RE: Type 61 AAW DDG
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!.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!.
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!.
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.
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.
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.
As an outline, blatantly graffitying Glenn’s work (sorry Glenn! :D), 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!.
Cheers,
Steve
Attachments:
RE: What super hero??
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 16-04-02 AT 02:35 PM (GMT)]Easy. I’d be Max Ray from the “Centurions” cartoon series.
If anyone remembers these that is!. Basically it was three guys, one air, one land and one sea specialist who had these very sharp “exoframe” armoured suits that allowed propulsion and weaponry modules to be bolted on to them. Max Ray was the sea systems specialist and had some very very swish gadgets.
Attachments:
Sign In
