China launches 054A Jiangkai-class frigate( Jane's)

The B&W photo of the 76mm gun was on the net for more than 2 years and it was pointed out at the same time that it would be standard weapon on future FFGs.

China got Top plate’s license quite a while ago, 052B’s Top plates were produced in China rather than Russia, but that’s still a Russian designed radar. 054A’s radar is significantly modified, but I still call it Russian origin.

And yes, you are right, HQ16 is SARH.

As of VLS HQ7, its fate is not certain, given that PL12 has been given serious thoughts to be navalised.

that maybe, but until the last month or so, everyone expected the 100mm gun to be on 054A. As for 054A’s radar, having two large plates on a ship does not make it top plate or based on it.

Not sure about short ranged SAM, but it makes more sense to develop VLS HH-7 imo.

never said it wasn’t SARH, but rather that you are ignoring indigenously developed SARH type of SAM.

nobody rumoured the gun to be 76 mm until most recently, and that radar is indigenous, not top plate.

The B&W photo of the 76mm gun was on the net for more than 2 years and it was pointed out at the same time that it would be standard weapon on future FFGs.

China got Top plate’s license quite a while ago, 052B’s Top plates were produced in China rather than Russia, but that’s still a Russian designed radar. 054A’s radar is significantly modified, but I still call it Russian origin.

And yes, you are right, HQ16 is SARH.

As of VLS HQ7, its fate is not certain, given that PL12 has been given serious thoughts to be navalised.

I’m neither assuming nor ruling out anything. Just using what IS known (VL, SARH) and suggesting what would be (il)logical or most likely (you don’t really need Orekhs if you have an active radar homing missile, or an IIR-homing missile)

never said it wasn’t SARH, but rather that you are ignoring indigenously developed SARH type of SAM.

Well, 054A with Russian origin Top Plate, 75mm Main gun, Orekh, Ka28 and Chinese HQ16 (with Russian help) has been the rumored in China for 3-4 years. So, to me, the most likely thing is, the rumor is correct.

nobody rumoured the gun to be 76 mm until most recently, and that radar is indigenous, not top plate.

Well, 054A with Russian origin Top Plate, 75mm Main gun, Orekh, Ka28 and Chinese HQ16 (with Russian help) has been the rumored in China for 3-4 years. So, to me, the most likely thing is, the rumor is correct.

If its correct, it is no longer a rumor. I trust what I see. We’ve had discussion of whether the radar is really Russian or Chinese on a russian pattern (i.e. not known), I’ve not yet see pics of the main gun on 054A without cover so it can still be anything, including mod-russian 76mm. Ka 28: very likely. Orekh: pretty much visible. HQ16 … nothing firm yet.

I’m neither assuming nor ruling out anything. Just using what IS known (VL, SARH) and suggesting what would be (il)logical or most likely (you don’t really need Orekhs if you have an active radar homing missile, or an IIR-homing missile)

Well, 054A with Russian origin Top Plate, 75mm Main gun, Orekh, Ka28 and Chinese HQ16 (with Russian help) has been the rumored in China for 3-4 years. So, to me, the most likely thing is, the rumor is correct.

let’s wait for more pictures to come out
one eliminates a lot of possibility by assuming beforehand that it is copying from an existing Russian naval SAM.

I’m neither assuming nor ruling out anything. Just using what IS known (VL, SARH) and suggesting what would be (il)logical or most likely (you don’t really need Orekhs if you have an active radar homing missile, or an IIR-homing missile)

Except, the pic you showed is of a launcher for Club/Brahmos (single lid, Shtil VL has smaller double lids.). IF those frames are what’s installed, then given the presence of Orekh for guidance, you’re looking at a relatively small SARH missile, which weighs against the active radar guided SD10 but leaves open the possibility of a modified 9M330 missile (Klinok/Tor/SA-N-9). Quite frankly, it would be great improvement IMHO if that missile could work with Orekhs also, rather than the bulky and cumbersome MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword.

let’s wait for more pictures to come out
one eliminates a lot of possibility by assuming beforehand that it is copying from an existing Russian naval SAM.

…And that certainly resembles the frames shown even less…

Much more like this:

Frames are not the same as Shtil VLS’. This almost confirms now it’s not Shtil, though I am guessing, by the use of Orekhs or Orekh like illuminators, have produced a compatible equivalent. Posted by planeman at the SDF.

