052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

s002wjh said:

if you only put MLRS on ship for taiwan conflict you could do it. but what about something further. US choose AGS because it can fit on DDG without taken too much space compare to MLRS, and where the DDG travel the gun is always with it. you don't expect US sail around the world with mod continer ship with MLRS. different country has different situation.

if china is only looking for taiwan then put some MLRS on small ships with air superioty is fine, however beyond taiwan it doesn't make sense. US however is looking for something that can reach globally.

the picture in #1142 show the luncher is about same size as the artillery, but can only fire what 8 rockets? reloading take much more times. its gonna take sustain bombard with alot rockets for invade taiwan beach.

---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------



its only fesiable if the target is near your home country and has air superiority. if you move further, then you need supplies for those MLRS ships, coverage. it far mobile/less logistic to move few DDG with AGS vs alot ships with rockets. no matter how you look at it, the size of rocket and reload time is longer than artillery.

Click to expand...

Hogwash,

AGS don't need logistic support and has infinite rounds?

the proposed system has what, 300 rounds capability?
at 11 kg HE per round that comes around about 3300 Kg of HE.

3300kg /95 kg ~ its only going to take about 35 rounds of regular MLRS to throw about the same firepower.

and guess what I don't have a billion dollar program to R/D a gun.

heck ... if I want to spend more per round, I can prob even make all the rockets verticle launched. fit into existing VLS of my ships.
and do away with ANY new expensive, maintainenous heavy, moving parts.

Purhhh, Hypothetical hogwash you say?

wait, somebody already have a verticle launched rocket artillery system.


"The SY400 has an overall length of 6.5 m, a body diameter of 400 mm and an air rudder span of 696 mm. It can be fitted with four different warhead types: integral blast fragmentation; integral blast fragmentation combustion; integral fuel air explosive; and anti-armour and anti-personnel blast fragmentation cluster. Each is available in 200 kg or 300 kg versions."

at 200 KG warhead per pop it takes aout 15 SY400 to deliever the same total, aggregate firepower of a AGS system.
can you fit 15 SY400 rounds into volume of a AGS system?

Does the AGS with all its stabilized mount and moving parts weighs less than 15 SY400 with VLS>

What about maintainineous requirement????

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

AND....

looks like DoD looked at this also.
Land Attack Standard Missile.


basically your vanilla Standard Missile reconfigure to hit a land target with a slight modified Inertial guidance system.

I bet that thing's warhead is bigger than 11 Kg HE.

a cheap and easy solution consider it will make ALL the destroyers that has MK41 launchers an alternative to AGS equiped destroyer.

too bad some one in the Dod Thought it was too cheap and effective an solution so they killed it.

btw, an SAM needs alot of structural strength to deal with the manuevering Gs. not so for an ground attack missile. that means weight savings.

so one prob could build a missile with even a GREATER payload/range than a missile that is derived from a SAM. given the same dimension and weight constraints.

similarly, one could quadpack a MK41 Cell like they do with ESSM. and have more but smaller shorter range rounds for nearer targets.

infinite possibilities.

AND...

AGS has 180 km range, great.

Raytheon claims it can go 400 km with Its LASM.

I bet SY400 can go about the same.

That's truly standoff. and makes you think about what the trade is betwen rocket based and gun based solutions.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

i.e. said:

Hogwash,

AGS don't need logistic support and has infinite rounds?

the proposed system has what, 300 rounds capability?
at 11 kg HE per round that comes around about 3300 Kg of HE.

3300kg /95 kg ~ its only going to take about 35 rounds of regular MLRS to throw about the same firepower.

and guess what I don't have a billion dollar program to R/D a gun.

heck ... if I want to spend more per round, I can prob even make all the rockets verticle launched. fit into existing VLS of my ships.
and do away with ANY new expensive, maintainenous heavy, moving parts.

Purhhh, Hypothetical hogwash you say?

wait, somebody already have a verticle launched rocket artillery system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The SY400 has an overall length of 6.5 m, a body diameter of 400 mm and an air rudder span of 696 mm. It can be fitted with four different warhead types: integral blast fragmentation; integral blast fragmentation combustion; integral fuel air explosive; and anti-armour and anti-personnel blast fragmentation cluster. Each is available in 200 kg or 300 kg versions."

at 200 KG warhead per pop it takes aout 15 SY400 to deliever the same total, aggregate firepower of a AGS system.
can you fit 15 SY400 rounds into volume of a AGS system?

