Type 054/A FFG Thread II


Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
The 054B can use its data link with any 052Ds or 055s in any flotilla it finds itself with in to guide the LR SAMs but that is another topic of discussion entirely.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
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'm just pointing out there was no altercation in this event.



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 reasonable foresee such a expensive and large radar to be on a frigate.
The original HHQ-9 benefitted from the 052C's radar yes. We do not know what the effective range of the 052D's 346A is compared to 346; furthermore we don't know whether 052Ds use the same original HHQ-9 variants that were first introduced on the 052Cs originally (I would be very surprised if they were considering the advancements that the HHQ-9 family have likely enjoyed over the last decade and a half).

Also I do not believe we've had indications to suggest that the HHQ-9 "required" the 346 or 346A radar to achieve its required range. In fact reading up the original 346 radar's development history from a year or two back it seemed like the radar itself was much more capable than required for effective guidance of the HHQ-9 itself. After all, the effective range of a ship's radar system is very different to the ship's maximum effective SAM range.


In terms of potential radar fit for 054B, I believe it is perfectly feasible to have a radar with say, 1/2-2/3 the effective size of an 052D's 346A or even 055's 346X/B. Additionally, they don't need to have four fixed faces -- two faces on a fast rotating platform similar to SAMPSON would be perfectly adequate for guiding a LR SAM with ARH. In terms of total cost of the arrays compared to an 052D or 055's radar set up, two faces of 1/2-2/3 the size means it should correspondingly be between 1/4-1/3 the cost.


My suggestion is not particularly unprecedented either; as far as radar fit goes, the FFGX will be designed with a downsized variant of the SPY-6 radar (called EASR) on three fixed faces and the USN want it to be capable of firing SM-2 Block IIIC, basically an ARH variant of the venerable SM-2 LR SAM family.
My solution would be very similar. but instead of having 3 EASR fixed faces I propose a more conservative 2 face rotating configuration, and instead of firing SM-2 Block IIIC I propose having the ability to fire future HHQ-9 variants instead.


This isn't to say I would expect 054Bs to carry HHQ-9/LR SAMs heavily as part of its normal loadout, however having the ability to carry, fire and guide them I think should be a requirement.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
This seems to fit the description above.

214418m0a60anxk3zfmt66.jpg


This can be a single or dual faced S-band array that rotates.

We have seen this before, and its been added on a lot of fan drawings.

Some new notes I must add, with regards to the panels below the lantern.

The four panels immediately below I believe is a CEC set that corresponds to the US Navy's USG-3 set. See below, with the four faced array. This stalk has a TACAN on top, followed by USG-1, which is an earlier CEC set and retained for supporting legacy connections, followed by USG-3.

cec (1).jpg

These panels have appeared on previous ships --- on top of the Type 055 and the Type 002.

ed36-hymscpr1215088.jpg

b2c1-hymscpr1215138.jpg

Below that, is another set of four wider bars, and it hit me recently, is that they might be a smaller version of the bars you see on top of the Type 346A/B and would have been inside the panel of the original Type 346. Since the S-band radar is now rotating, the bars would have to be set below the radome. The purpose of these bars would be for IFF and for guidance communication, effectively a datalink, for the SAMs. Now if SAM = HHQ-9, it now becomes more likely.

type-055-renhai-class-bridge.jpg


download.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
I'm just pointing out there was no altercation in this event.


[QUOTE/] True and I suggest that we leave it my last post on that matter.

The original HHQ-9 benefitted from the 052C's radar yes. We do not know what the effective range of the 052D's 346A is compared to 346; furthermore we don't know whether 052Ds use the same original HHQ-9 variants that were first introduced on the 052Cs originally (I would be very surprised if they were considering the advancements that the HHQ-9 family have likely enjoyed over the last decade and a half).
Whether it is the 346 or the 346A used would mean little in the context of the 054A's successor as for all intents and purpose there is no likely way that it would ever be mounting a radar system of that size anyway.

Also I do not believe we've had indications to suggest that the HHQ-9 "required" the 346 or 346A radar to achieve its required range. In fact reading up the original 346 radar's development history from a year or two back it seemed like the radar itself was much more capable than required for effective guidance of the HHQ-9 itself. After all, the effective range of a ship's radar system is very different to the ship's maximum effective SAM range.
I am not referring to the HQ-9 range, that of course would not change whether what kind of radar is used. What I am referring to is how effective the radar is at guiding the missile to its intended target vis a vis distance. To put it in this way, to use a Sea Eagle/ Top Plate esque radar to guide a modern HQ-9 would be somewhat of a waste because the radar's range would be even less than that of the missile. So if the new radar has the same effective scanning range as the existing radar, pairing it with a 200+km range SAM would be pointless. Unless China is planning to use basic HHQ-9 missiles instead.


