Interesting..

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-05-02 AT 01:52 AM (GMT)]Steve thanks for your detailed input and taking the design so seriously.

But.

This design was born of a few things;

1. A lazy day off doodling in paint with ships on the mind
2. A little idealistic fantasy on my part
3. Some AAW solutions for the PLAN that I have researched
4. More or less mucking around, and not taking it too seriously

Your comments reflect what I probably would have delved into had I really dedicated some serious time and more thought to the design. But I did say amateur designer, an expert in this field I am not. Anyway some comments on your analysis..

Is there a twin arm launcher for the Yezh missile system yet Glenn? I’ve not seen one and there would need to be some major development work in sorting out magazine and reload mechanisms for the twin launcher against that already developed for Shtil!.

Twin arm for the SA-N-12? I don’t think so – a bit of no.2 on my part here. But the adaptation is possible I believe. They have existed for the SA-N-1, SA-N-3 and SA-N-4 on various Soviet vessels in the past. Chinese/Russian development on the HQ-16 could see it happen, but in reality you are probably right and the single arm launcher would probably still remain the mainstay.

I would have thought that a VLS for Yezh would have been a more cost effective development project as opposed to a twin mechanical launcher. With all the “difficulties” the RN encountered with the GWS.30 twin launcher for Sea Dart, and to an equal extent the USN Mk.10 launcher, both of which ended up being subject to delicate engineering work with large lump-hammers under operational conditions I am of a somewhat jaded opinion of the capabilities of anything but the simplest of mechanical launcher!

I agree, but how much longer would a VLS fired SA-N-12 take to develop and adopt I wonder?

The selection of missiles here is one that I’d consider worth a closer examination. HQ-7/FM-90 mounts I’ve only ever previously seen in 6 or 8 shot manual-reload launchers and, largely, it relies on the origial Matra R.440 missile, albeit updated a bit, from the original Crotale Naval. As a PDMS/ILMS system I’d be a little concerned about its capabilities and its longevity, perhaps enough to investigate the availability of the new VT-1 round from Crotale-NG if I had to stick to the HQ-7 system.

In lieu of anything else on the immediate horizon I have stuck to the FM-90 albeit in VLS, which for the PLAN is a major leap over the manual re-load launchers by far. It’s not a major trait for the Chinese to opt for the best possible system prior to developing and launching a new class. They are often under-armed and under-equipped. I should have noted that this design is an interim, pending the HQ-9, or something better from another foreign source. No.4 here never took this too seriously.

Better, IMHO, would be an adaptation of the HQ-17 (SA-N-9 Gauntlet) utilising the Kinzhal rotary VLS but using locally built missiles with it. 4 of the VLS modules should fit easily in the same foc’sle position you have sited. Two (for’d and aft) of the MR-360 Cross Sword missile directors should be practical in roughly the positions you’ve located.

Again, I agree but this would mean buying and adapting the systems from the Russians and having a navalised HQ-17 in production in China, which it currently is not, more headaches for a navy begging for standardisation and greater system integration, as well as domestic product & development. If I was going to make the most of Russian systems I would look closer at – total system – licensed production and hence a better potential life span for the systems over future classes.

As to the Area weapon I’m not certain, despite the claims for Yezh, that SA-N-12/SA-17 is such a system. To me it looks like a close analogy of the SM-1MR Block6. Certainly a very powerful point defence weapon but against crossing targets it’s perhaps not so effective?. I recall, from looking into the Shtil system a few months back, that crossing targets more than halve the effective range of that system. I share Garry’s concerns about the listed 50 mile range of this weapon without it having an additional booster stage etc.

The 50 mile figure is dubious I agree, but even with reduced range performance (<30km) in certain circumstances the SA-N-12 presents a far better SAM fit to the next class of DDG that may serve with the PLAN. Again, this is an interim solution pending a definitive AAW missile fit.

With the whole point of this vessel being AAW I’d be tempted to leave off completion of the first unit until I could deploy a “proper” area capable missile. For the PLAN this is obviously the locally manufactured HQ-9 copy of the S-300. For launchers the simplest option would possibly be the same B-303 cylindrical VLS modules as fitted to the Russian Kirov and Slava cruisers. Depth of these would be an issue on a smaller vessel but a raised foredeck structure would limit deck penetration problems. I’d guesstimate that 4 launchers, in a double staggered configuration, would be the max fit here, but, that still gives a battery of 32 HQ-9’s which dont sound too bad to me!

