Type 054B/next generation FFG thread


Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
That sounds like the defense military industrial complex ripping off the US tax payer. Or you can turn on the Fed's printing presses. $250 million is going to be chump change with today's inflation. I don't recall seeing illuminators on the Constellation so that's how they are going to fly, with Block 2 ESSMs. In China's case, that's a branch of the Chinese government paying a state owned company, so this is like flipping money between pockets of the same coat. Ultimately both ESSM Blk 2 and 555 for their respective navies are going to be purchased with their respective sovereign currency.
Constellation is Sm-2MR blk III (=ARH) capable.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes, but the 052D lacks this X-band radar. Any short to medium range SAM needs to work on both the 052D and 055, and not have ordnance specific to one ship. Any long range SAM or HQ-9 also needs to work on both ships, and even shared with the 052C.
I wouldn't be so sure about the 052C.

As for 052D and 055: why not have both ARH and SARH variants? Then you can load-up the 055 with twice as many SARH missiles for the same cost.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I wouldn't be so sure about the 052C.

As for 052D and 055: why not have both ARH and SARH variants? Then you can load-up the 055 with twice as many SARH missiles for the same cost.

Logistics. This is bad logistics.

Even for the 052C, if I have to store a peculiar and unique version of the HQ-9 with a different canister, this is bad logistics. This is why even for the 052C, the canister needs to be shared with the 052D and 055, and the missile has to be the same...eventually that is, until all your older batch of HQ-9 for that model runs out or has expired. Then you have to find a way to make the 052C work with the current production batch of HQ-9.

You are not going to produce HQ-9A, -9B and -9C. That will greatly raise your costs just to deliberate produce antiques. Imagine if you have to deal with components that are no longer being produced. If you are going to make a thousand missiles, it better be just -9C alone, and that will greatly reduce your cost per missile via volume amortization. Its not because of the better performance, but your current production model is the one that assuredly has all the parts for it being currently made.

Difference of SARH and ARH missile is the presence of a radar transmitter and portable batteries, both things that Chinese industry produce heavily, especially battery. I don't think it makes that big a cost because the cost of the ARH missile lies in its expensive development when you transition SARH to ARH. But in the case of the HQ-9, it is already actively guided to begin with and the R&D cost has already been spent. To create a brand new SARH variant would in fact greatly increase the cost for no benefit.

This is more of an issue with the HQ-16, whose original state is SARH, to go to ARH. But not HQ-9 whose original state is already on ARH. This is the part that makes me think HQ-16 ARH, for future frigates may not be as cost viable unless China is willing to throw enormous sums at it. ARH missile for the 054B might be something new or the 054B will use the HQ-9.

Even just having HQ-16 is already bad logistics, when you can "Standard"-ize your entire navy on one missile type. HQ-16 and HQ-9 comes from an inherited Soviet legacy of adapting land missile types to naval. That's something PLAN eventually needs to grow out of in the future.
 
Last edited:

sndef888

Junior Member
Registered Member
Anybody knows how the size of the 054a's VLS compares with the UVLS?

If a new quadpacked missile came about we could have significantly increased firepower without increasing the size of the ship. Even just 24 UVLS could give 32x SAM, 8x Asroc and 8x ASM

Don't think they should fit HQ-9s onto it though, since that would require a costly upgrade in sensors
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Anybody knows how the size of the 054a's VLS compares with the UVLS?

If a new quadpacked missile came about we could have significantly increased firepower without increasing the size of the ship. Even just 24 UVLS could give 32x SAM, 8x Asroc and 8x ASM

Don't think they should fit HQ-9s onto it though, since that would require a costly upgrade in sensors

Hard to say without actual measurement.

Based on photos of ships being visited, giving you a reference with human sizes, I won't say the AJK-16 VLS is small. It reminds me a bit of the Mk. 41 in terms of surface area dimensions.

But even if U-VLS is bigger per cell, U-VLS does not have the center plenum used by hot launched VLS only that is used as the gas exhaust. So it is efficient when it comes to surface area, Note that its Russian counterpart, the UKSK VLS is used right down to the corvette level.

Back in 2016 in the IDEAS defense exhibit in Pakistan, CSSC showed off a number of proposed export frigate models. Although they did not disclose exactly what the VLS are, some of the frigates shown have a VLS with no center plenum.

I suspect, and its not hard to think that, since the original U-VLS was specified back in the mid 2000s, there could have been undocumented revisions since then. I would expect one to be a frigate level U-VLS.

While I do not expect an HQ-9 due to the sensor issue, I do expect at least a two level SAM system, a mid to long range SAM that will cover the range gap from 50 to at least 150km that's a replacement to the HQ-16, and a quadpacked short to mid range SAM up to 50km. Both to be active guided. I also expect both to be cold launched.

While we have suspects for the quad packed SAM, for the longer range HQ-16 successor, my speculation of a new midrange SAM is that it could be a variant using the same HQ-16 airframe with a new rocket motor and active seeker --- the original HQ-16 missile range could be limited by the range of its target emitters than the missile itself. Or it can be a shorter, lighter, "baby" HQ-9. Or it can be a brand new missile entirely. I would also speculate that the seeker might be derived from the PL-15.
 

sndef888

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hard to say without actual measurement.

Based on photos of ships being visited, giving you a reference with human sizes, I won't say the AJK-16 VLS is small. It reminds me a bit of the Mk. 41 in terms of surface area dimensions.

But even if U-VLS is bigger per cell, U-VLS does not have the center plenum used by hot launched VLS only that is used as the gas exhaust. So it is efficient when it comes to surface area, Note that its Russian counterpart, the UKSK VLS is used right down to the corvette level.

Back in 2016 in the IDEAS defense exhibit in Pakistan, CSSC showed off a number of proposed export frigate models. Although they did not disclose exactly what the VLS are, some of the frigates shown have a VLS with no center plenum.

I suspect, and its not hard to think that, since the original U-VLS was specified back in the mid 2000s, there could have been undocumented revisions since then. I would expect one to be a frigate level U-VLS.

While I do not expect an HQ-9 due to the sensor issue, I do expect at least a two level SAM system, a mid to long range SAM that will cover the range gap from 50 to at least 150km that's a replacement to the HQ-16, and a quadpacked short to mid range SAM up to 50km. Both to be active guided. I also expect both to be cold launched.

While we have suspects for the quad packed SAM, for the longer range HQ-16 successor, my speculation of a new midrange SAM is that it could be a variant using the same HQ-16 airframe with a new rocket motor and active seeker --- the original HQ-16 missile range could be limited by the range of its target emitters than the missile itself. Or it can be a shorter, lighter, "baby" HQ-9. Or it can be a brand new missile entirely. I would also speculate that the seeker might be derived from the PL-15.
Interesting. Why do you feel they will be active radar guided and cold launched? Isn't that expensive and usually limited to only long range missiles?

Are the possible quadpacked sams we've seen so far (SD50 / FM3000) active radar guided?
 

Top