055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[mangchaocs]

I wonder if there is a variant of HQ-16FE for PLAN, and futher more, whether it would be possible to achieve a 4-missile configuration in one 850mm cell. There should be no absolute technical difficulty, but what unclear is if there is a demand from PLAN of this.
If the range of HHQ-9B has not been significantly improved from 200km, then there might be too much overlapping coverage bewteen two systems.
However, if the previously reported information about

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is true and it has already been deployed in the naval version, then perhaps the HQ-16FE could truly provide an additional intermediate layer of air defense.

Furthermore, if the publicly known FM-3000N also has a self-use variant with a longer range than what we've seen on Zhuhai Aviation Exhibition, we might be able to see a complete four-layered air defense missile shield with HHQ10 for terminal in the near future.
PS：Sea-based mid-course anti-ballistic missiles has not been taken into consideration here.

 

[siegecrossbow]

 

[BoraTas]

I wonder if there is a variant of HQ-16FE for PLAN,

Could be. Glide bombs reach 140 km easily nowadays. Giving frigates an anti-air engagement range of 160 km would be useful, especially if the package also includes a transition to active-radar guided missiles.

and futher more, whether it would be possible to achieve a 4-missile configuration in one 850mm cell. There should be no absolute technical difficulty, but what unclear is if there is a demand from PLAN of this.

Not possible at all. Just too big.

If the range of HHQ-9B has not been significantly improved from 200km, then there might be too much overlapping coverage bewteen two systems.
However, if the previously reported information about

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is true and it has already been deployed in the naval version, then perhaps the HQ-16FE could truly provide an additional intermediate layer of air defense.

It could if it was quad-packable. Otherwise, you should just load the more capable missile. HHQ-9B (or whatever PLA calls it internally nowadays) almost certainly has a range over 300 km. It also has an AESA seeker, and there are very persistent rumors about it being a dual-seeker missile. It is certainly a more capable missile than a HQ-16 variant.

IMO there can be a quad-packable missile in service, I personally think of the recent smaller missile attached to HQ-9 batteries.

Furthermore, if the publicly known FM-3000N also has a self-use variant with a longer range than what we've seen on Zhuhai Aviation Exhibition, we might be able to see a complete four-layered air defense missile shield with HHQ10 for terminal in the near future.
PS：Sea-based mid-course anti-ballistic missiles has not been taken into consideration here.

I'd say why not. Should be possible.

 

[AndrewS]

Could be. Glide bombs reach 140 km easily nowadays.

Can you give examples?

The most widespread glide bomb that I'm aware of the SDB circa 110km range when launched from an aircraft

 

[pevade]

Can you give examples?

The most widespread glide bomb that I'm aware of the SDB circa 110km range when launched from an aircraft

To be fair, the range of a glide bomb is heavily dependent on the height and speed of the aircraft that it is launched from. So the max range of a gliding bomb can vary greatly.

 

[gelgoog]

Bombs with that kind of range have some kind of propulsion. They cease to be relatively cheap.

 

[BoraTas]

Can you give examples?

The most widespread glide bomb that I'm aware of the SDB circa 110km range when launched from an aircraft

JSOW has 130 km. SDB can apparently have 150 km with the right release parameters as its rocket-launched version has that range. But yes, I should have given a lower range.

 

[AndrewS]

JSOW has 130 km. SDB can apparently have 150 km with the right release parameters as its rocket-launched version has that range. But yes, I should have given a lower range.

Ok.

But I see the latest glide-bomb JSOW cost as $700K+, which is approaching the cost of a cruise missile.
So would you really want to risk an aircraft getting to 150km of a SAM system and having to fly at high-altitude to release a glide-bomb?

It seems better to just buy cruise missiles and for the aircraft to launch at low-altitude much further away.

 

[gelgoog]

Agreed. Especially because the extra cost of range, once you add an engine to the missile in the first place, is just enlarging the fuel tank.

 

[Africanus]

Ok.

But I see the latest glide-bomb JSOW cost as $700K+, which is approaching the cost of a cruise missile.
So would you really want to risk an aircraft getting to 150km of a SAM system and having to fly at high-altitude to release a glide-bomb?

It seems better to just buy cruise missiles and for the aircraft to launch at low-altitude much further away.

That may be, but in a war scenario there are more parameters to take into account. There may be no more cruise missiles left in stock while you have glide-bombs available. Alternatively, you may need the cruise missiles for more important targets that you can't reach with a glide-bomb. No country has an unlimited number of cruise missiles, and in a war the stocks of those cruise missiles will be depleted fast.