In terms of potential radar fit for 054B, I believe it is perfectly feasible to have a radar with say, 1/2-2/3 the effective size of an 052D's 346A or even 055's 346X/B. Additionally, they don't need to have four fixed faces -- two faces on a fast rotating platform similar to SAMPSON would be perfectly adequate for guiding a LR SAM with ARH. In terms of total cost of the arrays compared to an 052D or 055's radar set up, two faces of 1/2-2/3 the size means it should correspondingly be between 1/4-1/3 the cost.
True but that would reduce the effective scanning range and resolution of the radar. A smaller size means less T/R modules. Would it have a better scanning resolution that the existing Sea Eagle ? Definitely, would it have better range ? That would depend.

My suggestion is not particularly unprecedented either; as far as radar fit goes, the FFGX will be designed with a downsized variant of the SPY-6 radar (called EASR) on three fixed faces and the USN want it to be capable of firing SM-2 Block IIIC, basically an ARH variant of the venerable SM-2 LR SAM family.
My solution would be very similar. but instead of having 3 EASR fixed faces I propose a more conservative 2 face rotating configuration, and instead of firing SM-2 Block IIIC I propose having the ability to fire future HHQ-9 variants instead.
[QUOTE/]
The suggestion is not unprecedented, but there are some significant differences with the 2 comparisons. The SM-2 Block IIIC despite this extended lineage and development still hails from the original SM-2. With a stated range of 167km, it is definitely no HQ-9 or S-300 but rather a very souped-up HQ-16. This is logical considering the FFGX is considered by the USN to be a low cost supplements to the Burke. It would be a different matter if the FFGX was slated to fire the SM-6 or the proposed SM-2 VI.

This isn't to say I would expect 054Bs to carry HHQ-9/LR SAMs heavily as part of its normal loadout, however having the ability to carry, fire and guide them I think should be a requirement.
The capability for the 054A's successor to carry HHQ-9 type SAM would be present if China decides to install the full sized U VLS on it if only for the sake of standardization and the new hull having a greater height than the 054A. The capability to guide them however would depend on whether China will want another 052C/D type ship on their roster, from my pov the 054A's successor is most likely going to fulfill the more dedicated ASW and secondary/medium range AA defence of it's predecessor.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Whether it is the 346 or the 346A used would mean little in the context of the 054A's successor as for all intents and purpose there is no likely way that it would ever be mounting a radar system of that size anyway.
Indeed, it would likely be somewhat smaller than a 346A array.


I am not referring to the HQ-9 range, that of course would not change whether what kind of radar is used. What I am referring to is how effective the radar is at guiding the missile to its intended target vis a vis distance. To put it in this way, to use a Sea Eagle/ Top Plate esque radar to guide a modern HQ-9 would be somewhat of a waste because the radar's range would be even less than that of the missile. So if the new radar has the same effective scanning range as the existing radar, pairing it with a 200+km range SAM would be pointless. Unless China is planning to use basic HHQ-9 missiles instead.
I think we might have different conceptions of what a "modern" Sea Eagle equivalent would perform.


True but that would reduce the effective scanning range and resolution of the radar. A smaller size means less T/R modules. Would it have a better scanning resolution that the existing Sea Eagle ? Definitely, would it have better range ? That would depend.
An array of the size I am describing would be similar in size to Sea Eagle, while having much more advanced technology (being something like 2 generations ahead of Sea Eagle).
It would obviously be smaller than 346A and have less range than that, but you don't need that kind of effective range for 054B anyway.


The suggestion is not unprecedented, but there are some significant differences with the 2 comparisons. The SM-2 Block IIIC despite this extended lineage and development still hails from the original SM-2. With a stated range of 167km, it is definitely no HQ-9 or S-300 but rather a very souped-up HQ-16. This is logical considering the FFGX is considered by the USN to be a low cost supplements to the Burke. It would be a different matter if the FFGX was slated to fire the SM-6 or the proposed SM-2 VI.
The equivalent of SM-2 is the HHQ-9 in the PLAN.
The equivalent of SM-6 is the new VLR SAM that we've had hints of.

