054B/next generation frigate

Lethe said:

To a certain extent I think these questions go beyond 054B itself to the future of the AJK-16 VLS. Is it going to be deprecated over time in favour of UVLS, or will it rather continue to serve and have munitions developed for it in parallel with UVLS?

On a per-missile basis, current and future evolutions of HQ-16 will almost certainly have a considerably greater performance envelope compared to the 5-5-5 missile, and it should be possible and desirable for 054B to exploit that greater envelope. It's also possible, even likely, that packaging HQ-16 in UVLS is less space-efficient than packing it in AJK-16.

It should also be recognised that vertically launched anti-ship or land-attack missiles are a mixed blessing. Having such missiles be VLS launched reduces top weight, but from a total ship packaging perspective it may well be easier to accomodate a limited number (and with 054B I think we can assume that the number of such munitions required is indeed limited) in quad-packs above deck.

With AJK-16 supporting credible munitions such as HQ-16 and especially CY-5 ASROC, and the mixed blessing of VLS-launched ASuW muntions), I think the most compelling argument in favour of UVLS is the 5-5-5 missile (as a complement to HQ-16). The question therefore arises, can 5-5-5 be double or triple-packed inside AJK-16?

The possibility space is quite large, including mixed VLS configurations as Tam notes. Fortunately we soon have many of the answers.

Click to expand...

I would go one step further and say that the question is beyond just the future of the H/AJK-16 VLS but also the HHQ-16 family of naval SAMs in general. I.e.: in a PLAN were the 5-5-5 quad pack MR SAM and where a variety of HQ-9 variants will continue to be procured and developed and sustained, is it worth keeping a HQ-16 family of missiles to be developed and upgraded and sustained?

Also, the VL ASROC weapon's name is Yu-8, I think the "CY-X" designation is a somewhat old one.

Is there a chance new hq16 is meant for 054A refit? I quite like the design but given the look of 054B and its size it looks more like a budget 052D than 054A.

Blitzo said:

I would go one step further and say that the question is beyond just the future of the H/AJK-16 VLS but also the HHQ-16 family of naval SAMs in general. I.e.: in a PLAN were the 5-5-5 quad pack MR SAM and where a variety of HQ-9 variants will continue to be procured and developed and sustained, is it worth keeping a HQ-16 family of missiles to be developed and upgraded and sustained?

Click to expand...

With the 5-5-5 missile probably being <300kg and HQ-16 probably being >600kg, I don't see the former as a complete replacement for the latter. No doubt the 5-5-5 missile can compete with and potentially surpass the performance credentials of HQ-16 as it was initially fielded, but those same advancements in propellants can be applied to the HQ-16 to further expand its performance envelope, i.e. HQ-16C. The larger volume of HQ-16 can also accommodate a larger and more powerful seeker and a larger warhead.

If a new generation of propellants is allowing Sea Ceptor (a 100kg Sidewinder/RAM/HQ-10-class missile) to be advertised with 25km range, and for ESSM Block II and 5-5-5 missile to be firmly classed as medium-range missiles, those same developments can increasingly push HQ-16/Buk into the long-range category. What is imperiled here is not HQ-16, but HQ-9. There are considerable applications for extended-range munitions, ballistic missile defence, etc. but as smaller munitions improve, the need for an enormous 1300kg munition (with an Exocet-sized warhead...) as the standard long-range SAM becomes increasingly questionable, much as the giant >2000kg SAMs of the 1950s and 1960s were eventually deprecated.

Blitzo said:

Also, the VL ASROC weapon's name is Yu-8, I think the "CY-X" designation is a somewhat old one.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I thought Yu- was the prefix for torpedoes and CY for the missiles, but these details often escape me.

Lethe said:

With the 5-5-5 missile probably being <300kg and HQ-16 probably being >600kg, I don't see the former as a complete replacement for the latter. No doubt the 5-5-5 missile can compete with and potentially surpass the performance credentials of HQ-16 as it was initially fielded, but those same advancements in propellants can be applied to the HQ-16 to further expand its performance envelope, i.e. HQ-16C. The larger volume of HQ-16 can also accommodate a larger and more powerful seeker and a larger warhead.