Does the AGS with all its stabilized mount and moving parts weighs less than 15 SY400 with VLS>

What about maintainineous requirement????

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

AND....

looks like DoD looked at this also.
Land Attack Standard Missile.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

basically your vanilla Standard Missile reconfigure to hit a land target with a slight modified Inertial guidance system.

I bet that thing's warhead is bigger than 11 Kg HE.

a cheap and easy solution consider it will make ALL the destroyers that has MK41 launchers an alternative to AGS equiped destroyer.

too bad some one in the Dod Thought it was too cheap and effective an solution so they killed it.

btw, an SAM needs alot of structural strength to deal with the manuevering Gs. not so for an ground attack missile. that means weight savings.

so one prob could build a missile with even a GREATER payload/range than a missile that is derived from a SAM. given the same dimension and weight constraints.

similarly, one could quadpack a MK41 Cell like they do with ESSM. and have more but smaller shorter range rounds for nearer targets.

infinite possibilities.

AND...

AGS has 180 km range, great.

Raytheon claims it can go 400 km with Its LASM.

I bet SY400 can go about the same.

That's truly standoff. and makes you think about what the trade is betwen rocket based and gun based solutions.

Click to expand...

right let see a 8 tube luncher, 300mm diameter rocket has about what few meter in length? vs 155mm shell. x200, how much volume increase compare to shells.

loading time. did you see how they load MLRS, a ammo truck is near, drop the rocket near the luncher, then Men manually maneuver the rocket into luncher using crane from luncher.



now how you gonna load rockets into luncher on a ship, the ammo will be store under deck, so either bring the luncher beneath deck or bring the ammo to the deck and load manually using people, both require mod to the ship to decrease reload time. the ship has confine space and its moving around up/down/foward in oceans, do you want sailer on the deck loading rockets in any type of weather?

now if you have vertical luncher, how big the ship is required and whats mods needed to lunch/reload 300 rockets. does the ship require DDG air cover? you gonna sail your mod continer ship with MLRS to other place without DDG to cover attacks from sub or air or radar coverage etc? or just send 1 DDG that can do it all, less logistic. so for every MLRS moded ship, it need sufficent logistic, air/sub/anti-ship cover, its ONLY function is bombardment of fix land base targets. which is fine for taiwan, but something futher is useless. the advantage of AGS on DDG is, ddg can use for different purpose, sub hunting, air cover etc.

sure the warhead on rocket is more powerful, but what if the targets are spread out, you gonna need more rockets to cover those spread out targets. for target require more bang, you send in jets to drop bomb on it, or cruise missiles. you don't build a ship with the only purpose is MLRS. you want your ship as much as versatile as possible. i'm sure US DoD thought about MLRS on ship and decide just not really a good idea.

sure there are vertical lunchers but vertical position is not best angle to lunch MLRS. usually vertical lunch are for ballistic missiles.

there is a reason DDG ship never subsitude artillery with MLRS. those rockets is huge compare to shells, and its hard to reload it in a ship/confine space. how long and how diffcult to load bunch rocket into a luncher whether vertical or not on a moving ship, in a confine space. how big are those rockets. you can only store limited number of rocket on a DDG vs shells. for large target use bombs is much more effictive. for spread out target AGS can store more ammo than several meter long rocket, its easier to load, and has sustain fire rate.

i'm pretty sure LASM was kill because some these reason. and i'm pretty sure the general who kill it is not that dumb. he didn't make to the rank of general by been dumb. they probably did alot study on rocket vs shell, and decide shell is more versatile

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

s002wjh said:

if you only put MLRS on ship for taiwan conflict you could do it. but what about something further. US choose AGS because it can fit on DDG without taken too much space compare to MLRS, and where the DDG travel the gun is always with it. you don't expect US sail around the world with mod continer ship with MLRS. different country has different situation.

if china is only looking for taiwan then put some MLRS on small ships with air superioty is fine, however beyond taiwan it doesn't make sense. US however is looking for something that can reach globally.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I couldn't agree more. But oh look, no one's saying the US should replace their AGS with MLRS. We're only saying MLRS can work better for china at the moment, and is far cheaper.

the picture in #1142 show the luncher is about same size as the artillery, but can only fire what 8 rockets? reloading take much more times. its gonna take sustain bombard with alot rockets for invade taiwan beach.