Except, the pic you showed is of a launcher for Club/Brahmos (single lid, Shtil VL has smaller double lids.). IF those frames are what’s installed, then given the presence of Orekh for guidance, you’re looking at a relatively small SARH missile, which weighs against the active radar guided SD10 but leaves open the possibility of a modified 9M330 missile (Klinok/Tor/SA-N-9). Quite frankly, it would be great improvement IMHO if that missile could work with Orekhs also, rather than the bulky and cumbersome MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword.

Actually, it could also mean the hot launch VLS could also work with the HHQ-9 missiles, which may also suggest that a future 052C derived variant could use this VLS as well.

Personally I would be sceptical of that, the chinese seem to have decided on the missile specific VLS route, but I can see what you mean and it may be that in the future a derivative of this ‘new’ system will show up on bigger ships- 052D maybe?? :diablo:

What I would like a detailed pic of is the square shaped VLS which was intsalled on the test ship at the same time as the HHQ-9 system was trialled to see if they are the same system. If they are it may suggest that the O54As missiles could work with the radar of the 052C, which would support my personal prediction that we will eventually see an 054 derivative with a radar based on that of the 052C’s (kinda like Norways Aegis frigates).

Actually, it could also mean the hot launch VLS could also work with the HHQ-9 missiles, which may also suggest that a future 052C derived variant could use this VLS as well.

…And that certainly resembles the frames shown even less…

That’s not Shtil VLS, it’s Club-N VLS. Shtil launcher doesn’t have framing, missile launch tubes are suspended by upper rim in the same manner as in Fort-M rotary launcher.

Frames are not the same as Shtil VLS’. This almost confirms now it’s not Shtil, though I am guessing, by the use of Orekhs or Orekh like illuminators, have produced a compatible equivalent. Posted by planeman at the SDF.

What are we looking at in the previous pic and where was it supposedly taken?

That is supposedly the framework or part of for the 054A VLS taken before installation on the ship. The person who posted the image also posted one of the forward part of the ship taken from on board and it appears to show two areas temporarily panneled over one being for the main gun one for the VLS. For the moment the images appear genuine.

What I would like a detailed pic of is the square shaped VLS which was intsalled on the test ship at the same time as the HHQ-9 system was trialled to see if they are the same system. If they are it may suggest that the O54As missiles could work with the radar of the 052C, which would support my personal prediction that we will eventually see an 054 derivative with a radar based on that of the 052C’s (kinda like Norways Aegis frigates).

What are we looking at in the previous pic and where was it supposedly taken?

The plain fact is the Shtil-1 VLS is still wait for final certification that’s can be partial explain why the 22350 frigate is theoretically till now no weapon confirmed, although the talking in town is the 22350 frigate@4500 tons will have 32 cell Shtil-1 VLS while the larger version @8000 + tons will have 2X32 cells configuration.

From which “town” does that talking come? Nothing is known nor confirmed yet.

Ship design is purely based on stringent structure calculation, even you’re a expert, your “thinking” of “can do possibility” carries little weight because I and the rest of most ppl here are convinced

I have noticed that that has indeed become the arrogant way of thinking nowadays. Eventhough we have experts, our uneducated thinking is far too superior to listen to them. Noticed that in several discussions here, at least you clearly state it here and we know we are wasting our time completely.
Structural strength, all nice, but the only real problems for warships are slamming. Sheer forces and bending moments, classically a great concern of ship designers are a joke in warship design as they are nearly neglectible compared to the strength of materials used.

VLS version Talwar are better positioned than you in terms of both know how and data for calculation, however, we just fail to see 32 cell VLS Shtil-1 FFG in 3500- 4000 tonnage grade. Those with 32-cell VLS are western warship with smaller and lighter SAMs plus more compact VL design. What you try to imply here is those designers are not aware of your “flexibilities” that can be explored?

Well it’s exactly what I meant. These designers do know those flexibilities and hence it is possible to put a Shtil VLS in that ship. As mentioned before, 54A is bigger than 54, even estimated at above 4,000t.
Yes of course, let’s just deny the existence of KDX-2. And that Talwar comparison you are now sticking too… How long ago did you state it was not the right comparison? You only use it when it could support your point, nothing more nothing less. Ever thought of the fact that Talwar still has that large structure in front with the RBU and Klub VLS mounted inside? Ever noticed that 54 doesn’t have it, nor has the need to put an SSM and RBU on it and hence has probably a larger area ready for its AAW VLS? The superstructure of 54A is slightly more forward than Talwar’s, but not so much that it totally takes away all the taken by Talwar’s Klub/RBU platform.