In any case, as I've written a month or more ago when this discussion originally came up, I am not inherently opposed to the idea of highly modernized HHQ-16 variants if it can evolve into a LR SAM although I think having HHQ-9 variants would be neater for the overall logistics and armament stream.
My point is more that 054B should have the ability to fire LR SAMs.


The capability for the 054A's successor to carry HHQ-9 type SAM would be present if China decides to install the full sized U VLS on it if only for the sake of standardization and the new hull having a greater height than the 054A. The capability to guide them however would depend on whether China will want another 052C/D type ship on their roster, from my pov the 054A's successor is most likely going to fulfill the more dedicated ASW and secondary/medium range AA defence of it's predecessor.
I think we have yet to settle whether the HHQ-9 requires the full size 9m U VLS yet, it remains an open question.

As for 054A's successor, I too believe it will focus on ASW and MR AAW, however I also believe it should have the capability to engage aerial targets at long range if required. And of course for AAW it should also be capable of engaging more aerial targets simultaneously than what 054A is able to do.
With modern technology those missions and requirements are not contradictory in terms of what they would demand out of a modern design.
 

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is type 054b actively being designed?
Any indication towards a finalized design, subcomponents? Like yard announcement etc?
Or is the frigate sector going to be stagnant for a longer while now?
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
Top Plate/Sea Eagle aka Type 382 should have more than enough range to support HHQ-9, given its 300km search range for the Type 382. Do remember it is the search radar used for ships that employ its Russian counterpart, the RIF-M, including the Type 051C and the upgraded Slava class cruisers. Slavas also use the Top Plate's predecessors, Top Pair and Top Steer. Its more the question of the fire control radars --- Tomb Stone or Top Dome --- that is needed to support the RIF-M --- but they are quite big and inconvenient for a smaller ship. However, if the missiles are actively guided, you don't need the fire control radars.

In terms of size, HQ-16 is the equivalent of the SM-2, both being 700kg sized missiles. Not only do they weight similar, but they also look similar and share the same wing configuration. Not saying the Chinese copied the Standard for the HQ-16, the HQ-16 is copied from the Buk, which is likely copied from the Standard. Why does the Standard has better range? Most likely from the target illuminator that has greater range (SPG-62 vs. MR90 Front Domes) and possibly extended burn propellants. I would think there is certainly room to stretch the range of the HHQ-16 here. Simply going with active radar homing, it could both increase the missile range and simultaneous target engagement capability of the 054A without any external add ons to the ship other than software changes in its fire control system.

HHQ-9 is more the equivalent of the SM-2 ER in terms of weight, both over 1300kg, or nearly twice the weight of the SM-2 and the HHQ-16. If HHQ-9 uses active radar homing, then its closer to the SM-6 which also features the same and also on the same weight class. But it lacks the SM-6 limited anti ballistic missile capability.

I should mention that the current trend for next generation of Western frigates is moving away from the Standard and into the ESSM as the main SAM for the quad packing, with the SM-2 being the option. Quad packing would still favor using the U-VLS over the AJK-16 for future Chinese frigates however. Only ESSM Block 2 would be used due to being active radar homing, and with the lack of target illuminators, any use of SM-2 would have to be the upcoming block using active radar homing, which means legacy support would be lacking. I would say that active homing SAMs --- whether its shorter, mid, or long range --- should be where the future Chinese frigates must be using, and its not about the range but the technology.

With regards to seeing signs of the 054B, nothing yet. Furthermore, one of the major frigate builders, Hudong Zhonghua, is going to be preoccupied building Type 075s for a while, unless they decide to build the 054B right next to the 075. But seeing that they might build two 075 next to each other makes building the 054B unlikely for this shipyard until the 075s are done and they don't plan to build more 075s. But seeing the mast and radars on the Type 075 might give a clue to the 054B.

The other shipyard, Guangzhou Huangpu --- confusing name since this shipyard is not anywhere near the Huangpu river, which Hudong Zhonghua is --- is tidying up finishing the last Type 056A from its contract. What goes next for this shipyard is what we need to see. But we have not seen any leaks on this shipyard for a while, and you cannot do aerial on this shipyard since the ships are built inside a shed and not on an open dock like Dalian.

