FFG 054/054A Thread

[Roger604]

^ With that many missiles it would take up enormous space. Perhaps PLAN should develop something that's effective and efficient as the MK-41 VLS...

Sigh..... you mean something like this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Type 054A can easily fit one of these in the front and one set in the back too. A much larger displacement Type 052D can fit at least 3 x 32 cells.

Aren't superstructure PARs more powerful than mast mounted PARs, by virtue of their larger sizes? I imagine that the PLAN would want to stick to the superstructure arrangement to deal with enemy aviation (I'm thinking of the ROCAF and the USN carrier wings in particular).

If you look at a picture of the Daring class you see that the top mounted PAR is pretty large too. By mounting things high you have a much better ability to track sea skimming missiles.

 

[flyzies]

Sigh..... you mean something like this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Type 054A can easily fit one of these in the front and one set in the back too. A much larger displacement Type 052D can fit at least 3 x 32 cells.

Yes i am well aware China has VLS on 054A thankyou very much. But it can only fire the HQ-16 and (possibly) Y-8...which means its nowhere near as efficient or effective as MK-41; as that could launch everything from RIM-162 to SM-3 to Tomahawks. One launch system for all the ships missiles...

 

[Gollevainen]

A Type 054A can easily fit one of these in the front and one set in the back too. A much larger displacement Type 052D can fit at least 3 x 32 cells

Ehh..no. 045A can fit and has one set of the VLS in the front, but there is no room for it in the rear. Don't let somewhat clear spot in the upper deck to fool you to think that there isen't anything bellow it. VLS system, like any other system that penetrates bellow the decks takes space and in ships of these size, the space is already tight. You cannot just imagine that you can stuck just about anything into the ship and expect that stuff bellow would just go away...If 054A could carry VLS set in the rear, it most certainly would have done that.

Another factor is the plain old topweight...If you would fit a heavy system like VLS so high from the waterline (remember the place where you think the rear VLS would go is two decks higher than the front VLS) it increases the weight in the wrong area in the ship. You all have been in physic class, so you propapbly remember few things about moments of force...

And the VLS in 054A can only fire HHQ-16, or at least there is no indication that it could launch any other type of missiles.

 

[adeptitus]

I have yet to see a clear photo of the VL-SAM that goes into the 054A, but for purpose of discussion we'll assume it's the HHQ-16 with speculated max range of 42km-65km. That makes it a medium range SAM.

I'm sure you could mount more HHQ-16 cels on a larger ship. But if the purpose of building the larger ships is to load larger, heavier long-range naval SAM on them, then it's rather pointless to fill them up with short to medium ranged missiles.

To compare, the weight of a SA-N-6 SAM (S-300F) is more than twice the weight of a SA-N-12 SAM. Same with SM-2 ER vs. SM-1. Bigger missile = fewer missile carried.


As for the space issue, we can see that on the 051C, they mounted the S-300F/SA-N-6 in the aft in lieu of hanger deck. It's a trade-off to provide the ship with sufficient SAM rounds to perform its AAW role.

Other ships, such as the Canadian Halifax class frigate, also has "above deck" VL-SAM installs due to lack of internal space:

 

[crobato]

1. At 6100mt surface displacement, the 052C is hardly a big ship. In fact, for a surface displacement of that figure, its remarkable you can put 48 honking big S-300 class missiles on it. Between 6000 to 9000mt, you have a whole range of super frigates and destroyers whose SAM capability ranges from 32 to 64 missiles, with smaller Standards and ESSMs. The fact the 052C packs 48 such missiles on that displacement with rounded launchers I would say is quite amazing, but there has to be some sacrifices made like one less helicopter.

2. I have previously pointed out that for larger and larger missiles, it becomes more safer and convenient to use cold launched systems rather than hot launched. It takes a little imagination why. The bigger missile goes deeper down the ship, which has its own dangers when the missile take off blast occurs near the engine room, fuel tanks and ammo storage. The stronger blasts require larger vent tunnels out of the cannisters and into outside vents, and all these means eventually such a setup means that hot launched systems for large missiles take up more space.

3. Its possible for cold launched systems to be more space compact than hot launched systems, eliminating the vents and side tunnels. The key to this is to develop squared matrix type launchers and move away from rotary launchers. Each launcher would have a separate blast container underneath the missile (the 052C launcher already has this scheme). Examples are the 3S-14E VLS launcher on the Talways, and the VLS launcher intended for the VLS Shtil. However, I'm not sure if the PLAN has such a system under development.

4. It may be possible that 052D may in fact retain the cold launched rotary launcher and show refinements on the radar equipment instead.

5. It may also be possible that HQ-9 development may also be a dead end, a missile that maybe inconveniently too big, and future development maybe focused on developing improved versions of the HH-16.

6. We can have a conceptual hybrid where the 052C's PAR can be combined with HH-16, but unless HH-16's seeker can be active, a SARH HH-16 combined with the PAR can only be possible if the PAR has separate transmit and receive elements, like an AESA, so the array can search, track and target (SARH) illuminate all at the same time. So far the only known vessels on Earth that has radars that can do all these things are the APARs on the Sachsen class and De Zeven Provincien class frigates with SM-2 missiles.