I prefer to sticking to the “apple to apple “ practice for comparing because of my limited knowledge on ship building

Oh, I thought otherwise. I thought you were the designer of 54A considering you are so sure that it wouldn’t work to put a Shtil in there, and of course that the designers are in better positions than me to judge on that. I thought you designed it and found it impossible to imply that Shtil VLS… Too bad, I must have misjudged you.

Really don’t affect the whole ship’s performance in rougher water? Lacking of basic design data on both 054A & Talwar, so please stop talking how you can change 22 missile magazine to 32 cell VLS etc, etc, it’s just not convincing, especially all the existing platforms against your claim

uuh, which modifications do you see on the stern? to inform you, the stern is the backside of a ship… I don’t see any modification there except a helo platform that is still a helo platform in 54A… As for the modifications near the bow. As I’ve said, it is moments that count, not weights. If you modify the front, for example, the 30t weight in front, then the distance is taken from your centre of flotation, that is the centre of gravity of your waterline area. Then you multiply, for example 30t x 60m = 1800tm. All you have to do to keep your hull evenkeel is take away the same amount of moments in front as you have just added. Meaning 10t x 80m (80m from F) + 15t x 40m + 40t x 25m or of course any other, more complex saving of weight and distances. That is longitudinal stability. For transverse you play with G, B and so on. Nothing that can’t be done.

your apple to apple is not really apple to apple anyway. One is a Russian designed ship to Indian standars, the other is a Chinese (probably Russian help) to Chinese standards. For example, US Navy ships sometimes have 35 people sleeping in one room. In European navies 6 men in one room is about the maximum. I don’t have to make a drawing to explain you the difference in designing I hope. The same can count for Talwar, I haven’t been inside, nor in 54A, so I don’t know what the difference there is, but there will be one for sure. And dependent on how important they rate their crews, they might give priority to heavier weapons or to the men and so on. There are simply still a lot of unknowns in your apple to apple comparison to really compare them. Add to it that you don’t seem to have taken notice of the Kashtans on Talwar and the space and weight they take, if there were two Kashtans on 54A it would have been easier to compare.

I’m notifying once again that I’m not saying that I’m sure it’s Shtil, yet I’m saying, from the beginning on, that Shtil is a possibility that should be taken in account and if those things are Orekhs, that it is just more likely to be Shtil than any other missiles. I guess the length of the containers on deck (when they start loading and we hopefully get a picture of that) might tell us what it will be.

This seems to be the HQ-16 VLS, 4×8 fits the description, that is about to be put inside the ship. It looks rather short for Shtil, so it possibly is a Kinzhal derivate, I wonder what type of containers will go inside. Even the Russian Kinzhal launchers have box-type cells in their rotary VLS’s for Kinzhal.
I wonder if there will be Orekhs then…

There is no inherent reason why any VLS should have 8 cells of multiples of 8 cells. While Mk41 and Sylver follow that pattern, as does Barak these days, there has been talk of putting 4 cell VL Mk41 derivative launchers (for quad packed ESSM) on board Taiwanese Perry frigates. Barak was originally advertised as flexible enough to have pairs of cells installed spread around a ship (or installed in vehicle). Sea Wolf (and I expect VL Mica, as this uses the same launch container) has been installed in 16 and 32 cell blocks. By contrast, russian VLs have followed the 8 round rotary drum pattern. These launcher have influenced the Chinese, but on 052C we see round 6 cell fixed VLu. Imagery shows that VL Shtil will likely come with 12 cell VLU ‘blocks’. Indian P15A is planned with 2×2 such blocks plus 2×8 VL Brahmos. These roughly have to fit the footprint now taken up in P15 by front and rear SRL Shtil. Similar installations are planned for second batch P17 frigates. I don’t see why similar fit could not go onto batch 2 Talwars.

As for relative sizes of Talwar and Type 054….

