Type 054/A FFG Thread II


Tam

Major
Registered Member
Regarding "hot vs cold" launch,

What happens if the missile fails to fire its rockets in time during cold launch? In the 052C the VLS is angled and the missile would likely just fall into the ocean. But what about the VLS in the 052D and 055 (as well as several Russian systems)? The missile would fall back onto the ship. In hot launch, any missile ignition failure would mean the missile just sits in the VLS.

Like to know your thoughts on this.
The Russians stopped angling their cold launched VLS when they figured the probabilities of failure happening is too low to bother, based on historical record. The Chinese may also have arrived to the same conclusion. These also include land based examples.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
I think this becomes more of a question about HHQ-16 then.

Either way I believe 054B should be designed with the ability to carry and launch LRSAMs of a certain number. Whether it is HHQ-9 or some kind of future advanced HHQ-16 variant is largely immaterial to me.

The reason I would prefer HHQ-9 is because I believe the HHQ-16s do not have a future beyond the 054As and ships upgraded with 054A's weapon and sensor suites. If they end up developing a much improved variant of HHQ-16 and integrating it on the U VLS then it could be an option.

But in that case the PLAN would basically have four tiers of naval VLS SAMs that can be fired from its UVLS, from smallest to largest:
- Future quad packed MR SAMs
- HHQ-16 family SAMs (MR to LR)
- HHQ-9 family SAMs (LR)
- HHQ-X family SAMs (VLR, SM-6+ class)

It's far from unreasonable, but I think it would be neater to take out the HHQ-16 category that straddles the MR and LR category.
The thing is, a missile the size and weight of the HHQ-16 --- 700kg class --- has the potential to serve a range from 40km to 160km. Assuming the missile length to be 5.2m to 5.5 meters, the VLS depth can be under 6m. This can allow you to put the VLS on smaller, tighter ships.

I don't think the radars on the 054B --- assuming the ones I previously discussed, a rotating single or dual faced S-band radar small enough to be put on top of the mast but the face much smaller than the Type 346's, then a set of small four faced X-band radars below it , analogous to SAMPSON on top and Thales APAR beneath --- are able to support SAM missile engagement in excess of 160km, and a range from 120 to 150km would be more like it. That won't be able to exercise HHQ-9B and beyond with excess of 200+ km range engagement. This however, still fits what a 700kg medium sized SAM can potentially do.

That is why for the high range stuff, you need the full Type 346X set which won't fit on a 054B.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
The thing is, a missile the size and weight of the HHQ-16 --- 700kg class --- has the potential to serve a range from 40km to 160km. Assuming the missile length to be 5.2m to 5.5 meters, the VLS depth can be under 6m. This can allow you to put the VLS on smaller, tighter ships.

I don't think the radars on the 054B --- assuming the ones I previously discussed, a rotating single or dual faced S-band radar small enough to be put on top of the mast but the face much smaller than the Type 346's, then a set of small four faced X-band radars below it , analogous to SAMPSON on top and Thales APAR beneath --- are able to support SAM missile engagement in excess of 160km, and a range from 120 to 150km would be more like it. That won't be able to exercise HHQ-9B and beyond with excess of 200+ km range engagement. This however, still fits what a 700kg medium sized SAM can potentially do.

That is why for the high range stuff, you need the full Type 346X set which won't fit on a 054B.
I think an array half the size of Type 346A or similar in size to SAMPSON should be able to support SAM engagement in excess of 200km, after all it's not like Aster 30's engagement range is limited by SAMPSON rather than the missile itself.

Additionally, I don't think it is reasonable to come up with a whole new length of the UVLS to make the idea of further developing the HHQ-16 seem more attractive. I think if they had been planning such a length of the UVLS it would've been described as such from the outset and would've heard about it by now.


The way I see it, there are three engagement categories:
10-50 km: which in the future should be the domain of the quad pack MR SAM
50-200 km: which would be the domain of HHQ-9 variants
200-400+ km: the domain of the new VLRSAM


I believe frigates should have the ability to engage aerial targets of 200+km if required, though obviously the bulk of the aerial targets they engage would be with MR SAMs
I do not expect frigates to have the capability or requirement to engage targets greatly in excess of 200km, as that would come down to the large destroyers and destroyers.
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
I believe frigates should have the ability to engage aerial targets of 200+km if required
True area defence mostly is a destroyer domain.
If not by name, then by functionality and bill.

Imho, but GP/ASW combatant can and shall settle on more modest levels.
 

Interstellar

Junior Member
Registered Member
Interstellar
you're posting baloney about "dynamite" in a VLS?!

you should perhaps tell the Russians:

the third paragraph in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


the second paragraph in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Calm down.

There is nothing wrong with the paragraph in article Кинжал. The missile is launched by газовой катапульты (gas catapult) and no one is denying that. Your question is whether the gas is generated by gas bottles or explosive/energetic material/dynamite.

Please do read materials I posted.

对于采用冷发射的舰载战术导弹,因导弹有弹翼和舵,使导弹和发射筒之间存在较大的空隙,弹射力作用在尾部已不适应,所以,一般采用提拉活塞式弹射装置,如俄罗斯的SA-N-9导弹发射系统。该导弹发射系统的弹射装置是由传爆管、活塞、气缸、活塞杆、提弹梁(提弹钩)、缓冲装置、支座及主燃气发生器和副燃气发生器等组成。气缸并行于导轨固定在发射筒内壁,活塞置于气缸内,并可在气缸内运动,活塞杆的上端与提弹梁相连,提弹梁作用在导弹尾舱。在导弹发射时,副燃气发生器点火,产生的高温燃气将导弹解锁,同时冲破易碎盖,并且在燃气压力达到一定值时,通过压力开关使主燃气发生器点火,主燃气发生器产生的高温、高压燃气进入气缸,推动活塞向上运动,活塞杆带动提弹梁将导弹弹射出筒。当导弹达到一定高度后转弯,弹上发动机点火。
郑宏建. 舰载导弹发射装置发展趋势——通用化垂直发射装置[J]. 飞航导弹, 2003(4):24-27.

