054B/next generation frigate

test1979 said:

Mixing 3-5 and HHQ-16 is an odd practice. There is no essential difference between 50km and 70km.

Click to expand...

A missile with 70km range offers nearly double (1.96x) the coverage area of one with 50km range.

test1979 said:

It is only suitable for intercepting missiles and cannot attack flying platforms.

Click to expand...

If what you mean by this is that attacking aircraft will be able to launch missiles from outside the 50km/70km coverage range, that may well be the case, but the point is to increase the zone from which hostile aircraft are precluded from operating (at altitude), and the opportunities to intercept incoming missiles In a wartime environment a frigate is unlikely to be operating independently but will be part of a task force. An inbound missile is not necessarily inbound to the frigate but may well be targeting another ship some 10-20km distant. A frigate armed with HQ-16 may well be in a position to engage such a missile where a frigate armed only with the 5-5-5 missile may not.

A lot of the predictions for what 054B's AAW suite may look like is dependent on a few assumptions as to the relationship of the new twin sided AESA's relationship with H/AJK-16 and HQ-16.
Everyone agrees that the new twin side AESA that was/is tested on 892, will also be on 054B, but the AESA's relationship with HQ-16 is not known.
Personally I do not think there is any particular reason to think the new twin side AESA is configured or intended to uniquely support HQ-16. The test ship 892 was instead just a test ship for a number of different sensors, one of which was the new twin side AESA (intended for 054B), and another of which included those AESA terminal illuminators (that we see on the 054A restarts)


The other question for 054B is whether it will support the UVLS or continue to use H/AJK-16.
If 054B uses H/AJK-16, then it will go without saying that its only medium to long range SAM option will be HQ-16 and future HQ-16 variants, however that would also imply the PLAN intend on sticking with HQ-16 as a SAM family for the future. It's possible the quad packable 3-5 SAM may be quadpackable in the H/AJK-16 VLS, meaning its primary SAM suite will be the HQ-16 as medium-longish range SAM, and 3-5 SAM for MR use.

If 054B uses UVLS, then it opens up more possibility.
Personally, I think if 054B uses UVLS (likely being only the 7m variant that it can accommodate), then it makes sense just to standardize 054B's AAW suite with the same as what 055 and 052D can carry in their 7m UVLS as well.
That is to say, 054B will carry the 3-5 MR SAM as a quadpackable SAM, and the HQ-9 variants as a LR SAM, which 055 and 052D should both be able to carry in their 7m UVLS cells as well.
The only thing 054B will be unable to carry, are future VLR SAMs and other weapons that will likely need the 9m UVLS (which 055 and 052D have, but which 054B won't).



So personally, I think the cleanest method of configuring 054B's AAW suite would be:
-UVLS, 7m length
-Primary MR SAM: quad packable 3-5 SAM, to engage targets at a maximum distance of up to 50km (initial variants, perhaps future variants could extend that to 70km)
-Primary LR SAM (if needed): HQ-9 variants, to engage targets at a maximum distance of up to 300km, which I think 054B's twin face AESA should be able to support

That way you get to standardize a common logistics tail with your 055 and 052D.

For most of 054B's missions, a standard loadout in terms of AAW weapons would mostly consist of quad packed 3-5 SAMs, but could carry a small number of HQ-9 variants for engaging LR targets depending on the combat environment. However, I do believe that a modern frigate needs the ability to engage aerial targets in excess of 200km range, and ideally up to 300km.


Meanwhile, HQ-16 will be relegated to only old ships using H/AJK-16 VLS (054As, and a handful of old destroyers) that will receive continued support and minor upgrades going into the future but which will eventually be retired (or sold overseas) as the ships go out of PLA service.

tphuang said:

long term 5t, 8t and 12t is fine. China simply has a 5t class that USN and RAN/RN have basically abandoned going forward. I'm not sure it makes sense to get a fridge as large as Constellation/Type 26 as your smaller work horse ship. All you get is crazily high costs and reduced number of ships. At some point, quantities does count.

Click to expand...

Constellation is a bit tricky (US navy clearly positions it in for offensive deployments, here size is a massive advantage; thing still costs ~half of the Burke), but for UK type 26 is simply a provider of their SAG/CSG salvo (in form of their 2027 hypersonic).
Makes a lot of sense for a self-conscious second-tier navy.