Click to expand...

Well it won't just be one container ship will it? More like a dozen, with another dozen at home shipyards having their rockets replenished.

its only fesiable if the target is near your home country and has air superiority. if you move further, then you need supplies for those MLRS ships, coverage. it far mobile/less logistic to move few DDG with AGS vs alot ships with rockets. no matter how you look at it, the size of rocket and reload time is longer than artillery. there is a reason DDG and other warship are using artillery instead MLRS.

Click to expand...

You know again I couldn't agree with you more. but no one's saying we should replace guns with MLRS. Only that for China, MLRS can do the same job far more cheaply.
But MLRS will be part of an amphibious taskforce anyway, so that's where the defenses will come from. But indeed there will be a long logistics tail. That's why I said before that this configuration would not be used for worldwide deployments.

---------- Post added at 09:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------

s002wjh said:

right let see a 8 tube luncher, 300mm diameter rocket has about what few meter in length? vs 155mm shell. x200, how much volume increase compare to shells.

Click to expand...

:smashheadintowall:
This is the same argument as MLRS vs conventional gun artillery. The fact that MLRS is still around basically means these lanes of argument are moot.

loading time. did you see how they load MLRS, a ammo truck is near, drop the rocket near the luncher, then Men manually maneuver the rocket into luncher using crane from luncher.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now how you gonna load rockets into luncher on a ship, the ammo will be store under deck, so either bring the luncher beneath deck or bring the ammo to the deck and load manually using people, both require mod to the ship to decrease reload time. the ship has confine space and its moving around up/down/foward in oceans, do you want sailer on the deck loading rockets in any type of weather?

Click to expand...

Check my posts from yesterday -- the MLRS we're talking about will have a non penetrating auto loader. You could arrange two or three onto the deck of a container or auxiliary ship with their reloads pretty happily and you have 48 rockets, probably far cheaper than an AGS with an equivalent payload mass.
And that's for one ship, with only one reload. The PLAN's doctrine would involve recruiting dozens of civilians ships to their cause in event of a taiwan contingency. A good number of those would be given MLRS, if not all (because the MLRS is non penetrating, transport, Roll on, roll off ships can still operate as transports).

now if you have vertical luncher, how big the ship is required and whats mods needed to lunch/reload 300 rockets. does the ship require DDG air cover? you gonna sail your mod continer ship with MLRS to other place without DDG to cover attacks from sub or air or radar coverage etc? or just send 1 DDG that can do it all, less logistic. so for every MLRS moded ship, it need sufficent logistic, air/sub/anti-ship cover, its ONLY function is bombardment of fix land base targets. which is fine for taiwan, but something futher is useless. the advantage of AGS on DDG is, ddg can use for different purpose, sub hunting, air cover etc.

Click to expand...

Omg you realize the whole point of the discussion is that the PLAN can use MLRS+container ship in a taiwan (or SCS too I suppose) scenario instead of a massive billion dollar gun like AGS? I don't think anyone's challenging the fact that AGS is a more specialized weapon.

sure the warhead on rocket is more powerful, but what if the targets are spread out, you gonna need more rockets to cover those spread out targets. for target require more bang, you send in jets to drop bomb on it, or cruise missiles. you don't build a ship with the only purpose is MLRS. you want your ship as much as versatile as possible. i'm sure US DoD thought about MLRS on ship and decide just not really a good idea.

Click to expand...

... One, there will always be large/valuable targets, or formations of targets for a 300mm rocket to take out.
Two, we won't have a "purpose built ship whose only purpose is to mount an MLRS". No. We'll have medium sized transports and Ro/Ro ships loaded with troops and supplies at stand off range, each mounted with a pair of non penetrating MLRS. So what were only troops transports, can now provide precision shore bombardment too.

sure there are vertical lunchers but vertical position is not best angle to lunch MLRS. usually vertical lunch are for ballistic missiles.