The author is an engineer of the tactical missile testing range of PLAN.

I would be appreciate if you could provide an official source to the paragraph in article Редут. But by looking at the heavy smoke you can already tell it is not simply сжатого воздуха (compressed air).

2.png1.jpg
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
This was taken three years ago. Environmental activist ship the Steve Irwin encounters Chinese Navy Warship 571. You can hear 571 asks a question to the Steve Irwin in a female voice as the Steve Irwin tracks a Chinese vessel that was using drift nets and turns them in. The video errs in saying there are two Chinese warships, the silhouette on the video appears that of a US Navy LPD of the San Antonio class, and Chinese Navy Warship 571 might have been shadowing the LPD.

 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
This was taken three years ago. Environmental activist ship the Steve Irwin encounters Chinese Navy Warship 571. You can hear 571 asks a question to the Steve Irwin in a female voice as the Steve Irwin tracks a Chinese vessel that was using drift nets and turns them in. The video errs in saying there are two Chinese warships, the silhouette on the video appears that of a US Navy LPD of the San Antonio class, and Chinese Navy Warship 571 might have been shadowing the LPD.

To be frank, I did be betting 10 bucks that this is one sea altercation of which Japan is definitely rooting for China.LOL
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think this becomes more of a question about HHQ-16 then.

Either way I believe 054B should be designed with the ability to carry and launch LRSAMs of a certain number. Whether it is HHQ-9 or some kind of future advanced HHQ-16 variant is largely immaterial to me.

The reason I would prefer HHQ-9 is because I believe the HHQ-16s do not have a future beyond the 054As and ships upgraded with 054A's weapon and sensor suites. If they end up developing a much improved variant of HHQ-16 and integrating it on the U VLS then it could be an option.

But in that case the PLAN would basically have four tiers of naval VLS SAMs that can be fired from its UVLS, from smallest to largest:
- Future quad packed MR SAMs
- HHQ-16 family SAMs (MR to LR)
- HHQ-9 family SAMs (LR)
- HHQ-X family SAMs (VLR, SM-6+ class)

It's far from unreasonable, but I think it would be neater to take out the HHQ-16 category that straddles the MR and LR category.
It is not impossible. There is good reason to believe that China will install the U VLS on damn near every ship that can take it. The main issue that I see with the HQ-16 is not the range but rather the number of missiles each ship can carry, it being a Cold War design. With newer missiles like the 9M96 which can be quad packed the only real advantage the HQ-16 will have would be its warhead weight.
Must the 054B have LR to VLR SAMs ? Certainly that did be an advantage but I did rate it as a plus rather than an absolute necessity given the role it is supposed to play. A more advance radar with the same search range as the Sea Eagle would make it a very effective AA ship already.
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
To be frank, I did be betting 10 bucks that this is one sea altercation of which Japan is definitely rooting for China.LOL
Considering China had no issue with the Steve Irwin as written in the description of the video and the ship proceeded unmolested, I wouldn't really describe it as an altercation.


It is not impossible. There is good reason to believe that China will install the U VLS on damn near every ship that can take it. The main issue that I see with the HQ-16 is not the range but rather the number of missiles each ship can carry, it being a Cold War design. With newer missiles like the 9M96 which can be quad packed the only real advantage the HQ-16 will have would be its warhead weight.
Must the 054B have LR to VLR SAMs ? Certainly that did be an advantage but I did rate it as a plus rather than an absolute necessity given the role it is supposed to play. A more advance radar with the same search range as the Sea Eagle would make it a very effective AA ship already.
I don't think 054B needs to have VLR SAMs, but I think the ability to fire LR SAMs should be required.
A more advanced radar with a similar range to Sea Eagle would be quite capable of guiding future LR SAMs as such missiles would likely have ARH and a radar with 250-300km range would be capable of doing the midcourse guidance for a LR SAM of 200+km range up to the terminal phase.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Considering China had no issue with the Steve Irwin as written in the description of the video and the ship proceeded unmolested, I wouldn't really describe it as an altercation.
Well I am more referring to a potential scuffle like the ones the Sea Shepherds likes to pull with the Japanese wailing fleet in the Arctic Such as this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


They do that with Japan cause they know they can get away with it, if they try that on a Chinese fishing ship I did expect the Chinese coast guard would have no compulsion of installing a battering ram on one of their 10,000 ton cutters to return the favour.

I don't think 054B needs to have VLR SAMs, but I think the ability to fire LR SAMs should be required.
A more advanced radar with a similar range to Sea Eagle would be quite capable of guiding future LR SAMs as such missiles would likely have ARH and a radar with 250-300km range would be capable of doing the midcourse guidance for a LR SAM of 200+km range up to the terminal phase.
Well I did hazard the old saying that a radar's effective range is usually much less then the officially stated one, given issues such as radar strength and so on. This is not to include other non natural factors like EW and stealth tech. So a new radar with the same stated range of the Sea Eagle would most likely have a 200-km effective range, it did take a 052D class radar at least to make full use of a LR SAM, and I do not reasonably foresee such a expensive and large radar to be on a frigate.
 
Last edited:

Top