 

[Gollevainen]

If there really is a new chinese destroyers being build, to me the greatest interest is not so much in the armament and sensors, but in the overall design.

People keep mentioning "052D" but are we sure that the new destroyer will continue the 052-series? I personally hope not. 052 serie is IMO end of it's road. The CODAG arragment of the 052 series is already near it's maxium size limits in the 052B/C so if the new destroyer intends to be larger, COGAG or COGOG arragment is more preferable. If such solution is choosen, then I belive it's going to be a completely new design 05X.

Of the weapons and systems onboard, there are few interesting choises which remains to seen:

1) The SSMs. Will there be YJ-63 or YJ-83? My bet is on the latter tough this new DDG could be the intended platform for the YJ-63. If it fields YJ-83, I think we can say goodbye to the YJ-63 as it would seem that it isen't so succesfull weapon after all. This is really the benchmark for the system.

2) The already mentioned and discussed SAM. I think alot depends on the intended mission of this class. Will it be the mass-production general purpose workhorse" like anticipated from the 052B? If so then I assume that HHQ-16 will be the weapon of choise. It's more than enough for such vessels. Of the radar fit, I throw a guestion to you guys, crobato mainly: If the ship fields PAR, couldn't the Orekh-look-alike illumators work as in 054A? You see the concept of the Uragan/HHQ-16 is already in princible the same as in the Aegis system, this case the Fregat serve in place of the SPY-1 (naturally alot scaled-down capability).

3) ASW orientation. Would we finally see a fleet-scale bluewater ASW platform with powerfull sonarsuite and other-than-selfdefence ASW armament? 2 helicopter capability is the first indication of such.

4) The CIWS. Reports says that chinese choosed the current arragment for it's type 730 CIWS with fire control radar fixed in the gun mount as there were some proplems with the stabilization with seperately mounted firecontrol radars with the earlier type 76A guns. However the latest fit of the system in the Pakistanese type 22P shows stripped down version of the Type 730 with optical sights and firecontrol radars seperated from the mount. So which version will we see in this new destroyer design?

 

[crobato]

1. Call it YJ-62, not YJ-63. YJ-63 is the missile carried by the H-6H bomber and its body proportions is more like the classic Silkworm dolphin shape rather than the Tomahawk cigar shape. While both are antiship missiles, and the YJ-62 might have its airborne version too, the YJ-62 and YJ-63 are distinct.

2. Yeah I think having Orekh like illuminators can lessen the burden on the main PARs allowing them to concentrate on volume search and tracking. A possible arrangement might be something like the 052B, but with the Chinese Orekhs and Fregats and the VLS replacing the rail launcher.

3. I would kind of think that if Huangpu in Guangzhou is building a destroyer, it won't be a new class but rather based on an existing design. Huangpu isn't exactly in the same line and caliber as the Shanghai shipyards, and if there is going to be an all new class, its going to have to come out from either the new Jiangnan/Changxin yards or the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard before subsequent production gets parceled to Huangpu.

4. If you can forget about having a VLS on the back, it maybe possible to put two helicopters in the back. The last time the PLAN had a two helo helicopter, it was with the 167 Shenzhen.

5. If a new non-054A warship is being built in Huangpu, in my opinion it may have a high chance of using the HH-16/VLS combination since the shipyard already has the experience, although it does not eliminate the possibility of trying something the shipyard has not tried before. However, I don't expect Huangpu to try some very new unexplored stuff; again that would be job of the Shanghai yards. This would not eliminate the possibility of a 052C that would still retain its rounded launchers and HQ-9 but with some changes on the radars fitted.

6. On the CIWS, the one that appeared on the F-22P might be an export variant and not necessarily would appear on the domestic ones.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

People keep mentioning "052D" but are we sure that the new destroyer will continue the 052-series? I personally hope not. 052 serie is IMO end of it's road. The CODAG arragment of the 052 series is already near it's maxium size limits in the 052B/C so if the new destroyer intends to be larger, COGAG or COGOG arragment is more preferable. If such solution is choosen, then I belive it's going to be a completely new design 05X.

From what I understand, in PLAN nomenclature the designation 052 does not indicate a particular design type or hull type. 052 is used for all gas-turbine destroyers and 051 is used for ones that use steam turbine. Therefore the overall design of the 052D may look completely different from the 052C/B.

 

[crobato]

That's true, although that does not explain 053 vs. 054.

 

[Gollevainen]

From my observation, the codename is indication of certain design. 051 is the Luda design which is in the terms of concept passed on to 051B which is the Luhai class. Now natuarally the hull design is different in these ships, but the overal layout concept is similar. 052 is for the Luhu class and the 052B/C are just continious development of it. 053 is the code for Jianghu class and all it's derivations, including Jianweig which was the ultimate version of the design. 054 is clearly a new and different one so thus a new code as well.