Click to expand...

Different ball game now, he's saying there already exists a precision guided vertical launched land attack missile which isn't a cruise missile.

there is a reason DDG ship never subsitude artillery with MLRS. those rockets is huge compare to shells, and its hard to reload it in a ship/confine space. how long and how diffcult to load bunch rocket into a luncher whether vertical or not on a moving ship, in a confine space. how big are those rockets. you can only store limited number of rocket on a DDG vs shells. for large target use bombs is much more effictive. for spread out target AGS can store more ammo than several meter long rocket, its easier to load, and has sustain fire rate.

Click to expand...

Jeezus, I think no one's talking about replacing the gun with MLRS? Only that for PLAN's missions, a far cheaper weapon system can provide bombardment instead of AGS. If you agree with that then there's no reason for us to continue this endless circle.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Exactly, I couldn't agree more. But oh look, no one's saying the US should replace their AGS with MLRS. We're only saying MLRS can work better for china at the moment, and is far cheaper.



Well it won't just be one container ship will it? More like a dozen, with another dozen at home shipyards having their rockets replenished.



You know again I couldn't agree with you more. but no one's saying we should replace guns with MLRS. Only that for China, MLRS can do the same job far more cheaply.
But MLRS will be part of an amphibious taskforce anyway, so that's where the defenses will come from. But indeed there will be a long logistics tail. That's why I said before that this configuration would not be used for worldwide deployments.

---------- Post added at 09:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------



:smashheadintowall:
This is the same argument as MLRS vs conventional gun artillery. The fact that MLRS is still around basically means these lanes of argument are moot.



Check my posts from yesterday -- the MLRS we're talking about will have a non penetrating auto loader. You could arrange two or three onto the deck of a container or auxiliary ship with their reloads pretty happily and you have 48 rockets, probably far cheaper than an AGS with an equivalent payload mass.
And that's for one ship, with only one reload. The PLAN's doctrine would involve recruiting dozens of civilians ships to their cause in event of a taiwan contingency. A good number of those would be given MLRS, if not all (because the MLRS is non penetrating, transport, Roll on, roll off ships can still operate as transports).



Omg you realize the whole point of the discussion is that the PLAN can use MLRS+container ship in a taiwan (or SCS too I suppose) scenario instead of a massive billion dollar gun like AGS? I don't think anyone's challenging the fact that AGS is a more specialized weapon.



... One, there will always be large/valuable targets, or formations of targets for a 300mm rocket to take out.
Two, we won't have a "purpose built ship whose only purpose is to mount an MLRS". No. We'll have medium sized transports and Ro/Ro ships loaded with troops and supplies at stand off range, each mounted with a pair of non penetrating MLRS. So what were only troops transports, can now provide precision shore bombardment too.



Different ball game now, he's saying there already exists a precision guided vertical launched land attack missile which isn't a cruise missile.



Jeezus, I think no one's talking about replacing the gun with MLRS? Only that for PLAN's missions, a far cheaper weapon system can provide bombardment instead of AGS. If you agree with that then there's no reason for us to continue this endless circle.

Click to expand...

well i think we both agree. for ships that HAS air/sub/radar cover and its close to homeland then you can mod commerical ships to fit rockets. but AGS is more versatile since its mount on DDG, you can't mount significat MLRS on DDG due to space and other factors. evetually china gonna need this capability when they move on to SCS or maybe other area further from china. MLRS ship is not ideal to tag along with navy group.

now china can spend millions - hundred millions to modify ship to fit MLRS, decrase load time, and other issues that need to be solved etc etc for USE only on slim chance of taiwan conflict or invest more to get something they eventually need it anyway. its like i building my PC, i need PSU, so I bought a cheap PSU, and then eventually i need more power so i bought an expensive PSU. why not just do it right in the 1st place.

say in the future china patrol some africa coast, they need hit something precise/decent range from DDG either land target or moving target in range, the MLRS ship can't tag along with DDG all the time. so its better to make the DDG versatile by adding AGS ability to its battery. also MLRS has minium range(20-40km?), so if DDG need hit something small and moving fast(pirate speed boat or vietnam torepado speed boat etc), artillery is better suit it for.

