese Type designation for their version I have yet to learn), an active guidance seeker will be needed for the purposes of a naval SAM. You only need to develop one, and apply that same seeker to all missiles whether its an HQ-9, HQ-16 or SD-50 future variant. This is one step that I feel inevitably will have to develop one way or another.
Fins are likely to stay, as any TVC would need dedicated gas generators, once the rocket fuel is expended. lateral body thrusters do use those, but they're really for last minute maneuvers, so they're a one-shot kind of a deal. TVC needed instead of fins would require many uses during the flight time. Even so, a fairly small paddle redirecting the rocket motor flow can't really match large fins when it comes to momentum.
Anyway, what I meant to say above is that sky dragon is visibly narrower than what we saw in the recent 054A image. The mystery missile is NOT narrow. It's actually about as wide as HQ16. Probably because it IS hq16. and the strakes/fins are simply too fuzzy to be analyzed correctly. While the wider lower bit may be a booster stage, that'd mean no fins. Which leads to a more logical conclusion of no booster and a very small gap between strakes and fins, small enough for the camera not to capture it due to its framerate fuzziness.
In a sense, if the strakes are indeed moved aft so much, it's be similar design to newest Russian buk family member. They increased speed while sacrificing the strakes. It means missile accelerates more quickly but without wings/strakes it lacks lift once it slows down. So then the angle of attack of the missile is less favorable than earlier variants which had wings. Thus more drag. Thus less range if the rocket motor was the same. Though it's plausible rocket motor was new, so the range remains similar, and overall kinematic improvement is one of acceleration and top speed, and probably of terminal maneuverability. As a missile with no mid body wings will turn a bit more easily.
So if this is hq16c, it may be, just like the russian missile, devised as an anti anti-ship missile. While still retaining all/most of the anti-air capabilities compared to A variant. Though, if army's B variant is indeed of longer range, it *may* lack a bit of range.
Of course, it's also possible that the image is so fuzzy it makes one think it's a new variant while in fact we're looking at hq16a. But i personally don't see those strakes positioned as high up as they were on A model.
Anyway, what I meant to say above is that sky dragon is visibly narrower than what we saw in the recent 054A image. The mystery missile is NOT narrow. It's actually about as wide as HQ16. Probably because it IS hq16. and the strakes/fins are simply too fuzzy to be analyzed correctly. While the wider lower bit may be a booster stage, that'd mean no fins. Which leads to a more logical conclusion of no booster and a very small gap between strakes and fins, small enough for the camera not to capture it due to its framerate fuzziness.
In a sense, if the strakes are indeed moved aft so much, it's be similar design to newest Russian buk family member. They increased speed while sacrificing the strakes. It means missile accelerates more quickly but without wings/strakes it lacks lift once it slows down. So then the angle of attack of the missile is less favorable than earlier variants which had wings. Thus more drag. Thus less range if the rocket motor was the same. Though it's plausible rocket motor was new, so the range remains similar, and overall kinematic improvement is one of acceleration and top speed, and probably of terminal maneuverability. As a missile with no mid body wings will turn a bit more easily.
So if this is hq16c, it may be, just like the russian missile, devised as an anti anti-ship missile. While still retaining all/most of the anti-air capabilities compared to A variant. Though, if army's B variant is indeed of longer range, it *may* lack a bit of range.
Of course, it's also possible that the image is so fuzzy it makes one think it's a new variant while in fact we're looking at hq16a. But i personally don't see those strakes positioned as high up as they were on A model.
But we have moved away from that, and especially the Russians, which have reduced fin size in many of their missiles. Not completely eliminating fins, but reduced them, and putting TVC instead.
Except that when a large fin is deflected it creates a considerable amount of drag, and its energy wasted. This was the whole idea behind the Israeli Python missile design (copied into the PL-8) which is to use large fins for maximum maneuverbility. But since then, AAMs have moved away from that, relying more in TVC and less on fin control. There are less energy bleed on turns using TVC, with less deflection and less angle of attack the drag is less.
One disadvantage of fin control is altitude. You get less control on the fin via deflection once the air gets less dense with higher altitudes. When you get into truly high altitude interception, TVC is a must.
Nonetheless fin control is still there but it has to be done with the minimum wing cross section.
Very finny.
Not so finny.
Not finny at all.
