He deleted that tweet? Kinda odd thing to say when he retweets chinese sources.
054B/next generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
He deleted that tweet? Kinda odd thing to say when he retweets chinese sources.
Do you guys think the increased beam could allow the installation of shorter 850mm common VLS? Or just more of the original AJK-16 cells?
antiterror13
Brigadier
Interesting question, I am hoping would be UVLS but probably not the 9m one ... but all or most would be 7m and possibly some 3.3m
You have to consider that a purely hot launched VLS like the AJK-16 needs additional space for the exhaust gas channels and that would would add to the total depth. So a hot launch VLS that uses a 6 meter length canister to hold a 5.2 meter missile may have a total depth of 7 meters if we assume the transfer channels underneath is 1 meter deep.
Likewise for a CCL canister we have to assume the canister needs to be at least a meter longer than the maximum length of the missile it contains to house the cold or hot launch system beneath the missile. A 7 meter missile would mean an 8 meter CCL canister at least.
For 054B, I assume they might use a navalized HQ-16FE (160km, dual ARH/SARH guidance) within the short U-VLS, with the extra space beneath for the hot launch. It would be intriguing if they can even pack two missiles per canister.
As we are seeing models of CM803B displayed inside the U-VLS, we can also assume YJ-83B will continue to be used by the frigate, but will now be VLS instead of slant launch.
I doubt the 3.3m ULS variant will ever be used. I think this project is cancelled permanently. The only reason this is schemed is to use some kind of navalized HQ-17 as a short range defense missile, the Chinese analog to the Russian Klinoks used on the Kuznetsov and Udaloys, which is a navalized Tor-M1. However the HHQ-10 sealed the fate of such a missile.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Using the HQ-16FE is not a cost-effective option in the case of U-VLS. HQ-16FE occupies a launch unit like HQ-9BE. The HQ-16FE is inferior to the HQ-9BE in every respect except price. Judging from the current segment width and power system news, 054b is
A large ship similar to 052c, close to 6000 tons. On such a ship, it is appropriate to have 16-unit HQ-9BE and 8-unit 4-in-1 transmitting unit similar to FM-3000N.
What I am interested in is whether the anti-submarine missile equipped with 324MM torpedo can also be made into a 4-in-1 launch unit.
I don't know what you mean by 'cost effective'. An HHQ-9B (the -E is only for export) will definitely cost more than an HHQ-16F, and you have to keep this in mind versus the cost of the target, and the practice that two missiles are fired against one target. The second is that despite the limitations of SARH illumination, it remains highly effective against targets, like say, in environment with high clutter such as near the sea surface. You have to understand that a shipboard illuminator can radiate a beam that is far more powerful than the battery powered illuminator used inside an active guided missile. Even the latest Standards are now doing dual ARH/SARH guidance. The close cousin and ancestor of the HQ-16, the Buk SAM, has shown its effectiveness in both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, even with anti-missile and anti-rocket interceptions.
+ship onboard FC is simply that much more capable of figuring out its way through EW than a puny expendable missile unit.
But it's perfectly capable (almost an overmatch tbh, much like the SM-2MR) within all the ranges where frigate can ensure their use.
If you're aiming at a more powerful sensor suite (and more equal integration into system of systems) - you're basically replacing 052D.
Which is a viable strategy, but let's see what PLAN wants with our eyes.