i'm just saying if china need AGS eventually, its better just spend the money to do it now rather than build alot MLRS ships, thats neither true LPD or DDG, slow, and may cost alot to due to modification, with only purpose is to bombard taiwan, may not be used at all. MLRS ships is only workable when its protected and have information on targets.

the only thing expensive about AGS is R&D. while MLRS on continer require modification, and potential other issues on the way. you are on a ship that bump up/down, ammo has to be secured. reload while moving on oceans is not as easy as on land, especially if its rough sea. its kind like threading a needle in car thats drive on rough road.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

s002wjh said:

well i think we both agree. for ships that HAS air/sub/radar cover and its close to homeland then you can mod commerical ships to fit rockets. but AGS is more versatile since its mount on DDG, you can't mount significat MLRS on DDG due to space and other factors. evetually china gonna need this capability when they move on to SCS or maybe other area further from china. MLRS ship is not ideal to tag along with navy group.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

now china can spend millions - hundred millions to modify ship to fit MLRS, decrase load time, and other issues that need to be solved etc etc for USE only on slim chance of taiwan conflict or invest more to get something they eventually need it anyway. its like i building my PC, i need PSU, so I bought a cheap PSU, and then eventually i need more power so i bought an expensive PSU. why not just do it right in the 1st place.p

Click to expand...

Um.. no. The point of this MLRS system is that it requires minimal modification of a ship to support it. It's only the actual MLRS "module" which needs developing. the actual rocket and ship itself should require minimal change. And the fact it can be done so easily (and cheaply) means in an event of a conflict, STUFT which would be transporting anyway would then have an additional strike system.
Like you said, it's less flexible than the AGS.

say in the future china patrol some africa coast, they need hit something precise/decent range from DDG either land target or moving target in range, the MLRS ship can't tag along with DDG all the time. so its better to make the DDG versatile by adding AGS ability to its battery. also MLRS has minium range(20-40km?), so if DDG need hit something small and moving fast(pirate speed boat or vietnam torepado speed boat etc), artillery is better suit it for.

Click to expand...

Again I'm not saying we should replace guns on DDGs with MLRS.

As for China potentially attacking targets in far seas -- well I would be surprised if extended range/guided rounds weren't being developed for PLAN guns, or at least for the new 130mm gun. But the fact is the PLAN's only real amphibious operations will be centred around Taiwan or the SCS area at most, where armed STUFT ships have the endurance to operate. ERG munitions are probably around the corner, but the MLRS option gives a cheap, available weapon for the missions they need.

i'm just saying if china need AGS eventually, its better just spend the money to do it now rather than build hundreds MLRS ships, thats neither true LPD or DDG with only purpose is bombard taiwan, may not be used at all. MLRS ships is only workable when its protected and have information on targets.

Click to expand...

Again, they won't be building dedicated MLRS ships, only the MLRS modules which can then be put on any decent sized STUFT.
And China is already developing a next generation of main gun, a single barrelled 130mm gun probably based off the AK-130 from their sovremenny's, and also probably will be modernized as well. coupled with ERG munitions, this main gun (and other guns, like the otobreda 127mm) can offer near AGS capability likely at a fraction of the cost.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Agreed.



Um.. no. The point of this MLRS system is that it requires minimal modification of a ship to support it. It's only the actual MLRS "module" which needs developing. the actual rocket and ship itself should require minimal change. And the fact it can be done so easily (and cheaply) means in an event of a conflict, STUFT which would be transporting anyway would then have an additional strike system.
Like you said, it's less flexible than the AGS.



Again I'm not saying we should replace guns on DDGs with MLRS.

As for China potentially attacking targets in far seas -- well I would be surprised if extended range/guided rounds weren't being developed for PLAN guns, or at least for the new 130mm gun. But the fact is the PLAN's only real amphibious operations will be centred around Taiwan or the SCS area at most, where armed STUFT ships have the endurance to operate. ERG munitions are probably around the corner, but the MLRS option gives a cheap, available weapon for the missions they need.