TALWAR class
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/d-talwar.htm
Displacement 3850 tons full load
Length 124.5 m , Beam 15.2 m , Draft 4.2 m
Speed 30 , Range 4600 miles @ 20 knots 1600 miles @ 30 knots
Endurance 30 days Crew 180 (18 officers)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Talwar.html
Displacement: 3620 tons – standard.
…………..4035 tons – full load.

http://indiannavy.nic.in/frigates_talwar.htm
Displacement (Tonnes)
Full load 3,850
Dimension Length OA 126.5 M
Beam 14.8 M
Speed (knots) 27
Complement 313 (40 Officers including 13 aircrew)

TYPE 054/054A

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/maanshan-specs.htm
Displacement 3,000 tons (est.)

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/type054jiangkai.asp
Equipped with a mixture of Russian- and Chinese-made systems, the 3,400t frigate design incorporates strong stealth features similar to the French La Fayette class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma’anshan_class_frigate
Length: ~125 m estimated
Width: 15 to 16 m estimated
Displacement: 3,000 to 3,900 tonnes estimated

LAFAYETTE class

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/specs.html
overall length 125 metres
beam (waterline) 15.5 metres
Draught 5.85 metres
standard displacement 3,500 tons

So, Talwar is at least 3,620 and at most 4,035 tons for 125x15x4 hull.
Compared to 3,000 to 3,900 tons est. for 125x15x? for Type 054.
I’ld say they are very comparable sized ships.

As I have mentioned you don’t know ANYTHING about project 22350, not how many weapons itwill have, nor its displacement. I guess shipbuilding and designing is not your job,otherwise you would know the flexibilities in it.
Weight is not an issue. Moments are. To compensate the additional weight of the VLS you have several options. Firstly, this ship is larger than the previous 54. Secondly, as mentioned above it is moments that count, not weights. If you give both of your anchors 8 shackles of chain instead of 10, you’ll be saving up a lot of momentum to counter the light 30t of the VLS, add to it that you can play a little more with your forward cabins like making 2 6-men cabins instead of 3 4-men ones and hence save some bulkheads in weight and distance too. These are only a few examples in how you can counter and redesign a ship. It’s rather likely that the additional underwater volume of lengthening the ship has already absorbed the additional weight after all.

The plain fact is the Shtil-1 VLS is still wait for final certification that’s can be partial explain why the 22350 frigate is theoretically till now no weapon confirmed, although the talking in town is the 22350 frigate@4500 tons will have 32 cell Shtil-1 VLS while the larger version @8000 + tons will have 2X32 cells configuration.

Ship design is purely based on stringent structure calculation, even you’re a expert, your “thinking” of “can do possibility” carries little weight because I and the rest of most ppl here are convinced the designers for the existing and incoming VLS version Talwar are better positioned than you in terms of both know how and data for calculation, however, we just fail to see 32 cell VLS Shtil-1 FFG in 3500- 4000 tonnage grade. Those with 32-cell VLS are western warship with smaller and lighter SAMs plus more compact VL design. What you try to imply here is those designers are not aware of your “flexibilities” that can be explored? I prefer to sticking to the “apple to apple “ practice for comparing because of my limited knowledge on ship building. But knowing more on general doesn’t qualify you to “ think” what can be done, especially it’s hard to believe those heavy hands modification on the stern really don’t affect the whole hull’s balancing? Really don’t affect the whole ship’s performance in rougher water? Lacking of basic design data on both 054A & Talwar, so please stop talking how you can change 22 missile magazine to 32 cell VLS etc, etc, it’s just not convincing, especially all the existing platforms against your claim.

The 054A is still roughly the same size as 054, see the below image.

Deck space and below deck volume are by far not the issue.
As for Talwar, as I have mentioned, the Shtil revolver below deck is not filled with missiles, if you do fill that footprint with missiles, you are already near 32 or 36.

But why the new batch Talwar still don’t use 32 cell but most likely 24 cells if there were VLS?

I’m not excluding the Kinzhal copy, it’s just that if there are Orekhs onboard, it would be hard to believe that they would use a different system.

Can be done by modify the frequency of MR90 and modify the code so the radar can work with Chinese developed missile, we already seen Chinese YJ83 missiles work with Russian style radars, why can’t be others? The MR90 is already used in 052B and Sov grade DDGs, it could be the integration issue that PLAN select MR90 for the time eing as standard equipments.

AFAIK, the second batch of Talwar’s ordered by India will have 2×12 VL Shtil, en lieu of the 24 round DLU in batch 1 Talwars. I think It is a very good ship to compare Type 054/054A with.