I agree totally Steve, but like I said the Chinese do tend to deploy new modern domestic classes under-equipped and under-armed, the LUHU and LUHAI classes are a classic example. The first hull of this class would be designed and fitted for the definitive missile fit, such as the one you describe above (HQ-9 would be ideal), but would be fielded in the mean time with something less. Batch 2 could be the HQ-9 fitted hulls?

Another, interesting, option for HQ-9 could be a modified French Sylver A50 cell-based VLS. Sylver A50 is alleged to be able to accept TLAM so the physical dimensions of a weapon the size of the S300 round shouldnt be an issue. Certainly worth the investigation IMO to minimise the mechanical headaches that the Russian cylinder VLS’s must bring!

Assuming they can get the technology from the French of course. I would think a Chinese home grown development would be a better possibility, but then again this could mean more time in R&D and put any such class further back in time and again see an interim fit with rotary launchers either built at home or bought outright.

It would also be the French I would get in contact with regarding sensor fits. Thomson-CSF have historically had quite a relationship with the PRC and have, through the new Thales entity, a range of systems that would sit very well with this sort of vessel and the TAVITAC combat systems that the PLAN use. I dont know how much work has been done on the SPY-1 type array’s Glenn has detailed on his design but, with the Thales link, I’d be tempted to use the 100km range MRR-NG X-band active array in its place (developed from the proven Arabel MFR) for 3D search/track. For long-range volume search again, mainly because I’m unfamiliar with the Chinese “Sea Eagle” search sets, I’d opt for the proven Jupiter 2D set as used on the Charles de Gaulle.

Again, this would be kind of ideal but can they actually get hold of these systems? If so, why not go the whole hog and fit a modified PAAMS suite instead and improve integration and lifetime support costs. Adapting Aster 15/30 as well as what you have mentioned above would be one very nice package to solve an AAW problem.

The MRR-NG would allow for a smaller mast structure which would reduce topweight (also allow for a slightly higher mount) which would allow an extra margin for adding the “Tombstone” phased-array fire control radars for HQ-9/S-300 (as fitted to to the Pyotr Veliky) fore and aft.

Nice, but what a circus of systems! And integration and support would be a headache I think. French, Dutch, Russian and all tied into Chinese electronics? Would it not be better to minimise the sources to just two? Say French and Russian, or even just one, Russian, which in my opinion would be more realistic considering the tech share relationship they have.

The size and displacement of the vessel that Glenn’s outlined I’d agree with entirely. One modification I’d make, if this werent an interim design, would be to go with Integrated Electric Propulsion. This converts the two gas turbines into prime mover generators for high-capacity electric motors and removes the need for straight shaft linkages, gearboxes etc and allows for the turbines, effectively, to be placed anywhere in the hull. They can thusly be widely seperated as a damage reduction measure and to allow for shorter, and therefore, less obtrusive funnel/uptake designs.

Optimum future choice, but many years away I think for the Chinese. Domestically built and fitted gas turbines would be the next big step for the PLAN, then after that..

As an outline, blatantly graffitying Glenn’s work (sorry Glenn! ), my layout would be as below. Following it an image of the Kinzhal installation on the Neutrashimy indicating how I’d expect the foredeck mounting of this vessel to look!

Steve, go for it, your modified diagram probably depicts the definitive design and one ideal more permanent solution, perhaps a batch 2 or 3. I would however like to see system/weapon centralisation for the sake of support cost, integration, and hence operational viability and readiness. But that’s just me. With my initial interim design I have tried to stick with this concept, hence using Chinese radars, missiles in production, and co-development programmes. The next batch could see a superior fit with superior – select – foreign systems until the Chinese can field their own advanced systems, say in batch 3 form.

Thanks for the comments my friend, I have had similar from elsewhere and If I really got stuck into it seriously I could probably do a lengthy report on this proposal.

Regards, Glenn.