Again, they won't be building dedicated MLRS ships, only the MLRS modules which can then be put on any decent sized STUFT.
And China is already developing a next generation of main gun, a single barrelled 130mm gun probably based off the AK-130 from their sovremenny's, and also probably will be modernized as well. coupled with ERG munitions, this main gun (and other guns, like the otobreda 127mm) can offer near AGS capability likely at a fraction of the cost.

Click to expand...

ok if you can provide some source on modify commerical ship to fit MLRS, ill look at it. somehow i can think several issues when loading missile to luncher on open sea while ship is moving.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

s002wjh said:

ok if you can provide some source on modify commerical ship to fit MLRS, ill look at it. somehow i can think several issues when loading missile to luncher on open sea.

Click to expand...

Well there's no "source" per se, because it's such a relatively small thing there's not as much attention on it. But there are pictures of the weapon system, which I posted a few replies back.

But you can see from these two photos that the "module" itself is made up of the actual MLRS with its turret, and a container behind the turret which contains ready to load rounds.



It was first tested aboard this ship, the shichang, which is basically a naval container ship.


Hmmvw mentioned this MLRS+container ship deal in the 071 thread and he wrote a good paragraph on it.

"It's a containerized 300mm MLR module tested on Shichang, it's alleged that the launcher base doesn't penetrate any deck, and the container behind it houses rocket reloads and independent power supply and fire control system. Such system can be retrofitted to ships such as 071 (maybe clear some space on the bow deck) or 074 (open vehicle deck) to provide sustained fire support for the landing party, similar to a capability LPD17's original concept proposed."

Clearly the ship itself doesn't need to be modified much. You only need a decent flat piece of deck to support the weight of the module (given the weight modern container ships can carry this shouldn't an issue), and you have yourself a decent shore bombardment device. The fact that the module is non penetrating means the STUFT (ship taken up from trade) can still operate as a transport. The PLAN has made it clear through previous exercises that it will take up commercial ships to support its navy in event of a conflict, like how the RN did during the falklands. So having a weapon which will add bombardment capability at stand off range to support the initial stages of the landing, without compromising the ship's carrying capacity (much, depending on the ship itself), is a great choice.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

plawolf said:

This line of discussion reminds me of the old space pen joke.

It was discovered that the old fountain pen does not work in 0-G, so NASA spent millions and years developing a state-of-the-art space pen that works in 0-G, upside down and under water.

The Russians used a pencil.

Click to expand...

yeahhh NASA spent $10M

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Bltizo said:

Well there's no "source" per se, because it's such a relatively small thing there's not as much attention on it. But there are pictures of the weapon system, which I posted a few replies back.

But you can see from these two photos that the "module" itself is made up of the actual MLRS with its turret, and a container behind the turret which contains ready to load rounds.

It was first tested aboard this ship, the shichang, which is basically a naval container ship.

Hmmvw mentioned this MLRS+container ship deal in the 071 thread and he wrote a good paragraph on it.

"It's a containerized 300mm MLR module tested on Shichang, it's alleged that the launcher base doesn't penetrate any deck, and the container behind it houses rocket reloads and independent power supply and fire control system. Such system can be retrofitted to ships such as 071 (maybe clear some space on the bow deck) or 074 (open vehicle deck) to provide sustained fire support for the landing party, similar to a capability LPD17's original concept proposed."

Clearly the ship itself doesn't need to be modified much. You only need a decent flat piece of deck to support the weight of the module (given the weight modern container ships can carry this shouldn't an issue), and you have yourself a decent shore bombardment device. The fact that the module is non penetrating means the STUFT (ship taken up from trade) can still operate as a transport. The PLAN has made it clear through previous exercises that it will take up commercial ships to support its navy in event of a conflict, like how the RN did during the falklands. So having a weapon which will add bombardment capability at stand off range to support the initial stages of the landing, without compromising the ship's carrying capacity (much, depending on the ship itself), is a great choice.