Based on current ship design patterns on the PLAN, the next Chinese frigate would have to adopt the configuration where a Type 1130 CIWS would be set in front between the VLS and the bridge and the HHQ-10 launcher would be set in the rear above the hanger.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Top Plate/Sea Eagle aka Type 382 should have more than enough range to support HHQ-9, given its 300km search range for the Type 382. Do remember it is the search radar used for ships that employ its Russian counterpart, the RIF-M, including the Type 051C and the upgraded Slava class cruisers. Slavas also use the Top Plate's predecessors, Top Pair and Top Steer. Its more the question of the fire control radars --- Tomb Stone or Top Dome --- that is needed to support the RIF-M --- but they are quite big and inconvenient for a smaller ship. However, if the missiles are actively guided, you don't need the fire control radars.

In terms of size, HQ-16 is the equivalent of the SM-2, both being 700kg sized missiles. Not only do they weight similar, but they also look similar and share the same wing configuration. Not saying the Chinese copied the Standard for the HQ-16, the HQ-16 is copied from the Buk, which is likely copied from the Standard. Why does the Standard has better range? Most likely from the target illuminator that has greater range (SPG-62 vs. MR90 Front Domes) and possibly extended burn propellants. I would think there is certainly room to stretch the range of the HHQ-16 here. Simply going with active radar homing, it could both increase the missile range and simultaneous target engagement capability of the 054A without any external add ons to the ship other than software changes in its fire control system.

HHQ-9 is more the equivalent of the SM-2 ER in terms of weight, both over 1300kg, or nearly twice the weight of the SM-2 and the HHQ-16. If HHQ-9 uses active radar homing, then its closer to the SM-6 which also features the same and also on the same weight class. But it lacks the SM-6 limited anti ballistic missile capability.

I should mention that the current trend for next generation of Western frigates is moving away from the Standard and into the ESSM as the main SAM for the quad packing, with the SM-2 being the option. Quad packing would still favor using the U-VLS over the AJK-16 for future Chinese frigates however. Only ESSM Block 2 would be used due to being active radar homing, and with the lack of target illuminators, any use of SM-2 would have to be the upcoming block using active radar homing, which means legacy support would be lacking. I would say that active homing SAMs --- whether its shorter, mid, or long range --- should be where the future Chinese frigates must be using, and its not about the range but the technology.

With regards to seeing signs of the 054B, nothing yet. Furthermore, one of the major frigate builders, Hudong Zhonghua, is going to be preoccupied building Type 075s for a while, unless they decide to build the 054B right next to the 075. But seeing that they might build two 075 next to each other makes building the 054B unlikely for this shipyard until the 075s are done and they don't plan to build more 075s. But seeing the mast and radars on the Type 075 might give a clue to the 054B.

The other shipyard, Guangzhou Huangpu --- confusing name since this shipyard is not anywhere near the Huangpu river, which Hudong Zhonghua is --- is tidying up finishing the last Type 056A from its contract. What goes next for this shipyard is what we need to see. But we have not seen any leaks on this shipyard for a while, and you cannot do aerial on this shipyard since the ships are built inside a shed and not on an open dock like Dalian.

Based on current ship design patterns on the PLAN, the next Chinese frigate would have to adopt the configuration where a Type 1130 CIWS would be set in front between the VLS and the bridge and the HHQ-10 launcher would be set in the rear above the hanger.
The trend towards ESSM is being driven by 2 factors:

1. Quad packing is one yes
2. The lower cost of the 280kg ESSM ($1M) versus a larger missile like the 700kg SM-2 Block IIIB ($2.7M)
Note that firing 2 SM-2s costs far more than an incoming cruise missile, which is a losing proposition.

So I would argue SAM design is more about cost-benefit, although the technology and range affect this calculation.
 

Jura

General
The trend towards ESSM is being driven by 2 factors:

1. Quad packing is one yes
2. The lower cost of the 280kg ESSM ($1M) versus a larger missile like the 700kg SM-2 Block IIIB ($2.7M)
Note that firing 2 SM-2s costs far more than an incoming cruise missile, which is a losing proposition.

So I would argue SAM design is more about cost-benefit, although the technology and range affect this calculation.
"Note that firing 2 SM-2s costs far more than an incoming cruise missile, which is a losing proposition." what the heck?!

what matters is saving the mission (and possibly even the ship),

and it doesn't matter what's a price ratio of defensive-to-attacking assets
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
"Note that firing 2 SM-2s costs far more than an incoming cruise missile, which is a losing proposition." what the heck?!

what matters is saving the mission (and possibly even the ship),

and it doesn't matter what's a price ratio of defensive-to-attacking assets
It actually matters a great deal.

In a competition between:

a) large numbers of cheap incoming anti-ship missiles
versus
B) a few expensive defensive SAMs

Guess who is going to be the winner?
 

Top