The more I think about it, the more I think its an HQ-16 body with an increased length, which not only increases propellant but also raises the fineness ratio even if the diameter is still the same. Considering the evolution of PLA missile design with the examples above, the last missile by the way, is a VLRAAM or Very Long Ranged AAM, is to reduce fin drag as much as possible, I see this also possible with the new HQ-16 design. I don't believe the near lack of wings or lack of wing lift will matter, considering what that particular VLRAAM has already proven (it would make one hell of quad packable naval SAM to boot).
Here is another thing.
Buk missile at the butt. Look ma, no TVC.
But the latest version...less fins, plus TVC.
And this isn't something the designers of the HQ-16 are not unaware off, as you can see from examples of their export version.
Very short wing span but very long wing chord means the wings have a very high fineness ratio. The root strakes are also interesting.
One thing about having TVC is that you also get more control from slow speeds and control force isn't dependent on speed as well as altitude.
If the missile has no TVC and launching from a VLS, it would need to shoot out of the VLS at the highest speed possible (hot launch), then go upward, and once there is enough speed, to force the missile downward using the control force of the fins and head for the sea skimmer.
With TVC, once the missile is out of the VLS --- even with cold launch --- the TVC can flip the missile over, and with cold launch, as soon as the engines are fired. You don't need to arc as high before you have the missile racing down sea level.
Buk missile at the butt. Look ma, no TVC.
But the latest version...less fins, plus TVC.
And this isn't something the designers of the HQ-16 are not unaware off, as you can see from examples of their export version.
Very short wing span but very long wing chord means the wings have a very high fineness ratio. The root strakes are also interesting.
One thing about having TVC is that you also get more control from slow speeds and control force isn't dependent on speed as well as altitude.
If the missile has no TVC and launching from a VLS, it would need to shoot out of the VLS at the highest speed possible (hot launch), then go upward, and once there is enough speed, to force the missile downward using the control force of the fins and head for the sea skimmer.
With TVC, once the missile is out of the VLS --- even with cold launch --- the TVC can flip the missile over, and with cold launch, as soon as the engines are fired. You don't need to arc as high before you have the missile racing down sea level.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
This is a jewel of a page from last year's Abu Dhabi defense show, where CSSC exhibited various models. Two of the models garnered attention, which you will obviously see, but there are even more of it. The rest of the models I will post on the Type 056 thread as these are corvettes related to that. I use Google Translate on the text, from which one can get a good gist of it.
First the "LCS" copy. LY-80N happens to be the export HHQ-16, so this is much better armed than it looks. One thing to note is that it has a new phased array radar that appears to do away with the Type 382 "Top Plate" we have seen on the Type 054A.
Then we have the "Type 057", which of course is not its real name but looked much too similar to one fan drawing imagining of such. So this thing does have a 32 cell VLS.
This however, is the one we have not seen before. The VLS here is possibly either U-VLS or a new design that is capable of hot and cold launching. This looks like it has the SR2410C at the top. The ship uses the C28A's funnel design is which routed to the water instead.
This one is a small frigate but calling it "Type 20382" suggests comparing it with the Russian Project 20381/20382 class corvettes.' It says it has the LY-80N, which is HHQ-16, and two radars for missile target illumination at the top of the bridge.
The rest are corvettes which I will post on the Type 056 thread.
First the "LCS" copy. LY-80N happens to be the export HHQ-16, so this is much better armed than it looks. One thing to note is that it has a new phased array radar that appears to do away with the Type 382 "Top Plate" we have seen on the Type 054A.
Then we have the "Type 057", which of course is not its real name but looked much too similar to one fan drawing imagining of such. So this thing does have a 32 cell VLS.
This however, is the one we have not seen before. The VLS here is possibly either U-VLS or a new design that is capable of hot and cold launching. This looks like it has the SR2410C at the top. The ship uses the C28A's funnel design is which routed to the water instead.
This one is a small frigate but calling it "Type 20382" suggests comparing it with the Russian Project 20381/20382 class corvettes.' It says it has the LY-80N, which is HHQ-16, and two radars for missile target illumination at the top of the bridge.
The rest are corvettes which I will post on the Type 056 thread.
There might also be a new phased array radar development that may appear to be aimed at replacing the Type 382 "Top Plate". This radar is more squarish in aspect ratio and should be considered a separate development from SR2410C. I can see this as something that may end up in the Type 054B, but enclosed in a bulbous radome instead of being naked in the open.