If a new generation of propellants is allowing Sea Ceptor (a 100kg Sidewinder/RAM/HQ-10-class missile) to be advertised with 25km range, and for ESSM Block II and 5-5-5 missile to be firmly classed as medium-range missiles, those same developments can increasingly push HQ-16/Buk into the long-range category. What is imperiled here is not HQ-16, but HQ-9. There are considerable applications for extended-range munitions, ballistic missile defence, etc. but as smaller munitions improve, the need for an enormous 1300kg munition (with an Exocet-sized warhead...) as the standard long-range SAM becomes increasingly questionable, much as the giant >2000kg SAMs of the 1950s and 1960s were eventually deprecated.

Click to expand...

I don't think 5-5-5 will be a full replacement of HQ-16, but rather that with 5-5-5 and HQ-9 variants, that I don't think there necessarily has to be a role for HQ-16.

HQ-16 as a missile is of course a fairly sizeable missile, and with future developments it can probably reach well over 200km and even get to near 300km.
But is it actually worthwhile pursuing such developments when the HQ-9 family already exists, and is already integrated in the UVLS?

As a larger missile to begin with, HQ-9 has the benefit of having more growth potential by being a larger airframe for more space for propellant and more space for electronics as those get further miniaturized and made more efficient. Being a larger airframe, you also get more space to work with as other advancements such as multimode guidance, attitude control motors, get developed too.

HQ-9 can be developed to become a very long range SAM (400+km) if a booster gets added to it to make use of the 9m length UVLS. A "Super HQ-9" for colloquialism's sake.

Meanwhile, existing HQ-9s using the same baseline HQ-9 airframe footprint can still have new variants developed with advancements to maximize kinematic properties and pK for the medium to long range profile.

All of which is to say, that going into the future, perhaps the "baseline" expectation for a proper long range area air defense SAM would be a fairly heavy 1.3 ton (or greater! SM-6 is 1.5 tons) SAM with all of the advancements that the future will offer -- new propellant and multipulse motors, multimode terminal guidance with large apertures, advanced midcourse/CeC capabilities, attitude thrusters for increased kinematic properties, new lighter weight materials, etc.

Putting all of that into a HQ-16 sized missile might be more difficult than working with an existing larger airframe that HQ-9 has.


I.e., for the UVLS, you'd have:
- 5-5-5 for CIWS range to medium range (50+km)
- HQ-9 variants for medium range to long range (50km to 200km)
- "Super/booster equipped HQ-9" variants medium range (technically capable for it but practically wouldn't be used for it) to very long range (50km to 400+km), for the 9m UVLS

If you have all three of those, then is there really a reason for HQ-16 variants?
The early HQ-16 variants are made obsolete by the 5-5-5 which they can quad pack and still attain the same engagement envelope.
The later HQ-16 variants will occupy the same engagement envelope as the HQ-9 variants while still taking up the same one cell volume of a UVLS.

I suppose keeping later HQ-16 variants around to replace the HQ-9 variants would be reasonable if they could somehow multi-pack HQ-16s in the UVLS, but if they can't do so then it's probably better to just streamline everything with HQ-9 variants instead.

Lethe said:

Thanks. I thought Yu- was the prefix for torpedoes and CY for the missiles, but these details often escape me.

Click to expand...

Yu- as I understand it is for any type of torpedo weapon.

I don't think CY is a PLA designation in general.

Blitzo, you probably already know this but for those who don't. 鱼-8 = Yu-8. Torpedoes are called "fish" in the PLAN.

Tam said:

32 is just too short if the VLS will be using anti-ship missiles. The 32 will be SAM, plus you need either 8 or 16 for AshM. I don't see the point of having eight, since the array is arranged as 2 rows of 4 cells. A single 2x4 array will leave you too much of an empty space, so you have to use 2 sets of 2x4 arrays. So 16 is the logical number for AshM. So 16 AshM + 32 SAMs = 48. You also have to consider the ship will be using some cells for ASW work.