For PLAN, frigates are indeed smaller workhorses - so math works differently. If ship is too large and capable, it probably takes money from something more useful - and at the same time bites at the capability to have enough sea-going escorts everywhere (PLAN needs frigates everywhere simply because of the political map of its surroundings).

Thus IMHO - ship from Tams' graphic is next to perfect for the job (with exception of ASCMs, of course, 83K is simply better than 12 for the mission...though modularity and ability to shift freely between the two would be even better).

Blitzo said:

However, I do believe that a modern frigate needs the ability to engage aerial targets in excess of 200km range, and ideally up to 300km.

Click to expand...

That's a destroyer capability. If you can effectively support and sustain engagement to such ranges - you're paying for a destroyer anyways. But on frigate missions, it probably won't get the chance to make use of such range ... I think it isn't worth the sacrifice.
H/AJK-16, HHQ-16 stretched to deny the use of swarming munitions(circa. 150 km is enough for the job) - and that's probably it.
In normal frigate missions it won't really be able to use more range anyways - the target will simply duck below the horizon, and there won't be a battlefield net to proceed through regardless.
Destroyers can expect to have it, frigates - too often detached on their own tasks, - shouldn't.

tphuang said:

Can you provide a link or snapshot of where pop3 said that?

Click to expand...

The original title is pop3: From scratch, from weak to strong, the Chinese Navy's shipborne anti-aircraft missile weapon system
Unfortunately, the original link seems to have been removed due to confidentiality issues.

latenlazy said:

Not without some kind of insane revolution in rocket propellant.

Click to expand...

Or you can make it into a much longer missile by adding a long stage 1 rocket under it. That's essentially the difference between the shorter range 9M96E and the extended range 9M96E2, and the Aster 15 vs. the Aster 30.

test1979 said:

Mixing 3-5 and HHQ-16 is an odd practice. There is no essential difference between 50km and 70km. It is only suitable for intercepting missiles and cannot attack flying platforms. Compared with the U-VLS, the AJK-16 VLS has a launch unit area of 40% and a bomb load of only 25%.
According to POP3's statement, a new 4-in-1 anti-aircraft missile has been integrated on the 055.
It is unlikely that the HHQ-16 will continue to be used on a newly designed frigate.

Click to expand...

You have to look at this one to see that red marks the new dual sided AESA radar, while blue marks the new AESA target emitters that we saw on the fifth batch Type 054A. Its obvious the two were meant to work together, with the dual sided search radar looking and detecting targets, then queuing the emitters at them. It does not mean they only work exclusively together, as they can also work with other systems, the emitters with the Type 382 Sea Eagle for example, or the dual sided AESA as a stand alone search radar. But I will point out that the PLAN did invest on the development of this integration, and you don't do that unless you have some plans of using it.

Its possible that the quad pack 3-5 might be used only on the 052D and 055, while the new frigate may still retain the AJK-16 and use the HHQ-16.

Its possible that the new emitters may have ranges well in excess of 70km, 70km is the just the figure used for the land based HQ-16B that uses a different target emitter than this. 70km has been used and associated longer with the current and legacy set up of the 054A.

Another thing to point out that SARH has its own advantages over ARH guidance particularly at closer ranges and against LO targets.

Onto other things.

Can the dual sided AESA and even the smaller Type 368 dual sided AESA work with the quadpack 3-5? In theory it can and there is no valid reason it cannot. We expect the missile to be active radar guided. So the duty of the search radar is to track the target on high quality or good accuracy, then update the missile via datalink during the missile's midphase flight. Once the missile reaches the seeker's terminal reach, the missile becomes autonomous. The only additional equipment is the datalink. Externally I would expect this to be small, but flat, sort of like a small phase array to itself that can send a directed beam to the missile.

Gloire_bb said:

Tat's a destroyer capability.

Click to expand...

No, I think destroyer capability means being able to conduct engagements of over 400km + ABM.

200-300km I think is going to become the new normal for frigate aaw capability.

Blitzo said:

No, I think destroyer capability means being able to conduct engagements of over 400km + ABM.

Click to expand...

