054/A FFG Thread II

SinoSoldier

Colonel
7m VL cells wouldn't be able to load an ASCM, which would require the 054B to embark traditional slant launchers with their RCS penalty and lack of omnidirectionality. 5m VL cells wouldn't even be able to load an HHQ-16, let alone any of the other missiles.

Depends on the munitions you use (obviously, but hear me out); a 7-meter universal VLS cell would be able to fire all naval weapons currently used by the USN, including the Tomahawk & the LRASM, but would be unable to accommodate Chinese-developed offensive arms.

Lesson of the day: miniaturize your munitions.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Henri K., a reputable Chinese source (weibo.com/1403915120/FagzudT7a), and a few others. Henri K. claims he got the information from an employee of the 701st Institute at CSSC. The running theory is that the sixteen cells are the only ones with enough below-deck space to accommodate the 9-meter module.

The rear VLS bank is apparently situated above the prop shafts while the front ones, well, I don't know why the 16 other bow VLS cells can't take the 9 m canisters.
Even if this were the case, it certainly does not demonstrate intent but rather limitation of capabilities. If 052D could load 64 9m tubes it may have just done that, if even just to provide flexibility/redundancy. Certainly there are primary roles for different ships, e.g. frigates as primarily ASW and local air defense ships, but every frigate the PLAN has ever put out has had at least ASuW capabilities, so putting ASCMs into VL cells is certainly a reasonable evolution of ASCM delivery modalities.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Even if this were the case, it certainly does not demonstrate intent but rather limitation of capabilities. If 052D could load 64 9m tubes it may have just done that, if even just to provide flexibility/redundancy. Certainly there are primary roles for different ships, e.g. frigates as primarily ASW and local air defense ships, but every frigate the PLAN has ever put out has had at least ASuW capabilities, so putting ASCMs into VL cells is certainly a reasonable evolution of ASCM delivery modalities.

Granted, the PLAN would choose a multirole ship for every role if it had the resources to do so, but it would rather emphasize on maximizing a vessel's performance in its role before delegating resources to develop secondary capabilities. The 054B might get an universal VLS if budgetary and engineering limits permit such a thing, but I wouldn't put too much hope into it.
 

jobjed

Captain
I don't know why the 16 other bow VLS cells can't take the 9 m canisters.

I think it's due to the narrowing of the beam which makes for less space as one heads further forward. The 16 9m inner ones are positioned at a location on the hull where the beam is sufficiently wide.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Granted, the PLAN would choose a multirole ship for every role if it had the resources to do so, but it would rather emphasize on maximizing a vessel's performance in its role before delegating resources to develop secondary capabilities. The 054B might get an universal VLS if budgetary and engineering limits permit such a thing, but I wouldn't put too much hope into it.
But you just don't know what VLS is relegated to what capabilities. You're just making an assumption here. For example, if 054B's primary role is ASW, PLAN designers could want the universal VLS for its ability to quad-pack MRSAMs, freeing up more cells for missiles like the VLA, or even allowing the carriage of specific missiles like the 150km winged ASW missile. If the 054B's primary role is local (medium range) air defense, then those 32 cells could quad-pack up to 128 MRSAMs. The universal VLS speaks nothing to primary or secondary capabilities. It is simply an enabler of any and all capabilities.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
I think it's due to the narrowing of the beam which makes for less space as one heads further forward. The 16 9m inner ones are positioned at a location on the hull where the beam is sufficiently wide.

Possibly, although aerial photos seem to suggest that the beam is sufficient for the entire length of the VLS module, even with the narrowing at the bow.

But you just don't know what VLS is relegated to what capabilities. You're just making an assumption here. For example, if 054B's primary role is ASW, PLAN designers could want the universal VLS for its ability to quad-pack MRSAMs, freeing up more cells for missiles like the VLA, or even allowing the carriage of specific missiles like the 150km winged ASW missile. If the 054B's primary role is local (medium range) air defense, then those 32 cells could quad-pack up to 128 MRSAMs. The universal VLS speaks nothing to primary or secondary capabilities. It is simply an enabler of any and all capabilities.

Fair enough, regarding the merits of an universal VLS, although my comment was mostly directed at your suggestion that the 054B be armed with 16 strike-length VLS tubes. Of course, budgetary concerns (assuming the UVLS is more expensive) would be another story no matter how tactically-justified the UVLS is.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
This is why it would behoove the PLAN to design a 054B with 32 universal cells instead of 32 HHQ-16 cells. It could easily accomplish this in a hull similar to the 054A by splitting them into 2 banks of 16 cells each, with the second bank amidships so it could house the 4-deck high 9m strike length VLS modules.
Sure 054A or B can host very big VLS with 9 m cell's ?

#TodayILearned that the Type 052D has only sixteen 9-meter VLS cells, meaning that it could hold only sixteen YJ-18A AShMs or future LACMs. It seems that the PLAN wishes to delegate specific vessels for specific tasks (055 for land/surface warfare, 052C/D for AAW, 054A/B for ASW); having strike-length universal VLS cells on a 054 variant is a slim prospect at best.
I think completely possible a time i have see and post 32 more long cell's on 64 make sense close hangar i think more room or forward ?
But yes can " limited " the anti ship theorical salvo. But BTW carry majority of SAMs surely minimum 2/3 so you don' t have in general 32 YJ-18 on a 052D

Meantime also 7 m cell's can' t host CJ-10...i have 7.2 m diameter 0.5 - 0.75 surely 0.75 in more confirmed* here graphic completely relaible ?
*
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CJ-10 N° 6, YJ-18 normaly a Klub him do 8.2 m x 0.53 SS-N-27/3M-54E supersonic variant.
 
Last edited:

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
5m long option would be there for quadpacking, of course. as there might be space wasted if one quadpacks a 7m cell. that doesn't mean 7m ones can't be quadpacked as well, but most of the time there shouldn't be a need for such missiles (6.5 meters long and 35cm body diameter? Not the most common missile design)

7m cell is enough for for all but the large, supersonic ashm and large land attack missiles. so yj83-like missile and hypothetical next gen subsonic ashm will fit in there just fine. Heck, even hhq9 can fit inside 7 meters.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
5m long option would be there for quadpacking, of course. as there might be space wasted if one quadpacks a 7m cell. that doesn't mean 7m ones can't be quadpacked as well, but most of the time there shouldn't be a need for such missiles (6.5 meters long and 35cm body diameter? Not the most common missile design)

7m cell is enough for for all but the large, supersonic ashm and large land attack missiles. so yj83-like missile and hypothetical next gen subsonic ashm will fit in there just fine. Heck, even hhq9 can fit inside 7 meters.
Yes the first 6.8 m, the B more long ?
 
Top