Click to expand...

16-24 sams isn't unprecedented, and is generally enough for 1-2 non-saturation attacks and continuous deterrence against patrol/reconnaissance/non-dedicated anti-ship units.
Consequently, it can't be ruled out just because of SAM requirement.

Blitzo said:

As a larger missile to begin with, HQ-9 has the benefit of having more growth potential by being a larger airframe for more space for propellant and more space for electronics as those get further miniaturized and made more efficient. Being a larger airframe, you also get more space to work with as other advancements such as multimode guidance, attitude control motors, get developed too.

HQ-9 can be developed to become a very long range SAM (400+km) if a booster gets added to it to make use of the 9m length UVLS. A "Super HQ-9" for colloquialism's sake.

Click to expand...

Everything mentioned is absolutely true - and true is also the fact that those capabilities don't and won't come for free.
Carrying such a missile on a frigate - i.e. ship by design intended to often operate either alone, or without true air-sea grid (for example, covering corvettes), - is simply wasteful.
Even US in the end keeps SM-6 and SM-2MR distinction(moreover, it remains a very distinctive line between destroyers and 'fleet frigates').

Blitzo said:

I would go one step further and say that the question is beyond just the future of the H/AJK-16 VLS but also the HHQ-16 family of naval SAMs in general. I.e.: in a PLAN were the 5-5-5 quad pack MR SAM and where a variety of HQ-9 variants will continue to be procured and developed and sustained, is it worth keeping a HQ-16 family of missiles to be developed and upgraded and sustained?

Also, the VL ASROC weapon's name is Yu-8, I think the "CY-X" designation is a somewhat old one.

Click to expand...

There are about 50 ships using AJK-16 VLS, including 054A, 052B, most of which will be in service for more than 20 years. As far as the hull structure is concerned, it is very difficult to switch to UVLS during the mid-term overhaul. New missiles like the HQ-16FE, which increase the range to 160KM and increase the terminal overload capability, deliberately maintain the same body size as the old hq-16. The Navy will retain the AJK-16 VLS for a long time.

test1979 said:

There are about 50 ships using AJK-16 VLS, including 054A, 052B, most of which will be in service for more than 20 years. As far as the hull structure is concerned, it is very difficult to switch to UVLS during the mid-term overhaul. New missiles like the HQ-16FE, which increase the range to 160KM and increase the terminal overload capability, deliberately maintain the same body size as the old hq-16. The Navy will retain the AJK-16 VLS for a long time.

Click to expand...

HQ-16 is about the same size and weight as the SM2-MR, and has a similar aerodynamic configuration. There's no reason for it, given the right fuel and battery supply, to not have the same range as the Standard MR missile. As a matter of fact when the Buk missile was first introduced, it was referred to as the Soviet Union's copy of the Standard.

The Buk, by now, is the most war proven SAM in existence along with the other Soviet Union SAMs. The ones the Ukrainians use are old, older than the Shtils used in the PLAN Sovremmenny, one can call these antiques. They might have some modernization here and there but it's limited. Yet they are able to shoot down Kalibers and Flankers. The new Russian -M2 and -M3 editions are able to pop MLRS rockets like HIMARS and Tochka U. MLRS has low RCS and move at supersonic speeds, yet they are taken down by Buks. This is a huge vote of confidence for the missile. The HQ-16 can be regarded as Chinese modernized Buks, much like the J-11B is to the original Su-27. The HQ-16F (the E is likely an export suffix) might be the ultimate rendition of the missile unless the Russians can push it even more.

For the same reason the USN still keeps the SM2-MR despite having the SM6 and the ESSM, the Buk/HQ-16 is in the Goldilocks range for a SAM. Not too big, not too small, not too expensive either, has a good sprint and fairly large warhead (17m blast radius). Big hurts maneuverability. Small hurts range. Cost makes it uneconomical against targets less expensive than the missile itself.

Blitzo said:

More from 大包



View attachment 106133View attachment 106134View attachment 106135View attachment 106136

Click to expand...

052E missing