There is just 33% difference between 300 and 400, and that difference comes late in flight (i.e. relatively light on the missile size=two very similar missiles probably); arguably ship capable of doing the former(300) will be able to do the latter as well, and has all the energy/sensor potential to do both the ABM and basic counterspace in the same format (SM-3A isn't exactly far from that we're talking about here).
That's already a destroyer, just a slightly weaker one: it can equally fight in the air-sea battle, it can't even hope to realize itself without full CEC environment (i.e. out of fleet or equal coastal information networks), and as a backbone vessel for major surface action - it's a great target to be hunted by guppies if found detached.

Basically, such a vessel will be fully capable to replace 052D ... and 052D is a golden standard for destroyer.
No frigate in the world goes for anything like that now. Even specialized AAW frigates don't try that.

Blitzo said:

200-300km I think is going to become the new normal for frigate aaw capability.

Click to expand...

At least as of now no frigate and very few destroyers are capable of it.
I personally see no point, unless you want to fly multiple STOVL AEW drone aircraft from the frigate deck - radar horizon will eat all the bonus engagement range, but you'll pay for every ounce of the capability just to hope to be able to realize it.

If the idea is just to threaten enemy high-value assets - honestly speaking I'd rather try adding some basic anti-air capability to supersonic/hypersonic ASCMs.

But overall, given frigate mission profiles - it's either ~150 for high-end frigates(deterrent to swarming/gliding attack, TF group protection), ~50-70 for middle ground (TF group protection&engagement to radar horizon), or outright ~25(protection from being outright gravity bombed and sufficient self-defense from leakers, defense of closely escorted vessels).

Gloire_bb said:

There is just 33% difference between 300 and 400, and that difference comes late in flight (i.e. relatively light on the missile size=two very similar missiles probably); arguably ship capable of doing the former(300) will be able to do the latter as well, and has all the energy/sensor potential to do both the ABM and basic counterspace in the same format (SM-3A isn't exactly far from that we're talking about here).
That's already a destroyer, just a slightly weaker one: it can equally fight in the air-sea battle, it can't even hope to realize itself without full CEC environment (i.e. out of fleet or equal coastal information networks), and as a backbone vessel for major surface action - it's a great target to be hunted by guppies if found detached.

Click to expand...

I said "200-300km" and "over 400km and ABM".

Gloire_bb said:

Basically, such a vessel will be fully capable to replace 052D ... and 052D is a golden standard for destroyer.
No frigate in the world goes for anything like that now. Even specialized AAW frigates don't try that.

Click to expand...

No, a vessel with half the VLS count of 052D, with a shorter ranged sensor suite, and inability to carry 9m long VLS, certainly cannot replace 052D.

Simply being capable of carrying and utilizing a LR SAM like HQ-9 does not make a ship a destroyer -- it's also about magazine size, total simultaneous engagements that can be managed, sensor suite refresh rate. In all of those domains, 052D will still be far more capable than 054B.

Gloire_bb said:

At least as of now no frigate and very few destroyers are capable of it.
I personally see no point, unless you want to fly multiple STOVL AEW drone aircraft from the frigate deck - radar horizon will eat all the bonus engagement range, but you'll pay for every ounce of the capability just to hope to be able to realize it.

If the idea is just to threaten enemy high-value assets - honestly speaking I'd rather try adding some basic anti-air capability to supersonic/hypersonic ASCMs.

But overall, given frigate mission profiles - it's either ~150 for high-end frigates(deterrent to swarming/gliding attack, TF group protection), ~50-70 for middle ground (TF group protection&engagement to radar horizon), or outright ~25(protection from being outright gravity bombed and sufficient self-defense from leakers, defense of closely escorted vessels).

Click to expand...

I think modern frigates need the ability to engage or at least threaten ISR aircraft and/or strike fighters at relatively long ranges with their own organic weapons, which necessitates LR SAMs.
The bulk of a frigate's weapons suite will obviously still be mostly MR SAMs, but having the ability to reach out and touch targets at 200km or over 200km, is still very valuable.

In the case of 054B, the 7m length variant of the UVLS is perfect for it, and also happens to be the length that the HQ-9 is carried in, so why not simply standardize the HQ-9 family as the PLAN's new regular LR SAM?


If 054B does use UVLS, then they will be able to standardize their SAMs across their UVLS equipped ships (052D, 055 and 054B up to that point), including 3-5 for quad pack MR SAM, HQ-9 variants for LR SAM, and whatever future VLR SAM and ABM capability (that only 052D and 055 will be able to carry).