Click to expand...

ok sounds reasonable. however most loading of 8-cell rocket in the picture are done when ships secure to dock or not moving. if the ship is in middile of the ocean or rough sea, whats diffculty to reload those rockets into lunchers, those missiles are large/heavy, and you load 8 at a time. i assume the ship won't be that big, so its going move up/down/tilt left/right alot, especially in bad weather. and judge from 2nd pic the 8-missile are basically lay on the loader, not really good idea when loading something that heavy with war head into the lunchers if the ship is moving alot. and in a rough sea, also its not ideal for sailor on top of deck helping the loading process during bad weather or rough sea.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

s002wjh said:

ok sounds reasonable. however most loading of 8-cell rocket in the picture are done when ships secure to dock or not moving. if the ship is in middile of the ocean or rough sea, whats diffculty to reload those rockets into lunchers, those missiles are large/heavy, and you load 8 at a time. i assume the ship won't be that big, so its going move up/down/tilt left/right alot, especially in bad weather. and judge from 2nd pic the 8-missile are basically lay on the loader, not really good idea when loading something that heavy with war head into the lunchers if the ship is moving alot. and in a rough sea, also its not ideal for sailor on top of deck helping the loading process during bad weather or rough sea.

Click to expand...

your argument don't make much sense.

The loader is mounted on same platform as the launcher.

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

s002wjh said:

right let see a 8 tube luncher, 300mm diameter rocket has about what few meter in length? vs 155mm shell. x200, how much volume increase compare to shells.

loading time. did you see how they load MLRS, a ammo truck is near, drop the rocket near the luncher, then Men manually maneuver the rocket into luncher using crane from luncher.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now how you gonna load rockets into luncher on a ship, the ammo will be store under deck, so either bring the luncher beneath deck or bring the ammo to the deck and load manually using people, both require mod to the ship to decrease reload time. the ship has confine space and its moving around up/down/foward in oceans, do you want sailer on the deck loading rockets in any type of weather?

now if you have vertical luncher, how big the ship is required and whats mods needed to lunch/reload 300 rockets. does the ship require DDG air cover? you gonna sail your mod continer ship with MLRS to other place without DDG to cover attacks from sub or air or radar coverage etc? or just send 1 DDG that can do it all, less logistic. so for every MLRS moded ship, it need sufficent logistic, air/sub/anti-ship cover, its ONLY function is bombardment of fix land base targets. which is fine for taiwan, but something futher is useless. the advantage of AGS on DDG is, ddg can use for different purpose, sub hunting, air cover etc.

sure the warhead on rocket is more powerful, but what if the targets are spread out, you gonna need more rockets to cover those spread out targets. for target require more bang, you send in jets to drop bomb on it, or cruise missiles. you don't build a ship with the only purpose is MLRS. you want your ship as much as versatile as possible. i'm sure US DoD thought about MLRS on ship and decide just not really a good idea.

sure there are vertical lunchers but vertical position is not best angle to lunch MLRS. usually vertical lunch are for ballistic missiles.

there is a reason DDG ship never subsitude artillery with MLRS. those rockets is huge compare to shells, and its hard to reload it in a ship/confine space. how long and how diffcult to load bunch rocket into a luncher whether vertical or not on a moving ship, in a confine space. how big are those rockets. you can only store limited number of rocket on a DDG vs shells. for large target use bombs is much more effictive. for spread out target AGS can store more ammo than several meter long rocket, its easier to load, and has sustain fire rate.

i'm pretty sure LASM was kill because some these reason. and i'm pretty sure the general who kill it is not that dumb. he didn't make to the rank of general by been dumb. they probably did alot study on rocket vs shell, and decide shell is more versatile

Click to expand...

your argument don't carry water.


Yes those MRLS are very close to ballistic missile systems.

an 2x8 16 cell MK41 VLS system will carry 16 LASMs that will basically deliver the same amount of total HE to a target with the same amount of precision as a full up AGS system. WITH TWICE of the RANGE.
further more, those MK41 VLS slots can carry other types of munition and don't require extra power and maintaining requirements.
further more, the volume of 2x8 cell mk41 vs a AGS system interms of weight and flexibility of distuibuting along the ships hull. is , I believe, very competitiv.e

It is may be that the Marine Corp's requirement for Shore bombardment support stipulates sustained firepower opposed to total fire power, and that's wjy they go to a gun based solution. if that's the case, That's ok, I am not arguming against that.

To assume that Dod killed some program is always right, because DoD is always right, is , IMHO as a aerospace industry insider, supremely foolish.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

400 km is truly standoff. 150 km is not really.
in this day and age of 200 km shore based antishipping missiles.